1988-07-05CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
JULY 5, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Adoption.
4. Approval of the June 21 Minutes.
5. Consent Calendar:
a.
Approval of Mid -year Pay
Equity Pay Adjustments.
(Resolution No.
88-37).
b.
Approval of CAO
Case No.
88-06, Virnig, Modified
Site Plan.
c.
Acknowledgement
of May 14 Park & Rec. Minutes.
d.
Acknowledgement
of June
28 Planning Minutes.
e.
Acknowledgement
of June
Code Enforcement Report.
f.
Approval of the
List of
Contractor Licenses.
g.
Approval of the
List of
Claims.
End of Consent Calendar.
6. Introductions.
a. Robyn Huspek's Presentation on City Logo.
b. Paul Kachelmyer, Mn/DOT - Release of TH 149 Right -
of -Way.
7. Public Comments.
8. Bid Award and Public Hearing:
a. Vacation of Eugenia Street. 8:15 P.M. (See
attached material relating to proposed lot split
for Case No. 88-24, Peyer. (Resolution No. 88-
38) . 11
b. Award of City Hall Furniture Purchase. Designer
will be present.
9. Unfinished and New Business.
a. Request for Building Permit for Minnesota Knitting
Mills.
b. Issuance of MGM Liquor License.
C. CASE NO. 88-22, Wirt, variance.
d. CAO CASE NO. 88-04, Huestis, Variance.
e. CASE NO. 88-23 Beckmann, Wetlands Permit.
f. CASE NO. 88-25, Canniff, Wetlands Permit.
g. CASE NO. 88-15, Perron, Preliminary Plat.
(Continued from June 7 meeting).
h. CASE NO. 88-19, C.G. Rein Apartments. (Resolution
A- No 88-39).
i. Curley's Tot Lot Improvements.
j. Contract for Park Landscape & Park Master Plans.
k. Mendota Heights Road/Huber Drive Improvements.
(Resolution No. 88-40).
1. visitation Drive Turn Lane. (Resolution No. 88-
41).
M. Bridgeview shores 1st Addition Plans and Specs.
(Resolution No. 88-42). Plans and Specs will be
available Tuesday.
n. Assessment Rolls, Park Place, The Ponds of Mendota
Heights, and Rolling Woods 2nd Addition.
(Resolution No. 88-43 and 88-44).
0. Follow-up to June 28 MASAC Meeting.
p. Drainage Basin & Piping for New City Hall.
q. Radio Transmission Tower for New City Hall.
r. 1989 Budget Workshop.
10. Response to Council Comments.
a. Resolution Accepting Bids & Awarding Contracts.
11. Council Comments.
12. Adjourn.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JULY 5, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraz , ity Administrator
SUBJECT: City Hall Furniture Purchase
INTRODUCTION•
Interior Designer Suzanne Ilten will be at the Council
meeting to present the quotations she has received for the
City Hall furniture. This will be as per the specifications
previously approved by the City Council.
TOTAL COST & BUDGET IMPACT
The entire cost of the city hall furniture, including
the $31,000 for Herman Miller Encore Office Systems which was
awarded by Council at the last meeting, is $95,908.17. The
only additional expense anticipated at this time is
approximately $2,500 to Herman Miller for installation of the
office system furniture. This will bring the total to
approximately $98,500, as compared to the up to $110,000 of
expense that was discussed with Council earlier this summer.
BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF HERMAN MILLER SEATING
PRODUCTS
The most expensive item before you this evening will be
the Herman Miller seating, in the amount of $29,150.55. This
bid has been provided by FSI, Incorporated, the only
authorized Herman Miller dealer in the metropolitan.area, and
providers of our Encore office system under the State
contract. We did not put this out for sealed bid, because
the interior designer believed that FSI would be the only
company who would give us a quotation on the item. However,
Metro Office Systems did provide a quotation of $33,061.
By State statute, any purchase over $15,000 is supposed
to be done by sealed competitive bid. However, going back to
do a sealed bid on the Herman Miller seating at this point
would be superfluous as the only authorized direct dealer in
the area, FSI Iis obviously going to be the low bid.
Therefore, staff recommends that
a purchase order. This memo will
documentation that sealed bidding
inappropriate.
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS:
Council simply award this as
be attached to the files as
in this case was
The City Hall budget, as previously adopted by Council,
allocated $60,000 for office furnishings. As we have
previously discussed, it will be necessary to increase this
amount in order to have an acceptably furnished city hall. I
have also previously indicated to Council that my
recommendation will be that additional funds be taken from
the General Fund and Engineering Department budgets.
The phone system bid will be awarded by Council at the
meeting of July 19; at present it looks like that bid will be
$5-$10,000 under budget. Also, by the Council meeting of the
19th, we should be pretty well finished up with change orders
on the building itself. At the meeting of the 19th or August
2, Larry Shaughnessy and I will make a recommendation on a
final allocation of funds to complete the project.
ACTION REOUIRED:
If Council is satisfied with the presentation and
recommendation made by interior designer Suzanne Ilten, it
should pass a motion authorizing purchase of city hall
furniture per the low quotations as outlined in the
tabulation presented by interior designer Suzanne Ilten at
the Council meeting of July 5.
KDF:madlr
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
July 5, 1988
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kevin Fraz�'K' }C�.'/ Administrator
Re: Add -On Agenda for July 5th
There are no additional items for this evening's agenda, and
one existing, previously 9.q. Radio Transmission tower, is
recommended for deletion. This item will be rescheduled for
July 19th. Additional information is provided for one item
already scheduled.
3. Agenda Adoption
It is recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda
printed on blue paper.
8.b. Award of City Hall Furniture Purchase
Please see attached memo. Interior Designer Suzanne Illten
will be present with the tabulation of quotes.
REVISED
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
JULY 5, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call. — v4-
3.
Agenda Adoption. -
OF
5.
M
7.
8.
Approval of the June 21 Minutes.
Consent Calendar: _� A
a. Approval of Mid -year Pay Equity Pay Adjustments.
(Resolution No. 88-37).
b. Approval of CAO Case No. 88-06, Virnig, Modified
Site Plan.
c. Acknowledgement of May 14 Park & Rec. Minutes.
d. Acknowledgement of June 28 Planning Minutes.
e. Acknowledgement of June Code Enforcement Report.
f. Approval of the List of Contractor Licenses.
g. Approval of the List of Claims.
End of Consent Calendar.
Introductions.
a. Robyn Huspek's Presentation on City Logo.
c,.,- '44. H. -
b. Paul Kachelm e , Mn/DOT - Blease of TH 149 Right-
of-Way.
ight-
of-Way.12 A
Public Comments.
Bid Award and PLi'blic Hearing:
a. Vacation of Eugenia Street. 8:15 P.M. (See
attached material relating to proposed lot split
for Case No. 88-24, Peyer. (Resolution No. 88-
38) . - 2�X -7/q,
b. Award of City Hall Furniture Purchase. De sig er
will be present.-
9. Unfinished and New Business.
a. Request for Building Permit for Minnesota Knitting
Mills. — l
b. Issuance of MGM Liquor License.
c. CASE NO. 88-22, Wirt, Variance.
d. CAO CASE NO. 88-04, Huestis, Variance.
e. CASE NO. 88-23 Beckmann, Wetlands Permit.—
f. CASE NO. 88-25, Canniff, Wetlands Permit.
g. CASE NO. 88-15, Perron, Preliminary Plat.—
(Continued from June 7 meeting).
Rein ApartMe encs. h. CASE NO. 838-TS9 (Resolution
No 88-39)., Alw1l;q,
i. Curley's Tot Lot Improvements "-t
# 9,
j. contract ior Park Landscape & ParkMaster Plans.
'Le
k. Mendoka;re�gghts*Road/Huber Drive Improvements.
(Resolution Vo. 88- 0).
1. VisAtation Drive Turn Lane. (Resolution No. 88-
41) .
m. Bridgeview Shores 1st Addition Plans and Specs.
(Resolution No. 88-42). Plans and Specs will be
available Tuesday. _�
n. Assessment Rolls, Park Place, The Ponds of Mendota
Heights, and Rolling Woods 2nd Addition.
(Resolution No. 88-43 and 88-44),"It
o. Follow-up t�j
net 8 MASAC Meeting.
7"
in & Piping for New City Hall. —
p. Dral Cge B�as
q. 1989 Budget Workshop,
10. Response to Council comments.
a. Resolution Accepting Bids & Awarding Contracts.
11. Council Comments.
12. Adjourn. �1 &
,5-f
Page No. 2368
June 21, 1988
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, June 21, 1988
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.
Acting Mayor Witt called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M.
The following members were present: Acting Mayor Witt,
Councilmembers Blesener and Hartmann. Mayor Mertensotto and
Councilmember Cummins had notified the Council that they would be
out of town.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of
the revised agenda for the meeting as
amended to include item 9d.5, City Hall
parking lot drainage report.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes:
3
Nays:
0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of
the minutes of the June 4th joint
Council/Planning/Parks Commission meeting.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes:
3
Nays:
0
Councilmember Blesener moved approval of
the minutes of the June 7th Ivy Falls Creek
informational meeting.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes:
3
Nays:
0
Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of
the minutes of the June 7th regular meeting
with corrections.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes:
3
Nays:
Councilmember Blesener moved approval of
the minutes of the June 14th joint
Council/Park Commission meeting.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes:
3
Nays:
0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of
the consent calendar along with execution
Page No. 2369
June 21, 1988
of all necessary documents contained
therein.
a. Approval of Partial Payment No. 7 for
$110,066 to the Joseph Company for City
Hall.
b. Approval of Partial Payment No. 4 to
Thomas Electric for $45,686 for City
Hall.
c. Approval of Partial Payment No. 5 for
$74,376 to Doody Mechanical for City
Hall.
d. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's
monthly report for May.
e. Approval of a 3 -month maternity leave
of absence to Kimberlee Blaeser.
f. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department
monthly report for May.
g. Adoption of Resolution No. 88-33,
"RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LEXINGTON HEIGHTS
HYDRANT IMPROVEMENT (IMPROVEMENT NO.
86, PROJECT NO. 4),11' the hearing to be
held on July 19th.
h. Adoption of Resolution No. 88-34,
"RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STRATFORD WOODS
IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86,
PROJECT NO. 13)," the hearing to be
held on July 19th.
i. Adoption of Resolution No. 88-35,
"RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WILLOW SPRINGS
ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO.
83, PROJECT NO. 6)," the hearing to be
held on July 19th.
j. Approval of the list of contractor
licenses dated June 21, 1988 and
attached hereto.
k. Approval of the List of Claims dated
Page No. 2370
June 21, 1988
June 21, 1988 and totalling
$302,280.75.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
F
Nays: 0
LOGO Graphic Designer Robin Huspek presented a
number of alternatives for a City logo.
She explained that her goal has been to
prepare a logo that subtly represents the
City and that when she thinks of Mendota
Heights she has an image of City in the
country and the Mendota Bridge, etc. She
asked for Council direction on how to
proceed.
Councilmember Blesener stated that she
likes the idea of a subtle message and not
just letters for a logo but that none of
the alternatives capture the city/country
feeling. She did not see the bridge as
being a graphic symbol for the city.
Councilmember Hartmann liked the idea of
capturing the bridge and confluence of the
rivers as a point of identification.
Councilmember Witt stated that input from
Mayor Mertensotto and Councilmember Cummins
is necessary before any decision can be
made.
Councilmember Blesener felt that the logo
does not have to include spelling out the
name of the City but rather that it is a
graphic that should stand alone.
Ms. Huspek stated that she would rework the
alternatives and make a presentation at the
next meeting.
BOND SALE Treasurer Shaughnessy reviewed the bids
received for the sale of $2,525,000 in
improvement bonds.
Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of
Resolution No. 88-36, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
BID ON SALE OF $2,525,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988,
PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE AND LEVYING A
TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF," awarding the
Page No. 2371
June 21, 1988
bid to Prudential Bache Capital for their
low rate of 6.957%.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
CITY HALL FURNITURE On the recommendation of the City
Administrator, Councilmember Blesener moved
to award the bid for City Hall herman
Miller Action Office Encore furniture to
Office Pavilion under the State of
Minnesota contract, in the amount of
$30,266.43.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PARK LANDSCAPING Council acknowledged and discussed a memo
from Administrator Frazell regarding the
Park Commission recommendation on a
landscape architect to design a master plan
for each of the City parks. Administrator
Frazell informed Council that interviews
with the firms that responded to the RFP
were held on June 14th and that as a
result, the Committee recommends that
Barton-Aschman be retained.
Responding to a question from Councilmember
Blesener, Mr. Frazell stated that the firm
will not prepare bid documents but will
provide a very specific detailed
recommendation, including maintenance
recommendations, from which staff can build
bid documents.
Councilmember Blesener suggested that the
plan should include maintaining the parking
lots -- Council should require blacktopping
and curbing of the parking lots. She also
asked whether the plan will include hard -
surfacing of hockey rinks,'and
Administrator Frazell responded that it
will not.
Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve
execution of an agreement with Barton-
Aschman for a park landscaping master plan
project per the terms of their proposal
dated June 1, 1988, and to appropriate an
additional $10,850 from the Park
Page No. 2372
June 21, 1988
Development Fund balance for the project.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener suggested that the
firm also be asked to submit a proposal for
design work on the southeast area park.
HEARING: CLUB LIQUOR Acting Mayor Witt opened the meeting for
MENDAKOTA COUNTRY CLUB the purpose of a public hearing on an
application from Mendakota Country Club for
renewal of its Club Liquor license.
Acting Mayor Witt asked for questions and
comments from the audience.
There being no questions or comments,
Councilmember Blesener moved that the
hearing be closed at 8:16 P.M.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of
the issuance of a renewal Club Liquor
license to Mendakota Country Club.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
HEARING - SOMERSET Acting Mayor Witt opened the meeting for
CLUB LIQUOR LICENSE the purpose of a public hearing on an
application from Somerset Country Club for
renewal of its Club Liquor License.
Acting Mayor Witt asked for questions and
comments from the audience.
There being no questions or comments,
Councilmember Hartmann moved that the
hearing be closed at 8:18 P.M.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener moved approval of
the issuance of a renewal Club Liquor
License to Somerset Country Club.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
HEARING -- MGM Acting Mayor Witt opened the meeting for
LIQUOR LICENSE the purpose of a public hearing on an
application from the LAMA Corporation for
an off -sale liquor license for a proposed
Page No. 2373
June 21, 1988
MGM Liquor Warehouse to be located in the
Mendota Plaza.
Mr. Jack Lanners, from LAMA Corporation,
was present for the discussion and
submitted a letter in which the corporation
agreed to all of the conditions required by
the Police Chief.
Acting Mayor Witt asked for questions and
comments from the audience.
Mr. Morse Weisgurt, 1733 Vicki Lane, asked
who the license will be issued to if
approved.
Mr. Lanners responded that the facility
will be a corporate store and that the
license will be issued to the LAMA
Corporation doing business as MGM.
There being no further questions or
comments, Councilmember Blesener moved that
the hearing be closed at 8:19 P.M.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener moved that action on
the application be tabled to the July 5th
meeting.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes 3
Nays: 0
AIRCRAFT NOISE
Council acknowledged and discussed a memo
from the City Administrator wherein he
asked for a clarification of the Council's
position on the aircraft flight corridor,
specifically as to whether its position
will be that planes departing 11L would be
given a heading no more than 15 degrees
north of extended runway centerline and on
11R no more than five degrees south of
extended runway centerline. He pointed out
that this position makes no allowance for
magnetic heading deviations.
The Council recognized that magnetic
heading deviations would create some
heading -variances but felt that the
resolution should stand as adopted.
CITY HALL WALLCOVERING
Councilmember Blesener moved to authorize a
change order to upgrade specified wall
Page No. 2374
June 21, 1988
coverings in new City Hall for a cost of
$650 and to extend the wall covering
through the remaining corridor areas of the
building for a cost of $10,200.
Acting Mayor Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 2
Nays: 1 Hartmann
CITY HALL DRAINAGE Administrator Frazell informed Council that
the City Hall architects have studied the
City Hall parking lot drainage problem and
have indicated that the cost for pipe and
installation will be $4,785.
Councilmember Hartmann felt that the price
is exorbitant for 12" PVC pipe. He
suggested that the work be done by the
Public Works crew. It was consensus that
staff be directed to pursue this
possibility.
CAO CASE 88-05, FORSE Mr. Dave Bjorklund was present to request
approval of a critical area variance to
allow construction of a retaining wall on
Lot 9 Valley View Oak Addition, 1247
Culligan Lane, with earthtone Keystone
interlocking stone modules rather than
native stone or wood as stipulated in the
Critical Area Ordinance. Mr. Bjorklund
stated that this material is proposed
rather than treated wood because treated
wood walls do not hold up well. He also
indicated that the retaining wall will
reduce the amount of runoff going towards
Mendota by 80%, and that this amount of
water will go into the storm sewer system.
After brief discussion, Councilmember
Blesener moved to approve the variance as
requested, to allow the proposed retaining
walls to be constructed of Keystone
interlocking stone modules in an earth -tome
color and to approve the spacing between
retaining walls from the required 20 feet
to an average spacing of 9.5 feet.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
SOLID WASTE PLAN Council acknowledged a copy of the County
Board Policy Guidelines for Recycling.
LABOR AGREEMENT On the recommendation of the City
Administrator, Councilmember Hartmann moved
Page No. 2375
June 21, 1988
to approve a 1988/89 labor contract with
the police officers bargaining unit, per
the terms submitted by the City
Administrator on June 21, 1988.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PUBLIC WORKS TRUCK Council acknowledged a memo and tabulation
of quotations from Public Works
Superintendent Tom Olund for the purchase
of a pick-up truck for the Superintendent.
Councilmember Blesener moved to authorize a
transfer of funds from the unappropriated
fund balance to support the purchase of a
1988 3/4 ton GMC pick-up truck from Pro
Truck GMC for their low quote of
$11,811.50, which includes $450 for
repainting.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PROPERTY APPRAISALS Council acknowledged a memo from
Administrator Frazell regarding the
Mulvihill/Rogers Road property appraisals.
COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Blesener asked whether the
trail proposed for the Victoria Highlands
project can be extended further. She also
asked the status of the Highway 149
committee.
Acting Mayor Witt asked that the Public
Works Director be reminded about the light
fixture at Marie and Lexington.
Councilmember Hartmann informed the Council
that he will be out of town for the July
5th meeting.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come
before the Council, Councilmember Hartmann
moved that the meeting be adjourned.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Page No. 2376
June 21, 1988
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:04 P.M.
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
ATTEST:
Elizabeth A. Witt
Acting Mayor
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
ON JUNE 21, 1988
General Contractors:
Associated Roofing
Croix Valley Roofing
Custom Pools, Inc.
E. Wolf Construction
First Landmark Builders
Kodiak Services'
Lake Country'Builders, Inc.
Minnesota Package Products, Pacific Pool
Peterson Maintenance Corporation
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 29, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. az l 3city Administrator
SUBJECT: Implementation of Mid -year Pay Equity Adjustments
Last year, Council adopted a plan to comply with the
State's comparable worth law. For those employees entitled
to upward pay adjustments as a result of the comparable worth
study, the plan called for three increments. The second of
those three is scheduled to take effect on August 1, 1988.
Under the plan, all employees are eligible this August 1
to be at Step D of the pay matrix if their salary is already
below that level. Step B is equivalent to 95% of what their
fully corrected salaries should be. The final step to 100%
takes place August 1, 1989.
Listed below are those employees eligible for an
adjustment this year, and their current compensation.
Attached is a resolution setting forth their new salaries as
of August 1.
Kim Blaeser
Carol Bakka
Diane Ward
Mary Ann DeLaRosa
Shirley Shannon
Klayton Eckles
Kathy Swanson
ACTION REQUIRED:
Secretary
$20,619
Secretary
20,619
Secretary
20,619
Sr. Secretary
22,666
Accountant
24,509
Engineer
29,862
City Clerk
391,181
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 88- RESOLUTION
AMENDING SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FOR
1988.
KDF:madlr
attachment
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION AMENDING SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES FOR 1988
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 87-67, has
adopted a plan for implementation of pay equity per MSA
471.991 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, that plan calls for a step adjustment for
certain employees on August 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the adopted 1988 City budget provides for these
adjustments.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights that compensation for the following
list of employees be as indicated effective August 1, 1988:
Kim Blaeser
Carol Bakka
Diane Ward
Mary Ann DeLaRosa
Shirley Shannon
Klayton Eckles
Kathy Swanson
Secretary
$21,650
Secretary
21,650
Secretary
21,650
Sr. Secretary
22,746
Accountant
25,735
Engineer
31,355
City Clerk
41,141
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights
this 5th day of July, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
9
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 27, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and Ci ty
"/V1919trator
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: CAO Case No. 88-06, Virnig, Modified Site Plan
Approval
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Thomas Virnig, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, has
submitted a drawing and application requesting council
approval of a modified site plan Critical Area Ordinance
review to allow construction of a storage shed. Staff has
reviewed the site plan and finds that it complies with the
requirements of the CAO.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approval of the modified site
plan. In addition, since there has been no extra amount of
staff review time, we recommend waiving of the $100 CAO
application fee and placing this on the Consent Calendar.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council agrees with staff recommendation to approve
the modified site plan and waiver of the $100 CAO fee, it
should pass a motion of approval.
PRB:madlr
Case No. CAO d -b 10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Dakota County, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ordinance NO. 403)
Date of Application
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Applicant:
Name: V
Last First Initial
Address: 164M M1\1eF I V -GP P—IX M a. t3
Number & Street City St= Zip Code
Phone: 454- Cj(pjj: C -FDD
Home Work
Owner :
Name
Last First Initial
Address:
Number & Street City State Zip Code
Street Location of Property in Question:
MkYFITF-L-D "EKA-V5 E,016,0 t 68Y6ELD 1 -.IC -815 L6P
Legal Description of Property:
Type of Request: Variance
Site Plan Approval
Modified Site Plan Approval
Page 1
June 14, 1988
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 14, 1988
The regular meeting was held after a tour led by Dick
Putnam of the south east area parks being developed. Members
present were: Owens, Lachenmayer, Huber, Damberg, Leffert,
and Katz. Stein was absent. Also present was City
Administrator Frazell.
MENDAKOTA Howard Bream and Ted Zinner of C.G. Rein
ESTATES made a presentation of the proposed
apartment complex and adjacent park land.
They requested the Commission to make a
recommendation to the City Council on the
following:
1. Council request to move entrance to
complex off Dodd, and onto Mendakota Drive.
2. Whether to turn 1.67 acre park land
(adjacent to existing 9 acre city park) over
to city or to retain and maintain the land
privately.
Commissioner Owens moved: that the Park
Commission recommend to the City Council
that the entrance remain directly on Dodd
Road, rather than crossing through park
land. Motion was seconded and discussed.
Mr. Zinner cited traffic study which
indicated approximately 742 trips daily and
no major interference with traffic flow on
Dodd.
The motion was voted on and passed.
The Commissioners discussed the pros and
cons of accepting the additional 1.67 acres
offered by the developers who state they
intend to make all capital improvements but
would then turn the land over to the city
for future maintenance.
Commissioner Owens felt the city would
benefit by acquiring as much open space as
possible and that the advantages outweigh
the maintenance disadvantages and he moved:
That the Parks Commission recommend that the
city accept the 1.67 acre dedicated park
Page 2
June 14, 1988
land to be added to the 9.1 acre present
park land at Mendakota Estates. The motion
was seconded and passed.
PARKS ISSUES The Commissioners who had attended the joint
CONTINUED meeting with the City Council briefed those
DISCUSSION absent on the results of that morning
meeting.
1. A subcommittee has been formed to study
whether and how to conduct another needs
survey. Members will be Bev Lachenmayer,
John Huber, Liz Witt and Jann Blesener.
Possibility of utilizing park land
differently than originally envisioned if
referendum doesn't ever pass.
2. Disunity on part of Council re: Curley
Tot Lot - some favoring city ownership and
smaller dollar figure offered for equipment,
and others desiring the city stay free of
involvement and sell the lot to the
neighborhood association, which would have
to be established.
LANDSCAPE
commission decided to interview prospective
PROPOSALS
contractors before making recommendation to
Council. Administrator Frazell will set up
meetings for Monday, June 20, at 7:00 P.M.
and Council can act on our recommendation on
Tuesday agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Damberg recommended the
Commission consider soliciting money for
Parks Fund from corporations in Mendota
Heights.
No bids have yet been received on the chain
link fencing for the hockey rink at Friendly
Hills.
Commissioner Owens recommended (and will
investigate the possibility) of black
topping a rink so it may be used for roller
blades and skate boarding in the summer and
skating in winter.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Vicki Katz
Recording Secretary
Page 1
June 28, 1988
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES, JUNE 28, 1988
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning
Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the City
Hall Council Chambers, 750 South Plaza Drive. Chairman
Morson called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. The
following members were present: Morson, Anderson, Burke,
Duggan, Henning, Krebsbach and McMonigal. Also present were
Planner Howard Dahlgren and Engineer Klayton Eckles.
APPROVAL OF
Commissioner Burke moved approval of the
MINUTES
May 24 minutes as submitted.
Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the
motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE NO. 88-22,
Mr. John Wirt, 1395 Farmdale Road was
WIRT, VARIANCE
present to request a six foot side yard
variance to allow construction of an
81x20' addition to his existing garage,
which would be on the north side of
Farmdale. He had received written
approval of his request from his
neighbors. Commissioner Burke noted that
the private covenants in his neighborhood
did not appear to allow his request and
would be in effect until the year 2005.
The Commission felt it would be up to Mr.
Wirt to work out the private covenants,
and encouraged him to notify his
neighbors, in writing, of the restrictive
covenants in the Cherry Hills Second
Addition.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend
to the City Council approval of the
requested six foot side yard setback
variance based on the site plan discussed
at the meeting. Also, this motion is
conditioned on the applicant contacting
the present property owners in Cherry
Hills Second Addition and informing them
of their desire and the fact that the
private covenants do not allow placement
of a building nearer than 30 feet to any
side street.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Page 2
June 28, 1988
CASE NO. 88-23, Mr. Paul Beckmann was present to request
BECKMANN, approval of a wetlands permit to
WETLANDS PERMIT construct a home on Lot 9, Block 1, The
Ponds of Mendota Heights. He noted that
the proposed home would be constructed 30
feet from the public right-of-way as
required, which would result in the home
being situated 90 feet from the shoreline
of the pond.
Commissioner Burke moved to recommend
approval of a 10 wetlands permit to allow
construction of a single family home at
1882 South Lane within 90 feet of the
pond.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE NO. 88-25, Mr. Canniff was present to request a
CANNIFF, WETLANDS wetlands permit for Lot 5, Block 1, The
PERMIT Ponds of Mendota Heights, to allow
construction of a single family home 72
feet from the pond. Planner Dahlgren
noted that on the approved grading plan
for this subdivision, the building pad
showed the home to be 60 feet from the
pond, therefore the wetlands permit has
already been noted. However, his staff
report did not reflect this building pad
layout.
The Commission requested a copy of the
grading plan for The Ponds so they could
be aware of wetlands permits and pad
placements.
Commissioner Anderson felt the home could
be moved to the east to preserve
woodlands, and thus eliminate the need
for a variance.
Commissioner Henning asked if the
Commission could change the foot print by
asking the applicant to place his home on
the other side of the utility easement.
He felt that this would not be fair to
the applicant.
Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend
approval of a 28 foot wetlands permit to
allow construction of a single family
home within 72 feet of the pond on Lot 5,
Block 1, The Ponds, as requested by the
Page 3
June 28, 1988
applicant.
Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the
motion.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 1, Anderson
CAO CASE NO. 88-04, Chairman Morson called the meeting to
HUESTIS, VARIANCE order for the purpose of a public hearing
to consider a request from Mr. William
Huestis for a critical area ordinance
variance to allow construction of an
addition at 649 Highway 13. Mr. Huestis
was present and stated he is requesting a
27 foot variance to the 40' bluff line
setback.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Commissioner Krebsbach felt the addition
would be too close to the bluff and
stated she would like to see soil erosion
control measures.
Mr. Huestis stated he plans to have soil
borings done and will take any needed
precautions during construction. He also
noted that there are many rocks under the
clay topsoil, and felt that the slope
would not cave in. He noted he would use
prudent construction methods.
Because the existing home is 22 feet from
the top of the bluff, and the furthest
extension of the addition would be 16
feet from the bluff, the setback would be
reduced from 22 feet to 16 feet.
Therefore, the request is for a reduction
in the existing setback of six feet.
Chairman Morson asked for questions or
comments from the audience.
There being no questions, Commissioner
Henning moved to close the public hearing
at 8:25 P.M.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend
approval of the requested variance to
reduce the existing setback by six feet,
based on the site plan discussed at the
meeting.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Krebsbach offered a friendly
Page 4
June 28, 1988
amendment calling for staff to pay
particular attention to a soil erosion
control for construction and for the
future of the retaining wall, which she
felt should be submitted prior to Council
approval.
Commissioner Anderson found the friendly
amendment difficult for the applicant to
comply with and preferred not to have the
amendment included in his motion.
Mr. Huestis said he would consider
putting in a secondary retaining wall on
the brow of the hill if necessary.
Commissioner Henning noted that if the
street vacation were approved, new Parcel
A would be some 300 square feet short of
the required 15,000 square foot
requirement and Parcel B would contain
16,705 square feet. It was noted that by
vacating Eugenia as requested, the
applicant would gain an additional 5,018
square feet of land area. It was also
pointed out that even without the street
vacation, both new parcels would meet the
ordinance requirements for land area
Vote on the original motion -
Ayes: 5
Nays: 2, Krebsbach
and Burke
CASE NO. 88-24,
Ms. Jan Peyer was present to request
PEYER, LOT SPLIT
approval to split the property she owns
at 606 Sibley Highway into two parcels.
The property is identified as Lots 1, 2,
3, and 4, Block 1., Cherokee Park Heights
Addition. Ms. Peyer proposes to divide
the lots into two parcels. Her existing
home is located on Lots 3, and 4, and
extends approximately 3 feet onto Lot 2.
She intends to construct a new home on
the newly created parcel. She is
requesting Council approval of the
vacation of Eugenia Street on July 5,
which would give her enough square
footage to create two buildable parcels.
Commissioner Anderson reviewed for the
Commission the Federal Land townhouse
proposal several years ago, and the
concerns over vacating Eugenia at that
time.
Commissioner Henning noted that if the
street vacation were approved, new Parcel
A would be some 300 square feet short of
the required 15,000 square foot
requirement and Parcel B would contain
16,705 square feet. It was noted that by
vacating Eugenia as requested, the
applicant would gain an additional 5,018
square feet of land area. It was also
pointed out that even without the street
vacation, both new parcels would meet the
ordinance requirements for land area
Page 5
June 28, 1988
since they would contain more than 70% of
the required footage for a buildable lot.
Ms. Peyer noted that she would still plan
to subdivide her property even if Eugenia
were not vacated.
Commissioner Anderson felt comfortable
with the requested lot split, but not if
it was predicated on the vacation of
Eugenia Street.
Chairman Morson requested to see how the
house would be positioned on Parcel B
without vacating Eugenia.
Commissioner Duggan moved to table this
request to the next meeting until after
the Council acted on the Eugenia Street
vacation request.
Commissioner Burke seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 2, Henning, Anderson
® VERBAL REVIEW Deputy Clerk DeLaRosa gave a verbal
review of the cases that had been before
the City Council.
MISCELLANEOUS Planner Dahlgren invited the Commission
for their annual boat ride in July. The
Commission felt that Sunday, July 31, at
2:00 P.M. would be best for the majority
of them. Planner Dahlgren noted that
they would meet at the Lilydale Pool and
Yacht Club.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come
before the Commission, Commissioner
Henning moved that the meeting be
adjourned.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:10 P.M.
.O: Mayor, City Council, and Cit`�Vr�or
?ROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for June, 1988
CURRENT MONTH
BUILDING
NO.
VALUATION
FEE COLLECTED
PERMITS
1,749.00
WATER
13
SFD
14
2,108,981.54
18,906.38
APT
0
0
0
C/I
3
8,100.00
148.50
_dISC.
33
160,837.20
3,692.30
SUB TOTAL 50
TRADE PERMITS
2,277,918.74 $22,747.18
MEM
Date: June 23, 1988
YEAR TO DATE - 1988
1O. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED
59 8,886,782.51 79,005.53
0 0 0
26 2,916,941.00 17,416.98
101 729,216.31 12,005.93
186 12,532,939.82 108,428.44
PLUMBING
13
369.00
67
1,749.00
WATER
13
65.00
65
325.00
SEWER
13
227.50
50
875.00
HEATING, AC,
& GAS PIPE
23
1,377.00
94
9,533.00
SUB TOTAL
62
2,038.50
276
12,482.00
LICENSING
CONTRACTOR'S
YEAR TO DATE - 1987
NO. VALUATION FEE COLLEC=
67 9,639,108.03 84,037.15
0 0 0
34 8,973,365.56 49,431.57
109 742,817.90 13,699.93
210 19,355,291.49 147,168.65
2 2,227.00
8 390.00
2 910.00
07 13,405.50
19 16,932.50
LICENSES 42 1,050.00 375 9,375.00 75 8,375.00
TOTAL 154 $2,277,918.74 $25,835.68 837 $12,532,939.82 $130,285.44 864 $19,355,291.49 $172.476.15
Note: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and
valuation amounts.
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
ON JULY 5, 1988
Concrete License
Concrete Systems
Gas Piping Licenses
Churchill Home Heating & Cooling
Sylvander Heating, Inc.
Twin City Furnace Co., Inc.
General Contractors
Anderson -Mann Construction Company
Bury & Carlson,=Inc.
Erwin Montgomery Construction Company
Thompson Construction
Total Home Services, Inc.
Valley Investments Construction
Heating & Air Conditioning
Churchill Home. -Heating & Cooling
Jul 1988
r -i 12:04 PM
emo Check Number
TeMD.
heck
umber Vendor Name
1 B&J Auto Supply
I B&J Auto Supply
I B&J Auto Supply
1 B&J Auto Supply
4
Totals Temp Check Number
amp Check Number 2
1
2 Board of Water Comm
2 Board of Water Comm
2 Board of Water Comm
2 Board of Water Comm
8
Totals Tamp Check Number
emp Check Number 3
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
3 City Motor Supply
24
Totals Temp Check Number
amp Check Number 4
4 DCR Corp
4 DCR Corp
4 DCR Corp
12
Totals Temp Check Number
Bmp Check Number 5
5 Dennis Delmont
5
Totals Temp Check Number
2rilo Check Number 6
6 Kevin Frazell
Claims List
City of Mendota Heights 38 CLAIMS LIST
Account Code
01-4330-490-50
01-4305-070-70
01-4330-490-50
01-4330-490-50
1
01-4425-110-10
01-4425-315-30
01-4425-310-70
31-4231-839-00
2
01-4305-050-50
01-4330-440-20
15-4330-490-60
15-4330-490-60
01-4305-050-50
01-4330-490-50
15-4330-490-60
01-4330-440-20
3
01-4200-600-10
01-4200-600-20
05-4200-600-15
4
01-4415-020-20
5
01-4415-110-10
Comments
Parts
Misc 502
rprs 304-308
rprs 301
May Svc
May Svc
May Svc
Apr engr 66-12
Misc parts
Fan clutch
Misc Parts
Misc parts 403
Misc parts
Gates 301
Pads/seals 403
Misc parts
July rent
July rent
July rent
July allowance
July allowance
Page I
Amount
33.66
21.84
29.48
18.29
103.27
17.82
81.58
19.01
300.42
418.63
135.33
35.54
11.23
19.00
8.38
119.89
45.27
74.20
448.84
1,642'.00
928. 00
1, 705.14-10
4,275.0141
1214). 00
120.00
175.00
t
Jul 198e'
Claims List /4
page u
ri 12:04 Pm
City of
Mendota Height�
emo Check Number
a
~
Temp.
Check ohecu
umber vendor Name
Account Code
Comment
Amount
6
175.00
Totals Temp Check
Number
a
emp Check Number
7
7 son Corp
01-1210
rtn plus drum credit
230.50cr
7 aon corp
01-1e/0
Oil etc
667'50
14
437.00
Totals Temp Check
Number
7
emn Check Number
a
8 zomn
01-4400-110-10
Annual conr
455'00
a
455.00
Totals Temp Check
Number
a
emp Check Number
s
9 Paul Kaiser
01-4268-150-30
Jun svc
asm'ow
y
890.50 `
Totals Temp Check
Number
s
emp Check Number
10
(
10 Kat Keys
15-4305-060-60
Keys
16.22
1m
16.22
Totals Temp Check
Number
10
emp Check Number
11
11 Tom Knuth
88-4415-8e8-00
Mileage ao-a
/7'55
11 Tom Knuth
31-4415-839-00
Mileage 86-e-11-12
18,67
11 Tum Knuth
+4-4*15-8+8-00
Mileage 87-3
9.00 _
11 Tom Knuth
45-4415-649-00
Mileage 87-*
6,75 /
11 Tom Knuth
47-4415-852-00
Mileage 87-5
18'90
11 Tom Knuth
49-4415-854-00
Mileage 87-7
e3.63 '
il Tom Knuth
53-4415-857-00
Mileage 88-1
o'am '
11 Tom Knuth
05-4415-105-15
July allowance
10.00
--
ea
------
108'10 �
Totals Temp Check
Number
11
'emo check Number
1e
1e Guy xulzanuer
05-4415-105-15
June mileage
33.30
12
oo'om
Totals Temp Check
Number
12
Jul 1988•
Claims List
Page 3
ri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
emp Check Number
13
Temp.
Check
umber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-490-50
Parts 308
456.43
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-490-50
Parts 308
6.12
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-460-30
rprs 170 900
277.35
39
739.90
Totals Temp Check Number,
13
em.D Check Number
14
14 League Mn Cities
01-4400-109-09
annl conf banquet
42.00
14
42.00
Totals Temp Check Number
14
emp Check Number
15
15 LELS
01-2075
July dues
156.00
15
156.00
Totals Temp Check Number
15
emp Check Number
16
16 LMCIT HP C/O EPG
01-2074
July premium
561.20
16 LMCIT•HP C/O EBP
01-4131-020-20
July premium
865.33
32
1,426.53
Totals Temp Check Number
16
"emp Check Number
17
17 Metro Waste Control
15-4448-060-60
Apr May Jun sac chgs
28,600.00
17 Metro Waste Control
15-3615
1% adm fee
286.00cr
17 Metro Waste Control
15-4449-060-60
July Svc
39,848.61
17 Metro Waste Control
14-3575
July Svc
671.15cr
17 Metro Waste Control
17-3575
July Svc
2,468.90cr
85
65,1-4)22. 56
Totals Temp Check Number
17
emp Check Number
is
IS Midwest Wire Steel
01-4305-050-50
Gloves
36.65
18 Midwest Wire Steel
01-4305-070-70
Gloves
36.65
IS Midwest Wire Steel
15-4305-060-60
Gloves
36.62
54
109.92
Totals Temp Check Number
18
emp Check Number
19
19 Miller Printing
01-4300-040-40
C 0 forms
59.1410
Jul 1988.
Claims Lis*
Pane 4
ri 12:04 Pm
City of Mendota Heights
emo Check Number 19
,emq.
Check
umber vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
zg mi/ser Printing
_-
15 -*300-060-60
owr
svc permits
209.00
38
-_--__
368.00
Totals Temp Check Number
19
emn Check Number em
em Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-207*
zozv
premium
e4.2e
e0 Minnesota Benefit Assn
m1 -41o1 -11m -1m
"
e54.10
em Minnesota Benefit Assn
05-4131-105-15
^
284'55
em Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-020-20
"
408'28
em Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-050-50
^
138'56
em Minnesota Benefit Assn
15 -*131-060-60
"
24,00
am Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-070-70
''
154.06
20 Minnesota Benefit Assn
23-1145
"
60.00
160
1,3*7.83
Totals Temp Check Number
20
'emn Check Number 2 1
2/ Minnesota -Conway
01-4305-030-30
misc
spzvs
454.90
21 Minnesota -Conway
01-4305-030-30
"
170'90
4e
625.80
Totals Temp Check Number
21
emn Check Number ue
e2 Minn Mutual Lire Ins
mt-413t-11m-1w
July
premium
a'am
ee Minn Mutual Life Ins
05-4131-105-15
"
1,70
ee Minn Mutual Life Ins
01 -4131 -0e0 -e0
"
15'30
ee Minn Mutual Lire Ins
01-4131-040-40
''
1.70
2P Minn mv:uaz Life Ins
15-4131-060-60
°
1'7141
ee Minn Mutual Life Ins
__-
01-4131-070-70
"
a.*m
132
__---
3m'am
Totals Temp Check Number
22
emo Check Number 23
e3 Minnesota Toro Inc
01-4330-490-70
starter
306.58
23 Minnesota Toro Inc
01-4330-4e0-70
Core
credit
om'mwcr
^a
256.58
Totals Temp Check Number
23
effln Check Number 24
24 Mn Dept Public Safety
0/-4200-610-20
Conn
chg
gw'mm
Jul 1e8&
Claims Lis*
nage o
rz 12:0+ pm
City or Mendota Heights
emo Check Number u*
.amp.
Check
mmoer vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
e4 Mn Dept Public Safety
01-4e00-610-20
Conn cmu
150.00
48
240.00
Totals Temp Check Number
2*
'emo Check Number 25
25 oaucrest Kennels
0/-4ee1-800-90
Jun svc
135'00
25 o*xcrest Kennels
01-4225-800-90
Jun s"c
95'00
5m
e3m-mw
Totals Temp Check Number
25
remp Check Number ea
26 Oxygen Service Co.
01-4305-030-30
cyl act
8,40
--
�a
----
8.40
Totals Temp Check Number
e6
remp Check Number 27
e7 nine Bend Paving
01-4422-050-50
fine mi"
583'57
27 pine Bend Paving
01-442e-050-50
wear mix
975,00
54
1,558.57
Totals Temp Check Number
e7
remo Check Number ea
28 Public smnz Ret Assn
01-20e2
6-17 payroll
u,523'w4
ea Public Emnz Ret Assn
01-4134-110-10
"
e0e'54
28 Public Emnz met Assn
01-4134-0e0-20
~
u,1a4'55
ca Public Empl net Assn
01 -413* -030-30
"
9,79
28 Public Empz pet Assn
01-4134-040-40
^
1014-1'95
ea Public Emnz net Assn
01-4134-050-50
"
zes'ua
28 Public Emnz net Assn
01-4134-070-70
"
106.85
28 Public Emnl met Assn
15-4134-060-60
"
e4,49
ea Public smnz met Assn
05-4134-105-15
"
26e.9e
aa Public smpl Ret Assn
__-
23-1145
"
171'50
280
--------
3,8e2,94
Totals Temp Check Number
ua
'emp Check Number 29
29 aaT Office Products
01 -4300 -0e0 -e0
"
65.68
eg auT Office Products
-_
01-4300-020-20
spzys
2.02
5a
_----
67.7m
Totals Temp Check Number
29
Jul 1988.
Claims List
Page
ri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
emo Check Number 30
Temp.
Check
umber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
30 Sexton Printing Inc
01-4305-020-20
rpr forms
25.20
30 Sexton Printing Inc
01-4305-030-30
25.2141
30 Sexton Printing Inc
01-4305-050-50
25.20
30 Sexton Printing Inc
01-4305-070-70
25.20
30 Sexton Printing Inc
15-4305-060-60
20
I
150
126.00
Totals Temp Check Number
30
emo Check Number 31
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
01-4220-132-10
Jun Svc
1,141.90
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
05-4220-132-15
Jun svc
98.85
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
21-4220-132-00
Jun svc
161.95
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
16-4220-132-00
244.30
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
03-4220-132-00
76.65
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
14-4220-132-00
818.00
31 L E Shaughnessy Jr
15-4220-132-60
Jun svc
203.15
217
2,745.00
Totals Temp Check Number
31
emp Check Number 311=1
32 J L Shiely Co
01-4422-050-50
Cl 5 key
40.07
32 J L Shiely Co
01-4423-050-50
C1 5 key
565.83
32 J L Shiely Co
01-4422-070-70
C1 5 key
252.79
32 J L Shiely Co
01-4422-050-50
11
40.66
32 J L Shiely Co
22-4330-000-00
rip rap
154.29
32 J L Shiely Co
---
01-4423-050-50
Cl 5 key.
88.8a,
192
--------
1,142.46
Totals Temp Check Number
32
emo Check Number 33
33 Snap On Tools
01-4330-490-50
ror impact
50.35
33
50.35
Totals Temp Check Number
33
emD Check Number 34
34 Snyder Drug Stores
13-4305-060-60
batteries
17.22
34
17.22
Totals Temp Check Number
34
emp Check Number 35
35 Soitthview Chevrolet
01-4330-440-20
Module
28.40
Jul 1988
Claims List
name r
ri 1e:04 pm
City of Mendota Heights
emo Check Number 35
.amp.
Check
/umber vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
3S southview Chevrolet
01 -*330-440-20
rprs ee42
16.94
7m
*5'o*
Totals remo Check Number
oo
'emp Check Number oa
oa Sun Newspapers
01-42*0-080-80
hrn not Somerset
11.93
36 Sun Newspapers
01 -4e40 -080-e0
hro not mom
11'43
36 Sun Newspapers
01 -42+0 -0e0 -e0
hrg not wendauota
11'93
36 Sun Newspapers
01-42*0-080-e0
hro not ET Hughes
12'92
36 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
oro not rig" of way
14'41
180
ae'ae
Totals Temp Check Number
36
rer,10 Check Number 37
37 Twin city Testing
88-4236-8ee-00
tests 85-3
ae'mm
37
82.00
Totals Temp Check Number
37
remp Check Number oa
3a uniforms Unlimited
01-4410-020-e0
lamp module
14'17
3e
14.17
Totals Temp Check Number
36
remp Check Number os
39 united Central Trustee
01-2071
July premium
4.63
39 United Central Trustee
01 -413e -020-e0
"
68.16
39 United Central Trustee
01-413e-050-50
"
17.04
3e united Central Trustee
15-413e-060-60
"
a'oe
39 united Central Trustee
01-4132-070-70
"
17'01
195
/15,oa
Totals Temp Check Number
39
'ewn Check Number 40
*m United Way St Paul
01-2070
July contr
54'50
^m
54.50
Totals Temp Check Number-
40
'emp Check Number 41
41 Western Life Insurance Co
-_
01-4132-031-30
July premium
150,50
_----_
41
150.50
zvz /986
Claims List
ri 1e:0+ pm
city of Mendota Heights
emo Check Number 41
Tamp.
ohszx
lumber vendor Name
Account Code
Totals Temp Check Number
41
'emp Check Number 4e
*2 meco
01-4330-460-30
+e
Totals Temp Check Number
42
'emn Check Number 43
43 Mario neves
01-4131-0e0-20
43
Totals Tamp Check Number
43
remp Check Number 44
44 software First
--
01-+301-110-10
44
Totals Temp Check Number
4+
remo Check Number 45
45 Edward vaizzancor*
01-4131-020-20
_
45
Totals Temp Check Number
45
remo Check Number 46
46 Thomas weinzettez
01-4*00-030-30
46 Thomas weinze*tel
01-4415-030-30
ge
rm*azs Tewn Check Number
46
remo Check Number 47
*7 Floyd Arndt
_
01-4131-020-20
47
Totals Temp Check Number
47
rernp Check Number 48
48 Attitude oev Consultants
01-4400-10e-09
_
*a
Totals Tamp Check Number
48
Comments
rprs
Ins amj
Software
Ins adj
Annual conv
Annual conv
Ins auo
Team bldg wks»op
56.114)
5s'1m
60.00
60.00
Jul 1988:
Claims List
nage s
ri 12,04 pm
City of Mendota Heights����
emp Check Number 49
Temp.
Check
umuer Vendor Name
Account Code
Comment
Amount
wa Collins Electrical Const
01-4330-215-70
rprs Rogers Lake
aaa'cn
wa
a6a'57
Totals Tamp Check Number
49
emp Check Number 50
50 Apple Print/ng
01-4300-110-10
letterhead
77.00
om
77.00
Totals Temp Check Number
om
emp Check Number 51
51 Continental Safety Eq
15-4305-060-60
Coveralls/masks
33-05
51 Continental Safety sq
15-4305-060-60
Gloves
26'10
102
5s'15
Totals Tamp Check Number
51
'emp Check Number 5e
52 Corrigan szec*rioe
ee-4330-000-00
LS rnrs
1,09e.26
5e Corrigan szectrice
---
e2-4330-000-00
LS rprs
4,751,56
--------
104
5,843'8e
Totals Temp Check Number
52
emp Check Number 53
53 Dona Currie
--
0/-4/31-0e0-20
Ins auo
aw'mm
53
__--_
am'wm
Totals Temp Check Number
53
emp Check Number 54
54 Gregg ound
--
47-4415-852-00
Jun mileage
44'35
54
_---_
44'55
Totals Temp Check Number
o*
amp Check Number 55
55 Keith Heaver
01-3365
rru variance fee
35'00
55
35.00
Totals Temp Check Number
55
emp Check Number oa
56 arm rex Inc
01-4305-050-50
wipes
56'35
Jul 1988
claims List
�
Pane 10
+i 1e:0* pm
city or Mendota Heights
.emp Check Number 56
Temp.
Check
lumber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
56 aro rex Inc
0/ -*305-070-70
wipes
56'35
oa aro Tex Inc
15-4305-060-60
wipes
56'30
168
'
169'00
Totals Temp check Number
56
.
'emn Check Number 57
57 Biffs Inc
01-4200-610-70
June rent
344.00
57
344.00
Totals Temp Check Number
57
remn Check Number oa
58 creative Colors
01-4335-310-50
shop paint
24'80
58 Creative Colors
01-4333-310-70
shop paint
e4.80
56 Creative Colors
15-4335-310-60
shoo paint
e4.80
174
74'4m
Totals Temp check Number
58
remp Check Number 59
59 Commissioner of rrsnt
01-4e1/-421-50
rprs 55um* 11wmLex
59
251.59
Totals Temp Check Number
59
remo Check Number am
60 Davis & Laoerman Inc
_-
16-4462-000-00
appraisal fee
4,175.00
em
_-__---_
4,175'00
Totals Temp Check Number
am
'emn Check Number 61
61 Gardner ndwe
01-4305-030-30
tool box
37.9e
61
o7'ye
Totals Temp Check Number
a1
'emp Check Number ae
ae *uwe Hank
01 -*305-050-50
misc sozvs
58'33
62 *uwe Hank
--_
01-4305-070-70
misc spzys
41'10
1e4
_---_
99.43
Totals Temp Check Number
a�
remp Check Number 63
Juz �sau
ri 1e:04 Pm
emo Check Number ao
Tern p -
Check
umber vendor Name
az suaene Lanue
e�
Totals Temp Check Number
emo Check Number 64
64 Gen Comm'
64
Totals Temp Check Number
'emn Check Number 65
65 Northern Hydraulics
_
65
Totals Temp Check Number
'emp Check Number as
aa moznz
66
Totals Temp Check Number
'emp Check Number 67
67 p e n n
67 p s n n
67 P E n p
67 p E n q
268
Totals
Totazs Temp Check Number
emo check wmnuer sa
sa Twin City Saw & Service
sa
Totals Temp Check Number
emp Check Number ay
ag United Electric Co
69
Totals Temp Check Number
emp Check Number 70
70 Battery x Tire whse
Claims Lis: Page 11
City or Mendota Heights
Account Code
Comments*
Amount
08-4220-000-00
Jun s,c
657.00
657.00
aa
01-4330-450-20
rprs ee42
90.00
ew'mw
a+
01-4330-460-30
light kits
e7'17
-----
27.17
65
01 -**00-0e0-20
*eor Wicks
70'00
70.00
as
m1 -4131 -11m -1m
July prem
/a'wm
05-4131-105-15
July prem
18'00
01-4131-020-e0
July prem
9.00
01-4131-040-40
zuzv prem
9.00
54.00
ar
01-4305-030-30
Blades
53.75
-----
53'r5
aa
01-4305-030-30
misc spzvs
36'1-411
'
36.01
69 sg
01-4330-460-30
Battery 2292
56.08
Jul 19887
Claims List
page 12
ri 1e:0+ Pm
city or Mendota Heights
'emo Check Number 70
Temp.
Check
/umber vendor Name
Account code
Comments
Amount
70 Battery m Tire whse
01-4330-4*0-20
oil filter
aa'oa
1^m
11g_44
Totals Temp Check Number
70
'emn Check Number 71
71 Hugo alacxfezner
-_
01-4131-020-e0
Ins au�
60'00
71
----_
sw'ww
Totals Temp Check Number
71
'emn Check Number 72
7e Lawrence Bridger
01 -*131-020-20
Ins ad�
60.00
7e
_---_
60.00
Totals Temp Check Number
ra
remp Check Number 73
73 Business Records Corp
01-46e0-640-12
election en
30,59*'00
73
--_-_-_-_
30,594,00
Totals Temp Check Number
73
'emn Check Number 74
74 Lawson Products
01-4305-050-50
shop tools
91,00
74 Lawson Products
01-4305-070-70
shop tools
91'00
74 Lawson Products
15-4305-060-60
shoo tools
91.00
222
273.00
o7o.mm
Totals Temp Check Number
74
'emn Check Number 75
75 John Lapaxxo
01-4305-030-30
reimu sozy exp
27.37
75
_-_-_
2r'o7
Totals Temp Check Number
75
emo Check Number 76
76 Minnesota Mayors Assn
01-4404-10e-09
annual dues
10'00
76
1m'mm
Totals Temp Check Number
76
emn Check Number 77
77 Douglas Smith
--
01-4*0*-030-30
annz mumrshp purch cons
35'00
/
Jul 1988
'ri 12:04 PM
'erno Check Number 77
Temp.
Check
lumber Vendor Name
77
Totals Temp Check Number
'emp Check Number 78
78 Natl Fire Prot Assn
78
Totals Temp Check Number
"emp Check Number 79
79 David Olmstead
79
Totals Temp Check Number
"emo Check Number 80
80 Jeffrey Piotraschke
80
Totals Temp Check Number
emp Check Number 81
81 Roger Plath
81
Totals Temp Check Number
Femp Check Number 82
82 R L Polk & Co
82 R L Polk & Co
82 R L Polk & Co
82 R L Polk & Co
328
Totals Temp Check Number
6246
3rand Total
Claims List
City of Mendota Heights
Account Code
Comments
77
83.00
01-4404-030-30
annual dues
78
27.65
01-4131-020-20
ins add
79
01-4131-020-20
ins adj
80
27.70
01-4131-020-20
ins adj
81
1EE.00
Gage 13
Amount
35.00
75.75
75.75
60.00
60.00
60. 00
60.00
60.00
60.00
01-4305-020-20
188
directory
83.00
01-4305-050-50
188
directory
27.65
01-4305-070-70
1.27.65
15-4305-060-60
188
directory
27.70
1EE.00
MANUAL CHECKS:
82 11775 8,228.00
Foss Sweeping
Street sweeping
11776 10,113.79
Dakota County St Bank
6/17 FIT, FICA, MEDICARE
11777 645.00
6/17 Payroll deductions
11778 3,699.52
SCCU
136,26-3.40
11779 33,108.67
City II.H. Payroll acct
6/17 net payroll
11780
thru
11784 150.00
Softball umpires
11785 148.60
Patrick Casey
refund dupl sewer payment
11786 12,311.00
Pro Truck
P. W.pickup
11787 345.66
Dakota County St Bank
Fit P. D. retro payrell
11788 4,007.33
City H.H. Payroll Acct
P. D. retro payroll
72,757.57
GT 209,020.97
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 29, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. "'f? 1, ty Administrator
SUBJECT: Robyn Huspe Logo Presentation
Attached are the latest revisions to the proposed logo,
as prepared by our graphic artist Robyn Huspek. Robyn will
be present at the Council meeting Tuesday evening to discuss
these further with Council, and receive your feedback.
KDF:madlr
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
MAY 241 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin DCity Administrator
SUBJECT: Release of Highway 149 (Friendly Hills) Right -of -
Way
Once again, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
wishes to initiate discussions with the community about
ultimate use and/or disposal of the alternative Highway 149
right-of-way. It has bisected the Friendly Hills
neighborhood since its platting in the mid -1950's. Attached
is a memo from project engineer Paul Kachelmyer. The options
available to the City have changed somewhat since our last
discussions, and Paul outlines these in his memo.
Paul will be present at the Council meeting to discuss
the issue, and solicit Council input. You may recall that
there is in place a Highway 149 Task Force (on which
Councilmembers Blesener and Cummins serve), although it has
not met for a couple of years. I believe Mn/DOT District 9
intends, after meeting with the Council, to resurrect this
committee.
KDF:madlr
attachment
0
DEPARTMENT :
Mn/DOT - Operations
Oakdale - District Nine
DATE :
February 18, 1988
To :
FILE
FROM :
Paul Kachelmyer
PHONE :
779-1205
SF00006.OE (4 86)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office Memorandum
SUBJECT : S.P. 1917 (T.H. 149) at T.H. 110 in Mendota Heights
Potential disposal of surplus right of way
This memorandum contains a summary of options and laws concerning the potential
use or disposal of surplus right of way. These options would apply to the
right of way corridor east of T.H. 149 near T.H. 110 if the corridor will not
be used for trunk highway purposes.
Option 1•
Allow the city to construct a road on the right of way corridor.
Requirements and laws concerning this option:
a. The proposed road must be judged to add to the safe operation of the ad-
jacent trunk highway. A local street which would not pass this judgement
would not be permitted.
b. To construct a street on Mn/DOT right of way the city Would have to apply
for, and receive, a permit from Mn/DOT.
c. A detailed layout or construction plan would need to be submitted to
Mn/DOT for consideration of the permit application.
d. Upon completion of the roadway construction, the right of way utilized
for the operation and maintenance of the street could be conveyed to the
city by means of a turnback (release and ultimate deeding of Mn/DOT's
property rights). Under these circumstances there would be no cost to
the city for the property rights.
Option 2:
The city could purchase the easement rights to the land from Mn/DOT in order
to build a road on the land in the future.
Requirements and laws concerning this option:
a. The easements would allow the city to build a roadway on the property at
some time in the future. However, like Option 1 the road would have to
rd
be judged to add to the safe operation of the adjacent trunk highway.
The easements would not allow the city to build a typical local street
on the property, or to use the land for other purposes; parks, recreation,
development, etc.
b. Under this option the city would have to buy the easement rights from Mn
at their current, present day, fair market
Option 3:
The city could purchase the easements from Mn/DOT to build a local street or
for other than roadway purposes; parkland, development, etc.
Requirements and laws concerning this option:
a. The easements alone would not give the city the right to use the land in
such a manner. The city would also have to obtain the underlying fee title
interests from the private property owners. The city would have to obtain
the underlying fee title interests before Mn/DOT could sell its easement
rights to the city.
b. Under this option the city would have to buy the easement rights from Mn/DOT
at their current, present day, fair market value.
c. Under this option the state may allow the city housing redevelopment authority
to condemn the land. The city could in this way acquire the interest of
the fee owners and the state at the same time. The city could then develop
the land at their own time table.
Options 4:
If the city does not pursue options 1, 2, or 3:
Mn/DOT could sell the easement to the owner of the fee title to the land.
a. Under this option the fee title owner would have to buy the easement rights
at their current, present day, fair market value.
b. If the fee owner refused to pay the required amount Mn/DOT could acquire
the fee title and then sell the land on the open market to the highest
responsible bidder.
Traffic Data
Before and After I-494 Opening
November 1986
(Vehicles per day)
(Dec. 1987)
Accident Data
TH 110 and TH 149 intersection area
Before and after I-494 Opening
Reported Accidents
2 years before 25
1 year before 28
1 year after 12
2 months
1 week
1 week
3 weeks
4 months
1 year
before
before
after
after
after
after
TH
110
W.B.
17,466
17,036
8,402
8,852
8,200
8,100
(E.
of
149)
TH
110
E.B.
15,094
14,734
9,865
9,868
8,740
8,530
TH
149
at
9,628
5,750
Wagon
Wheel
Accident Data
TH 110 and TH 149 intersection area
Before and after I-494 Opening
Reported Accidents
2 years before 25
1 year before 28
1 year after 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 30, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and City d��istor
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Eugenia Street Vacation
nTgrTTRgTn m
Janice Peyer of 606 Highway 13 has requested that Eugenia Street right-
of-way be vacated between Highway 13 and Pierce Street in the hopes that the
extra land will enable a lot split (see attached staff memos). This portion
of right-of-way does not have any applicable use for the City or public at
the present time nor does it appear that there will be a need for it in the
future. The existance of the right-of-way makes it difficult to build on
Peyer's excess land becasue of inadequate lot area and 30 feet setback
requirements. An existing NSP powerline passes through the right-of-way,
but an easement rather than right-of-way is all that is needed. An easement
could also be used if a walking or bike trail were installed as sometime in
the future.
The Planning Commission has investigated the possibility of allowing a
lot split for Ms. Peyer, but took no action at the June 27th meeting.
Obviously if the street vacation is approved, a lot split is possible. If
it is not approved, the Planning Commission will have to consider approving
a lot split with variances. The Commission tabled the discussion until
their July meeting, awaiting the outcome of the Council's action on the
street vacation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no objection to Council approving the Eugenia Street vaca-
tion. If Council does approve it then the City should acquire a 30 foot
utility easement in its place.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a
motion adopting Resolution No. 88- RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is the current record owner of a street
right-of-way as described as follows; and
That part of vacated Eugenia Avenue as dedicated within the plat of
Cherokee Park Heights described as lying Easterly of the southwesterly
extension of the northwesterly line of Lot 1, Block I, said Cherokee
Park Heights and lying Westerly of the southwesterly extension of the
southeasterly line of Lot 2, said Block 1, reserving the described
property for a drainage and utility easement.
WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and
posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said
vacation, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on July 5, 1988, at
8:15 o'clock P.M at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in
said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their
views and objections to the granting of said petition.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the vacation of the street right-of-way described above, sit-
uated in the City of Mendota Heights, is in the best interest of the public
and the City, and is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
the community.
2. That the above described street right-of-way be and the same is
hereby vacated, reserving the above described property for a drainage and
utility easement.
3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to
prepare and present to the proper Dakota County officials a notice of com-
pletion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable
Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of
July, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
. Peyer Associates
HVAC Contractors 200 West Plato Blvd. * St. Paul, MN 55107 * (612) 224-7501
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
750 So. Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
ATTENTION: CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING: REQUEST FOR VACATING OF EUGENIA AVENUE
GENTLEMEN:
We the undersigned do hereby request the City of Mendota
Heights to vacate Eugenia Avenue from Sibley Memorial
Highway to Pierce Street as shown cross hatched on
Exhibit A. See Exhibit B for the reason of this request.
Sincerely, klZr"- C"
'Ja'nn Peyerpen,
JP/deb
t,
DAKOTA COUNTY, MWN-
AUG. 1924 SCALE W-Iiii.
It
. Peyer Associates
HVAC Contractors 200 West Plato Blvd. • St. Paul, MN 55107 . (612) 224-7501
MAY 11, 1988
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
750 So. Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minneosta 55120
ATTENTION: CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING: VACATING OF EUGENIA AVENUE
GENTLEMEN:
® Thank you for the opportunity to present my reasons for
requesting the City to vacate Eugenia Avenue. I own
lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 of Cherokee Park Heights. My home
is located on lots 3 & 4. The total square foot area
of the 4 lots is approximately 26,400 square feet. If
the city were to vacate Eugenia, the additional area
would enable me to subdivide my property to build a new
home for my family as per the 15000 sgaure feet of land
required by the City Code.
I have talked with, and recieved the support of my neigh-
bors bordering my property in pursuing this request, and
I am very encouraged. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ann Peyer
Applicant
Name:—
t
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
First
Case No. ; k— -d-
Date of Application 6—/r—pp
Fee Paid 9 %r- 7--1--
11 1
Initial
I
Address: Hk/a_). /_-;j /I/ej2j/Zgfa t(Q� Ll Ql a5/x
Number & Street city State Zip
Telephone Number: 611 9�
Owner
Name: A.0
/Last First Initial
Address: L(36 /3 M
eldQ--62
Number & Streft City State Zip
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description of Property:
I --. 71z.,- / -,) - -:?. 6a / Ark llelaXA
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
June 21, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
Kathleen Swanson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Case No. 88-24, Peyer
Lot Split
INFORMATION•
Ms. Jan Peyer, 606 Highway 13, has met with the City Planner
and staff to discuss the possibility of subdividing her property
to create two buildable lots. Ms. Peyer owns Lots 1 through 4 of
the Cherokee Park Heights Addition, which was platted into 50
foot lots prior to the City's adoption of subdivision and zoning
regulations. Ms. Peyer's existing home is located on Lots 3 and
4, and extends approximately 3 feet onto Lot 2. She proposes to
divide Lot 2 so•as to add 13.25 feet to Lot 3 and combine the
remaining 36.75 feet of Lot 2 with Lot 1 to make it a buildable
parcel. The applicant is in the process of requesting the
vacation of the right-of-way for Eugenia Street, which is platted
but unbuilt. The Council will conduct a public hearing on the
vacation request, and consider the lot division request, at their
July 19th meeting. Ms. Peyer has received and submitted the
written support of her neighbors for both the lot split and the
proposed right-of-way vacation.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 11.3 of the "Exceptions" section of the
Subdivision Ordinance is applicable to this application, since
the request is to divide a lot (Lot 2) which is part of a
recorded plat and the purpose of the division is to permit the
adding of property to an abutting lot without causing the
remaining portion of the lot to be in violation of the
subdivision or zoning ordinance. Where the "Exceptions" section
is applicable, the Commission may exempt the subdivider from
complying with any inappropriate requirements of the subdivision
ordinance. Also applicable is Section 4.4(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance which provides that a lot platted prior to Ordinance
adoption which doesn't meet the requirements for area or width
may be utilized for single family purposes if it meets 70% of the
15,000 square foot requirement. It may not be more intensively
developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or
portions thereof so as to create a conforming lot.
In his report, Planner Dahlgren addresses the Eugenia Street
right-of-way vacation, commenting that the City might wish to
retain a 20 foot pathway easement on the south edge of the right-
of-way. The City Engineering Department has reviewed the survey
and has pointed out that the City must retain a 10 foot easement,
for existing overhead utilities, over the northerly portion of
the right-of-way. It is a possibility therefore that Council may
elect not to vacate the right-of-way. All four of the existing
lots have been assessed for sanitary sewer and water.
ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONS
As was mentioned earlier, Council will consider the right-
of-way vacation issue on July 19th. Consideration of the lot
division as drawn on the surveyor's certificate and as defined in
the property description prepared by the surveyor would give the
Commission two alternatives:
a. Recommend approval of the subdivision as proposed,
conditioned upon Council approval of the right-of-way
vacation on July 19th. This would be a recommendation
to approve Parcel A consisting of 14,722.5 square feet
and 113.24 feet in width and Parcel B containing 16,705
square feet and 181.14 feet wide.
b. Recommend denial of the'application.
The Commission also has a third alternative which to our
knowledge has not yet been discussed with the applicant. The
Commission can:
c. Recommend approval of the subdivision on the condition
that the division certificate be revised to exclude the
Eugenia right-of-way from the description of Parcel B.
This would result in the same area and dimensions for
Parcel A. Parcel B would be have an area of 11,685
square feet and a width of 151.14 feet. It would be
described as all of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1,
except the northeasterly 13.25 feet of said Lot 2. The
lot area of both parcels would exceed the 70%
requirement. The Commission decision would be based on
the merits of the division itself, and a favorable
recommendation would not need to be conditioned upon
Council action on the vacation. The vacation issue
could then be treated as a distinct issue by Council.
If the vacation were approved, the land area would
accrue to Parcel B.
ACTION REQUIRED
Review the proposed simple lot split with the applicant and
make a recommendation to Council.
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
28 June 1988
Janice A. Peyer
Southeast of Sibley Highway,
Between Downing Street and
Garden Lane (see sketch)
Approval of Lot Division and
Vacation of Street
1. Attached is a sketch prepared by Sigma Surveying Services, Inc.
indicating the proposed property in question and the division into Parcels
A and B. These properties front on Trunk Highway 13 and are
immediately north of the property at one time proposed for a townhouse
planned unit development. The south edge of the property is a 30 foot
right-of-way dedicated for the north half of what would have been
Eugenia Avenue. This street, if built, would be directly east of Trunk
Highway 13.
2. The proposal is to vacate Eugenia Avenue and divide the existing
platted lots, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, into two lots. The north lot (Parcel
A) would have 14,722 square feet and the south lot (Parcel B) would
have 16,705 square feet. Frontage on the two lots would be 113.25
feet for Parcel A and 140 feet for Parcel B as measured 30 feet back
from the right-of-way line (at the building line). Thus, it would appear
that each parcel will meet and exceed the minimum frontage
requirements and will average 15,000 square feet each.
3. It appears that constructing Eugenia Avenue would not be necessary.
The Planned Unit Development that was not approved did not require
the construction or use of the Eugenia Avenue right-of-way, nor did a
single-family cul-de-sac plat proposal that was approved. However,
there may be a case for reserving a portion of the 30 foot Eugenia
Avenue right-of-way as a pedestrian trail. Some years ago when we
looked at the site, there was definite evidence of people having used
the right-of-way as a pathway. It may be appropriate in this case for
the City to retain a 20 foot pathway easement on the south edge of
Eugenia. There also may be a need for retention of a portion of the
right-of-way for utility easement purposes.
d
�j,
l 14U 1) j I 6JI
IN F PADle nDIVV-
k C.6
O'm
17
v
S T•
PAUL
I
s SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH T
SCALE 111=200'
iT Y C3.eics! Co
G 90 flc. �
L7 Lr Y 7- L
ZG 0A4 AG -- �z [4°
2`zz9
C � � ti� r � I •• �
O o Q• 4 � , 4u i
eEM
/ 7 � L� � 0 4 e 4J .• .. ..
O •/ , h /7 1 is /S � /a i,
Z oy s �P
T
r< co l 0 9a o i I
v� 91io r/
jz pe
J A
16
ra
s
Jl.
HIAW
7 M• i
4
-\
-,`7
;o \
G
17
\l� 7
o
1-4
/4
Z ♦ 142.75
,cA L
L O� /7 $ �F1eFc�Ft '4 nas¢tVv `c r z
12c232 -c rcoLNEN
Ys
7
2�i[3L--d
13
C
- o
70 Le
q
V .• o I J°Jt
P�ryV B�d(cE ti IS ft I r� r �' rn° 9 d `
—• — � ° .r_H:3r LY ,..s en �%re .�\ '10).25 % rr6 �
b BvEa , dv �� .9J 1 ,!✓ 1 ,wo ia.._
l
41.
_'� "•� / iv rz- l 1� flu � '�.! �! vp ,'!?'. r .:✓:; � ^: •.,i�.
- 7i r , r. ' ? : r y � � 1. � ` `�• •t.y�-a• , .. -� r _
SIGMA
SURVEYING SERVICES INC.
3730 Plot Krwob Road
Eagon. k4mesoto 65122
(614)452»3077
PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS
Lot Division Certificate for:
JAN PEYER
606 Highway 13
Mendota Heights, MN
Parcel 'A', -.f
Lots 3,4 and the Northeasterly 13.25 feet of Lot 2 (as measured
at right angles to and parallel with the northeasterly line thereof)
Block 1, CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Area = 14,722 Sq. Ft.
Parcel 'B'
Lot 1, Block 1, CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
and
Lot 2, said Block 1, Except the Northeasterly 13.25 feet of said Lot 2,
(as measured at right angles to and parallel with the northeasterly
line thereof)
and
That part of vacated EUGENIA AVENUE as dedicated within the plat of
CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS described as lying Easterly of the southwesterly
extension of the northwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, said CHEROKEE
PARK HEIGHTS and lying Westerly of the southwesterly extension of the
southeasterly line of Lot 2, said Block 1.
Area = 16,705 Sq. Ft.
Proposed STREET VACATION DESCRIPTION
That part of vacated EUGENIA AVENUE as dedicated within the plat of
CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS described as lying Easterly of the southwesterly
extension of the northwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, said CHEROKEE
PARK HEIGHTS and lying Westerly of the southwesterly extension of the
southeasterly line of Lot 2, said Block 1.
I hereby certify that this is a
true and correct representation of
a survey of the boundaries of the
above described property, that I am
a'duly Registered Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
�A 04'.161 L.-
Wayne 0. Cordes �l;�un1+.�•nrnt7r�
Minn. Reg. No. 14675 rilil.. 07
DATE: June 14, 1988 "�
f: WAYME D.
CORDES
Sheet 1 of 2 Sheets
SIGMA Lot Division Certificate for:
SURVEYING SERVICES INC. JAN PE YER
3730 Mt Knob no0d 606 Highway 13
E°°°"' ""�'°'° 7 Mendota Heights, MN
taiztass-3m� 9 ,
> - r IJ
a,
tt�
MJ
1
s /
._ zs.o 40./' Op �✓J
{ /• 04
Scale: I"= 40'
33
c3, o Denotes Iron Monument.
X Existing Spot Elevation
�.� --- Drainage Direction
P.P. 36 Denotes Power Pole
Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets
J �'
I
Z
P
Q
I
130.00 --.i
n tP'
4.
'
9000
��,2. i
y,i.v,
iXN1pL i
I
meq., •
Q �
/,t,.
..I
to
in
A'
Existing /,y
I%2 Story/'"
x
i
HOUSE///,
°
�.
m
17 4K
NEyg Line N Lot 2 I
OD
�¢
x.t
130.00 t
r
r
1
It
°o00 -;P-.i
?-a/
vM
.. ..
r.r.p
m of
N
GQ
�
ui
GVV
r
CJ{1
/ P.P.
c
N
.+ l290oabo
r
1111
°P
� °�' 10
> - r IJ
a,
tt�
MJ
1
s /
._ zs.o 40./' Op �✓J
{ /• 04
Scale: I"= 40'
33
c3, o Denotes Iron Monument.
X Existing Spot Elevation
�.� --- Drainage Direction
P.P. 36 Denotes Power Pole
Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 29, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D/of V�7�1�, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Awar City Hall Furniture Purchase
At the June 7 meeting, interior designer Suzanne Ilten
was present to discuss the budget for city hall furnishings.
Her cost estimate for the "scaled back" furniture plan
repared by the city hall subcommittee was approximately
105,000.
At the June 21 meeting, Council took action to authorize
the purchase of the Herman Miller s stem under State
contract. This furniture is about 35,000 of the total
budget.
Suzanne is taking quotes on the approximate $70,000 of
furniture left through Thursday, June 30. She and I are
meeting on the morning of Tuesday, July 5 to analyze the
bids. She will then be present at the Council meeting to
recommend an award of the purchase.
ACTION REQUIRED:
To review the furniture purchase recommendations with
interior designer Suzanne Ilten, and pass motions authorizing
the purchases.
KDF:madlr
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 29, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council, City L/ K t r
FROM: Dick Gill, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Addition of Minnesota Knitting Mills
INTRODUCTION
James Anderson of Anderson -Mann Construction Company is
proposing to build an addition to the Minnesota Knitting
Mills building located on Mendota Heights Road in the
Industrial Park. The addition will be 240.5' x 40' creating
9620 additional square feet of warehouse space.
DISCUSSION
Review of both "as built drawings", and plans for the
addition shows that it complies with current code
requirements. They are basically just moving the existing
240 feet of wall to the south 40 feet, reusing the same wall
panels, windows, and doors, and adding 40 feet of similar
materials to each end. The setbacks required by the zoning
ordinance are being maintained or exceeded, and the parking
lot is being designed to accommodate the extra vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the granting of this permit request
because the project is in compliance with all applicable city
requirements.
ACTION REQUIRED
If council wishes to implement staff's recommendation,
it should pass a motion to approve construction of the
addition.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 22, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council, City 4dvin_A�1 for
FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: MGM Liquor License
INFORMATION
On June 21st, Council conducted a public hearing on an
application from the LAMA Corporation, d.b.a. MGM Liquor
Warehouse, for an off -sale liquor license for a facility to be
located in the Mendota Plaza. Council had previously received a
report and recommendation from the Police Chief and City Clerk.
Action on the application was tabled to the July 5th meeting as
is required by the liquor ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
There were no adverse public comments heard at the public
hearing, and the applicants have agreed to meet all of the
conditions recommended by Chief Delmont. We therefore recommend
approval of the issuance of an off -Sale Liquor License to the
LAMA Corporation, d.b.a. MGM Liquor Warehouse.
ACTION REQUIRED
If council concurs in the staff recommendation, it should
pass a motion approving the issuance of an off -Sale Liquor
License to the LAMA Corporation, d.b.a. MGM Liquor Warehouse, to
operate an MGM Liquor facility in the Mendota Plaza Shopping
Center, subject to approval of the license by the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety.
� •J
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 30, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and City #iAiator
FROM: Mary Ann DeLaRosa, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 88-22, Wirt, Variance
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission considered this request at their
meeting of June 28. Mr. Wirt requested a six foot side yard
setback variance to construct an addition to his existing
garage at 1395 Farmdale Road. (See attached letter of
request and staff reports). The Commission saw no reason to
deny the variance, but noted that the private covenants in
the Cherry Hills Second Addition prohibit structures closer
than 30 feet from a side street. The addition, as proposed,
would be 24 feet from Farmdale Road.
The Planning Commission encouraged Mr. Wirt to notify
his neighbors in writing, of the restriction in the private
covenants, even though he had written approval from his
neighbors for his proposed garage addition plan.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a six
foot side yard variance to allow construction of an 8' x 20'
garage addition at 1395 Farmdale Road.
attachments
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 15, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 88-22, Wirt, Variance
DISCUSSION:
Mr. John Wirt, 1395 Farmdale Road, has met with Planner
Dahlgren and staff to discuss the possibility of a variance
to be within 24 feet of his north property line abutting
Farmdale Road. He wishes to expand his storage space by
enlarging his existing garage with an 8'x.201 addition. Mr.
Wirt does not like to have his equipment stored outside his
garage (see letter of request) and has informed staff that a
detached accessory building cannot be built on his property
due to protective covenants.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review the proposed six foot variance request with the
applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council.
PRB:madlr
attachments
��, a z
Case No. '
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
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
Ai+( `>?EQ UT -S T Ix A- VARIUCC- Ty Tt+E 3o FT SET 84CK.
g�QU�R��l�iy i oA) T a SIDS- of AAY Llous� To 24 IN
ORS TO RxPAAQJD s "6�9 AR EA I M TH F GAEACS 4m--14 F
PLC- 1�- S E�E A --t rACW L�aL� i� P
�o
Date of Appication
��
Fee Paid
Applicant'
T IDH Q
Name: t/V IR
1
Last
First
Initial
Address: c, q
S FARA-DA1� & i\p b
A r -W N -M
g � A)J
I 1
Ss) 16)
Number &
Street City
State
Zip
Telephone Number:
4 ,9(D ^ 1 Q Q 9
Owner
Name:
I+
Last
First
Initial
Address: 1�qS
(--AV"bALf— l
W9TS,
/ JV -
SSU A
Number &
Street City
Stat
Zip
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description of Property:
L, a T
1O g tazg 3
CH- KR
f -H LLS
2 N1)
2--� c T �a" -
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
Ai+( `>?EQ UT -S T Ix A- VARIUCC- Ty Tt+E 3o FT SET 84CK.
g�QU�R��l�iy i oA) T a SIDS- of AAY Llous� To 24 IN
ORS TO RxPAAQJD s "6�9 AR EA I M TH F GAEACS 4m--14 F
PLC- 1�- S E�E A --t rACW L�aL� i� P
�o
"
I
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
28 June 1988
88-22
John Wirt
VVmoL of VVachtiar Avenue,
Southeast of Curve in
Farmdale Road (see sketch)
Variance to Side Yard
Setback (contiguous to
right-of-way)
{. The VVirt'o reside at 1395 Farmdole Road where they have constructed a
very attractive house with extensive landscaping. They have a two car
garage and propose to add an addition to the garage 20 feet in length
and 8 feet in width, with a garage door opening to the back of the lot
onto u proposed concrete slab patio. The garage addition is not for
additional automobiles, but to store bikes, tricycles, yard equipment, and
a tent trailer.
2. - The staff
has had an extensive interview
with
Mr. Wirt regarding this
somewhat
unusual proposal. We noted
that
this kind of storage
accommodation can be partially accommodated
it would not effect
for in o permitted
accessory
building up to 144 square feet.
His
proposed addition is 160
square feat. However, K4r, Wirt informs us
that
his deed restrictions do
not allow
for any such accessory structure
on
his lot and that of his
neighbors
in this subdivision.
the
garage.
3. Mr. Wirt has contacted his neighbors and has attached their utaLannanto
supporting his proposal.
4. While examining the
site plan with the VVirt'a,
it
was suggested
that it
would be ponodda to
put this addition on the
rear
of the garage (*harm
it would not effect
the 30 foot setback to
Farrndole). This,
however,
would rnuka for more difficult construction.
In
the case of
a gable
rouf it is for easier
to extend the roof on
the
gable end of
the roof
system which, in this
case, is on the side of
the
garage.
5. There is an existing porch on the roar of the house and if the garage
addition were to be put at the back of the garage, it would restrict
the view and air movement through the porch (partially covering one of
the three open sides of the porch).
7. The reduction in the
setback requested
is from JO
feet to 24 feet at
the front edge of the
garage and from
30 faaL to
28 feet at the rear
edge of the garage.
These are well
illustrated
on the largo scale
drawing submitted by
the applicants and
attached to
their proposal.
John Wirt, Case No. 88-22
8. Oddly enough, if the horne had initially been
the south property line rather than 16 feet,
room to accomplish this proposed addition
hardship is that it was not.
Page 2
n constructed 10 feet from
there would be just enough
without a variance. The
11 JNDALE
// • • • • • C T Q • i
-- M N
•
• CNS a • •
Ililyl IIIEiI�.'! '' ROAD F,� • • •
• 'A /
tt •
J • + • •
U + • _..3 RD
3• O • F • i
R• r •
�! SUBJECT PROPEM • •
NORTH
a SCALE 1'"=400' •
\ U
WENTWORTH
v• 1j tf PARK
�'- �� , ! • '"_. ', • _ 11 tilt � • i
w I
' w • • • ' • • . • If
• • •
1
N040 7-//,1- AE-- IV
STA TES -- -5 '00 W e
C62.
2. 6 oo4-- A
- 945--
010-01
ZGoo4 -,0
944,v0 EAST
rn ITO 145 jc-%, I C -t-.
cn 1 4 *,M,\ 3'n e- ; I �r
(p
It CD375 to 102.4$3.-
I- t c
to I A 0 -
Out LO I A
5 96 15
166.4.4 C'Z. 4+2
L4
0
CHER U o, cc
1 P,7.1 6 0 1 ---
162 94 105 0 150 153
0 5' 5
M
159.48 150 153
s O D A IIUI
IBC- 4 -3. 7 OD
co 9
AC
1.51 16.65 613 2:,o 150 153 1 CC
r
wl
-00,o ROAD
60
ro
6(tF IC3 140
Ld
171
0 SUBJECT PROPERTY
2 7 co
—171 00 8 (6
—150. 1,� -ONORTH
0 f
cr
< SCALE* 1of =200'
8 LL -
17
(o
66 r 14v
0
9 a 3 2!
17i 6 2 8
150 1 95 218 2A
94 4.00 'NEST
-43
I
-2 v
7,b
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 30, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City moan #rator
FROM: Mary Ann DeLaRosa, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: CAO CASE NO. 88-04 Huestis, Variance
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
June 28 to consider a request from Mr. William Huestis, 649
Sibley Memorial Highway, for a variance to allow construction
of an addition on the rear of his home.
It was staff's feeling that since the addition is very
substantial and close to the bluff line, that a public
hearing should be conducted so that adjacent neighbors could
be made aware of the proposal. No one was present for the
hearing.
The Commission was somewhat divided on this matter, with
Commissioner Krebsbach expressing concern over soil erosion
control measures and the future of the retaining wall. Other
commissioners felt favorably on the request.
The variance request was for a reduction from the 22
foot setback to 16 feet from the bluffline, thus creating the
need for a six foot rear yard variance. The Commission voted
5-2 in favor of the requested variance.
By CAO Ordinance, this a variance request does not
require a public hearing. Therefore, there is no public
hearing for the City Council meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the majority of the Planning
Commission's recommendation, they should consider the request
and approve the requested six foot setback variance from the
bluff, to allow construction of an addition to the rear of
the home located at 649 Sibley Memorial Highway.
attachments
V
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 8, 1988
TO: Planning commission
FROM: Jim Danielson, P.W. Director
SUBJECT: CAO CASE NO. 88-04, Huestis, Critical Area
Ordinance variance Hearing
DISCUSSION:
Mr. and Mrs. Huestis, 649 Sibley Memorial Highway, have
made application for a Critical River Ordinance review. They
would like a 27 foot variance to the 401 bluff line setback
to allow the construction of an addition in the back yard of
their existing home, located along TH 13 (see attached letter
of explanation). Although it is unclear from the site plan
as to how far back the home is located from TH 13, it appears
from the City's topo that to construct the addition in their
front yard instead of their backyard would encroach on an
established front yard setback line. Also, as stated in Mr.
Huestis' letter to the City, the front yard is needed for
parking.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct the public hearing and based on input from the
audience and Commission, make a recommendation to the City
Council on granting a 27 foot encroachment to the required
401 setback from the bluff line.
JED:madlr
attachments
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
William Huestis
Northwest o'f • Trunk Highway
13 (Sibley Highway), Opposite
Brompton Place (see sketch)
Approval of Variance to
Critical Area Setback
1. Bill and Dorothy Huestis have resided at 649 Sibley Highway since 1962.
Their lot consists of 1.10 acres, with a frontage of 134 feet on Trunk
Highway 13, and a, depth of 363 feet. Attached is a copy of a portion
of the section map showing this property. Also , attached is a copy of
the City's topographical map of this area of the City showing the
property and the house.
2. You will note from the topographical map that the house is cited
approximately two-fifths of the lot depth back from the front, with the
forward portion of the house. approximately 140 feet from the front lot
line. The lot, however, is 363 feet deep. Therefore, most of the lot
consists of the back yard which is a very steep slope to the northwest
and the Lilydale park area, most of which is some 240 feet below the
site of the existing house. The area down the hill approximately 600
feet from the house is heavily wooded.
3. The Huestis' propose to build a new living room on the northwest side
of the house. Attached are plans indicating how this is to be done
with a full basement below and a portion of the attic space being used
for expansion of the master bedroom in the form of a dressing room
and closet area. Thus, the structure is not a full two stories, but
would ordinarily be called one and one-half stories. From the average
grade of the house to the mean distance in the addition is
approximately 18 feet.
4. The existing house, as you will note from the attached copy of the
survey prepared by Paul McGinley, is 22 feet from the top of the bluff.
The proposal is to add the addition between the two wings of the
house. The furthest extension of the addition would be 16 feet from
the bluff. Thus, the setback which is now at a minimum of 22 feet
would become a minimum of 16 feet.
5. In
this
case, it would seem that because of the extremely
heavily
wooded
slope separating the residence from the low land area
below,
the
extension of the house in this fashion will have a minimum
impact
on
the
Lilydale area. This area is a regional park owned by the City
of
St.
Paul.
William Huestis, Case No. 88-04
Page 2
6. The proposed additions include the development of a new vestibule and
a small addition for an eating area contiguous to the kitchen. We have
discussed this proposal and the plans for the house at some length with
Mr. and Mrs. Huestis. It would appear, based on the layout of the
home, that the proposed addition will be a considerable asset to the
residence. If expansion of the living area is the objective, it is best
done on this side of the house. For those of you who know the house,
the existing living room has a great deal of circulation going through it,
crossing between the library, first floor bath, the stairwell, the kitchen,
and the dining room.
7. In summary, the request is for a reduction in the existing setback of 6
feet. Based on the overall scale of the lot, the nature of the terrain,
and the extensive wooded slope, it would appear as though this
reduction will be relatively insignificant.
0�1
I t?
' jj� j r% /jf/�/- .% � ! j j) .,` �_f� �` •�1,.;• / 1 ' \ j W'�4f? i � �' . t • � _ _ ' %:'
/*
q1, �/ , �r" -•'<._ J j/ J� ^ )j�1 j ._ •f fid.' •\...S, \ ,, t i t fJ
SuBjec
1 wl Jf "L, t�.�1 �jJ P3�
PROP
NOR Til
SCALE
.4
.01
t IJ
57�
1Nj
Q!
Q b
b
? SUBJECT PROPERI
NORTH
SCALE 1 "=200'
7£7'YT L 17T —3
L :o
TWIAl C,r r
•
Cld-177/ -rs
2L•232.A Lor' 9
rk
LOT 3 PERK Q
10//G °
7J
l6 �.9/ LS 45 stl !! 2tl� 25 fti
4 y .►.
•N
O
4kcs ��2 r0 " 14 'fZ-• `xs �v� 21 15 if
N IV
1/0
AA 1
::'• c: Of
to s -y Y' S �34.r1 • lk
u sti i
o
ti'%::F..+::•:;:. ZC,{� �-4
•::�'., � �'} r 1��' '� h
fzs
ri 174;
to � �'�' •
G tl j 7 2, s
Mc pOn.'AL.p ,S T'. �xri 4 z 11
7
y� 0 o Z
0i VALLEK' LANE
W
70 ie17o I).�I).
J
7
y� 0 o Z
0i VALLEK' LANE
W
70 ie17o I).�I).
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 30, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City m'n' t)- ?a tor
FROM: Mary Ann DeLaRosa, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 88-23, Beckmann, Wetlands Permit
DISCUSSION•
Mr. Paul Beckmann was present at the June 28 Planning
Commission meeting to request a wetlands permit to allow
construction of a single family home on Lot 9, Block 1, The
Ponds of Mendota Heights. As proposed the home would be set
back 30 feet from the public right-of-way, thus placing the
home 90 feet from the shore line of the pond.
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the requested wetlands permit.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation, they should pass a motion granting a wetlands
permit to allow construction of a single family home within
90 feet of the pond.
attachments
Case No.�%
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Date of Application
Fee Paid 1.3 / 9?,1 ^6
Applicant -'-3:> rM�� P&� `
Name:
Last First Initial
Address: 190-1 , q- n T, t'�.cA �.i MN
Number & Street �- City ,t State Zip
Telephone Number: &90 (D 2-1ew)
Owner
Name: k)0 y-,4 L C? A t< -S EA I- � y
Last First �� Initial
Address: �> ``% ro�� rC r tiY <'C��J AUs 3tl , eEt) tE , (SIU , j —iQ 4,
Number & Street City State Zip
Street Location of Property in Question:
-V 1? ,!� �), So tuT A L-A"&
,Legal Description of Property:
o+ 9 -:9t'0
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
16 VAT
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 15, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 88-23, Beckmann, Wetlands Permit
DISCUSSION:
Homebuilder Monty Girard proposes to construct a new
dwelling for Paul Beckmann on Lot 9, Block 1, The Ponds of
Mendota Heights, at 1882 South Lane. The proposed home is
shown on the survey to be 90 feet from the wetlands boundary.
Mr. Girard has placed the front of the house at the 30 feet
setback from the front property line in an attempt to stay as
far from the wetlands as possible.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review the proposed home location with the applicant and
make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested 90
foot.setback from,the wetlands.
PRB:madlr
attachment
. '
` PLANNING REPORT
[)ATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
28 Juno 1988
88-23
Paul J. Beckmann
East of South Lana, VVaut of
Warrior Pond (see sketch)
Approval of Wetlands Pert -nit
and Variance to Setback
l. Attached is a copy of a site plan prepared by Schoe|{ & Mudson Inc.
indicating the location of a proposed residence to be constructed for the
Becknmann's by Monty Girard, home builder. You will note the proposed
home site is to be setback 30 feet from the public right-of-way as
required, which results in a distance of 90 feet from the bock of the
house to the shoreline of the pond. The requirement, as you know, is
lOO feet.
2. The easterly most extension of the house as indicated on the site plan
is an eating area which is contiguous to the deck on the north side. It
would appear that if one were to oUnninotu the eating area, a distance
of lOO fooL to the pond could be accomplished. However, the design of
the house is not excessive in depth and it would oeonn reasonable to
consider approval of the plan as submitted in view of the resulting 90
foot setback achieved.
3. You will also note that because of the shape of the pond, the setback
to the residence is substantially more than lOO feet.
�. .
� .
HENRY Sou-Ev \ �
Ssm/oe *m* SCHOOL '
/
0 /
/ o
160524-022
SURVEY FOR: MONTY G12Al2D
Prepared By:
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Engineers - Surveyors - Planners - Soils Testing
10550 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, Mn. 55343
Tel. 546-7601
NORTH
M
DESCRIPTION:
Lot q , Block I ,THE PONDS OF MENOOTA
ReIGHTS (cLn unrecorded 1.6+)
GENERAL NOTES:
mer
Ci' -'00 1) o - Denotes iron monument per p6t.
0,2 -' 6l z) Revised June 14, l9ss
1ZP- a
x /to
ag,
Z) x
0 \o e
Q5\
xTr;0r r,)( 0 'S'
A
'Zop
�Droina3e tinct W;I I Tj Gsm4.
orm Sew. over L4 pipe
per W3 of Mendlot ReiShis
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared under my supervision
and that I am a Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State
of Minneso+o .
Theodore D. Kemna
Date: June 14, IckZZ Lic. No. 17006
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 30, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and City
U 4 "ro—r
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Canniff Wetlands Permit
Case No. 88- 25
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission considered the requested 28 foot variance from
the Ponds of Mendota Heights wetlands setack for Lot 5, Block 1. After
considering the fact that the builder is proposing to construct the home in
the location that is shown on the approved preliminary plat and final
grading plan, the Planning Commission approved the 28 foot setback variance.
The Planning Commission felt this was the maximum possible setback given the
existence of a sanitary easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends Council approve the Canniff wetlands
permit.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation
they should pass a motion approving the wetlands permit for Lot 5, Block 1,
The Ponds of Mendota Heights.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 21, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Gill, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 88-25, Canniff, Wetlands Permit
DISCUSSION:
Keith Heaver of Heaver Design and Construction is proposing
to build a house for Kathleen Canniff on Lot 5, Block 1 of The
Ponds of Mendota Heights. He is requesting a wetlands permit to
be able to build the house within 72 feet of the pond. The
outstanding reason for this position on the lot is the presence of
a 30 foot utility easement running through the property. (See
enclosed letter and site plan.)
ACTION REQUIRED
Review the proposed home location with the applicant and make
a recommendation to the City Council on the requested 72 foot
setback from the wetlands.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. ef-.;z s—
Date of Application A-/ 7—oPd'
Fee Paid 414 L
Applicant CA)'Wr- K-k-FPLr,--F-N -
_ � _1-1 J? .IF q
Name. 0i n f�� A
Last First' Initial
Address:)'71-7 KNOR Mrt4DMA H6HT5, MN, sli- I I%
I i Number & Street City I State Zip
4c -l-.., 16
Telephone Number: /--) 7- 0(2
Owner
Name: )--A A
AM W < -r14L-r—r--N
Last . First Initial
Address: P7
& Street
Street Location of Property in Question: I
Legal Description of Property:
f
tate Zip
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
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
28 June 1988
88-25
Kathleen Cann|M
Lot 5, Block l of the Ponds
on Warrior Drive (see sketch)
Variance and VVmdandn Permit
l. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home on e long
narrow lot with frontage on Warrior Pond. The residence is proposed to
be setback 72 feet from the pond and approximately 210 feet from
Warrior Drive, with a driveway of 265 feet in length.
2. The site miopam generally east to west toward the pond' but also from
south to north. For examo1e, the high point is elevation 970
at the
onuth000L corner, but only 981 at the northeast corner. At the
location
of the proposed residence, the elevation is 946 at the,. south
lot Una
and 940 at the north lot line.
^
J. From the aerial photo, it appears that the western two-thirds
of the
site is wooded frorn about the _952 contour west. The
eastern
one-third, or about 140 feat adjacent to Warrior Drive is not
wooded.
The residence and driveway, which appears to be o�or 32 foot
wide on
it approaches the house, are placed in the middle of the wooded
portion
of the site. Our concern is that significant vegetation may
be cut
down or damaged during construction. A detailed plan should
be
submitted showing the n\zo and opou\oo of tcmno to be saved
or cut
down, and techniques to protect existing trees, if such o plan
has not
already been discussed with the Public Works Director.
4. Given the long east -west dimension -of the lot, it is unclear why the
applicant maada a variance to the customary lDO feet setback from the
pond. (]|von the above concern about preserving woodlands, moving the
house to the east away from the pond would eliminate the need for m
variance, oovo trees, and preserve the wooded views across Warrior
Pond, both for the applicant and eur-ound\ng neighbors.
0
�•�,JrJ(1Ai f
,�nq,,Q2m
Q,r�
rFAN
/' 'sL-L-ol ms
oK
a6
•
•
CALL PL •
COURT
ui
9
SUBJECT PROPERTY
0. SIBLEY
SCHOOL
NORTH It HIGH
SCALE 1 =400'
of
f-
DOO
C �111
GENTE
ODGE NATURE
hwt RE
0
0 w
1937 Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 551.1.8
June 17, 1988
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 551.20
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is an application for a variance and wetland permit for Lot 5,
Block 1, The Ponds of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN.
The reason for the variance request is due to the location of the utility
easement. The present pond set back requirement would place the proposed
residence on the easement. We are, therefore, requesting to move the
restdence to the west side of the easement setting the residence approximately
72' from the pond which we feel is the mostt desireable location for the
residence.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Canniff
2
4jjjflpj;tt Jo,
7
Q,
c
I
mb
6
ILI�: i ' �i ' �� ! G I it• b {{ r q ( �{ I {• I I tr. �� It I I� II I i
Ii Fill IIIII!, h
4•t
,Van
Ir
Ii IS a
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TO: Mayor, City Council
MEMO
July 1,
and Cit �d�VW�trator
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Perron Lot Split
DISCUSSION•
1988
Mr. and'Mrs. Perron of 1940 South Lane were before the
Planning Commission in May and the City Council on June 7th
in the hopes of gaining approval of a lot split. The new
lot, which would be just north of their present home, would
have a substandard frontage, 85 feet instead of the minimum
100. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the lot
split, so the Perron's asked for more time to support their
case.
Since that time the Perron's have gathered a petition
from their neighbors, they have met with Howard Dahlgren, and
they have explored possible ways in which they might build a
home on the proposed lot. A cover letter, a copy of the
petition, and a site drawing are attached. Perron's
neighbors, the Goldman's, have sent a letter in protest to
the lot division; it is attached also.
There appears to be no technical reason that a home could not
be constructed on the proposed lot.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff has no recommendation at this time.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Council should make a decision on the viability of the lot
split.
MEMBERS OF TIME CITY COUNCIL:
THIS SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION DRAWING ALTHOUGH SIMPLISTIC IN
NATURE, INDICATES THAT A HOME COULD BE SITED ON THIS LOT AND
FIT WELL WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATIONS,
( GRADES) OFFERS A NEW HOME I31TILDER AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP
WITH A CREATIVE HOME DESIGN. WE HAVE SHOWN ONLY ONE OF MANY .
POSSIBILITIES THAT COULD OCCUR. THIS LOT AND A NEW HOME ON IT,
IN OUR OPINION 'JILL NOT DETER, BUT IN FACT WILL ENHANCE OUR
NFTG1111ORHOOD.
OH/N :T. AND RUTHE E. PF;RR':;'[l? l
t7
4
y
o
tj
I
Af
o
tj
I
0
100
A
4
L
10
+ 70
14
7 j i lid/i
7 i
eoo,,!
!,•!x ( ! ! ! 1
0
50U.T
Sr
1 -41
jE -T Z -E.\JCL P -L-- 0)0
W, LaJr-L CLZ qo4t DATE FPS Dff4,CE 0
u pe, ClL LEOE A, F -L,-' C) 14± /sibs
I MR. & M R S.' j 6 H N P E R
L 4, = 160&0� DRAWN 1940 .SOUTH ;LANEr
& �� s(6, pr, 3
Z) P.kt. FCC SO- r- -T - Comm No. I
m �
To-tAL g.Q.10r. M N -D 0 T'A HEIdHTS.,MNj- t I
July 1, 1988
Mayor Mertensotto
City Council Members
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Re: Perron Preliminary Plat, Case No. 88-15
Dear Mayor Mertensotto, City Council Members:
For purposes of what is hopefully the final meeting on
the issue of the proposed subdivision and variance
concerning the property of Mr. and Mrs. Perron at 1940 South
Lane, Mendota Heights, please consider the following summary
of the situation as I see it to date.
The Perron's seek a subdivision of their lot, in a
manner that would create two lots and necessitate the
granting of a variance allowing one of those lots to have an
85 foot frontage, as opposed to the required 100 foot
frontage. Copies of both Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357
subd. 6(2), and City of Mendota Heights zoning regulations,
section 301, Section 9, are attached. Both of these
provisions govern this situation, and are clearly aimed at
creating guidelines with predictability, definition, and
uniformity for the zoning matters of the City of Mendota
Heights.
Both provisions specifically require under these
circumstances that Mr. Perron demonstrate that there is an
"undue burden" associated with keeping his lot intact, and
that this burden necessitates the subdivision and -variance.
The statute specifically points out that "mere economic
considerations alone are not sufficient economic burden".
Instead, Mr. Perron must show that there are circumstances
peculiar to and caused by the property itself that amount to
an undue burden. Minnesota case law clearly states that the
mere chore of maintaining a large lot similarly does not
amount to such a burden. These interpretations have been
confirmed both by Mr. Dahlgren at the Planning Commission
hearing and by counsel at the City Council meeting.
Mayor Mertensotto
City Council Members
July 1, 1988
Page 2
Therefore it is clear that:
- whether a suitable looking house can or cannot be
built on the site is not relevant. The statutes and
ordinances make absolutely no mention of this being a factor
at all, let alone a determinative one.
- whether a house down the block is or is not being put
on a lot with 83 foot frontage is not relevant (particularly
in view of the fact that staff has Eeen unable to find a
single instance of such a variance granted anywhere in the
neighborhood since at least 1972). Either that lot has
somehow been properly platted for reasons peculiar to its
situation, or it was an error to plat it. Likewise, Mr.
Perron's request should be granted if there are proper
reasons peculiar to his situation, or it would be an error
to grant it.
- whether, as Mr. Perron argues, any member of the
Planning Commission's comments 'swayed' any other member's
position is not relevant (particularly in view of the fact
that such persuasion was likely and properly the exact
purpose of such comments).
- whether the Perrons can, if need be, provide a
petition of 'everybody else' in the area, and get those
people to attend a hearing is not relevant (particulary in
view of the fact that in spited ample notice of the prior
hearings and of opposition thereto, the only parties that
have cared enough to have attended each hearing and speak on
the subject, other than the Perron's themselves, have been
neighbors in opposition to the matter).
- whether the Perrons are suffering economic hardship
because Mrs. Perron is being laid off from Unisys is not
relevant, or at least is no more relevant than the fact that
they have been able to recently purchase a large new
Recreational Vehicle having a value of well over $20,000.
What is clear, and was clear to the Planning Commission
in their unanimous denial of this application, is that the
only relevant question under the statutes, ordinances and
regulations that govern this matter is whether the Perrons
have made the proper showing of facts and circumstances
necessary. The City of Mendota Heights is obligated to not
approve of the variance unless such a showing is made.
Mayor Mertensotto
City Council Members
July 1, 1988
Page 3
Anything short of this, and the City would be acting
under an entirely different set of criteria than those set
forth under the statute and ordinance. In that event, I
would hope that the City would spell out and presumably
follow these new criteria with the same clarity that the
statutes are currently set forth and expected to be
followed.
I would personally be very interested in knowing what
those criteria are, since my lot is exactly the same size as
the Perron's, and in fact much more suitable for subdivision
and for building a new house. I see absolutely no argument
that Mr. Perron can make in favor of the subdivision of his
lot that I cannot also make (right down to and including
having a wife who is being laid off from Unisys). I would
expect therefore that the City could not possibly deny me
from subdividing my lot as well. Therefore, I would
essentially be forced to join in the rush that would
certainly ensue by many owners with large lots (and weak
reasons) to join in the fray by splitting their lots and
squeezing in new houses.
It is extremely unfortunate, but the Perrons have taken
our interest in this matter personally, to the point where
they have stated that they vehemently consider themselves
"enemies" of those who have spoken out against their
application. We are very saddened by this, since we simply
intend to live as quietly and peaceably as we can in our new
home, while at the same time ensuring that the spirit of the
zoning laws are enforced as they affect our home. We hope,
regardless of the outcome, that their attitude is tempered
over time.
We implore the City Council to make a final
determination at the next meeting. The longer this issue is
allowed to linger on and veer into irrelevant issues, the
more deeply we are forced into this confrontation, and the
more resentful the Perrons become of us.
Vey-* Vuly yo S,
G� t
Phili Goldman
1926 South Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
§ •161.356
Nota 1
Where planning commission had recommended
cuiwtruedon of bridges and had instituted action
un its own initiative to amend city's land use
flan w provide for them, city, which referred
matter of acquisition of land required for road-
way connecting bridges to planning commission,
.:nd which approved the acquisition during time
h.: ring was held in taxpayer's action to enjoin
construction of the bridges, complied with re-
quirements of statute that planning agency,
which was to be advisory to city council, review
acquibidun and disposal of property prior to au-
thurizatiou thereof. Id.
A st.,tutory city may, through its zoning code,
regulate land use of property owned by a school
district which is no longer used as a public
school to the extent that ordinance relating
thereto would be reasonable. Op.Atty.Gen., No.
59a-32, October 24, 1980.
Proposed acquisition of real property for inter-
staw or state trunk highway construction should
be referred to the planning agency created by
the municipality under § 462.354 prior to the
PLANNING, ZONING
acquisition of the property. Op.Atty.Gen., 63-b-
24, Dec. 9, 1971.
City could not enforce zoning ordinance
against school property where the ordinance was
in conflict with the lawful exercise of state con-
trol prescribed by § 121.15, but the city could
enforce an ordinance against school property
which was not in conflict with the provisions of
the cited suitute. Op.Atty.Gen., 59-a-32, Sept.
25, 1969.
A press box constructed on a school athletic
field would not be a school building within the
meaning of § 121.15, and would be subject to the
zoning regulations of the municipality. Id.
School boards would be required to advise a
planning agency in those municipalities which
have a comprehensive municipal plan of their
plans to acquire, dispose of or improve the
school district property, but the planning agency
could not compel the school district to comply
with its plans for community development. Op.
Atty.Gen., 161-b, Aug. 8, 1966.
Flti2.357. Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning
Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health,
. afety, morals and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the
earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location,
height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other
su•uctures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open
spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for
trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of
land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation,
water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in section 105.485,
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section 116J.06, flood
control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating such
uses. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section
1161.06, subdivision 2, or manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31
to 327.35 that comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this
section. The regulations may divide the surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of
the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape and area. The
regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures or land and for
each class or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may
differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be
known as the zoning ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by
ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory
located within two miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which
has adopted zoning regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous munici-
palities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the
zoning of land on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipali-
ties unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted' zoning regulations. Any
City may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such
property were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a
comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area.
Subd. 2. General requirements. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for
the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and
goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the
governing body with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the requirements of
116
PLANNING, 'ZONING § 462.357
subdivisions 3, 4 and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a
two-thirds vote of all its members. If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with
the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan.
Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be
adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by .the planning agency or by the
governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published
in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the
hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area
of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of
the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly
within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. -For the purpose of
giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropri-
ate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a
list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the
responsible person and shall be made a part of the records 'of the proceedings. The
failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall
not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivi-
sion has been made.
Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the
governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as
defined in the zoning ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the planning agency
shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study and report and may not
be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the
planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date
of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency.
Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this
subdivision apply to cities of the first class. In such cities amendments -to a zoning
ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have
been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of.tvro-thirds of
the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous
descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such
contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote
in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city.
The governing body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing,
adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever• the pl4nning
commission or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of
the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the
amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and
shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such
changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and
such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its
opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the
overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and
shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations,
of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general
circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing,
which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have
reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing.
Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments
may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions
imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the
following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: i.
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforce-
ment of the zoning ordinance.
117
3 •162.:357 PLANNING, ZONING
(2) `1'o hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
wstances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circum-
nlances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances
only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance
.Means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
.,lloaacd by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
,iiailue to the property nut created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not
.dt,.r the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not
,,1iStitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of
;fie ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to
throe[ sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered
,unstruction as defined in section 116106, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the
ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may
be, may out permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for
property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing
body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family
.hulling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may
inipose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect
.«ijaceut properties.
SuLd. Iia. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children should
out be excluded by municipal coning ordinances or other land use regulations from the
benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9,
"person" has the meaning given in section 245.782, subdivision 2.
subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility serving six
or fewer persons or a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons shall be
cottnidered :t permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of
toning.
Subd. S. Permitted multifamily use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, munici-
pal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed
residenwal facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care facility
ening from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily resi-
dential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning
"athortty May require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper
mamtr.nance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on
*lie facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or
special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are
kucessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility.
::othing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities
[ruin single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation.
I -%tis limb-, c. 670, § 7, eff. Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Laws 1969, c. 259, § 1 eff. May 1, 1969; Iaws
u,;1, e. 123. art. 5, § 7; L-aws 1973, c. 379, § 4, eff. July 1, 1973; Laws 1973, e. 539, § 1; Laws 1973,
L. 55J, §§ 1, _; Laws 1975, c. 60, § 2; Laws 1978, c. 786, §§ 14, 15, eff. April 6, 1978; Laws 1979,
Y:x.`ens., c. °, §§ 42, 43; Laws 1981, c. 356, § 218; Laws 1982, c. 490, § 2 Laws 1982, c. 507, § 22,
Elf Jan. 1, 19ts2; Laws 1984, c. 617, §§ 6 to 8, eff. May 3, 1984; Laws 1985, c. 62, § 3, eff. July 1,
lliha; Lawn 1985, c. 194, § 23; Laws 1986, c. 444.
1969 Amendment. Added the last two sen- Laws 1973, c. 379, included within the pur-
.ences w subd. 1 relating to extension of zoning poses for zoning, "conservation of shorelands, as
regulations into unincorporated areas. defined in section 105.485," and added subd. 8
1973 Amendments. Laws 1973, c. 123, art. 5, delineating the extent of that authority.
7, was a general authority permitting the con- Laws 1973, c. 539, inserted the third sentxnce
.ulidaduw of the terms "villages" and "bor- of subd. 6(2).
oughs" inw the term "cities" or the substitution Laws 1973, c. 559, increased area in which
of the worm "statutory cities" for "villages" notice must be sent to owners property from 200
.,ndior "boroughs." to 350 feet from the property to which the
118
PLANNING, 'ZONING
amendment relates in subd. 3, and in subd. 5
substituted "total contiguous descriptions of real
estate held by the same owner or any party
purchasing any contiguous property within one
year preceding the request" for "real estate
affected" in subd. 5.
1975 Amendment. Added subds. 7 and 8.
Laws 1975, c. 60, § 3, provides that the act
became effective the day following final enact-
ment. (Governor's approval April 30, 1975)
1978 Amendment. Added "access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in
section 116H.02" within the first sentence of
subd. 1. Added the second sentence to subd.
6(2).
1979 Amendment. Added the second sentence
to subd. 1, and the third sentence to subd. 6(2).
Laws 1979, Ex.Sess., c. 2 did not contain a
specific effective date, but did include appropria-
tion items. See § 645.02 for method of deter-
mining the effective date.
1981 Amendment. Laws 1981, c. 356, § 248,
directed the revisor of statutes to renumber and
to substitute terminology with reference tothe
centralization of the powers and duties of the
commissioner of energy, planning and develop-
ment in one chapter.
1982 Amendments. Laws 1982, c. 490, added
width and type of foundation to the subject
matter of ordinances in subd. 1, and added "or
manufactured homes built in conformance with
sections 327.31 to 327.35" near the end of the
first sentence of subd. 1.
Laws 1982, c. 490, did not contain appropria-
tion items or a specific effective date. See
§ 645.02 for method of determining the effective
date.
Laws 1982, c. 507, added the second and third
sentences to subd. 6(2) relating to undue hard-
ship.
1984 Amendment. Added subd. 6a pertaining
to state policy; rewrote subd. 7; and in subd. 8
in the first sentence deleted "mentally retarded
or physically handicapped" following "7 through
16" and inserted "or a licensed day care facility
serving from 13 through 16 persons", in the
second sentence substituted "facility" for
"home" following "imposed on the" and deleted
"for the mentally retarded or the physically
handicapped" at the end of the sentence, and in
the last sentence substituted "or day care facili-
ties" for "homes for the mentally retarded o
physically handicapped".
Prior to revision, subd. 7 read:
"In order to implement the policy of this state
that mentally retarded and physically handi-
capped persons should not be excluded by munic-
ipal zoning ordinances from the benefits of nor-
mal
o
mal residential surroundings, a state license
group home or foster home serving six or fewer
mentally retarded or physically handicapped per
e
sons shall be considered a permitted single fam
ly residential use of property for the purposes of
zoning."
1985 Amendments. Laws 1985, c. 62, § 3, in
subd. 2 added the last sentence.
Laws 1985, c. 194, § 23, in subd. 1 inserted "on
the earth's surface, in the air space above the,
surface, and in subsurface areas' in the first
sentence and inserted "surface, above surface,
and subsurface areas of the" in the third sen-
tence.
1986 Amendment. Laws 1986, c. 444, § 1,
removed gender specific references applicable to
human beings throughout Minn. Stats. by adopt-
ing by reference proposed amendments for such
revision prepared by the revisor of statutes pur-
suant to Laws 1984, c. 480, § 21, and certified
and filed with the secretary of state on Jan. 24,
1986. Section 3 of Laws 1986, c. 444, provides
that the amendments "do not change the sub-
stance of the statutes amended."
Cross References
Extent of municipal authority relating to
shoreland development beyond state standards,
see § 105.485.
Law Review Commentaries
Impact of energy legislation on real estate.
Desyl L. Peterson. 37 Bench and Bar No. 4, p.
35 (Oct. 1980).
Impact of variances. David P. Bryden. 1977,
61 Minn. Law Review 769.
Land use controls. Jerome F. Fitzgerald.' 24
Bench and Bar No. 2, p. 17 (Feb. 1967).
Metropolitan council and land -use planning.
Robert L. Hoffman and Oliver Byrum, Novem-
ber -December 1976, 45 Hennepin Lawyer 4.
Minnesota's Flood Plain Management Act -
State guidance of land use controls. 1971, 55
Minn. Law Review 1163.
Subjectivity, expression, and privacy: Prob-
lems of aesthetic regulation. Stephen F.
Williams. 1977, 62 Minn. Law Review 1.
Zoning: Minnesota supreme court 1971-1972.
1973, 57 Minn. Law Review 940.
Library References
Municipal Corporations 4-601.1.
Zoning and Land Planning 4---4, 134, 151 et
seq., 351, 354.
r C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 224, 225.
CJ.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 3, 5 to 7,
10, 12 to 14, 16, 65, 67, 71, 97, 177, 180 to
186, 189.
United States Supreme Court
r Occupancy of one -family dwellings by tra&
d tional groups, see Village of Belle Terre Y. Bo-
raas, 1974, 94 S.CL 1536, 416 U.S. 1, 39 L.Ed.2d
797.
119
SECTION 9 VARIANCES
9.1 GENERAL.
9.1 (1) The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the pro-
visions of this Ordinance when, in its opinion, undue hardship may
result from strict compliance. In recommending any variance, the
Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems necessary to
or desirable for the public interest. in making its recommendations,
the Planning Commission shall take into account the nature of the pro-
posed use of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number
of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable
effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity.
A variance shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds:
(a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting
said property such that the strict application of the provisions
.of this Ordinance would deprive the, -applicant of the reasonable
use of his land.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
' which property is situated.
(c) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an
extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc.
After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendations, the
City Council may grant variances, subject to (a), (b) and (c)
immediately above.
9.1 (2) Any recommendations for variances to the City Council in connection with
the acceptance of the Final Plat of a subdivision shall be made through the
Planning Commission.
(341) 25
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JULY 1, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. City Administrator
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 88-19, C.G. Rein Apartments
INTRODUCTION•
At the June 7 meeting, Council held a public hearing
concerning the application of C.G. Rein for a 106 unit
apartment complex on Outlot A of the Mendakota Estates
Planned Unit Development. The public hearing was closed, and
a decision tabled to the meeting of July 5 to resolve park,
driveway access, and right-of-way setback issues. Council
may wish to review the materials from the June 7 meeting, and
bring them along to this meeting.
REVISED PLAN:
Attached is the revised site plan as submitted by the
developer. Three changes have been made:
1. A 100 foot setback from the Dodd Road right-of-way
has been accommodated as requested by Council.
2. To achieve the setback, the entire structure has
been rotated slightly clockwise.
3. The parking lot layout has been reconfigured, per
Howard Dahlgren's recommendation, taking out the
center drive lane, and replacing it with drive lanes
at the two ends of the parking lot.
PARK DEDICATION ISSUE:
As requested, the matter of the 1.67 acre park
dedication was referred to the Parks Commission at its June
meeting. After some deliberation, the Commission voted
unanimously to accept the additional 1.67 acres. It was the
Commission's feeling that since the City already owns and will
have to maintain the park that was previously dedicated, the
additional land might as well be in public ownership also, so
that all residents of the City can use the property. The
Commission was uncertain whether it wished to endorse the
idea of the gazebo, and the developer indicated his
willingness to put some other improvement in if the
Commission preferred. Council will notice that later in this
evening's agenda, there is a recommendation that Barton-
Aschman be hired to do a master plan on this park as well as
two other newly dedicated parks in the City.
In other action, the Parks Commission voted unanimously
to endorse the developers proposal to have driveway access
from the project directly onto Dodd Road. The Commission did
not wish to have a roadway crossing the dedicated park
property.
OTHER ISSUES•
Driveway Access - Council did ask that the developer
place the driveway access on Mendakota Drive, rather than
directly on Dodd Road. However, after the meeting with the
Parks Commission, the developer felt that the access should
remain on Dodd Road. The traffic consultant will be present
at Tuesday's meeting to present their recommendation, and
answer Council questions.
Height Requirements - Attached is a letter which we have
received from John E. Moy, 796 Hokah Avenue, indicating that
he feels the proposal is inconsistent with the dwelling
height requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is not
familiar with any provision of the Comprehensive Plan which
limits residential height structure to no more than two
stories. Perhaps Mr. Moy is referring to the requirements of
the R-1 zoning district, in Ordinance 401. However, the PUD
section of the ordinance (copy attached) explicitly states
that substantial variances from height regulations may be
granted in a PUD. Staff has also attached the section of the
Comprehensive Plan indicating that density requirements in
designated areas of the City "shall not be interpreted as
requiring only one type of dwelling or a specific
architectural type. Differing housing styles and types are
to be permitted where appropriate under the planned unit
development provisions of the zoning ordinance."
NECESSARY FINDINGS UNDER THE PUD ORDINANCE
Since the June meeting, Mayor Mertensotto has had an
opportunity to review the original Mendakota Estates
application of 1986, under which this Outlot was planned for
construction of up to 106 multi -family dwelling units.
Section 19.2 of the zoning ordinance sets forth specific
findings that must be made in approving a planned unit
development. The Mayor indicates that the record to date
does not adequately document these findings. Staff concurs
that we could do a better job of making the implicit more
explicit. The attached'proposed resolution approving this
project has "beefed up" the findings section to be consistent
with the PUD ordinance. The resolution also incorporates the
conditions for approval that were recommended by City Planner
Howard Dahlgren and the Planning Commission.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If, after the discussion, Council wishes to approve the
project, it should pass a motion approving attached
Resolution No 88-_, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" for the Heights of
Mendota Limited Partnership to construct 106 apartment units
on Outlot A, Mendakota Estates PUD. Council may have
additional findings or conditions that it wishes to have
incorporated in the resolution before adoption.
KDF:madlr
attachments
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Heights of Mendota Limited Partnership has
applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development to construct 106 apartments on Outlot A,
Mendakota Estates PUD, previously approved by Resolution No.
86-51; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have
held the required public hearings to consider the application
and citizen input.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights, that the following findings are made
concerning the application:
1. The Planned Unit Development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the community, specifically
that section allowing housing styles and types
different than specified in the underlying zoning
under the planned unit development provision of the
zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 401.
2. The Planned Unit Development, coupled with the
overall plans for the previously approved Mendakota
Estates planned unit development and surrounding
land uses, is an effective and unified treatment of
the development possibilities for this property.
3. The proposed Planned Unit Development harmonizes
with existing and proposed development in areas
surrounding the project site, including a country
club clubhouse and fairways, city fire station,
commercial development, high powered electrical
transmission lines and substation, a State trunk
highway, and single family neighborhoods.
4. The C.G. Rein Company, financial backer of the
project, has a demonstrated record of financial
capability to complete projects of this scale.
5. The total number of dwelling units in the project,
as a part of the larger Mendakota Estates planned
unit development project, is consistent with the
number of units allowed by the underlying R-1 zoning
designation on the property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights that, based on the above findings, the
conditional use permit for the proposed project is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the project is developed in accordance with
drawings as submitted.
2. That 1.67 acres of property be dedicated to the City
as public park land, as shown in the application
materials.
3. That final engineering and landscaping plans be
approved by the City staff, with special attention
being given to the landscaping in the southeast part
of the site to protect as much as possible single
family neighborhoods to the south and east.
4. That the building material be brick as indicated on
the building elevation materials submitted.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights
this 5th day of July, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
JUN 1 7 10
Mayor and City Council of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights City Hall
RE: Proposed C.G.Rein apartment complex on Dodd Road
Dear Mayor and Council,
The thhee-story, 106 -unit C.G. Rein appartment
complex violates the Mendota Heights zoning
ordinance #19.2(1)a, "The Planned Unit Development
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
community." The Comprehensive Plan of the community
for dwellings is now one and two stories.
Yours truly,
ohn E.'Moy
796 Hokah Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55520-1661
-e,t� Id 6 -/ -7- dy (F
3-, .1-3 if -n
these general density policies will be further delineated and implemented through application of
_ the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance, which will permit the establishment of a more
definitive range. This can best be determined at the time each project and area is proposed for
development.
Density requirements shall not be interpreted as requiring only one type of dwelling or a specific
architectural style. Different housing styles and types are to be permitted where appropriate
under the Planned Unit Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL USES
Business and commercial uses have been divided into two categories. The first category, listed
It as "Business" would include normal retail support functions which include neighborhood type
convenience service centers.
INThe second category of commercial land uses would consist of those which are generally considered
to be of a limited business nature. The most common limited business is comprised of office and
similar uses. The "Limited Business District" emphasizes well designed structures on adequate
' sites with quality landscaping and parking areas on-site to provide an overall attractive setting.
Mendota Heights has a limited amount of Business and Limited Business areas as shown on the Land
Use Plan. Further expansion of business and commercial uses are generally confined to the
existing area of business development. The only undeveloped areas proposed for business use are
in the southwest sector of the City at the intersection of State Highway 55 and Mendota Heights
Road.
Because of the limited amount of commercial land in Mendota Heights, it is important that existing
and future uses be carefully planned and maintained to provide quality services to City residents.
D.. INDUSTRIAL USES
JW The industrial area in Mendota Heights lies in the southwest sector of the City, generally west
of State Highway 55, north of Interstate 494 (proposed), and south of Acacia Park Cemetery. The
area is served by the Chicago -Milwaukee -Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad and it has good access to
State Highway 13 and 55, as well as the proposed Interstate 494 and Interstate 35E.
34
SECTION 19. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
19.1 Purpose and Definition
This Section establishes provisions for the granting of
a conditional use permit to provide for a Planned Unit
Development project. The purpose of the Planned Unit
Development is to encourage a flexibility in the design
and development of land in order to promote its appropriate
use; to facilitate the adequate and economical provisions
of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural
and scenic qualities for open areas. A Planned Unit
Development shall be defined as any project utilizing
ten (10) or more acres of contiguous land wherein there
is (a) more than one (1) principal building per lot, or
(b) more than one (1) use per lot.
19.2 Approval and Administration
19.2(1) The Planned Unit'Development may be approved only if it
satisfies all the following standards:
19.2(1)a The Planned Unit Development is consistent with the
Coniprehensive Plan of the community.
19.2(1)b The Planned Unit Development is an effective and unified
treatment of the development possibilities on the project
site and the development plan provisions for the preservation
of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream
banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas.
19.2(1)c The Planned
anned Unit Development can be planned and developed
to harmonize with any existing or proposed development
in the areas surrounding the project site.
19.2(1)d Financing is available to the applicant on conditions
and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion
of the Planned Unit Development.
19.2(2) In the Planned Unit Development the number of dwelling
units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the
total number permitted under the density control provisions
of the zoning district(s) in which the land is located.
If the Planned Unit Development is in more than one (1 ' )
zoning district, the number of allowable dwelling units
must be separately calculated for each portion of the
Planned Unit Development that is in a separate zone, and
must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling
units allowable in the entire Planned Unit Development.
(401) 90
19.2(3) The Planning Commission shall determine the number of
dwelling units which may be constructed within the Planned
Unit Development by dividing the net acreage of the project
area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which .is
required in the district which the Planned Unit Development
is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the
project area less the land area dedicated. for public
streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to
the City for public parks.
The project area includes all the land within the Planned
Unit Development which is allocated for residential uses,
or for common open space as defined in this Ordinance.
Land to be dedicated for public streets is to be excluded
from the project area.
19.2(4) Coordination with Subdivision Control Ordinance.
19.2(4)a It is the intent of this Ordinance that subdivision
review under the subdivision control ordinance be
carried out simultaneously with the review of a Planned
Development under this chapter of the Zoning Ordinance.
19.2(4)b The plans required under this section of the Ordinance
must be submitted in a form which will satisfy the
requirements of the subdivision control ordinance for
the preliminary and final plans required under those
regulations.
19.2(4)c Performance Bond: The subdivider shall furnish a public
contractor's performance bond as prescribed by Minnesota
Statutes, with corporate surety in a penal sum equal to
125 percent of the Engineer's cost estimate for the
required improvements to be furnished and/or installed
by the subdivider. The performance bond shall be approved
by the Attorney prior to its acceptance.
A certified check shall be submitted by the subdivider_
for the estimated inspection costs of the required improve-
ments to be furnished and/or installed by the subdivider.
Said check is to be submitted at. the time of the submission
of the performance bond.
19.2(5) All other development regulations not specified in the
Planned Unit Development Section or specified as a
condition to the conditional use permit shall apply as
regulated in the zoning district in which the Planned
Unit Development would be located.
(403) 91.
19.2(6) It is the intent of this Section, Planned Unit Development,
to provide a means to allow substantial variances from
the provisions of this Ordinance �inclu*ding�
uses, setbacks,
he! fight, and similar ulations not including par - requirements, off-street loading , _necessary landscaping,
and the like. Variances may be granted for the Planned
Unit Developments provided:
19.2(6)a Certain regulations contained in this Ordinance do not
realistically apply to the proposed development due to
the unique nature of the proposed development.
19.2(6)b The variances, if granted, would be fully consistent with
the general intent and purpose of this ordinance.
19.2(6)c The Planned Unit Development would produce urban develop-
ment and urban environment of equal or superior quality
to that which would result from strict adherence to the
provision of this Ordinance.
19.2(6)d The variances will not constitute a threat to the property
values, safety, health, and general welfare of the owners
or occupants of adjacent or nearby land, nor be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the people of the community.
19.2(6)e The proposed development is of such a unique nature as
to require consideration under conditions of the Planned
Unit Development.
19.2(6)f It shall be determined that the variances are required
for a ' reasonable and practical physical development
according to a comprehensive development plan and are
not required solely on the basis of financial considerations
19.3 Pre -Application Conference
Before submitting an application for a Planned Unit
Development, an applicant at his option may confer witi
the Planning Commission to obtain info ' rmation and guidance
before entering into binding commitments or incurring
substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys,
and other data.
19.4 Sketch Plan
19.4(1) An applicant shall make application for a conditional
use permit for the approval of a Planned Unit Development
in accordance with Section 5.6 of this Ordinance. The
applicant will accompany his application with a sketch
plan as specified in this section.
(4011) 92
19.4(2) A sketch plan must include both maps and a written
statement, and must show enough of the area. surrounding
the proposed Planned Unit Development to demonstrate the
relationship of the Planned Unit Development to adjoining
uses, both existing and proposed.
19.4(3) The maps which are part of the sketch plan may be in
general schematic form, and must contain the following
information:
-"' 19.4(3)a The existing topographic character of the land.
19.4(3)b Existing and proposed land uses and the approxima'--
location of buildings, utilities, and l-u-n-i-q`u6development
f -e- 5-- F u -r -e -s- 7 F r - T Me —s I to .
19.4(3)c The location of major. thoroughfares.
19.4(3)d Public uses, including schools, parks, playgrounds, and
other open spaces.
19.4(4) The written statement to accompany the sketch plan must
contain the following information:
19.4(4)a An explanation of the character of the Planned Development
and the manner in which it has been planned to take
advantage of the Planned Development regulations.
19.4(4)b A statement of proposed financing.
19.4(4)c A statement of the present ownership of all of the land
included within the Planned Development.
19.4(4)d A general indication of the expected schedule of development
including progressive phasing and time schedules.
19.4(4)e The character and approximate density of dwelling units.
19.4(4)f Estimated industrial acreage and projected employment.
19.4(4)g Estimated square footage of commercial development.
19.4(4)h Estimated amount of developed open space.
19.5 Approval of the Sketch Plan
19.5(1) The Planning Commission shall. make recommendations regarding
the Sketch Plan indicating approval, disapproval, or
approval with modifications, and give the reasons for
these recommendations.
(401) 93
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JULY 1, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D , City Administrator
SUBJECT: Curley's Tot Lot Improvements
At its meeting of June 7, Council considered the request of
residents from the Curley's Valley View neighborhood to install
"tot lot" type park improvements on Lot 10, currently owned by the
City. Council may wish to review the materials which were
submitted to it at that meeting. Council took no action on June
7, but indicated its intent to discuss the issue further with the
Parks Commission, and tabled the matter to a future meeting.
In joint session between the Parks Commission and the City
Council on June 14, there was a vigorous discussion of what to do
with this property, and what alternatives might reasonably be
followed. Staff's understanding is that the final concensus was
that the City would offer to put a small amount of money ($4-
5,000) into a tot lot structure on the land with the understanding
that the neighborhood association would be responsible for
construction labor and maintenance of the property. The property
improvements however, would remain in City ownership.
For further Council background study, I am attaching a copy
of a memo which I wrote to the Parks Commission for their April 8
meeting, along with backup materials which provide a history of
the deliberations about this lot.
As indicated in Jim Danielson's memo of June 1 (submitted to
Council with the June 7 packet), staff recommends that if Council
approves this expenditure and development plan, a developer's
agreement should be prepared outlining such things as duties of
the City, duties of the neighborhood, etc. Included would be a
provision of City approval for the play structure placed on the
lot, and final acceptance of the work by the City. As the
neighborhood does not have an established neighborhood
association, the developer's agreement would probably have to be
between the City and two or three neighborhood representatives.
Members of the neighborhood will be present to discuss this
issue with Council.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Council should discuss the proposal with the neighbors, and
direct staff to take whatever actions it deems appropriate.
KDF:madlr
attachments
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 30, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fra40ity Administrator
SUBJECT: Contract with Barton-Aschman for Park Landscape and
Park Master Plans
At the June 21 meeting, Council authorized a contract
with Barton-Aschman for preparation of park landscape plans
in the amount of $13,850. This Council action was based on a
recommendation from the Parks Commission and staff, after
reviewing proposals from Barton-Aschman, Jim Sanders
Associates, and Damon Farber Associates.
As Council is aware, we have a -dedicated parks in the
City for which we have no plans, Hagstrom-King, Victoria
Highlands, and the one in the Mendakota Estates PUD. During
the discussion on the 21stCouncil asked that I solicit a
proposal from Barton-Aschman to prepare master facility and
layout plans for these parks. They have revised their
contract to include this work at an additional charge of
$6,800. The contract incorporating both projects is attached
for your review.
Council may recall that the Centex Corporation is going
to do some of the improvements to Hagstrom-King park. They
are eager to have the City come up with a master plan, so
that the improvements can be planned and put in place.
Because time is of the essence, I decided not to hold this
Barton-Aschman proposal until the next parks commission
agenda. However, I did poll the Parks Commissioners by
telephone, and the four I reached (Leffert, Damberg,
Lachenmayer, and Huber) all agreed that they would be in
support of having Barton-Aschman do this work as well. I was
not able to reach the other three commissioners.
There is a fourth neighborhood park being planned in the
City, that in the Kensington PUD development south of Mendota
Heights Road. However, the subcommittee of Councilmembers
Blesener and Witt and Parks Commissioners Huber and
Lachenmayer are currently in discussions with the developers
on the exact amount of the park land dedication in this
project. Therefore, it is really too early to be concerned
about detailed master plans, so that park is not included in
the attached proposal.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is the recommendation of staff, and of the four parks
commissioners I reached by telephone, that the Council enter
the contract for both the park landscaping plans and the
neighborhood park master plans as proposed.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs in the recommendation, it should pass
a motion approving the contract with Barton-Aschman
Associates for preparation of park landscape plans and
neighborhood park master plans.
KDF:madlr
attachments
• ISI I1• V' 1 N It 11 1 V'
• I: W 0 � 11 I• yl• I -
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , ,
by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, hereinafter referred to as the
CITY and BARION ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, a Minnesota corporation
with a regular place of business at 1610 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis,
MN, 55454, hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT.
WITNESSETH:
That the CITY and the CONSULTANT, for the consideration hereinafter named,
agree as follows:
That the CITY agrees to and hereby does retain and employ the CONSULTANT and
the CONSULTANT agrees to perform Professional Services hereinafter mentioned
upon the project, entitled Preparation of Park Landscape Plans and
Neighborhood Park Master Plans, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT and
more particularly described in attached Attachment A and B, a part hereof.
P.11.14 V IL44 rISI
The CONSULTANT shall attend and/or conduct up to three meetings with the
CITY, its coamni.ssion's or the general public. These meetings shall include:
All additional meetings, other than those requested by the CONSULTANT, shall
be determined to be additional service and billed on a time and expenses
basis incurred by the CONSULTANT.
The CONSULTANT agrees that work under this Agreement will begin within seven
days after receipt of Authorization to Proceed. The term of the Agreement
for the performance of services hereunder shall be 100 calendar days for the
scope of services as described in Attachment A and B; and following the date
of Authorization to Proceed. In this regard, it is agreed that the "not to
exceed" payment figure set forth in Article 4 herein has been established in
anticipation of an orderly and continuous progress of the PROJECT through
ccimpletion of the work.
ARTICLE 4. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT
4.10 Method of Payment
4.11 The CITY shall pay to the CONSULTANT for services performed in
accordance with this Agreement as follows:
4.11.1 Payment to the CONSULTANT for services described in Attachment A and
B of this Agreement shall be on a upset maxim m cost not to exceed basis for
1
the hours actually spent thereon for the persons in the following
classifications at the following ranges in hourly rates. These rates
include compensation for all salary costs, payroll burden, general and
administrative overhead and professional fee.
Classification Hour Billing Rates
Principal Associate $65-75
Senior Associate 45-65
Associates 35-55
Technicians/Draftsman 30-40
Clerical and Other Support Staff 25-35
Periodic revisions to the above rates shall be submitted by the CONSULTANT
to the CITY for acknowledgment.
4.11.2 The CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed at cost for the Direct Expenses
when incurred in the performance of the work including computer services,
travel and expenses, reproduction and photographic costs and the like.
4.11.3 The CITY shall make monthly payments to the CONSULTANT within 30
days of date of invoice based on computations made in accordance with the
above charges for services provided and expenses incurred to date,
accompanied by supporting evidence as required.
4.11.4 Payment to the CONSULTANT for services set forth in Attachment A and
B of this Agreement, computed in accordance with those tasks described,
shall not exceed $13,850 for Park Landscape Plans and $6,800 for
Neighborhood Park Master Plans, unless formally changed by Supplemental
Agreement for extra work or changed conditions. Additionally, in the event
that services are provided by the CONSULTANT beyond the contract completion
date as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, the
"not to exceed" payment figure shall be subject to an upward adjustment
established by Supplemental Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article
5.
If the CONSULTANT is of the opinion that any work they have been directed to
perform is beyond the Scope of this Agreement, or that the level of effort
required significantly exceeds that estimated due to changed conditions and
thereby constitutes extra work, they shall promptly notify the CITY of that
fact. Extra work, additional compensation for same, and extension of time
for completion shall be covered by a Supplemental Agreement entered into by
both parties prior to proceeding with any extra work or related
expenditures.
The contract documents shall be deemed to include this Agreement with all
accompanying exhibits as part hereof.
N
• '� M : • •• I HASM • ' 1 O'1 11 I• •
Either Party has the right to terminate this Agreement upon seven days'
written notice. In addition, the CITY may at any time reduce the scope of
this Agreement. Such reduction in scrape shall be set forth in written
notice from the CITY to the CONSULTANT. In the event of unresolved dispute
aver change in scope or changed conditions, this agreement may also be
terminated.
In the event of termination, all documents finished or unfinished, prepared
by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall be made available by the
CONSULTANT to the CITY pursuant to Article 7, and there shall be no further
obligation of the CITY to the CONSULTANT under this Agreement, except for
payment of amounts due and owing for work performed and expenses incur to
the date and time of termination, camputed in accordance with Article 4.
In the event of a reduction in scope of the Project work, the CONSULTANT
shall maks available to the CITY all maps, tracings, reports, resource
materials and other documents pertaining to the work or the PROTECT. All
such docimlents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by
the CITY or others on extensions of the PROJECT or any other project. Any
such reuse without written verification or adaptation by the CONSULTANT for
the specific purpose intended will be at the CITY's sole risk and without
liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT.
ARTICLE 8. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
8.10 To permit the CONSULTANT to perform the services required hereunder,
the CITY shall supply, in proper time and sequence, the following at no
expense to the CONSULTANT.
8.10.2 Designate in writing a person to act as CITY's representative with
respect to the services to be rendered under this Agreement. Such person
shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive instructions, receive
information, and interpret and define CTTY's policies with respect to the
CONSULTANT's services.
8.10.3 Furnish, as required for performance of the,CONSULTANT services
(except to the extent provided otherwise in Attadunelts A and B), existing
data prepared by or services of others, including site boundary and
topographic survey, soils information including borings as available, public
utility location and sizing, property ownership, public easements and any
information relating to or describing the prescribed parks, their physical
characteristics, engineering data or neighborhood requirements.
8.10.4 Provide access to and maks all provision for the CONSULTANT to enter
upon publicly owned property as required to perform the work.
8.10.5 Act as liaison with other agencies to carry out necessary
coordination and negotiations.
3
8.10.6 Examine all reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, and other
documents prepared and presented by the OONSULTARr, obtain advice of an
attorney, insurance counselor or others as the C= deems necessary for such
examination, and render in writing, decisions pertaining thereto within a
reasonable time so as not to delay the services of the CONSULTANT.
8.10.7 Give prompt written notice to the CONSULTANT whenever the CITY
observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the
scope of timing of the ODNSULTANT's services or any defect in work of the
CONSULTANT. .
8.10.8 Provide available "record" drawings and specifications for all
existing physical plants or facilities that are pertinent to the PRWECr.
8.10.9 Provide other services, materials or data as may be set forth in
Attachment A and B.
8.11 The CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy of
completeness of information furnished by the CITY. If the CONSULTANT finds
that any information furnished by the CITY -is in error or is inadequate for
its purpose, the CONSULTANT shall promptly notify the CITY.
AIRTICIE 9. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement, being intended to secure the personal service of the
individuals employed by and through whom the CONSULTANT performs work
hereunder, shall not be assigned, sublet or transferred without the written
consent of the CITY.
In WITNESS WHERBOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
BY:
LM
BY: By:
4
NY V W1;4w 1110yi
WORK PROGRAM FOR :PREPARATION OF PARR LANDSCAPE PLANS
TASK 1 PROTECT INITIATION
objective:
To establish communications with appropriate city staff, review work scope,
time frame and transmit data to the consultant.
Discussion:
This first task is important in that it is intended to clarify project
objectives and consultant services such that the project might be most
efficiently completed. Refinement of the project schedule, scope and
proposed products would occur. Agenda items for the meeting would include:
A. Review and refine project scope of services as necessary
B. Review specific project goals and objectives with city staff
C. Establish tentative dates for meetings and project products
D. Transmit applicable background information which may be available
including:
o Aerial photographs of parks
o Topographic mapping of parks
o Mapping which depicts park boundaries and locations of existing
undergroutxl utilities
The project's ultimate accuracy is subject to that information which is
available from the city.
Task Product:
Concurrence on consultant services and project time frame.
Task MeetincT:
One meeting with appropriate city staff.
client Responsibility:
Transmittal of available background material.
TASK 2 BASE MAPPING AM SITE ANALYSIS
objective:
To develop accurate base maps which reflect appropriate site physical
features and to analyze on- and off-site influences which would affect
landscape planting arrangements.
Discussion:
Many factors can influence the selection, arrangement and placement of
landscape plant materials as discussed in the approach section of this
proposal. The purpose of this task is to accurately portray those physical
features which can be rapped on individual park base maps and to analyze
these and other influences 'including cultural and governmental influences,
which may affect park planting schemes. This task would include the
following activities:
A. Gather/combine information as needed to develop an appropriately
scaled, topographic base map for each park in reproducible format based
upon the Ommunity's 1 inch = 200 feet mapping.
B. Analyze natural features including:
0 Topography (slope analysis)
0 Hydrology (identify poorly drained areas)
0 views and vistas
0 Existing vegetation
0 Climatic factors
C. Analyze cultural and governmental features including:
0 Buffering/screening of adjacent residential areas
0 Location of public utilities, easements and roadway clear zones
Task Products:
A. Reproducible topographic base map of each park.
B. Graphics depicting applicable influences on landscape planting for each
park.
Task Meeting:
None required.
client Responsibility:
Support in providing and obtaining pertinent background information as
available (i.e., locations of underground/overhead utilities, easements,
roadway clear zones, etc.).
TASK 3 DEVELOPMM OF A PLAW SELECTION MATRIX FOR MIDO`!'A HEIGM
Objective:
To establish a ccuprehensive matrix of landscape plant materials which
specifically match plant characteristics to individual locations in Mendota
Heights in order to ensure successful plantings.
Discussion:
The City of Mendota Heights occupies an area within the metropolitan
cciulunity which contains a wide variety of physical and climatic influences
on plant materials. These influences range fram windswept hilltops to low-
lying wetlands and create a situation in which it will be advantageous for
the city to possess a matrix which would allow plants to be matched to the
appropriate site conditions thereby ensuring the maximum chance for
successful establishment of park and roadway landscaping for this and future
projects. This task will include:
A. Selection of hardy trees and shnr , both deciduous and coniferous, to
include in the matrix.
B. Delineation of specific conditions which would affect successful
establishment of plants.
C. Develop a reference matrix which guides plant selection.
Task Product:
landscape plant selection matrix.
Task MeetincT:
None required.
Client Responsibility:
Review and cumment when presented with concept plans.
TASK 4 CONCEPTUAL IAIMSC APE PLANS a
objective:
To develop a landscape planting concept for each park which is based upon
the site analysis and the project objectives.
Discussion:
This task is intended to generate discussion leading to the most appropriate
landscape planting arrangement for each park. Conceptual plans would
address buffering or screening adjacent residential areas where needed, in
addition to recaumending planting areas and schemes which would enhance the
functional and aesthetic qualities of the parks. The concept plans would be
presented to the park commission for approval prior to proceeding with the
final master plans. This task, in combination with the plant matrix, would
develop a sound base supported by information and specific objectives of the
city staff and the park commission from which to finalize the planting
schemes and select specific plants.
Task Products:
A concept plan for the planting scheme of each park.
Task Meetincx:
one meeting with the park commission to review the site analysis, concept
plans and plant matrix.
Client Responsibility:
Review the materials presented and provide direction for the completion of
the project.
TASK 6 LANDSCAPE HAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR MENDOTA, HEIGHTS PARKS
objective:
To establish levels of intensity of maintenance for the various parks within
the Mendota Heights system.
Discussion:
The intent of this task is to provide a brief written summary of the
maintenance requirements for each park's landscape improvements. varying
intensity of use and visibility of plantings afford opportunity for
identification of varying levels of ongoing maintenance throughout the
establishment and future growth periods of landscape plantings. This task
would include the following activities:
0 Identification of varying levels of intensity of use within the system
0 Identification of highly visible planting areas
0 Establishment of general guidelines for maintenance tasks and their
frequency of performance in order to respond to the specific planting's
use or visibility
Task Product:
Written summary of suggested maintenance levels for the various locations
and use levels.
Task Meetincf:
one project summary meeting with staff and the park commission to review
final plans, cost estimates and maintenance guidelines.
Client Responsibility:
Review final plans and documents.
TASK 5 PARR IMM SCAPE MISTER PIANS
Objective:
To develop individual park landscape master plans which detail landscape
plantings deemed appropriate for each site.
Discussion:
Using the plant matrix from Task 3 and the concept plans which were
developed in Task 4, a master landscape plan will be developed for each park
which will detail plant material choices and cost estimates for the work.
The final plans would contain sufficient detail to guide installation of
materials to complete the project. The following list would comprise the
master plans:
o Typical planting details and specifications for deciduous and
coniferous trees and shrubs to guide planting
o General location of materials within each park (sufficient detail to
allow field staking by city staff or landscape contractor)
o A description of the sizes and quantities of plants within each park in
addition to spacing dimensions between plants which are in groups
o An installation cost estimate for each park
Task Products:
A landscape master plan and cost estimate for each park and the planting
details appropriate to guide installation.
Task Meeting•
None required.
Client Responsibility:
Review at final meeting.
ATTACHMEVT B
WORK PROGRAM FOR MASTER PLANNING OF NEIGHBORF]OOD PARKS
The following task descriptions pertain to consultant work involved in the
preparation of site development master plans for neighborhood park planning
for the Hagstr m -King, Victoria -Highland and Perkegwin sites. Barton-
AscYmlan understands that the Hagstrcm-King and Victoia-Highland park sites
may require more planning effort than the Perkegwin site, depending on the
inclusion of various active and passive recreational opportunities.
TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND DEVEMPMENr PROGRAM REF NEMEN '
Description
The purpose of this task is to:
1. Review and confirm the work program
2. Collect existing relevant data which includes:
A. Identification of client contact responsible for coordination of
the overall project
B. Aerial photographs of the site
C. Current topographical survey work for the site
D. Site utility plans
E. Abutting land -use plans
F. Planning or previous engineering studies completed for the site
This task will establish discussion between Barton-AscYmian and city staff,
centering around project scheduling and refinement of the scope of services.
Existing background data such as site topographical data, soil surveys,
hydrological plans and utility information will be transmitted at this
meeting.
Barton-Aschman will also review and refine neighborhood and community needs,
based upon previous studies.
Task Products
1. Refined work program and schedule
2. Compilation of background data
3. Project base mapping
4. Determination of park program and desired facilities
Client Responsibility
One meeting with Barton-Aschman staff and provision of applicable background
data.
y; ` • 81 • • 191 • • 'tl
Description
The development configuration within the site will be portrayed through
concept sketch plans depicting different development intensities and design
configurations. The plans will be drawn to a level of detail which
illustrate general design relationships and proposed site modifications.
Also included will be approximate dimensions, construction material
requirements and general cost estimates.
Task elements will include:
1. Analysis of the site and adjacent land uses to determine which
physical and/or cultural features would affect park development.
Analysis would include at least the following:
o Adjacent land use
o Drainage
o Slopes
o Existing vegetation
o Wetland implications
o Existing and proposed connections to the city trail system
o Views of and from the park
o Public easements
o Utilities
2. Preparation of concept plans (two per park).
3. Each concept will address these issues:
o Pedestrian access
o Vehicular access and parking, if required
o Special design features
o Support facilities and picnic area locations
o Trail layout
o Environmental impact and appropriate mitigation
o Compatibility with adjacent land use and other nearby park
o Security and policing
4. Development of a generalized summary of design and improvement data.
Task Meetincl
Concept sketch plans will be reviewed with the Park Commission at one of
their regular meetings. The Commission, at their discretion, may invite
neighborhood comment and participation at the meeting.
Task Products
1. Illustrative plan sketches portraying park layout
2. support information describing each concept
TASK 3 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
Description
The preferred concept determined in Task 2 will be transformed into a
schematic site design. This design will give definition to basic design
elements, internal park use areas, access considerations and general
engineering requirements. Further additional information will be provided
by a supporting narrative, a refined cost estimate and, if necessary,
additional sketches.
Elements of this task are:
1. Integration of the preferred concept and Commission input into the
production of a refined schematic park site plan in graphic
illustrative format. One schematic will result for each park.
2. Preparation of a detailed summary of proposed improvements and a
refined cost estimate.
Task Meeting
Task products will be reviewed with the Commission at one of its regular
meetings.
Task Products
1. Illustrative schematic Park Site Plan
2. Refined cost estimate
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 29, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and City d(m�9r for
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets
Mendota Heights Road - MSA Project No. 140-103-08
Huber Drive - MSA Project No. 140-104-02
Job No. 8519
Improvement No. 86, Project No. 1
DISCUSSION:
The Pollution Control Agency (PCA) has completed its study of the
southeast area, and has issued the Indirect Source Permit (ISP). At the
first meeting in May staff was directed to ask F.M. Frattalone if they would
agree to extend their bid. At the May 17th meeting the Council received a
letter from Frattalone agreeing to extend their bid to July 5th.
Bids were received March 31, 1988, but the bid was never awarded
because of the PCA delay. F.M. Frattalone Excavating and Grading, Inc. is
the low bidder with the amount of $585,505.59. The Engineer's Estimate was
$701,427.
Staff has checked on Frattalone's credentials and found that they are a
competent and reputable contractor.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council award the bid for the above project to F.M.
Frattalone Excavating and Grading, Inc. in the amount of $585,505.59.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a
motion adopting Resolution No. 88- , RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER AND
STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (HUBER
DRIVE AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 1)
" e
•
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO
SERVE THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (HUBER DR. & MENDOTA
HEIGHTS ROAD, IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 1)
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed con-
struction of sanitary and storm sewer, water and street, curb and
gutter improvements to serve the Southeast Area of Mendota Heights
(Huber Drive & Mendota Heights Road) and adjacent areas (which improve-
ments have heretofore been known and designated as Improvement No. 86,
Project No. 1), bids were received, opened and tabulated according to
law and the following bids were received complying with said advertise-
ment:
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
F.M. Frattalone Excavating & Grading $585,505.59
St. Paul, MN
Preferred Paving, Inc. $606,759.96
Waconia, MN
C.W. Houle, Inc. $617,104.10
Shoreview, MN
Orfei Contracting, Inc. $624,346.29
Hugo, MN
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $630,493.74
Shakopee, MN
Progressive Contractors, Inc. $635,489.87
Osseo, MN
Arcon Construction Company, Inc. $635,546.73
Mora, MN
F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $642,622.05
Eden Prairie, MN
Nodland Construction Co., Inc. $644,422.80
Alexandria, MN
G.L. Contracting, Inc. $652,904.19
Hopkins, MN
Imperial Developers, Inc. $652,988.90
Bloomington, MN
^
Austin P. Kellar Construction Co., Inc. $054,146.20
St, Paul, M0
Brown & Cris, Inc. $086,592.90
Lakeville, MN
Northdale Construction $695,291.47
Rogers, MN
C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. $713,840.00
Mxpin Grove, MN
Schafer Contracting, Inc. $765,002,55
Schafer, MN
Richard Knutson, Inc. $17,78I,325.30
Savage, MN
and
WOOROAS, the City Engineer has recommended that F.M. FrattaIooe Exca-
vating & Grading, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota be declared the lowest
responsible bidder.
NOW 7l|ERL7ORD, IT IS 88OD8Y RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
I. That the bids for the project are hereby received and ac-
cepted.
2. That F.M. FruttaIone Excavating & Grading, Inc. of 8t. Paul,
Minnesota is hereby declared to be the lowest responsible bidder.
3, 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 the hid for the above described
improvements to F.M. Frattalnne Excavating & Grading, Inc. of
St, Paul, Minnesota.
4, That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except
that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest
bidder shall he retained until a contract has been eigned.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day
of July 1980.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOI& HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 1, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and CityA�i ®r t�
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets
Mendota Heights Road - MSA Project No. 140-103-08
Huber Drive - MSA Project No. 140-104-02
Job No. 8519
Improvement No. 86, Project No. I
DISCUSSION:
As part of the Mendota Heights Road/Huber Drive project, the City
plans to construct a turn lane at Visitation Drive as per a request by
Mn/DOT. The attached letter from Mn/DOT addresses the agreement for
construction by the City and payment for the construction by the State.
Mn/DOT wishes to complete this turn lane in order to fulfill an
obligation to Visitation School resulting from previous right-of-way
acquisition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve the agreement between Mn/DOT and
the City regarding construction and payment for construction of the
Visitation Drive turn lane.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass
a motion Resolution No. 88- . RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING
VISITATION DRIVE CONSTRUCTION.
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING VISITATION DRIVE CONSTRUCTION.
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is about to award a contract
for bituminous surfacing, bituminous sidewalk, storm sewer facilities,
sanitary sewer facilities and watermain facilities construction and
other associated construction work to be performed within the corporate
City limits in accordance with the City prepared plans and specifica-
tions and special provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has requested
the City to construct a turn lane on Visitation Drive to fulfill an
obligation to Visitation School for right-of-way acqusitions and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights will construct Visitation
Drive and the State of Minnesota will pay all costs incurred with this
construction.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights enter into Agreement No. 64695 with the State
of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes,
to -wit:
1. To provide for payment by the State to the City for the
State's share of the cost of the turn lane and larger radii con-
struction and other associated construction to be performed upon,
along and adjacent to Visitation Drive from Mendota Heights Road
to approximately Engineer Station 2+90 within the corporate City
limits under State Project No. 1917-29. (T.H. 149-001)
2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to
execute Agreement No. 64695 on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day
of July, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District 9
3485 Hadley Avenue North
Oakdale, Minnesota 55109
Telephone 779-1178
May 17, 1988
Mr. Kevin FrozeU `
Mendota Heights City Administrator
Mendota Heights City Ho||
75OSouth Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Dear Mr. FraznU:
SUBJECT: S.P. 1917-29(T.H, 149=001)
Cooperative Construction Agreement No. O4OQ5
Visitation Drive atMendota Heights Road
in Mendota Heights
Transmitted herewith in triplicate is proposed agreement with the City ofMendota
Heights. This agreement provides for payment by the State to the City of the State's
share of the costs of the turn lane and larger radii construction and other associated
construction to be performed upon, along and ocU000nt to Visitation Drive within
the corporate City Urnito.
Kindly present this agreement to the City Council for their approval and execution
which includes original o|Qnoturoo of the City Council authorized City Oryiooro and
the affixing of the City Sea[ on all three copies of the agreement. Also required
are three copies of a new resolution passed bythe City Council authorizing its officers
to sign the agreement on !Co behalf. /\ suggested form of such resolution is also
enclosed.
It is requested that the executed agreement and resolution copies be forwarded
to this office as soon as possible. A copy will be returned to the City when fully
executed.
A copy is enclosed for your use until you receive your executed copy.
Sincerely.
pe,w r d
~~_ p _.
Kermit K.MoRa�,P.E,
ki
[]|atr|ot Engineer
Attachments
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 1, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and City or
"A�rat
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets
Bridgeview Shores 1st Addition
Job No. 8807
Improvement No. 88, Project No. I
DISCUSSION:
Staff has substantially completed the plans and specifications for
the Bridgeview Shores 1st Addition project. The next step in the
process is advertising for bids. Bids could be opened August 1st with
the project being awarded at the August 2nd meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
1
Staff recommends Council approve the final plans and specifica-
tions and authorize staff to advertise for bids.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass
a motion adopting Resolution No. 88- RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 1ST ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO.
88, PROJECT N6. 1).
I
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE
BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 1ST ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 88, PROJECT NO. 1)
WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and
construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reported
on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed that the City Engi-
neer proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for
said improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to
the City Council for approval.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City -Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and
they are hereby in all respects approved.
2. That the City Clerk with the aid and assistance of the City
Engineer be and is hereby authorized and directed toadvertise for
bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable
Minnesota Statutes, such bids to be received at the City Hall of
the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 o'clock A.M., Monday, August
1, 1988, at which time they will be publicly opened in� the City
Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Engineer will then
be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at
its next regular Council meeting.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day
of July, 1988. 1
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
4
By i
Charles E. Mertensctto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
J
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 30, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council and City�Vn/qta or
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles,
SUBJECT: Assessment Rolls
Park Place
Job No. 8625
Improvement No.
Civil ngineer
86, Project No. 12
The Ponds of Mendota Heights & Rolling Woods
Job No. 8622
Improvement No. 86, Project No. 9
DISCUSSION:
All the construction has been completed on the above projects. Staff
has prepared the attached assessment rolls for Council review.
The proposed assessment roll for Park Place indicates that the typical
lot in the developmentwillreceive $11,304.80 in assessments compared to
the feasibility estimate of $12,540. The Nelson and Zwach parcels will be
assessed $26,741.48 and $11,797.13 respectively (feasbility estimate -
$28,813 and $20,367). The figures for Nelson and Zwach take into account
past assessments paid, and future lot splits that may be possible (Nelson
has two additional possible lots, Zwach one).
The proposed assessment roll for The Ponds of Mendota Heights and
Rolling Woods contains three different assessment rates for each utility
because it is distributed over three different developments. The table
below shows the feasibility estimated assessment per lot as well as the new
proposed assessment per lot.
DEVELOPMENVOWNER
Ponds of Mendota Heights (East)
Ponds of Mendota Heights (West)
Rolling Woods Addition &
Rolling Woods 2nd Addition
Eschle Residence
FEAS. EST. ASSESSMENT ROLL
$13,187 $10,317.49
13,967 10,436.48
13,064 10,350.10
22,955 17,492.39
All proposed assessments are substantially below the feasibility esti-
mate per lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council order a public hearing for the assessments on
the above mentioned projects.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a
motion adopting Resolution No. 88- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION AND ADJACENT AREA IMPROVEMENTS
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 86; PROJECT NO. 12) and Resolution No. 88- , RESOLUTION
CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE PONDS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
ROLLING WOODS ADDITION, ROLLING WOODS 2ND ADDITION AND ADJACENT AREAS
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 86; PROJECT NO. 9).
PARCEL REPUTED OWNER AND
NO. DESCRIPTION
27-56600- Northern States Power Co.
080-02 414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
27-56600- Park Place
-- 010-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
020-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
030-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
040-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
050-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
060-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
070-03 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
010-04 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600- Park Place
020-04 11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SUBDIVISION
LOT
BLK
SANITARY
WATER
STORM
STREETS
TOTAL
NO.
NO.
SEWERS
MAINS
SEWERS
Park
Place
8
2
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
1
3
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
2
3
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
3
3
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
4
3
52,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
5
3
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
6
3
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
7
3
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
1
4
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park
Place
2
4
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
52,358.96
S3,609.67
$11,304.80
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
27-56600-
TJB Company, Inc.
Park Place
030-04
2704 Highway 10 NE
Minneapolis, MN 55432
27-56600-
Michael Halley Homes, Inc.
Park Place
040-04
11095 Viking Drive, #380
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
050-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
060-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
070-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
080-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Klemmensen Builders Inc.
Park Place
090-04
8047 Somerset Road
Woodbury, MN 55125
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
100-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
TJB Company, Inc.
Park Place
110-04
2704 Highway 10 NE
Minneapolis, MN 55432
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
120-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
LOT BLK SANITARY WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL
NO. NO. SEWERS MAINS SEWERS
3 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 S2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
4 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
5 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
6 4 S2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
7 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
8 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
9 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
10 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
11 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
12 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
STREETS
27-56600-
9oru Place
Park Place
I30-04
11095 Viking Drive
SEWERS
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
13
27-56800-
Park place
Park Place
140-04
1I095 Viking Drive
$11.804.80
14
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
$2,743.I5
27-56600-
Park Place
park Place
150-04
1I095 nibium Drive
4
$2.743.15
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
'
$2.358.96
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
160-04
1I095 Viking Drive
$2,595-02
$2,358.96
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
*11,304.80
27-50600-
Robert D. & Nancy C. Yaokvvicu
Park Place
170-04
1553 Pork Circle
$3.609,67
*11'304,80
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
4
37-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
l8O-O4
1I095 Viking Drive
19
4
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
$2.593.02
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
I90-04
1I095 oixiou Drive
$2.743,15
$2'593.02
Eden Prairie, MN 553*4
$3'609,67
27-56608-
Park Place
Park Place
200-04
I1095 Viking Drive
s2,358,96
$3,609.07
Eden Prairie' mm 55344
22
27-56600-
yazx Place
Pork Place
210-04
1I095 vixioo Drive
$5.968,63
Eden Prairie, 80 55344
27-56600-
Steven & Kathryn Karel
Park Place
220-04
1561 Highway 96
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
LOT
BLK
SANITARY
WATER
STORM
STREETS
TOTAL
NO.
NO.
SEWERS
MAINS
SEWERS
13
4
$2.743.15
$2.593.02
$2,358.96
$3.609.67
$11.804.80
14
4
$2,743.I5
$2,593.02
$2,258.96
$3,609-67
$1I'304.80
15
4
$2.743.15
$2,593.02
'
$2.358.96
*3,609,67
$11'304.80
16
4
$2.743.15
$2,595-02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
*11,304.80
17
4
$2,743.15
$2.593,02
*2'358.96
$3.609,67
*11'304,80
lg
4
$2.743.15
$2,593.02
*2,358.96
$3,609,67
$1I,304'80
19
4
$2,743'15
$2.593.02
$2,358.96
$3,809.67
$11.304,80
20
4
$2.743,15
$2'593.02
$2.358.96
$3'609,67
$I1'304,80
21
4
$2,743'15
$2.593.02
s2,358,96
$3,609.07
g11'304.80
22
4
S2.358.96
$3,609'67
$5.968,63
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
230-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
240-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
250-04
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
LOT BLK SANITARY WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL
NO. NO. SEWERS MAINS SEWERS
23 4 52,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
24 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
25 4 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
070-01
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
080-01
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
090-01
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
010-02
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
020-02
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
David E. & Janice Jessen
Park Place
030-02
1932 Bayard Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55127
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
040-02
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
Park Place
050-02
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place.
Park Place
060-02
11095 Viking Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Northern States Power Co.,
Park Place
070-02
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
LOT BLK SANITARY WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL
NO. NO. SEWERS MAINS SEWERS
7 1 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 S2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
8 1 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
9 1
$.00
1 2 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 52,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
2 2 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
3 2 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
4 2 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
5 2 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
6 2 $2,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
7 2 52,743.15 $2,593.02 $2,358.96 $3,609.67 $11,304.80
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
Sanitary Sewers - 19 years
Watermains - 19 years
Storm Sewers - 19 years
Streets - 10 years
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
NO.
DESCRIPTION
27-02300-
Phillip A. & Carole A.
020-07
Nelson
Sewer -
1573 Wachtler Avenue
lot Storm Sewer - $2,356.96 per lot
St. Paul, MN 55118
27-02300-
Grace A. Zwach
040-07
1575 Wachtler Avenue
lot Streets - $3,609.67 per lot
Mendota Heights, Mn
27-56600-
Brian & Luz Marcela Kane
010-01
1850 Boardwalk
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-56600-
Dennis E. & Marie Pulanco
020-01
8626 Isle Ave. S.
0T1.4ERS
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
27-56600-
Park Place
030-01
11095 Viking Drive
Sewer -
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Michael Halley Homes, Inc.
040-01
11095 Viking Dr. #380
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Park Place
050-01
11095 Viking Drive
WATER
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
27-56600-
Richard & Elizabeth Spicer
060-01
835 Park Place Drive
MAINS
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PARK PLACE ASSESSMENT RATES
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sanitary
Sewer -
—$2743-15 per
lot Storm Sewer - $2,356.96 per lot
ASSESSMENT ROLL
Water
-
$2,593.02 per
lot Streets - $3,609.67 per lot
PARK PLACE
IMPROVEMENT NO. 86-12
0T1.4ERS
JOB NO. 8625
Sanitary
Sewer -
$2,6667.-00 per
lot storm Sewer - $0.082 Per sq. ft.
ADOPTED:
Water
$2,539.00 per
lot Streets - $3,536.00 per lot
SUBDIVISION
LOT BLK
SANITARY
WATER
STORM STREETS
TOTAL
NO. NO.
SEWERS
MAINS
SEWERS
W 12 R of E 32R of S 20R
$8,058.00
$2,539.00
$5,536.48 $10,608.00
326,741.48
of Govt L8 subj to Rd Esmt
over N 30 ft. Ex N 7 ft.
to City for Road
N 8R of S 20R of Govt
$2,686.00
$2,539.00
$3,036.13
$3,536.00
$11,797.13
Lot 8 Subj. to Rd Esmnt
Ex N 7 Ft. to City for Rd.
Park Place
1 1
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park Place
2 1
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park Place
3 1
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park Place
4 1
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park Place
5 1
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
Park Place
6 1
$2,743.15
$2,593.02
$2,358.96
$3,609.67
$11,304.80
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
ASSESSMENT RATES
Sanitary
Sewers - 19 years
ASSESSMENT
ROLL
'tan.
Watermains - 19 years
THE PONDS OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Pods (ZASZ)
S -r. - S6.465.4011otP*rbd3
San. Serv.-
89.14/lot
(West) - San. Swr. - $1,466.82/lat
San. Serv. - 321.41/lot
Storm Sewe - 19 years
ROLLING WOODS
IST
& 2ND
ADDITION
watarmaln -
.00/lot
watermain - 1,767.37/let
Streets -
10 years
IMPROVEMENT NO.
86-9
Water Serv. -1,662-73/lot
water Serv. - 795.90/lct
JOB NO.
8622
Storm swr. -
1,277.00/lat
-storm swr. -1,277.00/lot
ADOPTED:
Streets
Rolling
823-24/lot
Woods - San.
Streets - 4,807-98/lcz
Svr. - $2,046.92/10t
San-
Serv. - 323.64/lot
water=ain - 1,614.93/lot
water
Serv.- 782.90/lot
Storm
S--. - 796.44/lot
Streets
- 4,785-27/lot
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
LOT
BLK
SANITARY
SANITARY
WATER
WATER
STORM STREETS TOTAL
NO.
DESCRIPTION
NO.
NO.
SEWERS
SERVICES
MAINS
SERVICES
SEWERS
27-02500-
Louis H & Barbara Eschle
S 136.8
ft. of N 1/2 of
--
--
$4,093.84
$647.28
$1,614.93
$1,565.80
$.00
$9,570.54 $17,492.39
010-01
1844 Dodd Road
NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 E of
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dodd Road Ex E 801.5 ft
27-64750-
Donald V. & Shirly M.
Mager
Rolling
Woods Addition
1
1
$.00
$.00
S.00
$782.90
$.00
$.00 $782.90
010-01
2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, 14N
55118
27-64750-
Donald V. & Shirly M.
Mager
Rolling
Woods Addition
6
1
$2,046.92
$323.64
$1,614.93
$782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
060-01
2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN
55118
27-64750-
Donald V. & Shirly M.
Mager
Rolling
Woods Addition
7
1
$2,046.92
$323.64
$1,614.93
$782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
070-01
2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN
55118
27-64750
C.J. Homes, Inc.
Rolling
Woods Addition
8
1
$2,046.92
$323.64
$1,614.93
$782.90
5796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
080-01
Box 50723
Mendota, MN 55150
27-64750-
Donald V. & Shirly M.
Mager
Rolling
Woods Addition
9
1
$27046.92
5323.64
$1,614.93
$782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
090-01
2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN
55118
27-64750-
Donald V. & Shirly M.
Mager
Rolling
Woods Addition
10
1
$2,046.92
$323.64
$1,614.93
S782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
100-01
2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN
55118
27-64750-
James R. & Alice M. Reyes
Rolling
Woods Addition
11
1
$2,046.92
$323.64
$1,614.93
$782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
110-01
687 Wesley Court
Mendota Heights, MN
55118
27-64750-
Donald V. & Shirly M.
Mager
Rolling
Woods Addition
12
1
S2,046.92
5323.64
51t614.93
$782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27 $10,350.10
120-01 2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PARCEL REPUTED OWNER AND SUBDIVISION
NO. DESCRIPTION
27-64750- Donald V. & Shirly M. Mager Rolling Woods Addition
130-01 X Royal Oaks Realty
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-64750- TJB Company, Inc. Rolling Woods Addition
140-01 2704 Highway 10 NE
Minneapolis, MN 55432
27-64750- C. J. Homes, Inc. Rolling Woods Addition
150-01 3865 Gold Point
Eagan, MN 55122
27-64750- Donald V. & Shirly M. Mager Rolling Woods Addition
160-01 2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-64750- Steven & Marie Krueckeberg Rolling Woods Addition
170-01 786 Cougar Drive
Eagan, MN 55123
27-64750- Donald V. & Shirly M. Mager Rolling Woods Addition
180-01 2111 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-64751- The Preserve of West St. Paul Rolling Woods 2nd Add.
010-01 3490 Lexington Ave. N. #100
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-64751- The Preserve of West St. Paul Rolling Woods 2nd Add.
020-01 3490 Lexington Ave. N. #100
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-64751- The Preserve of West St. Paul Rolling Woods 2nd Add.
030-01 3490 Lexington Ave. N. #100
Shoreview, MN -55126
27-64751- The Preserve of West St. Paul Rolling Woods 2nd Add.
040-01 3490 Lexington Ave. N. #100
Shoreview, MN 55126
LOT BLK SANITARY
NO. NO. SEWERS
13 1 $2,046.92
14 1 $2,046.92
15 1 $2,046.92
16 1 $2,046.92
17 1 $2,046.92
18 1 $2,046.92
1 1 $2,046.92
2 1 $2,046.92
3 1 $2,046.92
SANITARY WATER WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL
SERVICES MAINS SERVICES SEWERS
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 S796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
$323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
4 1 $2,046.92 $323.64 $1,614.93 $782.90 $796.44 $4,785.27 $10,350.10
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
LOT
BLK
SANITARY
SANITARY
WATER
WATER
STORM
STREETS
TOTAL
NO.
DESCRIPTION
NO.
NO.
SEWERS
SERVICES
MAINS
SERVICES
SEWERS
27-64751-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
Rolling Woods 2nd Add.
5
1
$2,046.92
$323.64
$1,614.93
$782.90
$796.44
$4,785.27
$10,350.10
050-01
3490 Lexington Ave. N. #100
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
1
1
$6,465.40
$89.14
$.00
$1,662.71
$1,277.00
$823.24
$10,317.49
010-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126,
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
2
1
$6,465.40
$89.14
$.00
$1,662.71
$1,277.00
$823.24
$10,317.49
020-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126,
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
3
1
$6,465.40
$89.14
$.00
$1,662.71
$1,277.00
$823.24
$10,317.49
030-01
Z Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126,
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
4
1
$6,465.40
$89.14
$.00
$1,662.71
$1,277.00
$823.24
$10,317.49
040-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126,
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
5
1
$6,465.40
$89.14
$.00
$1,662.71
$1,277.00
$823.24
$10,317.49
050-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126,
27-75900-
James W. & Kay Laurel Fischer
The
Ponds of Mendota
6
1
$6,465.40
$89.14
$.00
$1,662.71
$1,277.00
$823.24
$10,317.49
060-01
526 7th Street West
Heights
St. Paul, MN 55102
27-75900-
Reliable Homes, Inc.
The
Ponds of Mendota
7
1
$1,466.82
$321.41
$1,767.37
$795.90
$1,277.00
$4,807.98
$10,436.48
070-01
8154 Hudson Road
Heights
Woodbury, MN 55119
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.*Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
8
1
$1,466.82
$321.41
$1,767.37
$795.90
$1,277.00
$4,807.98
$10,436.48
080-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126,
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St.
Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
9
1
$1,466.82
$321.41
$1,767.37
$795.90
$1,277.00
$4,807.98
$10,436.48
090-01
%Royal -Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
27-75900-
Terry H. & Cynthia A. Rust
The
Ponds of Mendota
100-01
1872 South Lane
Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-75900-
James E. Jr. & Nancy J. Joyce
The
Ponds of Mendota
110-01
1862 South Lane
Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
120-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
James N. & Margaret Mazzoni
The
Ponds of Mendota
130-01
640 Callahan Place
Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
140-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
Deborah E. Burg
The
Ponds of Mendota
150-01
1861 South Lane
Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
160-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
170-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
180-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
LOT BLK SANITARY SANITARY WATER WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL
NO. NO. SEWERS SERVICES MAINS SERVICES SEWERS
10 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
11 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
12 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
13' 1 $.00 $.00 $.00 $.00 $.00 $.00 $.00
14 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
15 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
16 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
17 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
18 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
PARCEL
REPUTED OWNER AND
SUBDIVISION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
190-01
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
010-02
7 Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
The Preserve of West St. Paul
The
Ponds of Mendota
020-02
% Royal Oaks Realty
Heights
3490 Lexington Ave. N.
Shoreview, MN 55126
27-75900-
Reliable Homes, Inc.
The
Ponds of Mendota
030-02
8154 Hudson Road
Heights
Woodbury, MN 55119
27-75900-
J.C. Hogarth Delaplante
The
Ponds of Mendota
040-02
1901 South Lane
Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
N
LOT BLK SANITARY SANITARY WATER WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL
NO. NO. SEWERS SERVICES MAINS SERVICES SEWERS
19 1 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
1 2 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
2 2 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
3 2 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
4 2 $1,466.82 $321.41 $1,767.37 $795.90 $1,277.00 $4,807.98 $10,436.48
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION AND ADJACENT AREA IMPROVMENTS
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 86 PROJECT NO. 12)
WHEREAS, contracts have heretofore been let for the construction of the following
described improvements:
The construction of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street, curb
and gutter improvements to serve Park Place Subdivision (which improve-
ments have heretofore been known and designated as Improvement No. 86,
Project No. 12)
and
WHEREAS, the construction of said improvements has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Direc-
tor, was previously directed by the City Council to prepare the assessment roll
for the above described improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment
roll for the above described improvements has been completed and filed in her
office for public inspection.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That a public hearing on said proposed assessment roll shall be
held at the Mendota Heights City Hall at 750 South Plaza Drive, in the
City of Mendota Heights, on Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 8:15 o'clock
P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter.
2. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney,
is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and attend to the publication
and mailing of the necessary notices of said hearing, all in accordance with
the applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of
July, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 88—
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
THE PONDS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,ROLLING WOODS ADDITION, ROLLING
WOODS 2ND ADDITION AND ADJACENT AREA IMPROVEMENTS
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 86 PROJECT NO. 9)
WHEREAS, contracts have heretofore been let for the construction of the following
described improvements:
The construction of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street, curb
and gutter improvements to serve The Ponds of Mendota Heights, Rolling
Woods Addition, Rolling Woods 2nd Addition and adjacent areas (which
improvements have heretofore been known and designated as Improvement
No. 86, Project No. 9)
and
WHEREAS, the construction of said improvements has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Direc-
tor, was previously directed by the City Council to prepare the assessment roll
for the above described improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment
roll for the above described improvements has been completed and filed in her
office for public inspection.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That a public hearing on said proposed assessment roll shall be
held at the Mendota Heights City Hall at 750 South Plaza Drive, in the
City of Mendota Heights, on Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 8:15 o'clock
P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter.
2. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney,
is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and attend to the publication
and mailing of the necessary notices of said hearing, all in accordance with
the applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of
July, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
Lexington
o�rn
i
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JULY 1, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. at City Administrator
SUBJECT: Police/Public Works Radio Transmission Tower for
New City Hall
We will need to have a radio transmissAon tower
installed at the new city hail. Attached is a site plan, on
which Gene Lange has pencilled in the site of the tower. As
you can see, it will generally line up with the extended
service area wall along Lexington Avenue.
The galvanized tower will be 40 feet tall. Gene is
getting quotations on two different types of towers, one, a
traditional triangular shaped tower, and one a mono -pole,
which looks more like a flag pole. Those quotes will be
available at the meeting Tuesday evening.
Gene anticipates that the cost for the tower will be
around $2,400. This expense has been anticipated by staff
for some time, and was included in the recent estimate of
additional expenses for city hall which was provided to City
Council.
This would not be a change order to the city hall
contract, but rather a direct purchase order to the provider
of the tower.
ACTION REQUIRED:
To consider the
approving a purchase
whichever vendor is
KDF:madlr
attachment
staff recommendation, then pass a motion
order for installation of the tower for
selected.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 29, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D.' F� ity Administrator
SUBJECT: 1989 Budget Workshop
In past years at about this time, I have sent Council a
check off questionnaire on which you indicated your general
budget priorities for the following year. Staff used this
input to put together a City Administrator's proposed budget
responsive to Council desires.
There are two issues making preparation of the 1989
budget somewhat more complex:
1. Implications of the 1988 property tax legislation on
Mendota Heights.
2. The fact that there seems to be a growing number of
priority issues that we could add to our list of
"things to do".
Last Friday, I forwarded a memo describing the 1988 property
tax bill and the implications thereof on Mendota Heights. As
discussed in that memo, Council has a good deal of discretion
as to how much it wishes to levy next year. On the
"spending" side, potential issues are:
1. Compliance with the County/State solid waste
planning effort.
,f 2. Park and recreation planning.
r
3. Potential need to update the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
4. Training of planning and parks commissioners.
5. Street lighting.
6. "Beefing up" staff support of the planning
commission.
7. Infrastructure replacement program.
8. Boulevard tree planting program.
9. Drainage ditch/holding pond maintenance.
10. Equipment replacement - bond or "pay as you go"?
11. Ordinance recodification.
Council may be able to think of other issues that it would
add to the list.
So that staff can prepare a recommended budget
responsive to Council desires, I think it is important that
you have more input -early in the process this year. Also,
Fire Chief John Maczko would like to have about an hour of
your time to give you an overview of the department, and
share his observations about where the department is going.
This, of course, involves budget implications as well.
I am requesting that Council consider a special meeting
for the purpose of a budget workshop sometime the week of
July 11. John Maczko has requested that we consider doing it
on Wednesday, the 13, or Thursday, the 14, to give him time
for adequate preparation. We would 4old the meeting at the
fire station, and let John make his presentation first; part
of the presentation would include looking over the equipment.
We could then remain in the station for the remainder of the
budget discussion.
Attached is a calendar for preparation of the 1989
budget. You will note that we have tentatively scheduled the
Council workshop to review my recommended budget on Tuesday,
August 30, the public hearing at the Council meeting of
September 20, and adoption of the budget and the levy at the
Council meeting of October 4.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the request and recommendation
made above, it should select a date and time the week of July
11 for a special budget workshop meeting.
Council should
acceptable date for
recommended budget.
KDF:madlr
attachment
also indicate whether August 30 is an
the regular workshop to review the
I
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JULY 1, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. e 1, tity Administrator
SUBJECT: F low -up to MASAC Meeting of June 28
MASAC representative Bernie Friel, Councilmembers Jann
Blesener and Buzz Cummins, Larry Shaughnessy and I attended
the meeting of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council on Tuesday, June 28 for the purpose of presenting the
City's position on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor issue.
Five or six Mendota Heights residents were also present in
the audience.
I presented the City of Mendota Heights position,
followed by presentations by the City of Eagan and the
Federal Aviation Administration. A very lengthy discussion
followed after the presentations. I think our position was
well received, and there was certainly an openness to the
request which we were making.
The discussions took a rather strange turn of events
when the FAA announced that rather than using a 15 degree
separation on Runways 11L and 11R, as had previously been
assumed, they are in fact using a 28 degree cone of
operations. This runs from the 118 runway centerline heading
on the south to a 90 degree heading on the north. Everyone
present, including members of MASAC, the MAC staff, and the
noise consultant who worked with our group, were more than a
little surprised to hear this, since for 1 1/2 years we have
been discussing a 15 degree separation. This does,'however,
provide at least a partial explanation as to why we are
seeing aircraft along Highway 110 and north. The FAA
representatives indicated that the 28 degrees of separation
is necessary to accommodate the varying speeds of the
aircraft departing Runways 11L and 11R during peak operation.
To reduce this cone would restrict the number of aircraft
that could be sent from these runways.
At the end of the discussion, MASAC passed a motion to
refer several issues back to the operations working group for
further study. Those issues include:
1. A more accurate count of the number of homes
affected in Mendota Heights and Eagan by the various
flight departure options.
2. The impact on operations (i.e., the number of
flights that could be accommodated) if the
alternatives being asked for by the cities were
implemented.
3. State and/or Federal environmental regulations, and
more specifically, how much deviation there can be
from aircraft flight patterns before an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental
Impact Statement is required. (There was some
confusion about this at the meeting).
4. The issue of runway headings versus magnetically
corrected headings.
5. The issue of a 28 degree cone versus the 15 degree
cone previously discussed.
6. A review of the percentage of the time the airport
is operating in the non -simultaneous departure
modes, the percent being operated in the
simultaneous mode accommodated by 15 degree
separation, and the percent of time in the
simultaneous mode at which more than a 15 degree
separation is required.
7. The issue of putting signs indicating correct
heading on the runways.
8. How far actual flight patterns have deviated from
the previously approved parameters (i.e., the cone
of separation), and whether those deviations are
sufficient to require an EAW/EIS.
9. A more accurate description of how aircraft are
actually using these runways, what impacts there
are on having aircraft of varying speeds trying to
use the same runway, and what that requires in terms
of a cone of separation for safety.
Given the new information which came out at the meeting,
particularly the 28 degree separation issue, Mayor
Mertensotto has suggested that we send a letter to the
Commission qualifying the position that the Council
previously took by resolution. That resolution was based on
the belief that only a 15 degree separation is necessary, and
the Mayor feels that we ought to indicate that we reserve the
right to amend our position if it is found that those
assumptions are in error. I concur in his recommendation.
ACTION REQUIRED:
That Council pass a motion directing
Administrator to send a letter to MASAC,
position previously taken by the City is
presumptions that may be inaccurate, and
reserves the right to amend its position
KDF:madlr
the City
indicating that the
based on
that the City
in the future.
•
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
JUNE 28, 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D.,��z , City Administrator
SUBJECT: Installation of Drainage Basin and Piping on Upper
Parking Lot of New City Hall
INTRODUCTION•
At the June 21 Council meeting, I informed Council that
the contractors quote for adding the drainage catch basin and
108 feet of piping for the upper parking lot would be $4,785.
Council asked that I go back and review the possibility of
having at least part of the work done by city crews. After
completing that review, it is staff's recommendation that we
have the work done by the contractor.
DISCUSSION•
Again, the contractors total quote for doing the job is
$4,785. City crews would not be able to place the drainage
basin and do the curb work; these would have to be done by
the contractor at a cost of $1,610. The question then
becomes whether it is worth the additional $3,175 of savings
to have the City crews do the work.
Assistant Engineer Klayton Eckles and P.W.
Superintendent Tom Olund estimate the cost for the job to be
as follows:
Materials -
$1,380
Labor -
2,484
Equipment -
216
Total
$4,080
The labor cost has admittedly been estimated high, in
large part because we have not done this kind of work before,
and the P.W. Superintendent is unsure of the amount of time
that it would take. The total estimated man hours, both for
direct installation, and for surveying and other engineering
type support services, is 106. As Council can see, our labor
cost estimate could be off by some 40%, and it would still be
less expensive to have the work done by the contractor. The
work must be done immediately, and the real question, of
course, is whether we should pull the public works crews off
other duties to put in this improvement. This is a peak time
of year for them, and this project would set them back on
other priorities such as street maintenance.
The public works department feels that the $4,785 quoted
by the contractor is very reasonable, and recommends that
Council authorize ;them to do the work. This change order was
anticipated in our -recent memo discussing expected cost over
runs on the city hall, so is not a surprise.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, it
should pass a motion authorizing a change order to Joseph
Construction for installation of an upper parking lot catch
basin and piping in the amount of $4,785.
EI a . t• k0F"4
R -3244-E . Curb Inlet Frame, Grate, . Curb Box ,
Total Weight 4 oundt
r
23 CURB BOX
ADJ. 3 j*T0 7 j' 6
t.—t7}"
QiCo 40
_ 7
23f 23
R-3 �'' Curb Inlet' Frame;'* Grate;`. CurbBox`„
Heavy Duty
Total Weight 410 Pounds j!r�I
i
29 '
Heavy Duty
Total Weight 440 Pounds
!( Curb box it designed for radius and taper curbs in 4, 6, 8, and 10" heights.
i Specify;
!� 1. Height of curb. (Dimension "A")
2. Whether for radius or taper curb. (Radius curb shown on drawing, taper
icurb shown on photograph.)
---- 71'0--_ >-I I....-
NEENAH
nntrntnnv r_nnnsaAnry 1
*.
t
I 1�R
---- 71'0--_ >-I I....-
NEENAH
nntrntnnv r_nnnsaAnry 1
r
�Z/qi
T
�z/q �Cdib
1.1
,qIL
mm
Ili_`{ /
r r'
•,��� 1 M� �� r►ls/� H�l,�o
.L:;?' l 9 "r1 v o Zs •
W 9/, i L� -r0-157
�'i 1�0•I � mala �^d � � • � �2� „Z I
dk- i Hllrl , -z
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 15, 1988
TO: Mayor, City Council, City Admi ' r �or
FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contracts
INFORMATION
There has recently been discussion over the form of
resolution used to accept bids and award contracts for public
improvements. The question which has been raised is whether
Council should take separate actions to accept all bids and to
adopt the bid award resolution. We have prepared revisions in
the resolution form to hopefully simplify the procedure in the
future.
The "Whereas" following the tabulated bids has been adjusted
to read: "Whereas, the City Engineer has recommended that
(contractor name) be declared the lowest responsible bidder,"
replacing the former language "the City Engineer has recommended
that the low bid submitted by (contractor) be accepted.
The numbered paragraphs being resolved are adjusted as
follows:
1. That the bids for the project are hereby received and
accepted. (This is a new paragraph.)
2. That (contractor) is hereby declared to be the lowest
responsible bidder. (Revised paragraph 2.)
3. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver any and all contracts
and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of
the bid for the above described improvements to
(contractor). (Revised paragraph 3.)
4. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return to all bidders the deposits made with their
bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder
and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a
contract has been signed. (New paragraph.)
Staff feels that with these changes, the acceptance of bids
and award of contract can be made in a single Council action.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs in the recommended resolution format, no
action is necessary. If the format is not satisfactory, Council
should give staff direction on changes.