Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1988-10-04
REVISED CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA OCTOBER 4� 1988 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. —7-3 5- 2. Roll Call. -,Y- 3. Agenda Adoption. _ xgz 4. Approval of September 6 Minutes 5. Consent Calendar: -A a. Acknowledgement of September 27 Planning Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of September Code Enforcement Report. c. Acknowledgement of Quarterly Goals Progress Report. d. Acknowledgement of Engineering Quarterly Report. e. Approval of Contract with Maxfield Research Group. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 88-76, Approving Funds for Dakota County Animal Shelter. g. Victoria Highlands 3rd Addition, Final Plat. (Resolution No. 88-77). * h. Adoption of List of Election Judges (Resolution No. 88-78). AVAILABLE TUESDAY. i. Permanent Employment Status Appointment. j. Approval of the List of Licenses. k. Acknowledgement of Presentation Concerning MSP Adequacy Test. 1. Approval of List of Claims. ** m. Approval of Corrected Levy Resolution. ** n. Change Order for City Hall Signage. End of Consent Calendar. 6. Proclamation a. Proclamation Declaring Octobex 1 -22 as National Business Women's Week. -- 7. Introductions. 8. Public Comments. a. Request for Bermin1 on Lower Parking Lot of City Hall. 9. Response to Public Comments at September 6 and September 20 Meeting. a. Request for City Noise Ordinance. (PLEASE RIP INFORMATI N FROM SEP EMBE�j �20TH PACKET) . (y�� "rte �`- b. Copperfield Area Traffic Control nalysis (From/ September 20 Meeting) . -. G��-�./•� 10. Bid Award and Public Hearing: a. CASE NO. 88-38, Paster Enterprises, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Develop t„ Amendment i - HEAARRING - 8:15 P�.MM.. ruv - 11. Unfinished and w Busi i a. CASE NO. 88-37 Paster Enter rises Temporary S'gn Varia ce. -a� /8' 3') * b. CASE NO. 88-36, insn{ayer, Variance. i1 * C. CASE NO. 88-39, Lathrop, Lot Divisiorx. (Resolution No. 88-79). •-14 d. Request for Water Connection from West St. Paul Res dept, Daid Goldstein, 1554 Delaware. •- . _ # 31 V,5' f, -� �, e. Prope ty Acggisitions Along TH 55. f. AppoG ir)t `� ,p�fe�TH 149 Task Force. g. Request for_L!5"i tribu ion 'n Developing Property Tax Data Base. -� 4 c^� h. Follow up Letter to MASAC Concerns. 22Y C9� 6C. i. Plans ka,:,o D tai s for owing Citice. rovf Develo er Installed Improvements At J• APPPuv u Hagstrom-King Park. --- 0 it ** k. Resolution Concerning Dakota County Capital Improvement Program. (Resolution No. 88-80). 12. Response 13. Council 14. Adjourn. to Council Comments. Comments. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION APPOINTING 1988 ELECTION JUDGES WHEREAS, State Statutes require that appointment of election judges must be made by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the following list of persons has been submitted as qualified election judge candidates for the 1988 General Election; PRECINCT NO. 1, Somerset School, 1355 Dodd Road D June Wagner 1392 Farmdale Rd. 451-6199 Co -Captain R Rita Green 1134 Ivy Hill Dr. 455-5842 Co -Captain D Edwina Burrows 681 First Ave. 457-6658 R Sharon Koll 633 Sunset Lane 457-1953 R Sally Countryman 648 Ivy Falls Ave. 457-4770 R Eileen Mullen 1126 Kingsley Lane 454-3854 Circle No. 454-6050 PRECINCT NO. 2, City Council Chambers, 750 So. Plaza Drive D Laurita Weinzettel 2140 Dodd Road 454-4659 Captain D Betty Moen 2319 Swan Drive 454-7985 D Rita Maczko 907 Cheri Lane 454-7031 R Virginia Simek 814 Hazel Court 454-6247 R Nancy Kruse 902 Cheri Lane 454-3854 R Hubert Meier 795 Keokuk La. 454-2165 PRECINCT NO. 3, Mendota Elementary School. 1979 Summit Lane D Jean Fransen 2170 Pilot Knob 452-1390 Captain D Mary Hartz 2200 Pilot Knob D Geralyn Lerbs 774 Mohican 454-4405 R Cynthia Klecatsky 2078 Theresa 454-7602' R Annabel Randolph 541 W. Emerson 457-3863 PRECINCT NO. 4, Henry Sibley High School , 1897 Delaware Avenue D Marjorie Cheesebrow 594 W. Marie 454-1140 Captain D Pat Hetinger 658 Callahan Place 454-3150 R Theresa Esslinger 632 Callahan Place 454-1132 R Judy Hillstead 666 Callahan Place 454-2775 D Dolores Radabaugh 653 W. Marie 454-3190 PRECINCT NO. 5, Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church, 1960 Lexington R Arvid Rued 787 Keokuk Lane 454-4698 Captain R Bonnie Anderson 791 Upper Colonial 455-3172 R Janan Gainor 1769 Lansford Lane 452-2108 D Theresa Redding 720 W. Wentworth 454-1812 D Rosemary Murphy 1696 James Road 454-1880 R Evelyn Fischer 1733 Lansford La. 454-1150 PRECINCT NO. 6, Mendota Heights Fire Station,_ 2121 Dodd Road D Marsha Knuth 740 Mohican 454-7053 Captain D Mary Ann Hoyt 2276 Apache 454-3432 R Darlene Misner 706 Ocala 454-2262 R Marilyn Nelson 894 Wagon Wheel 454-1624 D Linda Weinzettel 2202 Aztec 454-6013 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota. Heights, that the preceding list of candidates are designated as 1988 Election Judges. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this Fourth day of:October, 1988. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CORRECTED CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION APPROVING -1988 -LEVY -COLLECTIBLE IN 1989 BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, that the following_ sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 1989 upon taxable property in said City of Mendota Heights for the following purposes: Levy Subject to -Limitation General Fund $ .1,398,200 Emergency Preparedness 1,000 Fireman's Relief Association 12,650 Metropolitan Sewer Debt 50t000 Watershed District -22.1500 Infrastructure Res. 50,000 Equipment Certificates 121,376 $ 1,655,726 Debt Service & Special Levy Equipment Certificate 20,624 Ivy Falls`Drainage Improvement 17,400 Park Bonds 52,000 TOTAL TAX LEVY: 1;745,750 The City clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Dakota County Auditor. , Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of September, 1988. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk September 29, 1988 This to acknowledge that Mary T. Lathrop of 640 W. Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, and Marvin and LaVerne LeMay of 636 W. Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, agree to the following: 1. The too], shed crossing the property line adjoining the Lathrop-LeMay lots is the property of the LeMays and is there with the permission of Mary Lathrop. 2. Mary Lathrop's permission to allow the LeMay too] shed,on her lot while the LeMays own and reside on their property does not indicate that she gives up her rights to the property on which the shed stands. 3. Should either the Lathrop or LeMay property be listed for sale or sold, the tool shed will be removed from the Lathrop property before the listing or sale is completed. a CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO OCTOBER 4, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D.A)!WCity Administrator SUBJECT: Approval of Developer Installed Improvements at Hagstrom-King Park In the developer's agreement for the Hampshire Estates plat, it was agreed that the developer would install a parking lot, bike trail, 1/2 court basketball, and tot lot in the dedicated Hagstrom-King park. The developer's proposal for these improvements was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at its August meeting, and the Commission unanimously endorsed that proposal. Attached is a site layout for the park, as well as information on the types of tot lot equipment proposed by the developer. The developer is eager to obtain Council approval, so that the equipment can be ordered and installed yet during this construction season. In reviewing the proposal, staff has raised two policy questions: 1. Should the 1/2 court basketball be concrete, rather than asphalt as proposed? Public Works Director Jim Danielson feels that concrete is more durable on this kind of surface, and makes for a better playing court. 2. The proposed parking lot is simply an asphalt paving. Should there also be curb and gutter installed? The engineering department estimates that the outside cost for these upgradings would be $2,500 each, or a total of $5,000. The developer's agreement does not call for the developer to provide this enhanced level, so presumably, the extra dollars would come from the park development fund. ACTION REQUIRED: Council should review the proposal and: 1. Indicate whether the park layout and equipment as proposed is acceptable. 2. Indicate whether it wishes to upgrade the 1/2 court basketball surface from asphalt to concrete. 3. Indicate whether it wishes to spend the extra money to put curb and gutter on the parking lot. KDF:madlr attachments GTY -- - --- ---- ►: 8i44 WAYSTruco"rott. 24 so. o(i -43Z ASVe6' ALL. PoW Wir 5eO .093. _ .'. SOiG'bI1 " '�1 tN c . �+A�Lt•, i sea, o . =NsTALL o A L%. e vi nota _.. WIT. A 35 �X �� �a.d wood iaot�cigrc� .. PtA Arta► w+ �u ��� �r Avg �,,. . . C.o %%a trOte. A��a 10 - ._.__..-- ZLoc�r •+- 0, FArL . . Aade�s•J 1�483.0� f ` Athletic � 1 �..,...... '1'„"''- .r�t 3 •9%n�a ::"i,l.i�eii�fe�:y Lti.��'• 1�ST,ShlJlit UipmentRON Basketball Outfits 1 •t � The curved post system is without a doubt the most aesthetically pleasing way to support a basketball backboard. • 10 year warranty on all polyethylene backboards 4-1/2" O.D. galvanized steel post offsets backboard 4'. Fan shaped or rectangular backboards are 1" thick white high density U.V. stabilized polyethylene •. Rims bolt directly to the post mounting plate for a secure and ,-,.:stable connection. 2” x 3" steel angles mounted to the board are further a supported by four braces. il !. All heavy duty twin rim goals. :9431; Support with fan board, twin rim goal and nylon net ;9432; Support with fan board, twin rim goal and chain net . ,.9441, Support with rectangular board, twin rim goal and ..W -,.,..: nylon net ,9442. Support with rectangular board, twin rim goal and •;; chain net ' isketball Parts 9411 02" O.D. support assembly (does not include braces) 9511 5-9/16" O.D. support assem- bly (does not include braces) 9401 Braces for support assem- bly—fan backboard 9501 Braces for support assem- bly—rectangular backboard 9111 Nylon basketball net Landscape Structures/ 62 Mexico Forge'' ' Y � i•. t. . tl' .3••41. e 9030 Fan H.D.P.E. backboard only (Specify undrilled If desired) 9040 Rectangular H.D.P.E. back- board only (Specify undrilled If desired) 9022 Twin rim goal and chain net 9713 Twin rim goal and nylon net 9222 Galvanized steel chain basketball net 14 PARK ►j �l � ti's... � ,; � ,,,%. _ .__ . Me7 ap PROPOSED CULVERT rb0�. �6 POND ICE ELEV $54.9 2f2Cy$ PROF? N.W.L. $54.0 as '� t 1 •' 6 _ �.. S �VE �� a i4i r _ "� i iRSON I lam' L I "IN '.x+$62 _ _ `� ❑ SHORELINE AT "" ... in �....:Y $64 �^ 1 ❑ 854.9 ve fill �� ! •, cn rn t .. I1 'PARK `-,,,� N 4• PARKING ?.,?; ` \ LOT," �•( •• Q7 �,� ,,,`� ~...mss �,�,. i...w "'�� .r.,, �.�, ..�•r . 76 �. \ /' - R� �'� � - a � I� �r ~^(�68� �...i865.21 � ,�4•� City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON DAKOTA COUNTY'S 1989 PROPOSED CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Dakota County is currently reviewing their 1989 Capital Improvement Program and has solicited comments from the cities on the program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has reviewed said program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights finds the intersection of Lexington Avenue (CR 43) with Trunk Highway 110 to be deficient; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is currently scheduling the completion of the City's bike trail system at an early date. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Dakota County be requested to add the upgrading of Lexington Avenue (CR 43) intersection with Trunk Highway 110 to their Capital Improvement Program in as early as possible a time frame and that County staff be asked to meet with City staff to discuss what County bike trail elements might be improved within the City within the near future. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of October, 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 AGENDA OCTOBER 4 1988 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Agenda Adoption. 4. Approval of September 6 Minutes. 5. Consent Calendar: a. Acknowledgement of September 27 Planning Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of September Code Enforcement Report. c. Acknowledgement of Quarterly Goals Progress Report. d. Acknowledgement of Engineering Quarterly Report. e. Approval of Contract with Maxfield Research Group. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 88-76, Approving Funds for Dakota County Animal Shelter. g. Victoria Highlands 3rd Addition, Final Plat. (Resolution No. 88-77). h. Adoption of List of Election Judges 4 esolution No. 88-78). AVAILABLE TUESDAY.' i. Permanent Employment Status A ointment. j. Approval of the List of Licenses. k. Acknowledgement of Presentation Concerning MSP Adequacy Test. 1. Ais ,,.pprovalL' t pf�aims. End of Consent Calendar. 6. Proclamation a. Proclamation Declaring October 16-22 as National Business Women's Week. 7. Introductions. 8. Public Comments. a. Request for Berming Along Lower Parking Lot of City Hall. 9. Response to Public Comments at September 6 and September 20 Meeting. a. Request for City Noise Ordinance. (PLEASE BRING 0 INFORMATION FROM SEPTEMBER 20TH PACKET). b. Copperfield Area Traffic Control Analysis. (From September 20 Meeting). 10. Bid Award and Public Hearing: a. CASE NO. 88-38, Paster Enterprises, conditional Use PermitforPlanned Unit Development Amendment. HEARING = 8:15 P.M. 11. Unfinished and New Business. a. CASE NO. 88-37, Paster Enterprises, Temporary Sign Variance. b. CASE NO. 88-36, Linsmaver. Variance. -Ltit C. CASE NO. 88-39, Lathrop, Lot Division. (Resolution No. 88-79). - I& d. d. Request for Water Connection from West St. Paul Resident, Daid Goldstein, 1554 Delaware. e. Property Acquisitions Along TH 55. f. Continued Discussion of Fire Dept. Bylaws. (Information available Tuesday). — 0 g. Appointment of TH 149 Task Force. h. Request for contribution in Developing Property Tax Data Base. i. Follow up Letter to MASAC Concerns. Plans and Details for Moving City Office. Response to Council Comments. ,Council Comments. Adjourn. I J- Xr. k-t9j� c� Page No. 2377 September 6, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 6, 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. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins Hartmann and Witt. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting as amended to delete item 9a, Planning Commission appointment. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the minutes of the August 16th meeting with correction. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Witt moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of all necessary items contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for August. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the August 23rd Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgement of a memo from the Public Works Director and a proposal from Barr Engineering to the Lower Mississippi River WMO for preparation of the Ivy Falls Creek drainage feasibility study. d. Approval of an application (Case No. 88-32), from Mr. Fred Erickson for a 5 foot wetlands setback variance to allow Page No. 2378 September 6, 1988 construction of a deck 95 feet from the wetlands area at 891 Mendakota Court. e. Acknowledgement of a tabulation of informal quotations for painting the Public Works Garage, and award of a purchase order to Kraus -Anderson Construction Company for their low bid of $5,845.00. f. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated September 6, 1988 and attached hereto. g. Approval of the list of claims dated September 6, 1988 and totalling $210,806.93. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. Joan Strot, 743 Decorah, submitted a letter requesting that the Council adopt a noise ordinance, and submitted copies of West St. Paul's noise ordinance as an example. Mrs. Strot cited noise from construction and construction•vehicles as the types of noise which are objectionable, and she asked why contractors using Decorah to get to Copperfield are not fined. Public Works Director Danielson responded that when Copperfield First Addition was first developing, the City required contractors to post a $1,000 escrow, from which any fines for using Decorah were to be deducted, but that the City stopped requiring the escrows when the access into Copperfield was developed. After discussion, Council referred the request to staff and directed that Mrs. Strot be advised when the matter is to be placed on a Coungil agenda. CITY HALL STREET NAME Council acknowledged a list of suggested names for the renaming of the T.H. 110 Frontage Road. Councilmember Blesener suggested that the street be named Victoria Curve. Councilmember Witt felt that the name should reflect "community". Page No. 2379 September 6, 1988 Councilmember Blesener moved that the T.H. 110 Frontage Road be renamed Victoria Curve. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Mertensotto Witt CASE NO. 88-31, Mr. Art Kuross was present to request KUROSS approval of the preliminary plat for the subdivision of property located north of Orchard Place and west of Lexington Avenue. Mr. Kuross indicated that he owns the land on which Blocks 1 and 2 are to be platted and Mr. Valdis Mikelsons owns the proposed 4 -lot Block 3 although he does not plan to develop those lots at this time. Mayor Mertensotto asked why the road does not run all the way to Lexington, and expressed concern that Mr. Mikelsons would not be able to further develop Lot 5 of his land because there would be no access to this property. Mr. Kuross stated that there is a curbed driveway all around Mr. Mikelsons' existing home and that the property owner adjacent to the Mikelsons land (Mr. Hughes) is not at all interested in developing his property. He also explained that there is a steep hill on the Mikelsons Lot 5 and that the only potential for developing this lot would be for a single lot facing Lexington. Councilmember Blesener felt that Council should be more concerned over development of the back of the Hughes property. Mr. Kuross responded that Mr. Hughes has absolutely no interest in developing his land but that if he chooses to at some time in the future, Mr. Hughes can gain access to his land from either Lexington or Orchard. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the private driveways into the subdivision are contrary to City ordinances. Mr. Kuross stated that he feels he has done a good job of opening up landlocked property and that the private driveways as proposed were recommended by City staff. Councilmember Blesener stated that while she is not concerned over the lot private drives she would like it recorded that the current property owners Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2380 September 6, 1988 agree to the platting knowing that their properties will be landlocked. Mr. Kuross stated that Mr. Hughes has access from Lexington and Orchard and so does the Mikelsons property. He pointed out that he has tried to get Mr. Hughes to participate in the platting but that Mr. Hughes has absolutely no interest and wants to develop his land for his own personal use only. He informed Council that Mr. Hughes also owns the (former) Ivar Mikelsons land and that the driveway to Mr. Hughes home will be across this lot. Public Works Director Danielson confirmed that Mr. Hughes does not want to be involved in the development. Councilmember Blesener felt that there should be some type of signed statement from the property owners. She stated that while she believes Mr. Kuross has done the best he can with the site, her only concern is that a notice should be sent to Mr. Mikelsons and Mr. Hughes about the landlocking which would ask them for a signed agreement. Councilmember Blesener moved approval of the preliminary plat for the Kuross subdivision on the condition that the City receive written consent from the property owners to the east outlining the nature of the plat and stipulating that those owners agree with the platting knowing that they will be restricted in the future development., of their properties to the extent. that those properties do not front on a public roadway. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. With respect to $ request from Mr. Kuross for preparation of a feasibility study, Mayor Mertensotto felt that the study should be held up until the agreements from Mr. Mikelsons and Mr. Hughes have been received. Council briefly discussed a memo from the Public Works Director regarding the naming of the plat and the public street located within the plat. Page No. 2381 September 6, 1988 Mr. Kuross stated that he will submit the required engineering escrow and park contribution. Councilmember Blesener moved approval of the proposed plat name "Val's Addition," and the proposed street name "Orchard Circle, along with adoption of Resolution No. 88-70, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR KUROSS SUBDIVISION," as amended to include a new paragraph 3 stipulating that the developer be required to submit a $1,500 engineering escrow deposit. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 88-33, Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for EAGLE POINT the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the C.G. Rein Company for an amendment to the Eagle Point Planned Unit Development conditional use permit. Mr. Ted Zinner, representing the C.G. Rein Company, stated that the 27 unit Eagle Point Condominium development has been operating for five years and that the PUD was originally approved for two phases of 27 units each and a common area. He stated that the first phase was slow in selling out, that the C.G. Rein Company has purchased the last three units and the adjoining, second -phase, property from the original developer. He informed Council that it has taken his firm over a year to sell the three units and that a marketing survey has brought the Rein Company to the conclusion that there really isn't a demand for condominiums. The Rein Company wants to develop the property and be consistent with the existing facility; and is proposing to develop a new structure with a footprint of about 40% of the existing. Mr. Zinner stated that the building will mimic the original except in size, and informed Council that the homeowners association supports the proposal. He informed Council that the building will contain seven condominiums, one on the third floor and three on each of the other two floors. He stated that the only variance requested from the original PUD is that the number of units be reduced from 27 Page No. 2382 September 6, 1988 to 7; the facade treatment and roof pitch will be the same as the existing building. Councilmember Witt asked whether the developer will come back asking for additional units if the market changes. Mr. Zinner responded that the Rein Company is not retaining any property rights so it could not ask for additional units in the future, and also that the company has no desire to come into the condominium market and will deed over all rights to the homeowners association. Responding to a request from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Zinner stated that he will get a copy of the homeowners association resolution which supports the proposed PUD amendment. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed at 8:32 P.M. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Witt moved approval of the amendment to the Eagle Point Planned Unit Development conditional use permit to reduce the number of units from 27 to 7, conditioned upon receipt of a copy of the approving resolution from the Eagle Point homeowners association and subject to approval of the project landscaping plan by City staff. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 In response to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Zinner stated that there will be two undeVground parking spaces provided for each unit and that outside' parking spaces will be the same as in the original PUD. CASE NO. 88-34, Councilmember Cummins moved approval of a TOUNTAS 3.5 foot variance from the front yard setback at 828 Deer Trail Point, Lot 5, Block 1, Deer Trail Hills, to allow construction of a garage 26.5 feet from the Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 86-33, BRAINARD Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2383 September 6, 1988 front property line, along with waiver of Planning Commission review. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Mr. Donald Brainard, 1705 South Victoria, was present to request approval of an 11 foot 2 inch variance from the established area front yard setback. After brief discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved approval of an 111, 2" variance from the established frontyard setback for 1705 South Victoria, to allow construction of a garage 40 feet from the front property line. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. VALLEY VIEW PLAYGROUND David Ayers, President of the Valley View Civic Association, was present regarding the proposed contract for development of Lot 10, Block 1 6F Curley's Valley View Addition as a playground. After brief discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved approval of the Contract for Park Development along with authorization of its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Witt ARRT BUILDING Mr. Victor Perlbach, of Design Partnership, Ltd., was present to request approval of a building permit for a proposed American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) building proposed to be constructed on Lots 6 and 7, Block 4, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, along with a variance from the parking space requirement. Mr. Perlbach reviewed drawings and interior and exterior design plans for the Council and audience. He stated that the exterior will be grey face brick with limestone trim details. He stated that the occupancy of the building will be 16 employees, with no foreseeable increase beyond a total of 25 to 26 employees in the future. He indicated that the firm has provided 36 parking stalls which should be more than Page No. 2384 September 6, 1988 adequate for future needs but that the plan does show proof of parking for 155 stalls which could be accomplished if future needs dictate. Councilmember Blesener stated that the landscaping plan would make adding even 10 stalls a very difficult chore. She stated that she would like to see some amount of expanse shown on the plan, at least providing some open space for future parking space expansion. Councilmember Hartmann agreed, stating that the landscaping (parking) plan should be revised so that parking could be provided in the future without disrupting in-place landscaping. It was noted that the applicants are requesting a variance from the sign setback requirement to allow installation of a ground sign 20 feet from the property line, consistent with signage in the industrial park. Mr. George Burkhards, from United Properties, stated that he does not believe it would be a problem for Mr. Perlbach to prepared a revised landscape plan as requested and also that United Properties has no objection to the reduced number of parking spaces proposed to be constructed. Councilmember Blesener moved approval of a building permit for the proposed ARRT facility along with approval of the ground sign as submitted, subject to the understanding that the applicants must submit a revised parking plan to Council for its approval on a future consent calendar. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 , Nays: 0 PABST STREET VACATION Mr. Tim Pabst was present regarding continued Council discussion on his request for the vacation of a portion of the right- of-way adjacent to Lloyd's Meats. Mr. Pabst reviewed the proposed vacation area in relation to the platting of the property which was approved a short time ago. He stated that the Pabst family will retain Page No. 2385 September 6, 1988 Lot 1, which has access, that Lloyd's property has access and that the FotoMark outlot has access. He informed Council that he has dedicated 40 feet of right-of- way for Perron Road to the City. Councilmember Hartmann stated that he is concerned about the Linville property and that he does not believe that Mr. Linville was willing to give more right-of-way than what already existed. He asked whether there is room for Mr. Linville to dedicate as additional right-of-way from his subdivision. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that action be tabled to September 20th and that staff prepare a report explaining the background and researching the Perron Road right-of- way issue. The matter was tabled to September 20th. TH 110/LEXINGTON The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the City Administrator relative to the market concern over the proposed Lexington/T.H. 110 redevelopment project. Mr. John Duffy and Mr. Tom Curley were present for the discussion. Mr. Duffy agreed that a market study would be a good idea and indicated that he has hired a much more detailed demographic study than would be received in a market study. He stated that the demographic study is much more important to the developers in determining what to construct. He stated that what this study determined was that a convenience center is needed, and that the developer had spent 9 months on the project before bringing it to Council and have submitted a proposal which the developers and their lenders are comfortable with. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the City is being asked to contribute $300,000 to $400,000 in tax increment money and that Council needs to know that its investment would be responsible. He further stated that Council needs assurance that the development would generate $85,000 per year in taxes. Page No. 2386 September 6, 1988 Mr. Duffy stated that he believes the timing is right for development of this corner and that his market study indicates a convenience center is appropriate if Council agrees with Mn/DOT over location of the frontage road. He stated that prior to the initial Council discussion on the matter, no one had indicated that a convenience center would be inappropriate for the corner. He informed Council that the developers have banking, fast-food, hardware, video rental, furniture, paint and wallpaper, day care and restaurant prospective tenants for the development. Mayor Mertensotto felt that Council should pursue the Administrator's recommendation that a City market study be commissioned. Councilmember Blesener agreed that the City should commission a study so that the Council has an independent verification that the proposed center has viability. Administrator Frazell stated that he is impressed by the depth of the work the applicants have done but that he is concerned that there is no indication of who the anchor tenant will be. Mr. Duffy responded that Curley Furniture would be housed in 14,000 square feet of the 32,000 square foot total and that a banking . facility would use 2,000 square feet. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the City needs an independent evaluation of the proposal and to determine what options and alternatives are available if the gas/convenience facility is eliminated by Council. Councilmember Blesener felt that more input is necessary on use of tax'increment monies by other cities. It was the consensus of Council that the City commission an independent study to evaluate the proposal, excluding the suggested use for Outlot A. FIRE DEPARTMENT Chief Maczko and members of the Fire Department were present and discussed the proposed Fire Department Rules and Regulations with the Council. Page No. 2387 September 6, 1988 There was discussion over the mixing of the Fire Relief Association/Fire Department activities. Administrator Frazell agreed, stating that it must be made very clear in the document that the Treasurer is really the custodian of the Relief Association funds. There was also discussion over the proposed language relative to the hiring and firing of firefighters and references to use of intoxicants. After discussion, Council directed that•the proposed regulations be referred to Attorney Hart for review. Councilmembers Hartmann and Blesener asked that a meeting be set for continued discussion of capital budgeting with Chief Maczko. LMC POSITION PAPER Council acknowledged and concurred in the recommendations of Administrator regarding the League of Minnesota Cities' position on legislative issues. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Cummins moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:43 o'clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page 1 September 27, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 27, 1988, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 750 South Plaza Drive. Vice - Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M,. The following members were present: Anderson, Duggan, Krebsbach, McMonigal, and new member Mike Dwyer. Commissioners Morson and Burke had notified the Commission that they would be unable to attend. Also present were Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren and Public Works Director Jim Danielson. APPROVAL OF Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the MINUTES August 23 minutes as submitted. Commissioner McMonigal seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1, Dwyer INTRODUCTION OF Vice -Chair Anderson introduced and NEW MEMBER welcomed Mr. Michael Dwyer, 558 Stone Road, who was appointed by Council to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Stu Henning. Mr. Dwyer, a resident of Copperfield, is an attorney with a Minneapolis law firm. CASE NO. 88-36, Mr. Nicholas Linsmayer, 1935 Glenhill LINSMAYER, Road, was present to request a five foot VARIANCE side yard setback variance for Lot 17, Block 1, Valley View Oak 1st, to allow construction of a 20' by 35' in -ground swimming pool. He noted that his proposed pool placement will still maintain a 10 foot setback from his home, as had been requested by City staff. He had a letter of approval from his affected neighbor, Richard Swanherg, 1224 Culligan Lane. Vice -Chair Anderson a$ked what the pool fence would be like. Mr. Linsmayer responded that it would be a six foot vertical cedar, board on board fence. Commissioner Krebsbach felt approval from Mr. Larry Culligan, who will see the fence from his property, would be good to have on record. Page 2 September 27, 1988 Commissioner Duggan asked where the pool will drain. Mr. Linsmayer stated it will not be drained, since it is an in -ground pool. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend approval of the requested five foot side yard setback variance as shown on the map submitted with the agenda materials, conditioned upon written approval from the Culligan family approving the plan. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 88-39, Mrs. Mary Lathrop, 640 Marie Avenue, was LATHROP, LOT present to request approval to split her SPLIT 202 foot wide lot into two parcels, A and B. Her present home is on Parcel A, which she plans to sell, so she can build a new home on Parcel B. It was noted that there is a shed on Parcel B, which she stated belongs to her neighbors, the LeMay's. She felt that as long as she owns Parcel B and had written approval from the LeMay's, the shed location should present no problem. The Commission felt she should get a more accurate measurement of the shed on Parcel A which is nearest the center of the lot lines. Vice -Chair Anderson felt the proposal would not be out of character for the neighborhood, and the newly created lot would still contain over 21,000 square feet. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to recommend approval of the subdivision of Lot 18, Willow Springs Addition, into Parcel A and Parcel B, 640 West Marie, as set forth on the certificate of survey reviewed at the meeting, contingent upon written agreement between the LeMay's and, Mrs. Lathrop that Mary Lathrop will remove the shed from her property (Parcel B) when she sells that property. Ayes: 5 Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Nays: 0 CASE NO. 88-37, Mr. Edward Paster was present to request Page 3 September 27, 1988 PASTER, SIGN variances to allow a temporary (semi - VARIANCE permanent, for 2-3 years) sign (TEMPORARY) advertising space for lease in the Mendota Plaza Shopping Center. He proposes to place two 4' x 8' signs on the property line along Dodd Road. It was noted that City Ordinance allows 25 square feet and the proposed signs.are 64 square feet. The Ordinance also calls for a minimum setback for free standing signs at 20 feet from a side lot line, and the proposal is for a zero setback. Mr. Paster noted -that he is paying $500 for the sign, and would like it in place for 2-3 years, not three months, and he would like to place the sign on the boulevard in the area where the Firemen's Ball sign is now. He also noted that he has to pax a $200 sign permit fee and wondered if the fire department had to pay the same fee. He..also noted that their sign is on his property and they never asked permission to put it there. Mr. John Streeter, the construction foreman, said the legs would be treated 4x4 posts, 12 feet long, with four feet in poured concrete in the ground. There would be four feet clearance from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Planner Dahlgren noted that the Ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from the property line in a B-4 zone. Vice -Chair Anderson expressed concern with the viability of the shopping center and also with obscuring the visibility by placing the sign on the property line. He felt this placement would obscure the motorists vision while attracting their attention. He felt that for lease signs in the windows and the sign on the McDonald pylon should be enough advertising. Mr. Paster felt that his firm needs to correct the entrance into the center. Vice -Chair Anderson felt a flat sign facing Dodd Road would be preferable since it would not obscure anyone's vision. Commissioner Duggan asked if McDonalds, Page 4 September 27, 1988 Mendakota or Amoco know of the proposed sign. Mr. Paster said he has not talked to them about his proposal. Commissioner Duggan then suggested placing a brick/block sign on Mendakota's property across from the entrance to the center. Mr. Paster noted that the existing center sign, if moved from McDonalds to the Paster property, would need to be five feet higher than the existing sign. He noted this would give them better visibility. Planner Dahlgren felt the legs could be longer, but that the sign does not need to be larger. He felt a 41 foot sign is pretty high. Commissioner Duggan asked Mr. Paster when they decided to add the extra five foot height. Mr. Paster repponded that he decided that the night before the meeting. He also stated that the bell tower is proposed to be 6110" above the tenants names and that three bell towers would give a good architectural image to the center. The base of the bell tower will be "coining" stone and brick or stone/block/brick material. Mr. Paster suggested that he could move the sign back from the street and place it up higher to help visibility. Planner Dahlgren suggested putting the sign under the existing pylon on TH 110. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend denial of the variance as requested due to potential traffic hazards, distractions approaching an already busy intersection, and in light of more viable options. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 88-38, Vice -Chair Anderson opened the meeting PASTER, CUP/PUD for the purpose of a public hearing to AMENDMENT consider a request from Paster Enterprises for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow installation of two pylon signs and a bell tower at Mendota Plaza Shopping Center. Mr. Paster noted that the existing center sign, if moved from McDonalds to the Paster property, would need to be five feet higher than the existing sign. He noted this would give them better visibility. Planner Dahlgren felt the legs could be longer, but that the sign does not need to be larger. He felt a 41 foot sign is pretty high. Commissioner Duggan asked Mr. Paster when they decided to add the extra five foot height. Mr. Paster repponded that he decided that the night before the meeting. He also stated that the bell tower is proposed to be 6110" above the tenants names and that three bell towers would give a good architectural image to the center. The base of the bell tower will be "coining" stone and brick or stone/block/brick material. Page 5 September 27, 1988 Vice -Chair Anderson felt this was a good plan, but that there needs to be agreement on the height of the signs. There being no public for comments, Commissioner Krebsbach moved to close the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. Commissioner McMonigal seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a planned unit development amendment prepared by Paster Enterprises with the following conditions: 1. That pylon A may be five feet taller than the existing sign. 2. That the bell tower is ok as presented. 3. That pylon B as redesigned by Planner Dahlgren be redrawn by an architect and submitted to Council for the public hearing. The sign may be five feet higher than shown and that it be placed on a redesigned concrete or grassy area. Vice -Chair Anderson added that the placement of pylon B is based on a redesigned driveway entrance and may not be closer than 30 feet to the TH 149 right-of-way, and that this be subject to final engineering and landscape detail approval by city staff. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson gave a verbal review of the gases that had been , before the City Council. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner McMonigal moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Page 6 September 27, 1988 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 P.M. It was noted that this would be the last Commission meeting to be held in this Council Chamber. The October meeting would be held at the Fire Station, 2121 Dodd Road. MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council, and Cit As - - tor FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for September, 1988 Date: September 27, 1988 CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE - 1988 YEAR TO DATE - 1987 BUILDING PERMITS NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED SFD 13 2,070,250.00 18,209.44 106 16,319,577.81 143,081.83 112 15,956,556.31 142,437.19 APT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/I 7 533,000.00 4,918.65 42 5,351,559.00 31,375.34 50 9,268,689.56 53,719.18 MISC. 20 203,339.00 3,145.19 170 1,243,504.77 21,518.13 183 1,130,725.06 21,271.04 SUB TOTAL 40 $2,806,589.00 $26,273.28 1 318 $22,914,641.58 $195,975.30 1345 $26,355,970.93 $217,427.41 TRADE PERMITS PLUMBING 21 WATER 19 SEWER 14 HEAT, AC, AND GAS 20 SUB TOTAL 74 LICENSING CONTRACTOR'S LICENSES 17 TOTAL 131 $2,806,589.00 $29,265.78 601.00 95.00 245.00 1,626.50 $2,567.50 425.00 138 3,680.00134 118 590.00 153 100 1,750.00 121 153 13,700.00 F176509 $19,720.00 437 10,925.00 264 $22,914,641.58 $226,620.30 3,583.00 765.00 2,117.50 17,644.50 $24,110.00 411 10,275.00 340 $26,355,970.93 $251,812.41 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and valuation amounts. TARGET ISSUES: 1987/88/89 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ADOPTED APRIL, 1987 TARGET ISSUE STATUS - 10/1/88 -------------------------------------------+--------------------------- TOP PRIORITY 1. Parks Development - Reassess program, priorities, and direction - Secure location for athletic complex - Reschedule date for referendum 2. Southeast Area Plan Amendment 3. 4. 5. - Adoption of noise ordinance - Complete Plan approval by Met. Council and adoption - Consider parks implications - React to development proposals - Construct public improvements City Hall - Bldg. Committee completes schematic plans - Architects draw up Pl. and Specs. - Let for bid and construct - Arrange and approve financing - Consider policies for operation - MOVE IN AND ENJOY! 110/Dodd Area Redevelopment Reconsidering priorities in light of referendum failure. Resident survey planned for Fall. B - A working on three neighborhood park plans. All approvals in place, and Phase I construction to begin soon. Reconsidering overall sketch plan to accommodate park needs. Mid- to late- October completion anticipated. Finalizing plans for early November move in. - Work with MnDot on 149 improvements I Building renovations - Work with Mendota Plaza new owners I approved by Council. PUD for redevelopment I approval for sign - Determine future of S. Plaza Dr. I variances on October 4 - Clean up entire area I Council agenda. Airport Noise - Become more active in issue - Resolve corridor issues with Eagan - Adopt noise attenuation ordinance 1 MASAC continuing to study corridor. Expect I resolution in late Fall. 6. Hwy. 55 Corridor Study - City Planner completes background - Meet with neighbors and owners - Focus direction and policy - Identify funding sources - Implement preferred plan 7. Zoning Code Amendments - Planner completes background work - Workshop with Pl. Comm. to discuss amendments and set policy - Draft ordinances, hold public hearings, and adopt revisions Pursuing redevelopment plans and beginning discussions with residents about property purchases. Council/P1. Commission direction given. Staff working on draft of new ordinance for public hearings and adoption. -------------------------------------------t--------------------------- HIGH PRIORITY 8. Infrastructure Re6lacement Policy - Inventory existing status and establish replacement schedule � - Adopt policy on standard for reconstruction - Set policy on City financial contribution - Continue to build sinking fund - Consider County turnback program 9. Street Lighting/Sidewalk Policy - Develop policy for new and existing neighborhoods - Adopt financing policy 10. Commissions - Clarify relationship to Council - Develop recruitment effort Develop training program - Define Planner/Staff role - Hold periodic joint workshop 2 Engineering Department has completed initial inventory and collection of background data. Now need to consider format for evaluation. Project continues as time permits. Continuing to build fund. Staff to develop alternative policies and programs for Council consideration. Project to be handled by new staff position planned for 1989 budget. Should paan additional workshop during 1989. 11. Financial Management - Review investment of idle funds - Review insurance coverages - Review external audit - Consider need for Council guidelines and goals - Role of Treasurer - What to do after Larry 12. Drainage Ditches and Holding Ponds - Review maintenance program and beef up as needed 13. MSA Street Program - Review and reconsider priorities 14. Economic Development - Consider need for more proactive City role in attracting desirable business - Structure City program Project to be done as time permits. Draft background study completed. On-going with budget Will address as time allows. Council may need to clarify its expectations and desires. -------------------------------------------- i ---------------------------- MODERATE PRIORITY 15. Sanitary Sewers - Work with MWCC to get accurate meter readings - Agree on temporary method of measurement - Decide on correction of identified I/I Problem areas - Identify and react to other problem areas 16. Elections - Review needs and options - Review optiscan system - Review precinct boundaries - Lobby County for needs 3 New MWCC readings have alleviated much of problem. Continue to monitor and plan corrections as need is apparent. Optiscan acquired and proved successful in primary. Will be used in general election. 17. Equipment Replacement - Inventory existing stock and establish replacement schedule - Establish reserve fund, weaning off equipment certificates - Include parks equipment 18. Use of "Garron"site - Focus on desired future use - Resolve conflict between Comp. P1. and current zoning 19. Hwy. 110/Lexington Intersection - Redesign and upgrade of roadways - Redevelopment.of existing use - Future commercial uses 20. City Image - Adopt slogan - Adopt logo - City Hall planned to reflect - Employee service 21. Recreation Program Addressed on on-going basis in annual budget preparation. Have mostly eliminated use of equipment certificates. Being addressed as part of Hwy. 55 study. Maxfield Research Group retained to evaluation market issues. Logo adopted; stationary I and other uses being planned. - Survey needs, present and future I Project to be addressed by - Assess current program } new staff position - Plan to meet future needs I included in 1989 budget. I -------------------------------------------+--------------------------- LOW PRIORITY 22. MAC Property Sale and Use - Review status of sale to United - Work with developer on use 23. City Code Codification - Determine need - Recodify existing ordinances 4 Prel. plat approved; public improvements being planned for 189 construction. I I To be completed as time allows. r 24. MIS Review I - Review effectiveness of current uses] Mostly in place; on-going - Consider additional applications ( review with annual budgets. 25. St. Paul Water Agreement - Reconsider City objectives Negotiate and enter new agreement with St. Paul 26. Tax Increment District - Review and prioritize remaining projects - React to specific requests/proposals for TIF assistance - Schedule remaining projects and plan!! for termination of district 27. Council - Staff .Commission Retreat - Study and anticipate the future - Plan and organize to react appropriately - Consider need for professional assistance 28. Comparable Worth Suburban communities meeting to discuss issues of common concern. Final plan in place. React to requests/opportunities for use as they are presented. Teambuilding workshop held June 4. Staff follow up report written; additional workshop planned for 2989. - Review City Administrator j Program adopted during recommended program 11987. To be implemented - Adopt a program I in stages through 1989. - Begin implementation by 8/1/87 j -------------------------------------------+--------------------------- LOWER PRIORITY 29. House Moving Ordinance - Amend current ordinance to require developer's agreement with timetable 30. Snowplowing - Review current snowplowing procedures and determine whether to amend to increase efficiency 5 Being addressed with zoning ordinances. t 4 Alternatives routes tried during 188. Will consider contract plowing in 88/89. 31. Relationship with Mendota/Lilydale - Identify impending issues - Review provision of services Resolve storm water runoff problems 32. Police Department - Review problem of high percentage of senior officers - Plan for future turnover 33. Fee Schedules - Review existing fee schedules (i.e. Parks dedication, Planning, etc.) - Modify as deemed appropriate 34. Cable Television - Cablecast of -City meetings - Design in new City Hall - Plan City programming 35. Employee Benefits Tends to be on-going discussion at budget time. Storm water part of WMO implementation; awaiting decision by State Board. Recent turnovers have improved situation. New position in 1989. To be done as part of adopting new zoning and subdivision ordinances. Included in detail planning for City Hall. Prepare for meeting broadcast. - Expansion of cafeteria plan 1 Future project as time - Review possibility of fitness plan I allows. ----------------------------------- BOTTOM PRIORITIES 36. RR Crossing in Industrial Park 37. 38. - Review status and decide when and if to build CDBG Projects - Survey potential uses and implement Intersection Obstructions - Review problem of obstructions from tree, bushes, etc. - Plan to remedy as necessary P Project authorized; RR to install during next year. I I Excess funds available. Use as appropriate. To be done as part of ordinance recodification project. I ENGINEER'S PROJECT REPORT SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 PROJECT: Imp. 86-1 Mendota Hts. Rd. Huber Dr. Connection. DESCRIPTION: City Street and Utility construction to serve the S.E. Area. CURRENT STATUS: All underground work complete. Curb and gutter and black top will be installed later this fall. Project will be completed in the Spring of 189. ESTIMATED COST: Total Project cost estimated at $800,000. REMARKS: Assessment will be by acreage served. PROJECT: Imp. 87-2• Hillside Creek DESCRIPTION: Sewers, Water, Streets to serve 10 Single family lot development, plus serve Brookside -Laura Area. CURRENT STATUS: FeasibilityCompleted. Will begin plans shortly. Developer will begin grading this Fall. ESTIMATED COST: Feasibility: $224,000 REMARKS: Still examining the link -up with Laura. PROJECT: Imp. 87-7 Victoria Highlands DESCRIPTION: Sewers, Water, Streets to serve 34 single family lots and 32 townhomes, located at Marie and Victoria. CURRENT STATUS: Project is nearly complete. The final lift of blacktop will be installed in the spring. ESTIMATED COST: Feasibility: $742,000 (12,000 per lot) REMARKS: PROJECT: Imp. 87-5 Sibley Heights DESCRIPTION: Sewers, Water, Streets to serve 24 new lots along Warrior Drive near Sibley High School. CURRENT STATUS: Project is close to completion. All but the final lift of black top and restoration is done. ESTIMATED COST: Feasibility Estimate $237,600 (9,900 per lot) PROJECT: Imp. 85-6, Lake LeMay Overflow Project DESCRIPTION: Sewer & water for areas around George's Golf Course and Storm Sewer Overflow for Lake LeMay. CURRENT STATUS: Plans complete but bids were opened and 50% over engineer's estimate, so they were rejected. Awaiting results of a comprehensive study of the T.H. 55 area by the city planner. ESTIMATED COST: New estimate will be available after this study. REMARKS: Lake Level has stablized. Currently there is no immediate threat of•flooding. PROJECT: Imp. 88-4 Val's Addition (Developer Art Kuross) DESCRIPTION: Utilities for 10 S.F. lots north of Orchard Lane. CURRENT STATUS: Currently working on Feasibility report. ESTIMATED COST: Unknown at this time REMARKS: Developer wants to get started this year. PROJECT: Imp. 87-4 Hampshire Estates DESCRIPTION: Public utilities to serve 59 single family lots CURRENT STATUS: First phase is complete. Second phase is just getting underway. ESTIMATED COST: This project is being constructed by the developer REMARKS: This development will be effected by the MHR-Huber Drive project. Assessments of about $2000 per acre will apply. PROJECT: Imp. 87-8 Kensington Estates DESCRIPTION: Public utilities for Manor Home Development. CURRENT STATUS: Developer is getting ready to start construction of first phase. ESTIMATED COST: REMARKS: This project is to be constructed by the developer. PROJECT: Imp. 88-1 Bridgeview Shores First Addition DESCRIPTION: Public utilities to serve 25 single family lots. CURRENT STATUS: One Culdesac is being constructed as part of the MHR/ Huber project. Construction of the other portions is 50% complete. ESTIMATED COST: $12,000 per lot. REMARKS: PROJECT: Imp. 88-2 M.H. Business Park (Mac Site). DESCRIPTION: Public utilities to serve 12 lots in a business park. CURRENT STATUS: In preliminary stages. PROJECT: Imp. 88-3 Copperfield IV DESCRIPTION: Public utilities to serve 17 S.F. lots, the Weed prop. CURRENT STATUS: Construction of utilities is just commencing. Utility construction will be complete in 189. ESTIMATED COST: $11,000 per lot. PROJECT: City Capital Assets Inventory. DESCRIPTION: A study of the condition of all City infrastructure. CURRENT STATUS: Storm sewer inventory and condition is nearly complete. Work on the other utilities has started. PROJECT: Job 8710 July 187 Super Storm Damage. DESCRIPTION: Repair of all damaged facilities due to 187 storm CURRENT STATUS: Work is complete. Must finish documentation. PROJECT: 87-6, Cornick Watermain extention DESCRIPTION: Cornick's well was contaminated as a result of the Super storm last year. A source of water is needed so a watermain project has been designed. CURRENT STATUS: Plans for the project are complete but we are working with HRA to develop method of funding the project. I CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council 11-1 FROM: Kevin D. F z ty Administrator SUBJECT: Contract with Maxfield Research Group At the meeting of September 20, Council selected the firm of Maxfield Research Group, Inc., to conduct the independent market analysis of the proposed shopping develop- ment at TH 110 and Lexington. There were a couple of questions in the contract that Council wanted clarified. Attached is a new letter of proposal from Maxfield. I draw your attention to the second paragraph which outlines the scope of the work. I believe this is more consistent with Council intent. You will also notice that the proposal now includes one presentation meeting with the City Council, and the base fee has been increased from $2,500 to $2,700. It is indicated that any additional meetings would be billed at the rates specified in the letter of agreement. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to authorize staff to enter the attached contract with Maxfield Research Group for completion of a market evaluation of the proposed redevelopment at TH 110/Lexington Avenue. KDF:madlr attachment MAXIE611VRICH FIELD L September 22, 1988 Mr. Kevin Frazell City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Dear Mr. Frazell: It was a pleasure to speak with you regarding Mendota Heights' research needs for the proposed retail center at Highway 110 and Lexington Avenue. Please accept this letter as our proposal for a retail market review. As I understand the city's needs, you are not interested in a full retail mar- ket feasibility study for this center, but rather to determine the appropriate- ness of this center at the Highway 110 and Lexington Avenue location as well as the types of stores that would anchor the center. The scope of this study will include a site analysis, a review of types of anchor tenants at other shopping centers in northern Dakota County, examination of planned retail de- velopments in the area, and recommendations regarding the proposed center. The cost of this study will be Two Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($2,700), includ- ing one presentation meeting with the city council. The cost of this study, which will be presented in a written report, is based on our normal,hourly rates of $40 to $60 per hour for research time and my time at $100 per hour. Any meeting time required beyond the one council meeting will be billed in addition to the above cost at these hourly rates. If you have any questions about this proposal or if you need additional infor- mation, please feel free to call me. If this proposal meets with the city's approval, please date and sign one copy of this letter and return it to our office with a retainer for $1,000 and we will begin our work immediately. Our work will be.completed within thirty (30) days of the execution of this con- tract. Thank you again for contacting Maxfield Research Group, Inc. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, MAXFIELD RESEARCH GROUP, INC. Les A.Maxtieldv Agreed to this day of 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Kevin Frazell LAM/kjn 7 r � E 620 KICKERNICK, 430 FIRST AVENUE NORTH 612-338-0012 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION COMMITTING FUNDS TO THE MINNESOTA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DAKOTA COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER WHEREAS, the Minnesota Valley Humane Society, a private, non-profit corporation of the State of Minnesota, proposes to construct and operate a full service animal facility within Dakota County; and WHEREAS, the programs and services of such a facility would be available to all residents and municipal governments of the County; and WHEREAS, the humane treatment of animals in the County is an important public policy objective; and WHEREAS, MSA 343.11 authorizes the City to make contributions to a humane society in furtherance of its purposes; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Valley Humane Society has requested that the cities in Dakota County support the capital development of an animal shelter. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the City Council hereby makes a commitment of $3,500 toward the construction of the animal shelter, payable at the time construction is to commence. Adopted this 4th day of October, 1988. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor ATTEST: Mary Ann DeLaRosa Deputy City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 28, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and Cit ;s ator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Victoria Highlands 3rd Addition Final Plat. nT9rTT.4GTnm The Victoria Highlands Townhomes plat was approved as four platted lots and 10 platted outlots. This was done so that final plat of the outlots could be accomplished after the individual units were sold. After the units are selected, lot line configurations can be established based on the units selected. The Developer has now submitted his first final plat for three units to be located on Outlots C (see attached). a RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Victoria Highlands 3rd Addition final plat as submitted. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they need to pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 88- , RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 3RD ADDITION. City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS, a final plat for Victoria Highlands 3rd Addition has been submitted to the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said final plat. NOW THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the final plat of Victoria Highlands 3rd Addition submitted at this meeting be and the same is hereby approved. 2. That the appropriate City officials be and they are hereby authorized to execute the final plat on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of October, 1988. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor 0 KNOW ALL HEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That Ruth P. McCloud, • vIda- and net r rrl.d, is. o , "[Joel. A. All...a. uaatrled, I a • tl. wlll•rd A1LLva. Jt., . rld.+ec and net c rri.do. t.. IY[vlt C4gany. • Nlnn•.at• Gane[al is etn...nlp. !ae nor e,M cont...t for O.ad v nd , of the [.lieu!., ne.erlb•d land v shat.. In the Sut• of M1nMsota. County of Dote,. to it, Outlet Cr VICTORIA NIORLA DS 2ND MOITION, • cording to thereset Nd Plat CN rue t, Dskot• County, ML,n•scta Hsv caused the sob to W surveyed and platted as VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 3RD ADDITION. IN wITNES9 wNEHtor, Id Ruth P. HCC1oud, A ride s,M not .rtrs.a, he. n.reance ..c her nand this _ a.y of , 19_ Ruth mcClood iw w3TNrsS NM[At:OT, said Har)orl• A. Allstra, ona•erl.d, has R. r.—to set her haha this _ day of 19� , -.Joel. A. •era IN NITNCSS wHCR0 •aid R. Millard Ail.tra, Jr.. a ridav . and c urrdad. has na.•unc• s.e cal. end this _ day of 19� HWillardatra. Jt. I IN NITNC59 "CRECIF, •old __1c fvpany. • Hlre.ot. General Parte ere hip, Me ca used those presents to W signed by it, proper ' peer..ra this — day of r i!_ BIONI:DN HARVIC CONPANT By, • ganecal portal BY, , . 9an•••1 p. -..t By, • San ... I partner By. • gamral p. -..r By, • pn..of partner By, • Hnecal partn.r VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 3RD ADDITION STATE Or MINNESOTA COUNTY or The foregoing instrt nt was ackNnorledged before r this 19_ by Ruth P. MLClsud, a wldo, a nee r•saTrr3— OtarY, c County. min .Mat• STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The ter.geing lnstrurnc was cknevledged befar. r this day of . 19� by Marjorie R. Allart... u—red. ours Public, Canty. Nlnnasots Tan Nay l.�iaaEip1r a STAB Or MINNISCTA COUNTY Or Theforegoing lnetrurnt w aeknevlsdgb Wfu[e r thl• OlEov.[ an no's C r.—i.d19� by M. Hillard All•fra, Jr—i Notary Public, COunLy, KiMM.to , My ComissioExpires STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Th.feregdio, IMtriaent ra •cknavledged before r this day of . 19_ by and genera partner the rule p.p•ny. a sot• neral Partnership, on behalf of the partnership. c.cY c• Count Y. Mlnnasota P/��xia on pr o 1 herebycertify that I . the VICTORIA HtGHWD9 3RD ADDITION, that cots pec 1s • r•Lt t•pnunutl on of the • rvay, that all di9t•ncas ere cerr•etly ahevn the plot Sn [MC and humtcadNa of A toot, that all .wnurnt. have Wen correctly placed In the ,round as .hove, that the —told. boundary &Ins. ars correctly tly d••lgneted on the plot and that chore A no wetlands .republic hlghvYa to W deslgnst•d other than ssr•hovn. Harold .P, ..son, n u yor ._..or. L1_._ Ne. 12294 STATE OF MINNESOTA COW or HENNEPIN ' The foregoing Surveyor'. Certificate vs• ..k—l.dged buten r j thisday of 19_, by hateld C. i P.i..Aon, ILL,NMsotA cnMe . I'�59.. Notary Public, County, Ki— sea, , I He de hereby cartity that the day of i 19 the City Council eR MendedmTghts, Hlnnesat• appy N th�l.t. i BY, Heyor i By, Clerk I Pursuant to Chapter 212 Lawo of Hlnneeota, 1973, this plot has ben approved this day .f 1!� By, ry•t.vneen, I Baker.Caunty Burnyer I hereby certify that the ta..s for the Yea[ 19 for tW land described on this plat as VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 3RUIDOITION have Wen paid a thl• — day of cy DAteu Councy.rMlmuoca i No delinquent cases des W Gra—far ent•r.d this _ day of ! 19_ ouncY [or Datota County, NLtn.sotA t Doeurnn[ NuaW[ I h•riby cattify that this in.cturnt ra• filed in the styles of the County Recorder for record on this day of 19 at ser .M., ane r.o u y teesr s n reel —moi a pens 1 Dakota Lomty. Hlme•etA I I i JAMES R. HILL, INC. SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS _ N 20 0 20 40 60 LxIE Pi rm • DEmms meoe voo xQRNNNT VVLPV. WARaD Iff RL& Na S2Z94 147.00 NW92,39,w LOT 5 IS •lm= TW.23 NX23 RFKN PA4P Tm MIA'= Ta MVE A vaA or JAMES R. HILL, INC. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS VICTORWHIGHLANDS 3RD ADDITION 14ZOO LOT I SLAT 2 LOT 3 ClUrLCIT I z ys N 20 0 20 40 60 LxIE Pi rm • DEmms meoe voo xQRNNNT VVLPV. WARaD Iff RL& Na S2Z94 147.00 NW92,39,w LOT 5 IS •lm= TW.23 NX23 RFKN PA4P Tm MIA'= Ta MVE A vaA or JAMES R. HILL, INC. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 28, 1988 X TO: Mayor, City Council and Ci�rator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Dick Gill's One Year Probation DISCUSSION: Dick began as a full-time employee for Mendota Heights on October 12, 1987, therefore his one year probationary period ends October 12, 1988. On October 12, 1988, Dick will be eligible to be taken off probationary status and be moved to the next higher step in the pay matrix. During his probationaly period Dick has done an excellent job; he works well on his own with minimal supervision, he has shown a cooperative attitude, he has shown a desire to develop professionally by taking extension courses and is just an all around good employee who fits in well with everyone. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that Dick Gill be appointed to permanent full-time status as of October 12, 1988 and be moved to Step D on the pay matrix. I LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 4, 1988 Concrete License: Buzzel Masonry, Inc. Gas Piping Licenses: Aspen Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Owens Services Corporation Swanson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. General Contractors Licenses: Gardner & Associates McPhillips Bros. Roofing Company SBS Construction, Inc. Welsh Construction Wescot Construction & Development, Inc. Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses: Aspen Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Owens Services Corporation Swanson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 30, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell, City mor SUBJECT: Confirmation of Presentation Concerning MSP Adequacy Study John Kari and Chauncey Case from the Metropolitan Council staff will be present at the Council meeting of October 18 to present their results of the Mpls/St. Paul International Airport Adequacy Study. They have to leave by 8:00 P.M. so have asked to be placed as the first item on the i agenda at 7:30. I have told them that we can accommodate that schedule. ACTION R�E'UIRED• This is merely an informational memo and no further Council action is required. 0 KDF:madlr Dept 10 -Admin Dept 50-Rd&Bridge 15-Engr 20 -Police 60 -Utilities 70 -Parks Sep 1988 Claims List 1 30 -Fire 80 -Planning Page 1 i 12:52 PM City of Mendota fights 40 -CEO 90 -Animal Control 09 -Council 12 -Elections rap Check Number 1 emp. heck mber Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount 1 Albinson 05-4305-105-15 misc splys 70.50 1 70.50 Totals Temp Check Number 1 mp Check Number 2 2 AT&T 01-4210-070-70 3rd qtr 8.83 2 AT&T 01-4210-050-50 Oct Svc 10.53 2 AT&T 01-4210-070-70 Oct Svc 10.52 2 AT&T 15-4210-060-60 Oct Svc 10.53 8 40.41 Totals Temp Check Number 2 ,mp Check Number 3 3 B&J Auto Supply 01-4330-490-50 Parts 305 26.29 3 B&J Auto Supply 01-4330-440-20 Parts 15.21 6 41.50 Totals Temp Check Number 3 !mp Check Number 4 4 Board of Water Comm 01-4425-020-20 Aug Svc 14.06 4 Board of Water Comm 15-4425-310-60 - Aug Svc 30.89 4 Board of Water Comm 01-4425-315-30 Aug svc 75.64 4 Board of Water Comm 47-4460-852-00 svc conn 87-5 9,669.00 16 9,789.59 Totals Temp Check Number 4 imp Check Number 5 5 City Motor Supply 01-4330-440-20 S beams 9.90 5 City Motor Supply 01-4305-050-50 misc splys 12.59 5 City Motor Supply 01-4305-070-70 mise splys 12.59 5 City Motor Supply 15-4305-060-60 misc splys 12.60 5 City Motor Supply 01-4330-490-50 Brakes drums etc 304 678.37 25 726.05 Totals Temp Check Number 5 ?rap Check Number 6 6 Dakota County Chamber Comm 01-4400-110-10 8/31 mtg 10.00 6 Dakota County Chamber Comm 01-4400-109-09 8/31 mtg 10.00 6 Dakota County Chamber Comm 01-4400-110-10 monthly mtg 5.50 Sep 1988 Claims List i 12:52 PM City of Mendota Heights mp Check Number 6 34.65 emp. mileage 5.62 'heck mileage 9.00 mber Vendor Name mileage Account Code 6 Dakota County Chamber Comm 01-4400-109-09 24 mileage 26.78 Totals Temp Check Number 6 ,mp Check Number 7 7.88 7 Dennis Delmont 10.00 01-4415-020-20 7 Totals Temp Check Number 7 mmp Check Number 8 8 Kevin Frazell 01-4415-110-10 8 Kevin Frazell 01-4402-110-10 16 Totals Temp Check Number 8 ?mp Check Number 9 9 GOA Corp 01-1210 9 GOA Corp 01-1210 9 GOA Corp 01-1210 27 Totals Temp Check Number 9 rmp Check Number 10 10 Paul Kaiser 01-4268-150-30 10 Totals Temp Check Number 10 !mp Check Number 11 11 Tom Knuth 79-4415-832-00 11 Tom Knuth 44-4415-848-00 11 Tom Knuth 47-4415-852-00 11 Torn Knuth 49-4415-854-00 11 Tom Knuth 50-4415-855-00 II Tom Knuth 53-4415-857-00 11 Tom Knuth 54-4415-858-00 11 Torn Knuth 51-4415-861-00 11 Tom Knuth 05-4415-105-15 99 Totals Temp Check Number 11 amp Check Number 12 Page 2 Comments Amount monthly mtg 5.50 31.00 Oct allowance 120.00 120.00 Oct allowance 175.00 book 15.85 190.85 oil/trans fluid 405.75 microplate 18.94 drum credit 60.00cr 364.69 Sept Svc 890.50 890.50 project mileage 34.65 project mileage 5.62 project mileage 9.00 project mileage 13.50 project mileage 4.50 project mileage 26.78 project mileage 15.52 project mileage 7.88 Oct allowance 10.00 127. 45 Sep 1988 9.65 i 12:52 PM 9.65 mp Check Number 12 'ernp. 29.00 heck Oct amber Vendor Name 1, 709.85 12 Lakeland Ford prem 12 Lakeland Ford Oct 24 792.15 Totals Temp Check Number prem imp Check Number 13 13 League Mn Cities 260.75 13 Totals Temp Check Number !mp Check Number 14 14 Leef Bros Inc 14 Leef Bros Inc 14 Leef Bros Inc 42 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 15 15 LELS 15 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 16 16 LMCIT HP C/O EBG 16 LMCIT HP C/O ESP 32 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 17 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 17 Med Centers HP 136 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 18 Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 01-4330-490-50 01-4330-490-50 12 01-4404-i10-10 13 01-4335-310-50 01-4335-310-70 15-4335-310-60 14 01-2075 15 01-2074 01-4131-020-20 16 01-2074 01-4131-110-10 05-4131-105-15 01-4131-020-20 01-4131-040-40 01-4131-050-50 15-4131-060-60 01-4131-070-70 17 Page 3 Comments Amount parts 304 117.32 rprs & parts 146.19 263.51 Amicus program mbrshp 359.00 359.00 Sept svc 9.65 Sept svc 9.65 Sept svc 9.70 Oct 29.00 Oct dues 175.50 175.50 Oct prem 570.45 Oct prem 815.60 1, 386.05 Oct prem 754.05 Oct prem 994.90 Oct prem 706.50 Oct prem 1, 709.85 Oct prem 370.00 Oct prem 792.15 Oct prem 161.40 Oct prem 260.75 5, 749.60 Sep 1988 i 12:52 PM mp Check Number 18 emo. heck mber Vendor Name 18 Metro Waste Control 18 Metro Waste Control 18 Metro Waste Control 54 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 19 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit Assn 19 Minnesota Benefit ASSY 152 Totals Temp Check Number Amo Check Number 20 20 Minnesota -Conway 20 Totals Temp Check Number mip Check Number 21 21 Minn Mutual Life Ins 21 Minn Mutual Life Ins 21 Minn Mutual Life Ins 21 Minn Mutual Life Ins 21 Minn Mutual Life Ins 21 Minn Mutual Life Ins 126 Totals Temp Check Number !mp Check Number 22 22 Motor Parts Service 22 Motor Parts Service 22 Motor Parts Service 66 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 23 23 U S West Communications Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 15-4449-060-60 14-3575 17-3575 18 01-2074 01-4131-110-10 05-4131-105-15 01-4131-020-20 01-4131-050-50 15-4131-060-60 01-4131-070-70 23-1145 19 01-4305-030-30 20 01-2074 01-4131-110-10 05-4131-105-15 01-4131-020-20 01-4131-070-70 15-4131-060-60 ^c1 01-4330-490-50 01-4330-490-50 01-4330-490-50 22 01-4210-110-10 Page 4 Comments Amount Oct svc chg 39,848.61 Oct svc chg 671.15cr Oct svc chgs 2,468.90cr Oct prem 36, 708.56 Oct prem 151.59 Oct prem 225.40 Oct prem 284.25 Oct prem 505.55 Oct prem 115.12 Oct prem 13.03 Oct prem 99.06 Oct prem 60.00 1, 454.00 adapter 139.00 139.00 Oct prem 16.00 Oct prem 3.40 Oct prem 1.00 Oct prem 6.80 Oct prem 1.70 Oct prem 1.70 30.60 Part 305 240.00 Part 305 28.20 Part 305 7.74 275.94 Sept svc 274.00 7 Sep 1988 •i 12:52 PM amp Check Number 23 temp. :heck amber Vendor Name 23 U S West Communications 23 U S West Communications 23 U S West Communications 23 U S West Communications 23 U S West Communications 23 U S West Communications 161 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 24 24 Oakcrest Kennels 24 Oakcrest Kennels 48 Totals Temp Check Number ' amp Check Number 25 25 Oxygen Service Co. 25 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 26 26 Pine Bend Paving 26 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 27 27 Power Brake Eq Co 27 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 28 28 S&T Office Products 2.8 S&T Office Products 28 S&T Office Products 84 Totals Temp Check Number =mp Check Number 29 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 01-4210-020-20 05-4210-105-15 01-4210-030-30 01-4210-050-50 15-4210-060-60 01-4210-070-70 23 01-4221-800-90 01-4225-800-90 24 01-4305-030-30 25 01-4422-050-50 26 01-4330-490-50 27 01-4300-020-20 01-4300-110-10 05-4300-105-15 28 01-4220-132-10 Page 5 Comments Amount Sept svc 243.60 Sept svc 57.95 Sept Svc 110.92 Sept svc 35.47 Sept svc 35.48 Sept svc 35.47 792.89 Sept svc 105.00 Sept svc 5.00 110.00 cyl act 8/15 8.40 8.40 fine mix 1,690.00 1,6'90.00 Part 304 32.06 32.06 folders 29.62 tabs 2.25 mise splys 44.94 76.81 Sept svc 1, 035.85 1 Sep 1988 •i 12:52 PM amp Check Number 29 Temp. .heck amber Vendor Name 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr 29 L E Shaughnessy Jr 203 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 30 30 J L Shiely Co 30 Totals Temp Check Number emp Check Number 31 31 Sun Newspapers 31 Sun Newspapers 62 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 32 32 Uniforms Unlimited 32 Totals Temp Check Number emp Check Number 33 33 United Central Trustee 33 United Central Trustee 33 United Central Trustee 33 United Central Trustee 33 United Central Trustee 165 Totals Temp Check Number emp Check Number 34 34 United Way St Paul 34 Totals Temp Check Number emp Check Number 35 Claims List Page 6 City of Mendota Heights Account Code Comments Amount 05-42220-132-15 Sept svc 89.65 21-42220-132-00 Sept svc 146.90 16-4220-132-00 Sept svc 221.60 03-4220-132-00 Sept svc 69.75 14-4220-132-00 Sept Svc 742.00 15-4220-1322-60 Sept svc 184.25 2, 490.00 29 01-4422-070-70 cl 5 key 39.75 39.75 30 01-4240-640-12 notice of test 10.44 01-42240-110-10 budget hrg 26.30 36.74 31 01-4410-020-20 mise Blackfelner 192.35 192.35 32 01-2071 Oct prem 38.67 ` 01-4132-020-220 Oct prem 41.59 01-4132-050-50 Oct prem 16.39 15-4132-060-60 Oct prem 8.52 t 01-4132-070-70 Oct prem 10.19 115.36 33 01-2070 Oct deductions 54.50 54.50 34 n,-.+ a Sep 1988 Claims List -i 12:52 PM City of Mendota Heights emp Check Number 35 Temp. heck umber Vendor Name Account Code 35 Totals Temp Check Number 35 emp Check Number 36 36 Winthrop & Weinstine 48-4220-853-00 36 Winthrop & Weinstine 16-4220-806-00 36 Winthrop & Weinstine 01-4220-120-30 36 Winthrop & Weinstine 50-4220-855-00 36 Winthrop & Weinstine 01-4222-120-20 36 Winthrop & Weinstine 01-4221-120-10 216 Totals Temp Check Number 36 emp Check Number 37 37 A to Z Rental 01-4200-610-70 37 Totals Temp Check Number 37 emp Check Number 38 36 Astoria Industries Inc 15-4330-490-60 38 Totals Temp Check Number 38 emp Check Number 39 39 Airsignal Inc 07-4620-000-00 39 Airsignal Inc 07-4620-000-00 78 Totals Temp Check Number 39 emp Check Number 40 40 Carlson Lake State Eq Co 01-4330-490-70 40 Totals Temp Check Number 40 amp Check Number 41 41 Campbell Hausfeld 01-4490-050-50 41 Totals Temp Check Number 41 Comments Aug Svc Aug Svc Aug Svc Aug Svc Aug Svc Aug Svc Areator paddle handle Cellular telephone antenna & mount Parts 502 hdlg chg rebate offer Page 7 Amount 150.50 35.00 75.00 100.00 56.40 1,174.00 509.20 1,949.60 63.60 63.60 26.44 26.44 60.00 1,458.00 96.42 96.42 3.00 3.00 I Sep 1988 Claims List •i 12:52 PM City of Mendota Heights !mp Check Number 42 'emp. _ batteries ;heck 94.56 ember Vendor Name Account Code 42 Battery & Tire Wholesale 15-4305-060-60 4'2 30.00 Totals Temp Check Number 42 amp Check Number 43 svc call 43 Brunson Instrument 05-4305-105-15 43 Totals Temp Check Number 43 amp Check Number 44 63.90 44 Nardini Fire Eq 01-4330-490-10 44 Nardini Fire Eq 01-4330-490-20 44 Nardini Fire Eq 05-4330-490-15 132 Totals Temp Check Number 44 amp Check Number 45 1,000.00 45 D C Hey Co Inc 01-4330-490-30 45 Sept svc Totals Temp Check Number 45 amp Check Number 46 46 Maxfield Research Group 16-4220-000-00 46 27.12 Totals Temp Check Number 46 emp Check Number 47 47 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4210-020-20 47 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4210-020-20 94 Totals Temp Check Number 47 amp Check Number 48 48 Natl Guardian Security Sys 15-4330-490-60 48 Totals Temp Check Number 48 amp Check Number 49 Page 8 Comments Amount batteries 94.56 94.56 markers 30.00 30.00 svc call fire extinguishe 63.85 63.85 63.90 191.60 copier svc call 37.50 37. 50 Research retainer 1,000.00 1,000.00 Sept svc 16.71 Sept svc 10.41 27.12 Culligan Lane alarm 79.66 79.66 Sep 1988 i 12:52 PM mp Check Number 49 emp. heck mber Vendor Name 49 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 50 50 Suburban Gas 50 Suburban Gas 50 Suburban Gas 50 Suburban Gas 200 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 51 51 Tractor Supply 51 Tractor Supply 51 Tractor Supply 51 Tractor Supply 204 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 52 52 Marjorie Cheesebrow 52 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 53 53 Teresa Esslinger 53 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 54 54 Evelyn Fischer 54 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 55 55 Jean Franson 55 Totals Temp Check Number Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code Comments 49 01-4330-490-50 thermocouples 01-4305-050-50 gas chg 01-4305-050-50 gas ch,g 01-4305-050-50 gas chg 50 01-4305-050-50 compressor 01-4305-070-70 compressor 15-4305-060-60 compressor 01-4305-070-70 mise parts 51 01-4110-640-12 - primary 52 01-4110-640-12 primary 53 01-4110-640-12 primary 54 01-4110-640-12 primary 55 Page 9 Amount 17.00 6.25 24.00 24.00 24.00 78.25 100.00 100.00 99.99 36.94 336.93 98.75 98.75 92.50 92.50 88.75 88.75 96.40 96.40 Seo 1988 i 12:52 PM np Check Number 56 emp. heck tuber Vendor Name 56 Janan Gainor 56 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 57 57 Rita Green 57 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 58 58 Mary Hartz 58 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 59 59 Patricia Hettinger 59 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 60 60 Rosemary Hildebrandt 60 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 61 61 Mary Ann Hoyt 61 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 62 62 Barbara Kaufmann 62 Totals Temp Check Number -mp Check Number 63 63 Cynthia Klecatsky 63 Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 01-4110-640-12 56 01-4110-640-12 57 01-4110-640-12 58 01-4110-640-12 59 01-4110-640-12 60 01-4110-640-12 61 01-4110-640-12 62 01-4110-640-12 Rage 10 Comments Amount primary 88.75 primary 88.75 primary 86.25 primary 86.25 primary 92.50 primary 92.50 primary 95.00 95.00 primary 85.00 85.00 primary 90.00 90.00 primary 71.25 71.25 primary 92.50 92.50 Sep 1988 i 12:52 PM mp Check Number 64 erlip. heck ember Vendor Name 64 Marsha Knuth 64 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 65 65 Sharon Koll 65 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 66 66 Nancy Kruse 66 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 67 67 Geraldine Lerbs 67 Totals Temp Check Number nap Check Number 66 68 Rita Maczko 68 Totals Temp Check Number- umber?mp ampCheck Number 69 69 Hubert Meier 69 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 70 70 Darlene Misner 70 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number 71 71 Eileen Mullen 71 Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 01-4110-640-12 64 01-4110-640-12 65 01-4110-640-12 66 01-4110-640-12 67 01-4110-640-12 68 01-4110-640-12 69 01-4110-640-12 70 01-4110-640-12 Comments primary primary primary primary primary primary primary primary Page 11 Amount 93.75 93. 75 82.50 82.50 87.50 81.25 81.25 87.50 87.50 72.50 72.50 87.50 87.50 86.22-5 86.25 ' ^ , Sep 1988 'i 12:5e pm °"p Check Number 7e emp- ,heck Amber Vendor Name 7e Rosemary Murphy -- 72 Totals Temp Check Number amp Check Number ra 73 Marilyn Nelson -- 7o Totals Temp Check Number ewp Check Number 74 74 Dolores wauauauoh -- 74 ' Totals Temp Check Number emn Check. Number 75 75 Annabel Randolph 75 Totals Temp Check Number smn Check Number 76 76 Theresa Redding 76 Totals rutazs Temp Check Number amp Check Number rr 77 Arvid Rued 77 Totals Temp Check Number , amp Che�x Number ra 78 Virginia eimex 78 Totals Temp Check Number son Check Number rs 7e June Wagner -- 7e . . Claims Lis* City or Mendota Heights Comments Amount primary 8g'75 88.75 primary 8e.50 ee'5w primary 9e-50 92.50 primary 91'e5 e1.25 primary 88'75 ae'r5 primary 95.05 95.05 primary primary m7.50 87.50 primary primary 95.05 ' 95'mo Sep 1988 i 12:52 pm np Check Number am emp- xecu muer vendor Name am Laurita weinzettel Be Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number e1 81 Linda weinzettez -- u1 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number ae ae n T m r ee o T & r ae e T a T ' ae n r & r 328 Totals Totazs Temn Check Number mp Check Number ao eo Continental Safety sn ao Continental Safety Eq --- 1a6 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 84 a^ Communications center -- a4 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 85 85 Corrigan Ezectrice -- a5 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number aa 86 wrechs orc machines -- aa Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 87 Claims Lis* City or Mendota Heights Account Code 01 -*110-640-1e am 01-4110-640-12 81 01-4210-110-10 01 -4e10 -0e0-20 01-4210-030-30 01 -*210-050-50 au 01-+305-070-70 15-4305-060-60 eo 01 -*330-450-30 a4 15-4330-490-60 85 01-4300-110-10 aa Comments primary zu calls ld calls zu calls Id calls coveralls/gloves " radio rprs 9-14 svc call LS add mch rolls ae'5m 62.50 Sep 1988 L 12:52 PM np Check Number 87 =mo. Teck nber Vendor Name 87 Acro Minn 87 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 88 88 Creative Colors 88 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 89 89 Eugene Lange 89 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 90 90 Michael Maczko 90 Michael Maczko 180 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 91 91 Dakota County Govt CNtr 91 Dakota County Govt CNtr 91 Dakota County Govt CNtr 273 Totals Temp Check Number mp Check Number 92 92 Brad Ragan Inc 92 Totals Temp Check Number 6757 and Total Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 01-4300-110-10 87 01-4330-215-70 88 08-4220-000-00 89 01-4415-030-30 01-4490-030-30 90 01-4300-640-12 01-4490-110-10 05-4490-105-15 91 01-4305-070-70 92 Page 14 Comments Amount mise splys 102.83 102.83 paint & spray unit 135.87 135.87 Sept svc 750.00 750.00 mileage reimb 37.80 mise expense 7.20 45.00 voter regr list 58.86 prop desc & value 126.65 " 126.66 312.17 tires & mounting 244.16 244.16 74, 814.03 MANUAL CHECKS 11872 38.25 Deputy Registrar TE plates 11873 130.00 U of M REgr. P W 11874 78,400.70 C E C A Utilities Pymt 1 88-1. 11876 5,975.21 PERA 9/9 Payroll 11877 10,270.52 D C Bank 9/23 FIT, FICA, MEDICARE 11878 755.00 " 9/23 Payroll deductions 11879 3,569.23 SCCU " 11880 32,456.29 City F..H. Payroll acct 9/23 net payroll 11881 25.00 Gopher State One Call - mbrshp fee 11882 55.00 Hennepin County warrant 11883 100.00 " " 131,775.20 G. T. 206,589.23 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. a , City Administrator SUBJECT: Proclamation of October 16-22 as National Business Women's Week Attached is a letter of request from Ms. Jeanette B. Hansen, of the Northern Dakota County Chapter of Business and Professional Women's Club, requestinV mayoral proclamation of October 16 through October 22 as National Business Women's Week. The City has passed similar proclamations for the past several years. Also attached is a proposed proclamation for Mayor and Council consideration. KDF:madlr attachments 0 PROCLAMATION Whereas working women constitute millions of the nationIs working force, and are constantly striving to serve their communities, their states and their nation in civic and cultural programs, and Whereas major goals of business and professional women are to help create better conditions for business women through the study of social, educational, economic and political problems; to help them be of greater service to their community, to further friendship with women throughout the world, and Whereas al I of us are proud of their leadership i n these many f lel ds of endeavor, NOW, THEREFORE, I MAYOR OF MINNESOTA, by the authority vested in me, do hereby proclaim as NATIONAL BUSINESS WOMEN'S WEEK sponsored by The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., and locally by Northern Dakota County Business and Professional Women, and urge ail citizens in this community, all civic and fraternal groups, all educational associations, all news media and other community organizations to join in this salute to working women by encouraging and promoting the celebration of the achievements of all business and professional women as they contribute daily to our economic, civic and cultural purposes. Date By CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 29, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council, City ? r FROM: Klayton Eckles C Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Request for a Sound/ Light barrier at City Hall INTRODUCTION Residents living north of the new City Hall have requested that a barrier be installed to shield them from lights and sounds created by the police department. Staff has review this request and has determined what the cost to implement such a request would be. Staff has also studied the request to determine the merit of it. DISCUSSION Staff examined the cost of installing an earth berm along the north side of the•city hall parking lot. It would cost approximately $3300 to construct such a berm, not including any extra engineering or architectural costs. This is rather high considering the limited benefit of such an effort. The following is a list of points that Staff •feels reduce the merit of taking any action regarding the request. *** By constructing a barrier a fair number of existing trees will have to be removed. These trees are already acting as a shield, especially in the summer. *** Night time traffic volumes in and out of city hall will be extremely low. *** By any standards the homes in question are well out of the effective range of headlights. A typical low beam has a range of 75-150' and a high beam 100-3001; the nearest home is 650' from city hall. For comparison the Dakota Co. Bank building is 650' from Dodd road. *** Looking at any street intersection or'curving street in the city shows that many homes are situated such that they will be illuminated by headlights at a distance of only 501, and at a much greater frequency then will occur in this case. *** Regarding the noise levels effecting these homes, noise from Lexington Avenue will be roughly 4 to 8 times more intense than noise from the city hall (noise intensity varies with the square of the distance, so if a noise is twice as far away it will be 1/4 as loud). For these reasons Staff does not think the expense of constructing a sound and light barrier is warranted. In fact CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO such a barrier would have some negative impact on the city hall site itself, including increased maintenance, reduced view of the pond, fewer trees, and reduced aesthetic quality of the site landscaping. Council should consider the merits of the request for a sound and light barrier in light of Staff's comments and take the appropriate action. September 21, 1988 City Council Members City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear City Council Members: I have lived in Mendota Heights all of my life and it saddens me to see houses and other facilities built on the ground that I used to play on and ride horses on. But progress must continue and we must meet the new demands of our growing society. With that behind me, I welcome the new City Hall to our neighborhood. It is a beautiful facility and provides a lot of security. However, I am concerned about the lower parking lot (the one on the North side). I think that to protect not only the wildlife environment but to also protect our homes from: * Headlights * Taillight's * Noise of running engines That you should build a barrier between the parking lot and the wildlife preserve consisting of a four foot wall of dirt with evergreens on top. This would serve as an excellent outer perimeter complementing the preserve plus shielding the wildlife and our homes from unnecessary light and noise. Thank you in advance for your attention with this matter. Sincerely, Ann and Evans Connelly, Jr. 1903 Lexington Avenue South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Mi Z, � Zan 1901 LexingZiZmAvenue South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2484C Mendota Heights Police Department Memorandum September 29, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council, City �A tion �� �J FROM: Dennis Delmont, Chief of Police ,�1. SUBJECT: Copperfield Traffic Control Introduction At the request of the City Administrator, my staff and I went through the Copperfield area in an attempt to design a system of traffic control that would allow for the safe, but efficient, movement of vehicles. Discussion Design of the area suggests that Huber Drive, Mendota Heights Rd. and Copperfield will be the main collectors: As a result, they will bear the highest traffic counts. Because of the wide open design and appearance of Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Rd., they will also be the most susceptible to speeders. On the other hand, Copperfield is an internal street that will primarily serve residents of the area who are attempting to access Delaware or Huber Drive. There are some three-way intersections within the area which also merit attention. In addition, the City Engineer or Public Works Director should be consulted to determine the appropriateness, or necessity, for a warrant survey of the area. Stop Signs - wherever a roadway intersects or meets Huber Drive, Copperfield Drive, Mendota Heights Rd or Delaware Ave. I Yield Signs -on Park at Hampshire Drive, Hampshire Court at Hampshire Drive, Watersedge at Pond View, Pond View at Fieldstone. Cheyenne Ln. e gj ,,Co H A H v each Eta 64 Water e bri Ire r� Mendota Heights Rd O� CD 0 0 u 0 ro w Stone a '` ut'be r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS .I TO: Mayor, City Council and City in9 for FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director September 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development Amendment - Mendota Plaza Case No. 88-37 nT9rTT99TnN At their September meeting the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development amendment to allow two new pylon signs, a bell tower and a building signage policy for the Mendota Plaza (see attached staff memos). 1. Plyon A (along TH 110) - Mr. Paster informed the Planning Commis- sion that he would now like Pylon A to be approved for a new height,.this new height to be 5 feet higher than the existing pylon sign that is now located along Trunk Highway 110. Mr. Paster feels he needs the extra height because added decoration to his sign lowers the message part of the sign. 2. Pylon B (along Dodd Road) - The Planning Commission discussed moving this sign farther away from Dodd Road. Planner Dahlgren sketched a proposed layout for the new location that was accept- able to the Commission. To allow for the lost visibility by placing the sign farther away from Dodd Road, the Planning Commis- sion recommends allowing the sign to be constructed 5' higher than requested. Mr. Paster was directed to prepare a proposal fol- lowing Planner Dahlgren's sketch and have it ready for Council review at this meeting. 3. Bell Tower - Planning Commission approved of the bell tower loca- tion and design. 4. Building Signage Policy - Planning Commission neglected to discuss this item. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development Amendment with the following condi- tions: 1. Pylon A can be 5 feet taller than the existing sign. 2. The bell tower is acceptable as presented. 3. Pylon B, as redesigned by Planner Dahlgren be redrawn by an archi- tect and submitted to the Council for their public hearing. The sign may be 5 feet higher than shown and is to be placed on a rede- signed concrete or grassy island. 4. Placement of Pylon B is based on a redesigned driveway entrance and may not be closer than 30 feet to the T.H. 149 right-of-way, all subject to approval of final landscape and engineering details by staff. ACTION REQUIRED: Conduct a public hearing and if Council desires to implement the Plan- ning Commission recommendation they should pass a motion approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment as shown on drawings prepared by Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects and dated June 28, 1988 and July 29, 1988 and as amended above by the Planning Commission. Council also needs to consider and approve a building signage policy. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 20, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development Amendment Pylon Signs Mendota Plaza Case No. 88-37 DISCUSSION: Paster Enterprises has been working with the City Council to add an MGM Liquor Store to the Mendota Plaza. As part of the approval, Paster Enter- prises agreed to remodel the shopping center. The remodeling was deemed maintenance and repair and a building permit was allowed by the City Coun- cil. In conjunction with the remodeling Paster also would like to change some signage: 1. Building Signage Paster Enterprises has established the attached building signage criteria. Council has reviewed several building signs as they appeared on a drawing presented for the building remodeling permit; MGM Liquor Warehouse, Snyder Drug Store, and Gym Kids. However Council has not yet explicitly approved the proposed sign criteria document and an amendment recently received by staff (attached). Based on Council's initial review of the signs staff authorized MGM to in- stall their building sign, however since the sign criteria does require variances from strict application of the zoning code it would seem that they should be reviewed as part of the application for an amended Planned Unit Development. This building sign document allows signs to be 3 feet high by the length of their lease space minus 2 feet. This requirement therefore only limits sign area by the amount of space rented (zoning code maximum is 100 square feet)) . 2. Pylon Signs In conjunction with the remodeling Paster also would like to remove an old pylon sign and install two new pylons and a bell tower sign in its place. These new signs are more than maintenance and repair of existing facilities and require several variances. The shopping center's original approval was by Planned Unit Development and staff concluded that, because of the numerous variances involved with the pylon signage a PUD amendment should be processed. ACTION REQUIRED: Conduct the required public hearing to review the building's signage criteria document, the two new pylon signs and the proposed bell tower and make a recommendation to the City Council on a PUD amendment. IN 'oil's rR r 17 Rex; laU I; "MM., MENDOTA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AUGUST/ 1988 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN. SIGN CRITERIA PASTER ENTERPRISES "EXHIBIT D" EXPLANATION A. GENERAL 1. It is intended that the signing of the stores at the MENDOTA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER shall be developed in an imaginative and varied manner. The criteria herein below set forth shall govern. 2. Although previous and current signing practices of the Tenant will be considered, they will not govern signs to be installed at MENDOTA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. 3. Approval of store design drawings or working drawings and specificAtions for Tenant's leased premises does not constitute approval of any sign work. Landlord'swritten approval of Tenant's sign drawing and specifications is required. 4. The -furnishing and installation of a sign and that costs incurred shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. Sign construction is to be completed in compliance with the instruction contained within this brochure. 5. Each Tenant will be required to identify its premises by a sign. DETAILS B. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 1. Tenant's signs shall be store identity signs only. The use of coat of arms, shields or other logos will be permitted, if approved. 2. Tenants will be restricted to copy which will designate the Tenant's proper name, product and/or service. 3. Multiple or repetitive signing may be allowed provided the area of such signing conforms to the limitations set forth herein. 4. Tenants will be allocated an area on the exterior of the shopping center for their signs. This area will be part of a continuous fascia band 6'-0" in height. 5. Tenant's sign shall* be restricted to an area on the exterior fascia band, which shall not be higher than 1'-6" from the top edge of the fascia band, and not lower than 1'-6" from the bottom edge of the fascia band. If all caps are used, letters shall not exce -Z5i in height If upper and lower case script is used, ca y be 32" and the body of lower case may not exceed 20". Ascenders and descenders of lower case letters may not exceed a total of 36" in height. 6. The maximum 1 h of Tenant's sign copy shall not be nearer than 24" the e of the Tenant's Lease line and shall no ceey�3-�'=0 in length. 7. Letter styles of Tenant copy will be determined by the Tenant. Tenant's sign copy must be individual illumi- nated neon letters and/or logos, the face of which shall be cut out of transparent or opaque plastic. Color shall be Red #2423 by Allied Plastics Inc. Letters shall be edged with gold silvatrim or edgebrite. Returns are to be white. 8. The sign attachment devices must be non -corrosive fasten- ers per details enclosed within this criteria. DETAILS C. SUSPENDED UNDERCANOPY SIGNS 1. Tenants will be required to install one (1) illumi- nated undercanopy sign. 2. All undercanopy signs are required to have a clearance of 81-6" from the existing sidewalk. The length of undercanopy signs shall be 51-0".- 3. All sign attachment devised must be non -corrosive materials. Electrical connections, if applicable, are to be concealed within the sign cabinet. D. FRONT DOOR SIGNING 1. Tenants will be required to identify their front entry door with their address number in 311 decals. 2. Number style is restricted to "Alternate Gothic",, black reflective. E. REAR DOOR SIGNING 1. No form of rear door signing shall be allowed except as hereunder provided. 2. Tenant will be allowed to identify their rear delivery door with their address number in 3" decals. 3. Number style is restricted to "Alternate Gothic", black reflective. PROHIBITED SIGNS F. The following types of signs or sign components shall be PROHIBITED: 1. Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes or transformers. 2. Moving or rotating signs. 3. Signs employing moving or flashing lights. 4. Individual illuminated sign cabinets with painted plastic faces. 5. Signs employing luminous, vacuum -formed type plastic letters. 6. Signs, letters,•symbols or identification of any nature painted directly on surface's exterior to the premises. 7. Signs employing unedged or uncapped plastic letters or letters with no returns and exposed fastenings. 8. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or painted signs around or on exterior surfaces (doors and/or windows) of the premises. 9. Free-standing signs. 10. Rooftop signs. 11. Signs employing noise -making devices and components. 12. Signs exhibiting the names, stamps or decals of the sign manufacturer or installer. SIGN APPROVAL G. Procedures for obtaining approvals for sign drawings: 1. Prior to the commencement of construction of any sign, Tenant shall submit drawings and specification for the proposed sign work. Four (4) sets of draw- ings will be required by Landlord. The drawings shall clearly show the location of sign on fascia of building, graphics, color and construction and attachment details. 2. Landlord shall return'one -(1) set of the sign draw- ings as soon as possible to the Tenant. The draw- ings will either be marked "Approved as Noted" or "Disapproved". Sign drawings that have been disap- proved are to be redesigned and resubmitted to Landlord for approval within seven (7) days of receipt by Tenant.'. 9-16-88 ADDENDUM TO: MENDOTA PLAZA SIGN CRITERIA Change Item #6 under Section B. Exterior Signage Details to read: "The maximun length of Tenant's sign copy shall not be nearer than 24" -to the edge of Tenant's lease line." CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council and CityIX . for .11 FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Paster Sign Variance September 280 1988 i r Case No. 88-37 i DISCUSSION: At their September meeting, the Planning Commission considered a setback variance request from Mr. Ed Paster to install a tempoary leasing F sign along Dodd Road (see attached staff memos). The Planning Commission did not approve of the sign location and discussed several alternatives with f the applicant, the most popular alternative with the Commission was to mount E a leasing sign on the center pylon located along Trunk Highway 110. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denying the variance request for the following reasons: 1. Because it would cause a traffic hazard. 2. Because there are already to many distractions at this busy inter- section. 3. Because there are more viable options available. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation they should pass a motion denying the variance for the above listed reasons. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 20, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Temporary Lease Sign Mendota Plaza DISCUSSION: The Mendota Plaza has a substantial amount of space available for lease and Paster Enterprises, the new owners, would like to advertise that fact by means of a temporary sign along Dodd Road. The sign they propose requires two variances from the City's Ordinance. 1. Size, the maximum allowable sign area for temporary signage is 25 square feet and the proposed signs are 64 square feet. 2. Location, the minimum setack allowed for free standing signs is 20 feet from a side lot line and the proposal is for zero setback. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the 39 square foot area and the 20 foot setback variances with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council. 4 Ui/ I L: L) uulAullwul 1, uu CASE NUMBER: 88-37 APPLICANT: Paster Enterprises LOCATION: Southeast Quadrant Trunk Highway 110 and Dodd Road (Shopping Center Site) (see sketch) ACTION REQUESTED: Variance to Sign Size and Location PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. In addition to a permanent signage plan that is the subject of a hearing on a Planned Unit Development for the shopping center to be heard on this agenda, Pester Enterprises proposes to construct a temporary sign for leasing purposes on the property. Attached is a copy of e statement from them dated September 8, 1988 that notes the variance to the sign size and location. Also attached is a copy of a drawing Illustrating the proposed lettering of the sign. 2. First, with respect to the handling of a temporary sign on this site, Section 18.5(11) of the code states: There shall be no more than one temporary (3 months or less) sign on any lot. The applicant proposes to construct a V-shaped sign with two panels, 4 feet by 8 feet in dimension, equalling a total of 64 square feet. There Is no Indication of how high the sign would be, or how it is to be mounted. 3. We suggest that the sign would be just as effective and better looking \ if it Is a single panel painted on both sides, or a pair of panels back to back, mounted on a pair of posts, and set perpendicular to the right-of-way. As you know, most pylon signs are constructed in this manner. A permanent V-shaped sign is a rarity and would appear unnecessary in this case. Such a double faced sign is usually calculated on the basis of the area of one side only, since one can only see one side at a time. Thus, the variance would be from a maximum of 25 feet to 32 square feet. In view of the scale of the shopping center, this would appear to be a reasonable request. 3. The location does vary with Section 18.7(2x) that states: No pylon or freestanding sign shall be 'located in the required yard area. In the case of a corner lot, both sides fronting on a public right-of-way shall be deemed the front. The required yard in a B-4 District is 100 feet. The required yard In all other Business Districts is 30 feet. Thus, it is reasonable to vary from the 100 foot requirement, though it would seem unnecessary to have the sign placed directly contiguous to the right-of-way with no setback at all. 4. The width of the grass area between the • public right-of-way and the parking lot, according to the applicant's site plan, is approximately 25 feet. If the sign Is held back 5 feet from the parking area as required in the previous section, an 8 foot sign could be approximately 12 feet from the public right-of-way. There appears to be ample visibility at this location, therefore, a setback of approximately this distance would seem reasonable. 5. The Ordinance states that a temporary sign can be. set for a period of three months. We suggest that the Commission and Council discuss with the applicant the length of time the sign is proposed to be in place. For purposes of leasing the shopping center, it may be appropriate to consider a period of more than three months. A definite time limit, however, should be established so that the sign does not remain forever. 6. It would also be appropriate to discuss the method of construction and the height of the sign. In a case like this, it would appear that a pair of four by fours holding two panels of plywood on either side may be appropriate for a temporary sign. Again, we suggest that the sign not be a V-shaped sign since they are unsightly, more massive, and would be unnecessary. 1 • � � 9 i �i�j -_ • I _f • • W Y_ / w • w • �. � J e ' � F- • E L j O --- H I G W w v I SUBJECT PROPERTY / / INORTH / SCALE 1 "=400' GOLF COURSE a COUNTRY CLUB (PRIVATE) a 0 la` CL , TH PLAZA DRI I CITY 60F i OFFICE �_ — ----- --- — r --TT 1 • I FIRE HALL _ •1• i - \ ,a - - • • • J ®r � • • • Q / STATES NORTHERN • J SUB-STATION • • • 1 • - ORTHERN ST alt September CENTRAL PLAZA 45th & Central Ave., N.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Kevin Frazell Bass Lake Rd. & West Broadway City of Mendota Heights Crystal, Minnesota 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 DOODWAY SHOPPING CENTER Dodd Rd. & Bernard St. RE: Temporary Sign Variance West St. Paul, Minnesota Mendota Plaza Shopping Center FARMINGTON MALL S. Hwy. 50 & S. Hwy. 3 Farmington. Minnesota LEXINGTON PLAZA LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington & Larpenteur Roseville, Minnesota MENDOTA PLAZA State Hwy. 110 & Dodd Rd. Mendota Heights, Minnesota MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS ; Hwy. 10 at Long Lake Rd. 2227 UNIVERSITY AVE. ST. PAUL, MINN. 55114 • 612-646-7901' Moundsview, Minnesota U V NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER Lexington Village Now Brighton, Minnesota. SIBLEY PLAZA 3, 1900� West Tth Street .. St. Paul, Minnesota SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Kevin Frazell Bass Lake Rd. & West Broadway City of Mendota Heights Crystal, Minnesota 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 DOODWAY SHOPPING CENTER Dodd Rd. & Bernard St. RE: Temporary Sign Variance West St. Paul, Minnesota Mendota Plaza Shopping Center FARMINGTON MALL S. Hwy. 50 & S. Hwy. 3 Farmington. Minnesota LEXINGTON PLAZA LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington & Larpenteur Roseville, Minnesota MENDOTA PLAZA State Hwy. 110 & Dodd Rd. Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Kevin: We are asking for sign variances for a store identification lease sign. We are asking for this variance so we may attract new tenants to the shopping center. We will need the following variances: 1. Variance to City ordinance 18.5(11) to allow for two (2) 41 x 81 signs for a total of 64 square feet. 2. Variance to City Ordinance 18.7(2)c to allow placement of sign at property line.. Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, PASTER ENTERPRISES gA,#'m jviu� John H. Streeter Construction Manager JHS/ly cc: Mary Ann MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE Hwy. 10 at Long Lake Rd. Moundsview, Minnesota NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER Lexington Village Now Brighton, Minnesota. SIBLEY PLAZA West Tth Street St. Paul, Minnesota SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER Southview Blvd. & 12th St. South St. Paul, Minnesota Dear Kevin: We are asking for sign variances for a store identification lease sign. We are asking for this variance so we may attract new tenants to the shopping center. We will need the following variances: 1. Variance to City ordinance 18.5(11) to allow for two (2) 41 x 81 signs for a total of 64 square feet. 2. Variance to City Ordinance 18.7(2)c to allow placement of sign at property line.. Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, PASTER ENTERPRISES gA,#'m jviu� John H. Streeter Construction Manager JHS/ly cc: Mary Ann 100 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Applicant PM67� v R�'R1 � Name: Last First Address: 27.x-7 • y )/ uiFAsT Number & Street Telephone Number:, Case No. P -3 7 Date of Application�� Fee Paid Initial X All City State Zip Owner / Name: Last First Initial Address: Number & Street City Street Location of Property in Question: 75 0 t k)Y 1/0 iyy5�U,0 Legal Description of Property: 0 State 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 IR TAI SHO S FOR LEASE cqLL: LISA STORE 646-7901 mwjliiliii�j� , I r 7#'- v 11111 11 A P CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 28, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and City m' ni -.t,V .t Or FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Linsmayer Variance Case No. 88-36 DISCUSSION: At their September meeting, the Planning Commission considered a 5 foot side yard variance for 1935 Glenhill Road (see attached staff memos). RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the applicant submitting a letter of consent from Mr. Larry Culligan, his neighbor to the south, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested variance. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation they should pass a motion approving a 5' side yard variance for 1935 Glenhill Road. t I CITY OF MENDOTk HEIGHTS MEMO September 20, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Linsmayer Side Yard Setback Variance Case No. 88-36 - DISCUSSION: Mr. Nick Linsmayer, 1935 Glenhill Road, owns a very large house located on a corner lot in the Culligan Subidivision. Mr. Linsmayer desires to construct a pool on the lot however he is unable to do so without a setback variance either to the side lot line (101 required) or the home (10, re- quired). Staff prefers to respect the 101 setback from the home so Mr. Linsmayer has requested,a 51 variance from the side lot line. Mr. Linsmayer has submitted a letter of consent from his affected neighbor to the west, Mr. Swanberg. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the request with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council. PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 27 September 1988 88-36 J. Nicholas Linsmayer Southwest Corner of Culligan Lane and Glen Hill Road (see sketch) Approval of Variance to Pool Location 1. This property is a part of Dr. Culligan's residential plat off of Glen Hill Road from about seven or eight years ago. This lot is in the Critical River Corridor and was processed under that Ordinance some time ago for the purpose of constructing the residence the Linsmayer's now own. Also, at that time, a variance was approved allowing for a 10 foot setback on the south side of the lot, which legally is the rear yard. This is because the frontage on Culligan Lane is the shortest frontage on this corner lot making the south lot line the rear lot line. You will note that the setback of the house on the west lot line is greater than 30 feet. This is legally the side lot line even though it is being treated as the rear. 3. The Linsmayer's now propose to construct a pool on the west side of the house as indicated on the attached site plan that they have submitted. This pool location conforms to all City requirements, except that it should be at least 10 feet from the west lot line. The pool, however, is located 10 feet from the residential structure as required by Ordinance. 4. You will note that the -pool is 20 feet by 35 feet which is not a large pool. The problem is, of course, that in order to get even this nominal size pool into the yard, the pool is setback 5 feet from the west lot line. 5. Therefore; the Linsmayer's are seeking a variance from 10 feet to 5 feet for the setback of the pool to the side lot line. ,It seems to us (and we have so advised the Linsmayer's) that having the pool at least 10 feet from the house is more important in terms of the pool's function. This area of the pool patio will be utilized to a greater extent than the opposite side of the pool, thus, it is safer and more desirable to have this apron wider (10 feet or more). 6. At Staff request, the Linsmayer's have obtained the written permission from their contiguous property owner to the west, Richard and Cleone Swanberg. Attached is a copy of the letter from the Swanberg's stating their approval. 7. At least a 5 foot high fence is required around the pool and a 6 foot high fence is allowed along the side lot line. Thus, the visual impact of the pool being closer than 10 feet to the side lot line is minimal. PHIHILL ADDI-Flo-�, 21086°52 114 0 8 e52'k C E 418.ef; 19,1 8(, 6— 020-08 Fz u, tr N &- 01 P -OP 02 Qj 9 /A) 010-09 to c 4 032- OP 040-08 0 op 40, 4 5 D s3 T. L Ej yr A N R96 I h*,4:'l N13wsn*5s*E 336,40 0 0 , 0- 10 ti S' 4n NZ N8QO03*46"E 403 4E tT 0 OAK POINT c 0 t 01 C-2 0 0 4Ins 9 -(L --- NtOollel5l: 634.48 z 0, co ssqp27bdW.Aib.Qo •- Sa ur w 3.Al 14- 5 214.79 'b rc n Q 0 tu . -p � , . 24421 ;'�6-Nftf4f 4 R-60 59 lrsd':5.04 146 ,F -ROA 41 A, 1. - 0. vt1. - fq3,4qp 171.1 cc 4L 1z;.z p^QL- IAN. - end , ' d'E . v 4+50091bd I I'i!;e"F-vlc-N( I90 bm m 0 V. MUM ptNy P09. 7 OU T L 0 T N 7 192.09 d 0 040-05 I -P So At 2A 150.76 0 150.76 4 z 49v j 14 W /00 0 8_4"O d� -1 .9 0 0 a . Tou -t LOT a138.6? G E N Z 2 INBAG*4ck L A N E a s0 16 '10 4V4 01'6 OUT*LOT A X -7!j _j yz VERONICA I /I el too 5 rw: �tx::, % to 2 N 81'2?'fV'E X: 470 0 3,q Cc - a SUBJECT PROPERTY �'ADDITICN —ty lil110 too /0, t-] NORTH 4 Iz SCALE 1 =200' �p J 10 4 6 L it 3 14 4 I 3 Case No. 0vC7 3 tom' CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Date of Application 9— L 9S_2^ Fee Paid .35�'� -)-(/ Applicant L Name: JLast First Initial Address: ! �3 Number & Street Telephone Number: City State Owner Name: Last First Initial Address: Number & Street Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: C ity Zip State Zip 'yV-m;/J"v I 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 Ll CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS W-4 September 29, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and City A neta'o_r FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lathrop Lot Division Case No. 88-39 nTqrTTPQTnM- At their September' meeting the Planning Commission considered a lot division request from Ms. Mary Lathrop for 640 Marie Avenue (see attached staff memos). At the meeting the Planning Commission expressed concern over the existence of a small shed located on the east property line of Lot B. Ms. Lathrop stated that the shed was owned by her neighbors, the LeMays, and that it has been there as long as she has owned her house (14 years). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the lot division subject to Ms. Lathrop obtaining a written agreement from the LeMays pro- mising to remove the shed at the time she sells Lot B. Note: Staff sug- gests that Council may want to address moving or removing the shed within a established time frame. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 88- RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT DIVISION IN THE WILLOW SPRINGS PLAT. 0 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT DIVISION IN THE WILLOW SPRINGS PLAT WHEREAS, Ms. Mary Lathrop, owner of Lot 18, Willow Springs, Dakota County, Minnesota, has requested from the City to divide that lot into two lots with the new lots being described as follows: Parcel A - The West 102.00 feet of Lot 18, Willow Springs Parcel B That part of Lot 18, Willow Springs which lies east of the west 102.00 feet of said Lot 18. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that the lot division submitted at this meeting be the same is hereby approved subject to the following condition: That the applicant pay the $600 park contribution fee prior to filing the final plat with the Dakota County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this lith day of October, 1988. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_ Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor I C i CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 20, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lathrop Lot Division Case No. 88-39 Ms. Mary Lathrop, 640 Marie Avenue, has made application with the City to subdivide her single family lot located along Marie west of Dodd Road. The lots within her subdivision are all very large and most of them have already been subdivided. According to City Ordinance, when a lot can be divided to create two lots and both lots meet all the minimum lot require- ments the subdivision can be done without holding a public hearing. Ms. Lathrop has obtained the consent of her neighbors for this subdivision. Subject to approval of the subdivision, Ms. Lathrop will be required to contribute $600 to the City's Park Fund. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the request with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council. PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 27 September 1988 80-39 Mary T. Lathrop South of Marie Avenue, Between Dodd Road and Warrior Drive (see sketch) Lot Division 1. This property is Lot 18 of Willow Spring Addition. Therefore, it is a platted lot that can be divided if it meets the single-family lot standards established by the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The lot has =202 feet of frontage on Marie Avenue and a depth of approximately 215 feet. The proposal is to divide the property into two lots, one with 102 feet of frontage (the westerly lot) and one with 100 feet of frontage. 3. Attached is a copy of a drawing prepared by the applicant's surveyor, Paul McGinley, indicating the proposed division with the existing single-family home located on the westerly lot. It would appear from the drawing that the location of the home and accessory building meet or exceed Ordinance requirements. You will note the existence of a shed on the easterly lot (shown as Parcel B) which appears to be located across the easterly lot line. It may be appropriate as a condition to this subdivision that this shed be removed. 4. Attached are copies of drawings from the base map indicating the property as it relates to other properties in the immediate area. You will note that other properties within the subdivision have previously been divided into two approximately 100 foot lots. Also attached are copies of statements from adjoining land owners indicating their approval of the proposed division. 5. It would appear that the division as proposed meets or exceeds Ordinance Requirements and is consistent in scale with some of the properties in the immediate area. TS JRSE )E L • N A Fo 0 'o • WAD• L7 M � Mfr.• - � � -, _T�5E -MARIE AVENUE F*1 SUBJECT PROPERTY.-, NORTH fi UALLI. PLACE SCALE 1 =400' 44PIA L�WA ILWIA HENRY SI" SENIOR H, S IPUBLICI CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST e Applicant Name: Case No. �/ o � a q Date of Ap licaton Fee Paid3S J Last •'1 First Initial Address: 1d � 7W 19. Number & Street city State Zip Telephone Number:�� • '�1��''+ �W�"'/� �'�-` .5, &6 Z3 Owner Z �1t �� Name: Last First Initial n Address: J-09 Alif Number & Street City State Zip Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: - 1 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 I/we, V6F J6,J C, the 1 owner (s) of the property at 6 �4-1- . are aware of and do not disapprove of the division of the lot at 640 West Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, (known as Willow Springs Addition, Lot 18; also described as Dist. 27, Plat 84300, Lot 180) into two lots, both of which would be in compliance with the city's minimum size requirements. Our property adjoins the current lot on the 17 k side. Date i 21 1-01�12 I/we, the o7viner(s) of the property at are aware of and do not disapprove of the division of the lot at 640 West Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, (knofm as Willow Springs Addition, Lot 18; also described as Dist. 27, Plat 84300, Lot 180) into two lots, both of which would be in compliance with the city's minimum size requirements. Our property adjoins the current lot on theM side. Date U 6/ f I/we, of the property at the owner(s) are aware of and do not disapprove of the division of the lot at 640 West Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, (known as Willow Springs Addition, Lot 18; also described as Dist. 27, Plat 84300, Lot 180) into two lots, both of which would be in compliance with the city's minimum size requirements. Our property adjoins the current lot on the side. Dat IMY n I/we, e_5 the owner (s) of the property at are aware of and do not disapprove of the division of the lot at 640 West Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, (known as Willow Springs Addition, Lot 18; also described as Dist. 27, Plat 84300, Lot 180) into two lots, both of which would be in compliance with the city's minimum size requirements. Our property adjoins the current lot on the"'mak_ . side. Date g /g �f —�T� ^ �---�, a►�-, ' F I/we, �! 4' AkIM a4JI the S // owners) of the property at(�4.S5 are aware of and do not disapprove of the division of the lot at 640 West Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights, (known as Willow Springs Addition, Lot 18; also described as Dist. 27, Plat 84300, Lot 180) into two lots, both of which would be in compliance with the city's minimum size requirements. Our property adjoins the current lot on the side. Date y PAUL R.. MeLAGAN - & SON 231 DAkamAvenue WW9T.NAbL,AUN4. 55118 mia"MI Reg4l"ej I j N.Myms I Hereby Certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mar Lathrop,.,.__ Surveyed Far_ y !�;N PAUL J. McGINLEY, R.L.S. Dab_....... Scale. -_....._.....__._1 a—P d' - .h. MINNANGISTRATION N0. 99 Proposed description of Parcel A The West 102.00 feet of Lot 18, Willow Spring, according to the recorded plat thereof on file the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. Proposed description of Parcel B f That part of Lot 18, Willow Spring, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the offic of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, which lies east of the west 102.00 feet of said Lot 18. ___dYAez;q_ - - - I a 4?mk se/ Na /low * AelVlaS lino pipe IMV7d in e CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 27, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and Ci ty "m Ator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Water Connection for David Goldstein West St. Paul Resident DISCUSSION: Staff received the attached request from Mr. David Goldstein, 1554 Delaware Avenue, a West St. Paul resident, to connect to Mendota Heights, water line located in Delaware Avenue. Because of the extra ordinary costs involved, jacking under Delaware and long service lead, Mr. Goldstein has requested that the City consider charging him on the basis of a single West St. Paul minimum lot frontage (75 feet). ALTERNATIVES 1. Adhere to existing policy. Cost to Mr. Goldstein 152 (ft. of frontage) X $8.00 (per front ft) X 1.15 (out of City overhead factor = $1,398-40 + 7% interest for 19 years = 1P859.87 + WAC 200.00 Total $3P458.27 2. Grant Mr. Goldstein's request. Cost to Mr. Goldstein = 75 ft-(WSP minimum lot frontage) X $8.00 (per front ft) X 1.15 (out of City overhead factor = $ 690.00* + 7% interest for 19 years 917-70 + WAC 200.00 Total $1,807-70 ACTION REQUIRED: Review alternatives and select a course of action. September 8,1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS JIM DANIELSON 750 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN. 55120 Dear Mr. Danielson; Per our phone conversation on August 30th. you requested that we submit this letter asking the city council of Mendota Heights permission to hook up to Mendota Heights water. We are a West St. Paul residence located at 1554 Delaware Avenue. The description of our property is as follows: District 42, plat 1900, lot 20, block 31, property size 3101 X 1521. 1 '1 7 The minimum lot size in our area is 75 ft. We are asking the city to consider accessing us on one lot frontage size only. Our well is running dry and we feel we are going on borrowed time. Thank you for your prompt consideration. r6tincerely DA ID W. GOLDENSTEIN (P.S. My work number during the day is 222-7403 Home number is 457-3771) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 21, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin ��e , City Administrator SUBJECT: Property Acquisitions Along TH 55 INTRODUCTION• At the Council meeting of September 20, we discussed a request from one of the residents along Rogers Road for the City to acquire his property. Council requested that I provide copies of the property appraisal. DISCUSSION: A copy of the appraisal is attached for your review. Also attached is a letter to me from appraiser Blake Davis, indicating that he added an obsolescence factor of approximately 10% to each property because of the airport noise impact. Three key policy questions were raised by the request which came in from the property owner: 1. Whether the City should be willing to pay the extra 10% that the property has been discounted for airport noise impact? 2. Whether the City should provide some form of cash relocation assistance, or in lieu of that, a six month free rent option so that the residents have time to look for a replacement property. 3. Whether the owners should be allowed to take items of value (i.e., furnace, built-in appliances, etc.) out of the property. Staff's thoughts on these issues are as follows: 10% OBSOLESCENCE FACTOR Staff has no professional recommendation on this, as it is purely a policy judgement. The area residents apparently have the "impression" that the City is not going to discount their properties for the airport noise impact. Exactly where and how they got that impression, I am not certain although it seems to just be the general assumption under which the discussions have proceeded to date. As Councilmember Cummins pointed out at the meeting, agreeing to pay the extra 10% could run into $204-$300,000 range if we end up acquiring all of the properties in the Rogers Road, Furlong, and Mulvihill neighborhoods. RELOCATION BENEFITS OR FREE RENT OPTION Through all our meetings with the residents, we have made it absolutely clear that the City is not going to condemn their properties, nor in any other way force them to sell. We have represented our offer to purchase their properties as a friendly real estate transaction. If it continues as such, it would seem that the City would not have a legal obligation to pay relocation benefits under State or Federal law. Whether the City wishes to provide relocation benefits or other incentives to the residents is a matter of policy. If our intent is to facilitate people finding a new home, it seems that there would be other ways to do that than providing an out and out grant or six months free rent. For example, we might agree to give them a sizeable earnest payment, which they in turn could apply toward the initial cost of acquiring another home. We could then agree to close on the property with a 30 day prior notice, making their cash available in a very reasonable period of time. This would certainly be a much more favorable circumstance than most people have when selling real estate. REMOVING ARTICLES OF VALUE FROM THE PROPERTY The key question here seems to be what the City intends to do with the property once it is acquired. If the City intends to merely demolish the properties and prepare the land for resale, then staff suggests that it would actually be more convenient for us to allow the owners to take out property of value. In exchange, we could perhaps agree on some reasonable figure for the value of that property, and deduct it from the offered sales price. If, in the alternative, the City intends to put the houses up for sale (for the purpose of relocating them), then we would want to keep the properties intact. SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to provide for Council the requested appraisal information, and to give you benefit of staff's "rambling thoughts" with regard to this issue. Continued discussion of the acquisition of the property will be scheduled for the Council meeting of October 4. KDF:madlr attachment CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 30, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. �; City Administrator SUBJECT: Dead Ines for Highway 55 Area Home Acquisitions INTRODUCTION• At the meeting of September 20, Council received a letter from a resident along Rogers Road, requesting that the City commence discussions with him about acquisition of his residential property. An additional copy of that letter is attached. Council asked that a copy of the Davis and Lagerman appraisal of the property be forwarded to them, which we did last week. You also received a memo outlining staff thoughts about the terms and conditions for property acquisition. Attached is a second letter which has recently come in from another home owner on Rogers Road. Blake Davis appraised this home to be valued at $65,000, and the two empty lots at $40,000. POLICY DECISIONS: Before staff can proceed to enter discussions with the property owners, we will need policy direction on particular issues: 1. What price will we offer to pay? DISCUSSION: The Davis and Lagerman appraisal only? What should we do about the 10% airport noise reduction factor? Should we consider appraisals that may be provided by the property owner? 2. What will the City do with the houses after they are acquired? �c DISCUSSION: Should we allow the option for the home owner to buy the house back and move it out? Will we allow others to purchase the homes? Should we simply demolish the homes? Should the decision to allow moving or the option of demolition be based on the value of the home? i 9 3. What should be done with attached property of value in the homes? ' DISCUSSION: For example, furnaces, hot water heaters, etc. Should the home owner be allowed to remove these? Should they be allowed to remove them only with an agreed upon price? Should these fixtures remain in the property? 4. Relocation benefits? DISCUSSION: As this project is proceeding as a friendly offer to purchase (as opposed to condemnation), should we require a waiver of relocation benefits, as provided under State Statute? 5. Free rent option? DISCUSSION: The first property owner requested a six month free rent option to allow him time for finding a new property. In my memo of last week, I suggested an alternative of giving the property owner a sizeable earnest payment and agreeing to close on the property with a 30 day prior notice. City attorney Hart has indicated that it would not be a good idea to make a sizeable payment for the property until we have free title. He suggests the free rent option as being a better alternative to protect the city's interest. Obviously, whatever rules and guidelines Council adopts can not be fast and hard. Real estate transactions require flexibility. However, some Council guidelines will be necessary so staff understands the parameters within which it is to operate as it meets with the property owners. ACTION REQUIRED: 0 To consider and make decisions on the questions posed above, as well as any other terms and conditions that Council might wish to place on this property acquisition project. KDF:madlr attachments September 8, 1988 Mr. Kevin Frazell City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Kevin: I request the City of Mendota Heights to actively pursue the acquisition of MY property located at 1199 Rogers Road. For the most part, I concur with the appraised value as reasonable and fair, but with considerations made to the following: 1) Restoral of the 10% reduction in value due to air traffic noise. It was my understanding the property was to be appraised; air traffic not considered. A 10% reduction in the economic obsolescence factor of the appraisal was attributed to air traffic noise. 2) A monetary supplement to cover moving expenses or a six month free rent option to commence at purchase date. 3) The right to remove young trees from the property for transplanting purposes. 4) If property is to be destroyed, an allowance to remove articles, attached or otherwise from the property. (i.e. furnace, central air conditioning, decking, etc.) A timely response to this request would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Galen Funk /ms 4 September 26, 1988 To: Members of Mendota Heights City Council and Mr. Franzel, City Manager I am responding to the written buy out you gave me. I took the estimates of the appraisal off the original figures submitted some time ago and took the costs of moving my home or buying a older home which I found that both ways are very costly (having to bring up to city code, etc.). My counter offer to you for two empty lots and my house I would sell to the city for $145,000 not counting fees for real estate and moving fees. I would appreciate the right to buy back some of the mechanical parts to the home and some of the shrubbery as they are all practically new. I thank you for your consideration and would be glad to furnish a performance bond to the city at my expense. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 TO: Mayor and City, Council FROM: Kevin D. ," ity Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Task Force to Consider 149 Right-of- way Issues INTRODUCTION• At the Council meeting of July 5, Mn/DOT District 9 Engineer Paul Kachelmyer appeared to discuss the issue of the Trunk Highway 149 right-of-way (please see attached letter, memorandum, and minutes of the meeting). Council directed that staff report back with a suggested roster of citizens to be appointed to a committee to study the issues of the 149 right-of-way disposition as well as land uses in the 110/149 area. As I previously discussed with Council, I have delayed in this assignment, since the middle of the Summer did not seem to be a good time to try to constitute a new task force. With Fall upon us, this item is back on your agenda for discussion. DISCUSSION: The City has previously had two citizens task forces looking at this same issue. The first was the Central Commercial Area Task Force, which met during the Fall of 1984, and issued its final report in January, 1985. Members of that task force included: Jann Blesener, Lou Brenner, Bill Burke, Carl Cummins, Kevin Howe, Fred Lambrecht, Dorothy McMonigal, John Roszak, and Sam Shepard. Council may wish to review that report as background information for this agenda item. The second group, the Mendota Heights Citizens Task Force, was actually appointed by Mn/DOT District 9 officials, and met specifically for the purpose of reviewing environmental issues connected with the use or release of the 149 excess right-of-way. Members of that task force included: Lou Brenner, Bob Doffing, Bernard Friel, Brian Birch, Fred Lambrecht, George Gangl, Craig Lindeke, Ultan Duggan, Jann Blesener, Glen Anderson, Tom Norman, John Moy, Paul Spangler, John Maczko, Carl Cummins, Sandra Linstroth. At present, Mn/DOT District 9 is specifically asking that the City take a position as to whether the 149 right-of- way should be released, and if so, what alternative use the City might wish to pursue. At the July 5 meeting, Council indicated that it would also like to have the group consider that issue within the context of commercial redevelopment in the Mendota Plaza area. The July 5 minutes also reflect a concern about traffic impacts from the Northwest Orient site in the city of Eagan. Dakota County and the city of Eagan have both recently completed traffic studies identifying the 149/494 intersection of an area "hot spot", which will be inadequate to handle future -traffic demands. Eagan expects to have formal applications from the Northwest area developers before it early in 1989, and in preparation, is doing a more -in- depth study of the alternative traffic way improvements that could be made in this area. They have promised to keep the City of Mendota Heights informed and involved as that study effort proceeds. Needless -to -say, there will undoubtedly be impacts on the traffic volumes on Highway 149 in Mendota Heights. Therefore, Council may want to consider whether it is premature to try to make any decisions about 149, prior to the time that the Eagan traffic impacts are more carefully documented. ACTION REQUIRED; Council should consider the following: 1. Does it still wish to convene the citizens task force at this time to look at the Highway 149 and Mendota Plaza area issues? 2. If so, who should be appointed to the committee? 3. What exactly should be the committees charge? KDF:madlr attachments NESCr� 'Id Minnesota ti 0- Department of Transportation �District 9 3485 Hadley Avenue North OF TV0110 Oakdale, Minnesota 55109 July 13, 1988 Mr. Kevin D. Frazell Mendota Heights City Administrator 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Frazell: SUBJECT: Right of Way Corridor east of Telephone 779-1205 TH 149 near TH 110 I want to thank you. -for your assistance in arranging for me to speak at last week's city council meeting concerning the right of way corridor east of highway 149 near highway 110. My understanding of the present situation is that the city council has directed you to form a local task force which will report to them on the issues con- cerning the right of way corridor. As I indicated at the meeting, I will be happy to provide you with information from Mn/DOT concerning the issues. The council indicated that they hope to take a position within six months on the following two issues: 1. Should highway 149 (Dodd Road) ever be relocated from its present alignment to the open right of way corridor to the east. 2. If highway 149 will not be relocated to the open right of way corridor the property would be disposed of by Mn/DOT as surplus right of way. In this case does the city have a preference as to how the land should be disposed of relative to the options mentioned in my memo of February 18, 1988? Please feel free to contact me at any time concerning this project. Sinerely, Paul M. Kachelmyer Project Manager An Equal Opportunity Employer OPARTMENT Mn/DOT Operations Oakdale District Nine DATE : February 18, 1988 TO: FILE FROM 'Paul Kachelmyer PHO14E 779-1205 SF•OOODE Ot .4 8: - 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. 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 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 at their current, present day, fair market _Yalu . 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. 9 TH 110 W.B. (E. of 149) TH 110 E.B. TH 149 at Wagon Wheel I Traffic Data Before and After I-494 Opening November 1986 (Vehicles per day) (Dec. 1987) 2 months 1 week 1 week 3 weeks 4 months 1 year before before after after after after 17,466 17,036 8,402 8,852 8,200 81100 15,094 14,734 9,865 9,868 8,740 8,530 9,628 5,750 Accident Data TH 110 and TH 149 intersection area Before and after I-494 Opening 2 years before 1 year before 1 year after Reported Accidents 25 28 12 Page No. 2378 July 5, 1988 d. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the ' June 28 Planning Commission meeting. e. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for June. f. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated July 5, 1988 and attached hereto. g. Approval of the list of claims dated July 5, 1988 and totalling $209,020.97. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 LOGO Graphic Artist Robyn Huspek presented a number of logo alternatives for Council discussion. It was the general consensus of Council that Ms. Huspek should focus on MH as predominant with trees as a shadow in the background. T.H. 149 RIGHT-OF-WAY Mn/DOT Project Engineer Paul-Kachelmyer was present to discuss the ultimate use or release of the Highway 149 right-of-way. t_ Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator and a memo from Mr. Kachelmyer regarding release of the right- of-way. Mr. Kachelmyer stated that Mn/DOT wants input from the City before making a final decision. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels that the ultimate use and design and layout of the Mendota Plaza, which has a new owner, is directly related to this issue. He pointed out that the City has talked about having a TH 149 overpass over TH 110 in the past but now Mn/DOT has indicated there is a big reduction in traffic'on 110. He pointed out that the Council is faced with many unknowns regarding overall traffic on TH 149, including development of the southeast area of the City and the impact of future development in Eagan. Mr. Kachelmyer stated that Mn/DOT doesn't anticipate ever building an intersection on the right-of-way, and that it doesn't fit in with the present policy of Mn/Dot or the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT is looking at releasing the right-of-way unless Page No. 2379 July 5, 1988 convinced otherwise. He informed Council that Mn/DOT only holds an easement on the land for highway purposes and that there is still underlying fee ownership. He pointed out that state law stipulates that property does not automatically revert to the underlying owner but that he may buy back the easement rights at 95% of the present market value of the property. He then discussed the several options presented in his letter and stated that Mn/DOT needs to know the City's position as to release of the land. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Mn/DOT will cooperate in providing information to the City's TH 149 committee if it is reactivated, and Mr. Kachelmyer indicated that it would. With respect to option one, Councilmember Blesener asked.whether Mn/Dot would just be giving the City easement rights if the City chooses to build the road, and if there would still be underlying ownership, or whether the City would have to buy the 5%. Mr. Kachelmyer responded that if the City wanted all of the right-of-way and used only 66" for right-of-way purposes, it would have to buy the rest of the land. It was Council consensus that a new committee should be appointed to look at all issues relating to the right-of-way and the 110/149 area. Council directed the Administrator to report back with a suggested committee consisting of some of the former TH 149 committee and the Downtown Task Force members. Councilmember Cummins arrived at 7:53 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. Joanne Birnbaum, 1721 Victoria, stated that she lives across from the Bream development and that lots of trees and shrubs have been removed right across from her home. She asked whether a hedge of lilacs or some other plantings could be planted to provide a natural buffer and also whether a similar buffer can be provided for the park area. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the City public works crew is supposed to remove CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 L F TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. � r City Administrator SUBJECT: Request from AMM For Contribution in Developing Property Tax Data Base As Council is aware, recent property tax reform legislation has not been particularly friendly to Twin Cities suburban communities. Earlier this year, we made a financial contribution to the legal effort of the Municipal Legislative Commission to overturn the disparities reduction aid component of the 1.988 property tax bill. Simultaneously with this legal action, the League of Minnesota Cities has convened a meeting of its "constituent" groups, to try to determine whether it is possible to reach some state-wide concensus on property tax changes in the 1989 and subsequent sessions. As Chair of the League's Revenue Committee, Councilmember Liz Witt has been particularly active in this effort, and may have additional comments to offer to Council. Attached is a memo from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities discussing this effort and the need to develop a property tax data base available to all lobbyists. At present, it seems that the only reliable model is that which was produced by the law firm of Briggs & Morgan for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities. This put them at a distinct advantage in the last legislative session, and without some correction in the availability of information, it is going to be very difficult for the suburban lobbyists to represent their interests. As you can see from the memo, the AMM is indicating that the suburban communities will be expected to raise $35,000 to $50,000 toward the data base development effort. Larger suburban communities are being asked to contribute $2,000 each. As a smaller member, we are being asked to contribute whatever we feel is appropriate. ACTION REQUIRED: iTo pass a motion authorizing staff iAMM what level of contribution, if any, make toward the cost of developing the base. KDF:madlr attachment to indicate to the Mendota Heights will property tax data aqi�ociation of metropolitan municipaes P R 0 M P T A C T 1 0 N R E Q U E S T E D 'September 21, 1988 'Dear City Administrator/Manager: The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the Municipal Legislative Commission have been working for sometime with the League of Minnesota Cities Coordinating Committee discussing ,property tax computer analysis for 1989. The LMC has committed to ,developing computer analysis capability for the 1990 legislative Esession but a transition year is necessary to be able to react and participate knowledgeably in the 1989 session. The Coordinating pCommittee has been negotiating with the Coalition of Greater `Minnesota Cities for development of a property tax reform proposal for 1989, a key element of which, will be retention of the 'principles of a Homestead Credit. Additional background data on the research elements and product are enclosed. ,This effort will cost approximately $185,000 for computer data ,update and proposal development. To raise this amount, Minneapolis, '.St. Paul, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Small City organization, and the Metro Area suburbs are being asked to make contributions. The suburbs share of funding has been targeted for between $35,000 and $50,000, which will be raised voluntarily, not through any type of mandatory assessment by either theAMMor MLC. ,Thus, a request for financial contribution is being made of all suburban cities. The larger member suburban cities are being asked to commit $2,000 each to this effort. Your city, taking into consideration its smaller population and budget limitations is being asked to contribute what you feel is appropriate. This financial pledge is contingent upon two factors: 1) AMM and MLC Boards approval to proceed with this project, and 2) Sufficient funding from the suburbs to raise the required amount of dollars. lt may be imperative for all cities, especially suburban cities to 183 university avenue east, st. patil, tninnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 develop a common proposal for the 1989 legislative session. Based On the 1987 and 1988 tax and school funding bills, counties and school districts are committing to a significant effort for iidditional funding in 1989, probably at the expense of cities. This is primarily possible because of the elimination of Homestead Credit in 1990 in favor of an aid type program. Since the suburbs are at the greatest risk if Homestead Credit is exchanged for aid, it is paramount that a strong effort be made to restore the Homestead Credit. . The data base or information which should result from this one time effort will help assure that the 'professional staffs of AMM and MLC that represent the suburban cities will be on an equal footing with other city lobbyists in the state during the 1989 session. Without 'the availability of this information and a unified position supported by all cities, success in protecting the suburban interest is in doubt. Please, strongly consider this request -with your council and reply ,using the enclosed pledge sheet or verbally no later than Wednesday, October 5, 1988 to the AMM Office. If you have any questions, call Vern or Roger at 227-4008. Respectfully, Gary Bastian, President Association of Metropolitan Municipalities IN'. "fl. 1W 1,/% M Richard Wedell, President Municipal Legislative Commission LEAGUE COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR OCTOBER THROUGH JANUARY The major research tasks recommended for the League Coordinating Committee through January 15, 1989 are briefly described below. The research tasks have been organized into three major areas of research work. I. Data Base Additions and Modifications Add data on homeowner income related to home value and tax burden, and develop analytical model for using this data in conjunction with the property tax model. Enhance ability to do regional totals and averages, constituency group totals and averages and average impact by property type. Add county welfare data. Add State Auditor's data on city revenues and expenditures for 1987. Update data base with estimated 1989 data when available from the Department of Revenue or House Research. Most recent information indicates that valuation data will become available in late October, and levy data will be available one or two months later. II. Background Research and Analysis of the 1990 Law The first major research task is the analysis of the 1990 law, including its structural features and estimated impacts on property tax burdens. This research work may include analysis of the fiscal characteristics of cities in different regions of the state, and how those characteristics play a role in determining the impact of the 1990 law. III. Research to Develop Specific Proposals for Consideration by the Legislature The primary objective of this work plan is to develop two specific proposals that are acceptable to the Constituency Groups. One of the proposals would include a homestead credit and the other would not. The research involved in developing a specific proposal is difficult to describe in detail. It is generally an interactive process where alternative proposals and their impacts are described V to the Committee, the Committee reacts to those proposals and provides direction for further research to refine or redirect those alternatives. Dozens or even hundreds of individual computer runs may be needed in order to design a specific proposal that is acceptable to the participants. the elements of the system that will be considered in designing a proposal may include the following: Classifications and assessment ratios. LGA, disparity aid, and other equalization formulas. The homestead credit, other credits, and, in the case of the alternative proposal, transition aid payments or other programs that replace the homestead credit. Categorical aids, such as the welfare takeover that are either in addition to or in lieu of other state -paid aids. Fiscal disparities or tax base sharing programs. Income adjusted property tax refunds or an income adjusted homestead credit. Extensive computer analysis is needed to assess the inter -related impact of changes to all elements of the system. It will be necessary for the Constituency Groups to focus the research effort very early in the process. without some initial policy agreements, the research effort could become unfocused and would more likely be unproductive.' The research work for the first several meetings would be designed to help the members of the Committee reach a preliminary agreement on the direction that the proposals should take. The research needed to develop specific proposals may include some of the more specific research tasks already suggested. by Committee members, assuming that the Committee agrees that these specific research tasks are needed. Some of the specific items suggested so far include: Analysis of impact and appropriateness of using city size as a basis for distributing aids. Elimination of split classifications; impact on tax burdens and on the distribution of aid. Research on the design of new property tax systems that do not require or encourage mill rate buy -downs or mill rate equalization. Research on single aid programs that could replace the multiple programs in current law. Research on modifications to 1990 law to refine aid programs and classification system. Analysis of property tax burdens by income class. Research on impact of property tax system changes on the existing education aid formula and on school district levies. Analysis of projected school levy changes for 1990. Analysis of ways to reduce tax burden differences due to differences in tax base. These items illustrate the types of specific research that would be undertaken for the Committee. This research is consistent with the general structure of the recommended research program. The Committee would have to decide as the negotiations and meetings progress on the specific research to be done. Membership of the League Coordinating Committee would in include three members from each of the fallowing groups: Minneapolis St. Paul Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Municipal Legislative Commission Association of Small Cities CITY 0: SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and C'ty Council FROM: Kevin D WW1, City Administrator SUBJECT: Follow up Letter to MASAC Concerning Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor Issue INTRODUCTION• I Larry Shaughnessy, Buzz Cummins, Jann Blesener and I attended the meeting of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)Ion September 27, at which discussions of the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor issue continued. The purpose of this memo is to bring you up to date on what happened at that meeting, as well as seek Council approval for a letter to MASAC restating our position. DISCUSSION• t The first attachmentis a copy of the report from the Corridor Operations Committee which was handed out to the MASAC members at the meeting. This is the final revision of the rough draft that I sent you last week. Representatives from the two communities made a few brief comments about the household data count. The second attachment is a copy of a letter from the City of Eagan which was handed out at the meeting. I Section 6 of.the Operations Committee report makes note of the concerns about requirements for environmental assessment. Also at the meeting, the Federal Aviation Administration provided me with copies of the regulations for when an environmental assessment must be done for changes in aircraft flight procedures. A copy of this is the third attachment to this memo. Carl Rydeen, of the FAA staff, is currently researching the history of flight changes in the area and will let us know when it is finished. He will also give us an opinion as to whether these changes should have required an environmental assessment or FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact). MASAC ACTION: At the beginning of the discussion, MASAC Chair Walter Rockenstein indicated that he did not believe MASAC would try to take any action on the item this evening. Rather, he indicated that the purpose would be to receive the report and clarify any questions that MASAC members might have. Rockenstein further indicated that he wanted to ask the cities of Mendota Heights and Eagan to attempt to get together once again and resolve their own differences, rather than having MASAC try to impose a solution. He suggested that the research effort continue, with an update to be presented to MASAC at its October meeting. At its November 22 meeting, MASAC would review whether the cities had been able to agree to a solution, or whether MASAC would have to consider taking_a position. LETTER OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS' POSITION Chairman Rockenstein asked that the City of Mendota Heights forward a letter to MASAC for its next packet reiterating its position for a preferred solution on the corridor issue. The final*attachment.to•-this memo is a draft letter I have prepared for your consideration. In addition to restating our support for alternative #4, a good part of the letter is devoted to documenting the City's past efforts in promoting land uses compatible with the aircraft noise impacts. I think it is important that the MASAC members understand that the.City has acted responsibly and is doing its fair share to try to accommodate the needs of the region. Councilmembers Blesener and Cummins may have some thoughts as to whether my letter would be an appropriate response to the Eagan letter and the discussion at the September 27 MASAC meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: To discuss the issue, make whatever changes Council may wish to the draft letter, and pass a motion authorizing the forwarding of the letter to the MASAC Chairman. KDF:madlr attachments Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Chairman: Wolter Rockensteln, 11 Past Chairs: Jan Chd Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor. Steven J. Vecchl September 27, 1988 1., 106 G.Rhlil I f I Z I TO: Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 (612) 726-9411 FROM: Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor Operations Committee SUBJECT': Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor At the June 28, 1988 MASAC meeting, it was reccmite-nded that the corridor issue be returned to the Operations Ccarnittee for further additional review. After meetings in July and September, the committee submits the attached information based on the following charges: 1. Population Density Data - population in contour within next 5 to 8 years, divided into categories 2. Explanation and Review - 28 degree cone 3. Simultaneous, Non -Simultaneous Departures - average number of hours, weekday and weekend 4. Explanation and Review - 32 ILS, St. Paul Downtown Airport and interference 5. Definition, Operational Penalties - 4 mile "straight-out" on 11L, no variance of 15 degree cone (only 100 degrees on 11L) 6. EA, EIS: New Southern Boundary 7. Landing Impact on Eagan, L10 contour - (29 L/R arrivals) 8. No Departure Turns until "at Runway end" on 11L Miscellaneous Items: 1. Exemption Stage III aircraft from corridor procedures/restrictions 2. Definition of FAA role during committee meetings 3. Eagan's request for Met Council's participation L�V �0 I ftYkf W S k) D 00 In the initial corridor discussion during the fall of 1987, the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights were working with Ldn noise contours (Ldn75, Ldn70 and Ldn65) provided by HNTB to assess the population affected by alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The cities, however, felt that it would be helpful to have L10 noise contours (L1065) generated for alternatives 2, 3 and 4 in an effort to more carpletely assess population impact. The following is population data provided by the cities corresponding to the Ldn75, Ldn65 and L1065 noise contours. It should be noted that both cities included population data corresponding to the Met Council policy contours. EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR NOISE CONTOUR HOUSEHOLD COUNTS Alternate Alt 3 Single Family Multi Family Rental Owner Occupied Total Alt 2 Single Family Multi Family Rental Owner Occupied Total Alt 4 Single Family Multi Family Rental Owner Occupied Total Arrival Single Family Multi Family Rental Owner Occupied Total EAGAN Residential In Place Ldn 70 Ldn 65 0 89 89 64 64 70 70 L10 65 374 161 19 554 405 322 725 539 322 861 ME 38 257 EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR NOISE CONTOUR HOUSEHOLD COUNTS EAGAN Comprehensive Guide Residential Net Potential Relocations and Additions Alternate Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Alt 3 Single Family Multi Family Rental owner Occupied Total Alt 2 Single Family Multi Family Rental Owner occupied Total Alt 4 Single Family Multi Family Rental Owner Occupied Total 10 10 16 16 55 55 L10 65 244* 161 19 404 275* 322 575 409* 322 711 * Eagan's Comprehensive Guide Plan does not provide for any new residential subdivisions within the noise contours. An estimated 20 lots have been indicated in each category for potential in -fill. a v EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY CONTOUR HOUSEHOLD COUNTS EAGAN Net Policy Contour Residences in Comp Guided Planned to Anticipated Zone Place Comm/Ind Be Added In Future 3 Single Family 68 68 0 0 Multi Family 0 0 0 0 Rental 0 0 0 0 Owner Occupied 0 0 0 0 Total 68 68 0 0 4 Single Family 350 81 201 470 Multi Family 98 0 0 98 Rental 60 0 0 60 Owner Occupied 38 0 0 38 Total 448 81 201 568 v Administrative Offices J% CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 31, 1988 Mr. Steve Vecchi Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5.5450 Dear Steve: Enclosed is the data from the City of Mendota Heights concerning the number of residential units within the different noise metric contours. The first four sheets concern the Ldn 70 and 65 contours, as well as the L10 contour; there are no homes in the Ldn 75 contour so it has not been included. The data is shown in a matrix of flight alternative by metric. For each place in the matrix, we have shown the total number of residences, and broken them down between single family and multi -family, and further subdivided the multi -family into rental and owner occupied. I believe this is as requested by the MASAC when they considered this issue in June. Using the consistent matrix format, the first four sheets show: 1. Residences in place as of August of this year. 2. Residences likely to be relocated at some time in the reasonably foreseeable future. 3. Residences that are planned to be added over the next few years (based on the City's existing comprehensive land use plan). 4. Net anticipated in the future after taking the homes currently in place, subtracting those to be relocated, and adding those planned. The fifth and final sheet shows the,number of residences located in each of the Metropolitan Council's policy contours. Jon Hohenstein of Eagan had requested that this information be provided as well. The data presented are for the City of Mendota Heights only. However, the operations Committee and MASAC will want to be cognizant of the fact that the cities of Mendota, Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove Heights also have residential 750 South Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • 452-1850 Mr. Steve Vecchi August 31, 1988 Page Two areas within the LIO contour and the Metropolitan Council Policy Contour No. 4. If you have any questions about the data prior to our meeting on September 9, please give me a call. Sincerely ,-I�-e�vin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF: madl r enclosure 0 cc: Mayor & City Council Bernie Friel, MASAC representative Jon Hohenstein FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE 3 Tota single family multi -family rental owner occupied 2 Tota single family multi -family rental owner occupied 4 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied RESIDENCES IN PLACE - AUGUST, 1988 METRIC Ldn70 Ldn 65 L10 2 274 II 1083 2 II 49 II 858 0 II 225 II 225 0 II 225 II 225 0 II 0 it II II II 0 2 II II 194 889 2 II 44 II 664 0 150 II II 225 0 150 II (I 225 0 0 II II 0 II II 2 117 II I I. 560 2 42 II (I 335 0 75 II II 225 0 75 II II 225 0 0 II II 0 FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE 3 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied 2 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied 4 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied RESIDENCES LIKELY TO BE RELOCATED M 19 Q 0 METRIC Ldn 65 L10 14 I} 14 14 }) 14 0 II II 0 0 II }} 0 0 II }} II II 0 14 II II II II 0 14 II }} 14 0 II }} 0 0 II }} 0 0 II II II II 0 9 .II II II . Ij 14 E9 II } } II 14 0 }} 0 0 I} II 0 11 0 II it 0 FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE 3 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied 2 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied 4 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied PLANNED TO BE ADDED METRIC Ldn 70 Ldn 65 L10 0 0 II996 II II 310 II II 686 II II 106 II () 580 II II (I Il 0 0 894 II II 208 II 686 I ; 106 II II 580 II II II II !I. 0 0 (I 628 II E II 88 (I II 540 fil II 0 II II 540 . II FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE 3 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied 2 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied 4 Total single family multi -family rental owner occupied NET ANTICIPATED IN THE FUTURE METRIC 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Ldn 65 260 35 225 225 0 180 30 150 150 0 L10 2065 1154 911 331 580 1769 858 911 331 580 2 106 (I 1174 II 2 33 Ij 409 II 0 75 I) 765 11 0 75 II 225 !I 0 0 II 540 II METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY CONTOURS Net Policy Contour Residences in Likely to Planned to Anticipated Zone Place Be Relocated Be Added In Future 2 Total 4 2 0 ({ II 2 single family 4 2 {{ 2 multi -family 0 0 II () 0 rental 0 0 II I) 0 owner occupied 0 0 II I{ II 0 3 EI II {{ Total 191 11 0 II {{ 180 single family 41 11 ii I{ 30 multi -family 150 0 II II 150 rental 150 0 {{ 150 owner occupied 0 0 II I{ II 0 4 II 11 II Total 253 0 740 II II 993 single family 178 200 j� 378 multi -family 75 540 615 rental 75 E 0 II {{ 75 owner occupied 0 540 II 540 D!"' DI •• I Do 1) The FAA ATCT informed the Operations Committee that they have always acknowledged Runway 11R extended centerline (118 degrees) to be the southern boundary of the corridor. They also stated that, while they have never acknowledged a northern boundary to the corridor, they have used the 090 degree heading off Runway 11L as an "operations boundary" in an effort of avoiding St. Paul Downtown Airport airspace. The 28 degree cone originates from the difference between the 118 degree (11R) and 090 degree (11L) reference points. The FAA Tower stated that the 28 degree cone is utilized only about 1 to 2 percent of the time (with turbojet aircraft), when a high number of aircraft types with differing performance specifications'are scheduled to depart within the same relative time period. A 15 degree cone is used during all other remaining time. C<r AIRCRAFT DEPARTURE HEADINGS Heading Assignments by Runway Number of Aircraft Departures 50 40 30 20 10 10 1 LE 01 (19) (1) (25) (1) (15) (1) Figure 5 — Departure Headings and Runway 095 1 tL ® 095 1 M 100 11L E 100 11 R ® 106 11L , 106 11 R Data Source MSP Tower — Jury I C<r AIRCRAFT DEPARTURE HEADINGS Heading Assignments by Runway Number of Aircraft Departures 50 40 30 20 10 LE 0 (10) (43) (13) (39) (4) 0 1) Figure 6 — Departure Headings and Runway 110 11L 110 11R 115 11L 115 11R ® 120 11L 120 11R Data source MSP Tower — Jury 19aa AVERAGE DEPARTURES BY RUNWAY Number of Aircraft Departures 50 40 — 30 20 f! 10 }} II 0 7 Non 15 Noise 22 Total 8 Non 10 Noise 24 Total Figure 3 — Average Hourly Departures 11L ® 111. 0 111- ® 1111 ® 11R =1 1111 Data Source MSP Tower — July 19M SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTURES Departure Area Utilization Number of Aircraft Departures 200 150 i 100 50 —' 0 142 A/C — 100z 82 A/C — e5% 8 A/C — ex 42 A/C — 28X Figure 4 — Departure Area Utilized TOTAL ® 15 Degreee 28 Degrees ® FUN D.A. Data Source MSP Tower — July 1988 ANALYSIS -269 MSP DEPARTURES 6 Random Weekday Hours of Sample Number of Aircraft Departures 200 150 100 30 a 8E Non Noise A/C 103 Was A/C Figure 1 — 86 Non—Noise & 183 Noise A/C M 32% Non—Nolle M 08% — Noise Data Source MSP Tower — July 1988 ANALYSIS -269 MSP DEPARTURES 6 Random Weekday Hours of Sample Number of Aircraft Departures 100 80 80 40 20 0 - - 41 Non Noise V Wee 45 Non Noise Figure 2 — Aircraft Type by Runway M 11L ® 11L ® 11R ® 11R Data Source MSP Tower — July 1988 90 Noise 4. 32 ILS REVMq The FAA ATCT informed the Operations Committee that the only time a conflict occurs with the Runway 32 ILS from St. Paul Holman Field and the Corridor is when the following condition exists: Runway 32 ILS arrivals (STP) are occuring with simultaneous Runway 11L,R departures (MSP). When Runway 32 MS is required, which is approximately 5 to 10 percent of the time during a year, the tower is unable to assign departing aircraft on 11L headings from 118 degrees to 090 degrees because of the lack of airspace separation frau Runway 32 inbounds. The FAA ATCr has established a temporary procedure to hold all Runway 32 inbounds until they'could be sequenced between Runway 11L/IR departures. The other options are to "single stream" 1II/R departures and 32 arrivals causing delays for both airports, or NDB approaches to St. Paul on Runway 30. While implementation of a 4 -mile straight out rule on 11L/R departures might have been possible at lower traffic levels, current levels make it impractical. With the dramatic increase of traffic levels at MSP, the institution of the 4 -mile rule could cause a reduction in the operational canpacity leading to significant departure delays. The FAA ATCT informed the Operations Ccmittee that one of the reasons for the success of the current "3 -mile turn" rule for 11L/R departures is the existence of a reference point on the radar screen. Due to the position of the radar antenna, the existing 5 mile ring on the scope happens to be located 3 miles southeast of the departure end of Runways 11L/R making it a useful reference point for aiding in compliance. It was concluded that it would not be feasible to initiate a 4 -mile straight out rule for departures on 11L/R. 6. EA,EIS: NEW SOUTHERN BOUNDARY Alternative 4 proposed by the City of Mendota Heights would require a 5 degree southward shift of the current southern boundary of the corridor (11R extended centerline). The FAA ATCT informed the Operations Ccmnittee that this option is technically feasible, however, new change of procedure below 3000' would require an Environmental Assessment document. Whether or not any positions of the EA would require an Environmental Impact Statement would depend on issues contained within. If an EIS were required, the time frame is approximately 18 months. Mendota Heights questioned whether the incremental traffic movement to the North (i.e. 28 degree cone or magnetic shift) would require an EA. 8. DEPARTURE TURNS "AT RUNWAY END" The FAA informed the operations Ccmuittee that it would not be feasible for air traffic control ' lers to hold the issuing of a turn for 11L/R departures until runway end. The possibility of crosswind drifts could violate the 15 degree separation criteria required for simultaneous 11L/R departures. Therefore, the Ccmuittee concluded that it would be more effective to increase the pilots sensitivity when departing on Runway 11L if MAC would install signs indicating that the assigned heading for turbojet equipment not be initiated until runway end. The ccamittee recognizes there are other noisy aircraft which should be included in the signage, however, for ease of ccmpliance only turbojet equipment will be referenced. Mor. WE* W 10211:0 MALOW- 1. One measure of the 27 point noise abatement program concerned the exemption of Stage III aircraft from noise abatement procedures and corridor restrictions. Since there has been no action by, the MAC on this issue, the ccmittee believes the measure should be reassessed. The Cities of Mendota Heights and Eagan reiterated their opposition to the Stage III exemptions. 2. Bruce Wagoner, FAA ATCT, stated that the tower would like to go on record defining their role in the Operations Ccmmittee. He said that he would be the chief representative and spokesman for the tower at the meetings and his purpose would-be to "tell whether or not the noise abatement ideas were feasible." He further commented that they would try to give the ccmmittee and MASAC indication of changes necessary to met FAA approval. 3. The City of Eagan requested that MASAC take into consideration the Met Council policy noise contours in addition to the Ldn75, Ldn 70, Ldn65 and L1065 contours when assessing population data. In addition, the city requests that the Met Council be invited to participate in the resolution of the issue. r sit _dtV ®F cagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE. (612) 454-8100 WALTER ROCKENSTEIN METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT 6040 -28TH AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 VIC ELLISON September 23, 1988 Maar THOMAS EGAN DAVID K. GUSTAFSON PAMELA McCREA THEODORE WACHTER Council Members SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk RE: MENDOTA HEIGHTS/EAGAN CORRIDOR STUDY Dear Rocky: This brief correspondence will outline the key points of the corridor study as it has been conducted to date. 1. Study Purpose - The corridor study originally arose from a joint request by the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights to engage the MAC and Met Council in a consideration of how current operations relate to regional and local land use compatibility policy. As such, it was to be an effort to rationally integrate operational changes with in-place restrictions, not to rationalize or systematize a broader area of operations. 2. Study Parameters - The essential point of the study was to identify an equitable focus for a standard 15 degree area representing the separation necessary for simultaneous departures. Because an occassional operation goes beyond the 15 degree area, Mendota Heights has suggested that the study instead consider a 28 degree area. The FAA indicates that noisy aircraft deviate from the 15 degree area very infrequently (approximately 1 - 2% of departures) to accomodate successive departures from the same runway. Because this anomolous situation occurs so infrequently, an equitable focus for the 15 degree area continues to be a resonable study parameter. 3. Means of Comparison - In the course of the study, various metrics and comparisons have been suggested. The Operations Committee has considered Ldn's, L10's and track locations. It has compared housing units within these various contours. In point of fact, the Met Council policy contours represent the basis from which all such comparisons should proceed. Through the Noise Map Project, the MAC and Met Council addressed the issue of long term land use compatibility and instituted regional land use controls. The only thing that has changed in the interim is that the FAA must use diverging safety separations on a regular basis. The only issue should be how one centers this 15 degree area of THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY operations over the Noise Map's expected areas of impact. A comparison of the relevant contours reveals: 1) The Met Council contours indicate that the anticipated area of noise impact lies north of the extended runway centerlines, the middle of the area being approximately 11 degrees north of centerline. 2) A comparison of peak hour departure L10's shows that Alternative #2 coincides most closely with the policy contours and, if all operations were peak hour departures, it would define the appropriate area of operations. 3) Ldn contours which represent all operations (arrival, departure and off-peak); however, illustrate that even Alternative #2 results in a disproportionate level of impact south of the Policy Contours. 4) The Mendota Heights recommendation (Alternative #4) extends even farther and more inequitably from the policy contours. 4. Conclusion - The foregoing demonstrates that the only equitable focus for traffic under current operations is in an area slightly north of the extended centerline of Runway 11R and extending to the 15 degree safety separation for Runway 11L. This would be a compromise between Alternatives #2 and V. Such a compromise was offered by the Eagan City Council and it remains the fairest solution today. The City of Mendota Heights would prefer not to consider the Regional Land Use Policy Contours because it has tended to encourage new development of residential land uses within the policy contours, in known noise impact areas and intends to continue to do so in the future. As a result, Mendota Heights would prefer to count noise impacted residences, including large numbers of apartments and homes added since the policy contours have been in force. On the other hand, Eagan has pursued a philosophy of promoting commercial land use throughout the policy contour area. If Mendota Heights wishes to pursue such a residential philosophy, it must accept its consequences and not use its growing number of homes as a reason to dramatically change the noise compatibility policy focus of the region. The relationship between these issues and regional policy imply that the Metropolitan Council should be an active participant in this decision. The original request for the study asked that the Council be an integral part of the decision process. The Met Council, MAC and cities worked together to form the policy contours. All parties should participate in any current discussion of operations and land use. The best indication of the fundamental fairness of the proposed compromise is that Eagan would recommend it even if the two cities were one. The compromise takes into account the land use planning the region has already done. It does not diminish capacity, but it does limit the circumstances under which abuses of the corridor procedures occur. I would be happy to respond to any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 0 1 flow t � ifill!w I Mm F:3 a �i r � e . � � , � !w' . '� .�► ,► � �, ttip � a�'i i N +' _i:i- — -• wal , • � .rte. .'� ''..��. 11 r 1 ff pito \• • r •, • '1 `j�� • /J�� Irrr /t�l,� Mr�M tw96 FIAT [IUHG STATE PORK SwtulwG frpwmt ~Etta. m WX G•n4r It Is F ALT 4 rare.+t ,gym % � •tN •7iw 9-1 ' 4 1t,R t 19x SI n,.. ao . ,elw i tta � 9atl•w •m •a NOISE Z O 3 a r,cF,m 19 E Lam 1 h r r. a 4 ., .9 ••fM L r t �_ NO EZ NE4 x� i•.• � f ttr..t,. •o A L T • 3 fy `.lam} _ � Rti ♦.. A , N'a €R ALT 2 t .111 2<9 ft + "`0 ! ••,K9 c- 6 i i t ..•at d �_ M �,• C �LT �1 ..,. 00.X9 . I S a ,f f ff a Lo•. 9 � • Y,OaRt t!. y. .. Twltr • f tiRL r,ro FS .tl,f• ' a ♦ r e ' • 9.atr,r /r.,f $ m S ffreaflfr • Ntt. . V • 1l. f eP.tw� • . t 0! B"FO.f b, •1 1L4LOM S +aC~�'f+S �' W17C011• Lar V refcerr •e t .`t • r e: � q ! EAGAN A/tCa/y fttw•If• •fa ,p. tl••e».' tf t• NIT XOP tar ,9,Zr6 tr t, 11 xa to G/ii COMiDUA x tqt, S < •m B � C . 1 w • . `, IC S) 0 � r•t .w • ,m •m t � m• it•,. • Sy1 +0ft tr.uw• x Y e•at+s 1 j w �* Wl--MENDOTA HEIGHTS .9 1970 POP J�.t, 6.565 mt1T:.iM tHme S M. w 1f�3 U .Ment Lm n. 'v + t LT 2 G•n4r It Is F ALT 4 rare.+t ,gym % � •tN •7iw 9-1 ' 4 1t,R t 19x SI n,.. ao . ,elw i tta � 9atl•w •m •a NOISE Z O 3 a r,cF,m 19 E Lam 1 h r r. a 4 ., .9 ••fM L r t �_ NO EZ NE4 x� i•.• � f ttr..t,. •o A L T • 3 fy `.lam} _ � Rti ♦.. A , N'a €R ALT 2 t .111 2<9 ft + "`0 ! ••,K9 c- 6 i i t ..•at d �_ M �,• C �LT �1 ..,. 00.X9 . I S a ,f f ff a Lo•. 9 � • Y,OaRt t!. y. .. Twltr • f tiRL r,ro FS .tl,f• ' a ♦ r e ' • 9.atr,r /r.,f $ m S ffreaflfr • Ntt. . V • 1l. f eP.tw� • . t 0! B"FO.f b, •1 1L4LOM S +aC~�'f+S �' W17C011• Lar V refcerr •e t .`t • r e: � q ! EAGAN A/tCa/y fttw•If• •fa ,p. tl••e».' tf t• NIT XOP tar ,9,Zr6 tr t, 11 xa to G/ii COMiDUA x tqt, SNELL'KG 41yONAt EWETLFT 3I'�ry „r �� i •`� •,f—sa."��� - °iii t A.ai 11 ill •t`� L2.j le IS • •l�i ••.V JAI— r F1. f ! tr L ui C OG � ! S t'} " '•y t ta: + y ! � 7 t a.�`• 19 L n S Q © _ .fir... " o IID✓ C� '.,i((�•`` / 1/J \�T `tom"\. �� •. W +c! SNELL'KG 41yONAt EWETLFT 3I'�ry „r �� i •`� •,f—sa."��� - °iii t A.ai 11 ill •t`� L2.j le IS • •l�i ••.V JAI— r F1. .. •a L � ! S t'} " '•y t ta: + y ! � ��Q,pTr�•s./�ptLOTP � r E ",MENDOTA t a.�`• 19 L n S Q © _ .fir... " o 471i PQG ; LA W +c! 45 r Ito 1 ' • MENDOTA HEIGHTS _ °� y3 \ v •a r. «t 19ro POP 1,969 RU ;itY 'Y lt� tit WIT Y 1t♦tRttt. SI roF t°" �� at t Lt. M. \\ Yo.... is I..t F,t n A 16• � .) ) t � •t.•tM � tit LOW Cj 4�y dS Let. •^ �j C It K• t Fo �` I ' [ '' irf•r Y�� W' ^IT \ Vlt /T six llt� 1t1 W' iIi Ft vt t w i -`�.�.w +p�L wl"• t 1, A a RI,• •ttr C.O. ua r1/N 4 C , r /9 ON 3 • p�V: 1l � • 4/' + . It ' Rm^• T a N SE ZONE 4, e 1'� t Y r t r Siji Oil j\ EAGAN tQriR \ its- POP iV76 � � r11•it 0 ta"a, 1 y a. t r w a,Rar Lr L A. -01 C, ♦ s Oci p. t A.1cl • YFFiCi Lt Y..c d I rfnNtr• I! !I 11 IS • I G ..CT�eO Q 'dor i r 1 r<1 e nnB •;' ot,,,,, 1 4 � ♦,atfr tF. u r '� Trrlvi 4, t rti a r«o r ♦��♦ i • NTir t • '9 a • ► ♦, f',i ` ♦ Ip • : tFRIMr R �!it 1 i7 1 a IPNFfi7• . Yran "ll— Dofl V + \\l1JMlry ii Y `•t1" •+4 �: ., � B1PetAaYR � wt • tPM ~t� Y � 1rtHC011 *IT •fI •f Ra taM' Y11c OrI L To t ao o C,T C..• Cr ,yt `cr' t ttrYF41Y A0.1'a ON 6S 70 75- r,,1 • r t i • •.t•R♦ EAGAN rrr•Ftlr. McCarty ,P. •�. • � w '( 1 �' 19TT POP ,9,tT5 rl LaFa u V, 13 v L4 DS MENDOTAk %Lipop F to Stati 110 •iSw&-v s W-- MENDOTA HEIGHTS im P0. 065 F �� /i y ( ] IS 63 Su. J, - VI - fit* NOISEZO E 3 It" 19 E r9 ..o N SE ZONE 4 EAGAN *.to 191' PW r9,ir6 lot.. t. 1. -.01 Ct .of Ct w ... I C, <8> 41 At .01 13 Twor Cwt .1012T t4 Mo aw.— Wescott I it to-# .1scorl to so top..&W A EAGAN 1911 POP .1.2?6 al iiT FL 1� .r.,..n `• itnr WEST c'' IS j • , SAINT E PAUL i LA Jtt»•!ft � 1970 POP Pt IE,f02 .. Irir JJJ►n0 M�MtP '-f LS a�,,,•n•` •.K. •. C �p,.P/�S� pF1tOTp r t 1S e' +, •+••" Z` M;ENDOTA `r E . i f �' r.tr.• ,w t //// , r rw ,9�T0 PDP F lA K . . PP a •R • TM Pxi Ga t .a,• }f .row u , •ne' J �.,J x r ♦ ra y• PARR . l l• ....�_�_. _.- _ _— _. ... LAA 1 kz;� t 4't�l M,-''L� t °i co LDG G -� iiT FL 1� .r.,..n `• itnr WEST c'' IS j • , SAINT E PAUL i LA Jtt»•!ft � 1970 POP Pt IE,f02 .. Irir JJJ►n0 M�MtP '-f LS a�,,,•n•` •.K. •. C �p,.P/�S� pF1tOTp r t 1S e' +, •+••" Z` M;ENDOTA `r E . i f �' r.tr.• ,w t //// , r rw ,9�T0 PDP F lA K . . PP a •R • TM Pxi Ga t .a,• }f .row u , •ne' J �.,J x r ♦ ra y• PARR . l l• ....�_�_. _.- _ _— _. ... LAA 1 kz;� t 4't�l M,-''L� f l tj'r• MENDOTA HEIGHTS _ � ••t, .•t nKOPo►cAfs Ad..7l. ,d � ��/\�\\ E •r ujtt� u its ►rt `" nP.a» Ai ' C . (,•, .,t la»i yyr '•• . r �' � 1' +�tCl {i • ttt/// i iI SUNFISH HTO POP ij �! Jirndre.. rr• te•w. •tn' !t. o• N O ! S E INVER c Z O 3 ! HEIGH t• 55 i9 ; 1970 FCA. sr N SE ZONE 4 1 Z6 1 +� jl; •a. 9 • f�, � i 3 9 5 7 S 4 if' a f ,• . TlMgl. � A �� •Kn 1 ... OLiv, � d � �• rrdtRJ LA. •' ,..tt E. t».stat ae .FII �`p rra s ©+ t� �` • . 11 f•e��~ MR `i7111 a�\..'�E.S�"�, 14,`�' G• it +tJ ' ~ SAX&A." _ ' M1 �LON 1977 t, 4.-. Mk3C011 t►a • •t yeott !0 !. �� L , of " ' aGa � .�. •,.. ii Jit• EAGAN AACrM, Jinait. IfTT POP 1112tt t. rr nn !t !r INVER 12/21/83 (4) Be inconsistent with any Federal, State, or local law or administrative determination relating to the environment. NJ 1050.1D g. Other action that is likely to directly or indirectly affect human' beings by creating a significant impact on the environment. 33. ADVISORY ACTIONS. Some Federal actions, such as airspace determinations are of an advisory nature and are neither permissive nor enabling. Actions of this type are not major Federal actions, and environmental assessments or statements are not required as a condition for accomplishing the action. If it is known or anticipated that some subsequent Federal action would require processing in accordance with environmental procedures, the FAA shall so indicate in the advisory action. 34. CUMULATIVE IMPACT. In determining whether an environmental impact statement is required for a proposed Federal action, it is necessary to consider the overall cumulative impact of the proposed action and the consequences of subsequent related actions. CEQ sec. 1508.7 states that '.ICumulative impact' is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact' of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." ( See paragraph 37 (b) ) °35." ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. An environmental assessment (EA) is a concise document describing the environmental impacts of a proposed action and its alternatives. If a decision has not been made to prepare an EIS and a proposed action has not been classified as a categorical exclusion,, an EA shall be prepared. If it is concluded from the EA that the proposed action is a major impact significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the responsible official shall prepare and process a draft EIS. If it is concluded that the action is not a major impact significantly affecting the quality of the human vironment, the responsible official shall prepare and file tONSI It is FAA's intention to adhere strongly to this instruction and to quire only enough analysis in the environmental assessment for the following purposes; a. To understand the problem and identify reasonable alternative solutions, including the proposed action. The CEQ Regulations include specific directions on the consideration of alternatives. While these directions are concerned with the EIS, they are also applicable to an EA, although less detail than in an EIS. See paragraph 64 on Alternatives for the applicable CEQ sections. b. To determine whether any potential impacts are significant, which would trigger the environmental impact statement process. rA r. - F:' o Chap 3 Par 32 Page 21 1050.1D 12/21/83 c. To provide the basis for the FAA's findings of no significant impact if the proposed action has no significant impacts. d. To identify and satisfy special purpose Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders. e. To identify and satisfy State and local laws and regulations applicable to the proposal. f. In completing the above, to indicate agencies consulted.(and to identify cooperating agencies for environmental impact statement preparation purpose). 36. CONTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. The environmental assessment shall incorporate some selected items of information required for an environmental impact statement in CEQ sec. 1502.10. The information in the environmental assessment will, however, be in more abbreviated form than in an environmental impact statement. The information.required includes the purpose and need for the proposal, alternatives including proposed action (see paragraph 64), Affected Environment (see para. 65), Environmental Consequences (see paragraph 66 and Attachment 2 for applicable potential impact areas), listing of agencies and persons consulted and appendices (if any). 37. ACTIONS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS. a. After an EA has been prepared, an EIS shall be prepared if an FAA action: (1) Has an effect that is not minimal on properties protected under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act, or Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. (2) Has a significant impact on natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of National, State, or local significance, including endangered species or wetlands, floodplains, and coastal zones. (3) Is highly controversial with respect to the availability of adequate relocation housing. (A controversy over the amount of acquisition or relocation payments is not a controversy with respect to the availability of relocation housing). (4) Causes substantial division or disruption of an established community, or disrupts orderly, planned development, or is determined not to be reasonably consistent with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located. (5) Causes a significant increase in surface traffic congestion. --->'(6) Has a significant impact on noise levels of noise sensitive areas. Chap 3 Page 22 Par 35 12/21/83 1050.1D (7) Has a significant impact on air quality or violates the standards for air quality of the Environmental Protection Agency or an affected locality or State. N n (8) Has a significant impact on water quality or may contaminate a public water supply system. (9) Is inconsistent with an Federal, State, or local law or determination relating to the environment. '—'- (10) Directly or indirectly affects human beings by creating a significant impact on the environment. (11) Has a significant impact on prime or unique farmlands or farmlands of state or local importance. b. An EIS is required not only when the impact of the proposed / project itself is significant, but also when the cumulative impact of the tf proposed project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is significant. A series of actions considered on an individual bases may have a limited environmental impact, yet, when considered together, may have a significant, cumulative impact. (1) If approval of the proposed action would permit further / contemplated actions, the impacts of those contemplated actions and the ll proposed action must both be considered in determining whether to prepare an EIS. (2) The actions which are related to the proposed action may be undertaken by any Federal or non -Federal agency or person. (3) If an EIS is required because of the cumulative impact of the proposed action and future, related actions, no commitment may be made with respect to the future actions prior to the processing of the EIS if such commitment would foreclose or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigating measures which may be taken. (See CEQ sec. 1506.1). c. In case of doubt as to whether an EIS is necessary for a particular action, the responsible official or program officer should consult with AEE -1 and AGC -1. Regional Airport Divisions consultation under order 5050.4 should be with APP -600. 38. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS. a. The process for consideration of the environmental effects of a proposed action involves a number of steps, beginning with assessment by the FAA or applicant of actions not categorically excluded. The relative responsibilities of the FAA are summarized in the following paragraphs. Chap 3 Par 37 Page 23 1050.1D 12/21/83 b. For a better understanding of the process, a flow chart (Attachment 1) is presented at the end of this order. Attachment 1 is broken down into four sheets: (1) Sheet 1 depicts the initial FAA review of actions not categorically excluded. The FAA must determine, based on the environmental assessment review, whether the action requires preparation of a FONSI or an EIS. (2) Sheet 2 describes the process if it is determined that an EIS is not necessary. It shows the procedure for the processing and approval of a FONSI. (3) Sheet 3 describes the FAA procedure in processing a draft EIS in accordance with NEPA 102(2)(C). It outlines the process of scoping, preparing and circulating the draft, and receiving and reviewing continents. (4) Sheet 4 explains FAA's approval process for a final EIS. 39. RESERVED. u Chap 3 Page 24 Par 38 12/5/86 AMI 14)A SA C_ 1050.1D CHG 3 Appendix 3 APPENDIX 3. AIR TRAFFIC 1`'�-%ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES.! a. Regional Offices. Responsibility for environmental assessment and preparation of EIS's and FONSI's may be delegated to field facilities or retained within the regional office, with assistance from the field facilities. Regional offices and field facilities shall provide input to an * environmental assessment when requested by Air Traffic (AAT), Air Traffic Operations Service (ATO), Air Traffic Plans and Requirements Service (ATR) or other services. b. Headquarters. The office originating the proposed systemwide action is responsible for making environmental assessments and preparing the FONSI's and EIS's. Input may be requested from regional offices and field facilitics for an action originating within headquarters. `2."- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OR FINDINGS OF NO SIGNTFICANT'IMPACT.— After completion of the environmental assessment (including.noise analyses), the responsible official will determine whether the proposed procedure will require an EIS or FONSI or is categorically excluded. `3;'_ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDURES.' The following actions are subject to environmental assessment and preparation of an EIS or FONSI. a. New or revised air traffic control procedures which routinely route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. b. Special use airspace if the floor of the proposed area is below 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL or if supersonic flight is anticipated at any altitude. This airspace shall not be designated, established, or modified until: (1) The notice (NPRM or non -rule circular) contains a statement supplied by the requesting or using agency that they will serve as lead agency for purposes of compliance with NEPA; (e.g., restricted airspace for military use); (2) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the requesting or using agency, of the office representing the agency to which comments on the environmental aspects can be addressed (applicable only if an EIS is to be filed by the requesting agency); (3) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the requesting or using agency, of the office representing the agency to which comments on any land use problems can be addressed (applicable only if special use airspace extends to the surface); and Page 1 1050.1D CHC 3 Appendix 3 12/5/86 (4) The rule, determination, or other publication of the airspace action contains a statement, supplied by the requesting agency, that the requirements of NEPA have been met. c. The provisions of paragraph b. (1) through (4) are not applicable to special use airspace actions if minor adjustments are made such as raising the altitudes or if a change is made in the designation of the controlling or using agency. 4. CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED ACTIONS. * a. Determination under FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace" and determinations under FAR Part 157, "Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation and Deactivation of Airports." Determinations under Part 157 include helipads and heliports. b. Procedural actions to the extent covered by a previously filed EIS or FONSI, when environmental circumstances have not changed. c. Actions taken under FAR Part 71, "Designation of Federal Airways, Area Low Routes, Controlled Airspace and Reporting Pointe." d. Actions taken under FAR Part 75, "Establishment of Jet Routes and Area High Routes"; FAR Part 99, "Security Control of Air Traffic"; FAR Part 101, "Moored Balloons,'KiteE, Unmanned Rockets and Unmanned Free Balloons"; and FAR Part 105, "Parachute Jumping." * e. Establishment or modification of Terminal Control Areas (TCA), Terminal Radar Service Areas (TRSA), or Airport Radar Service Areas (ARSA). f. Procedural actions dictated by emergency determinations. g. Procedural actions requested by users on a test basis to determine the effectiveness of new technology and measurement of possible impacts on the environment. h. New procedures that routinely route aircraft over non -noise sensitive areas. i. Establishment of helicopter tracks that channel helicopter activity over major thoroughfares. Page 2 12/5/86 APPENDIX 4. AVIATION STANDARDS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 1050.1D CHG 3 Appendix 4 * a. As the responsible official under NEPA, the Aviation Standards Office Managers, Regional Division Managers, and/or staff shall implement the environmental assessment procedures, including developing an EIS or FONSI as appropriate. Normally, the district/field office responsible for the action is responsible for the environmental assessment. Regional Division Managers and staff will assist and monitor district/field offices activities in the accomplishment of environmental assessments. Regional Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification Divisions shall coordinate with and assist as necessary the airway facilities, air traffic, and airports division and others on those actions involving environmental Impacts crossing division lines. The headquarters divisions, with assistance from the regions, will develop and coordinate FONSI actions for programs. b. Documentation, including the analysis of environmental factors, shall be retained in the project folder to substantiate the environmental assessment. This should be prepared for all projects not categorically excluded to support the decision that an EIS or FONSI will be prepared. * c. In the Washington headquarters each EIS and FONSI pertaining to a regulatory project will be prepared for the signature of the appropriate Office Director and a concurrence signature from the Safety Regulations Division, APR -200. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OR FINDINGS OF NO SI%TIFICANT IMPACT. Environmental considerations of Aviation Standards actions require assessment of all relevant environmental factors. A decision as to whether the action's impact requires a FONSI or an EIS is based on the assessment. 3. ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES. The following Aviation Standards actions are subject to environmental procedures, analysis and a decision as to whether to prepare a FONSI or an EIS. a. Aircraft Type Certificates. New, amendedorsupplemental aircraft types for which environmental regulations do not yet exist, or new, amended or supplemental engine types for which regulations do not yet exist, or where an environmental analysis has not yet been prepared in connection with regulatory action. b. Aircraft/avionics maintenance bases to be operated by the FAA. c. Regulations (and exemptions and waivers to regulations) which may affect the human environment. Page 1 1050.1D CHG 3 Appendix 4 12/5/86 d. Authorization to exceed Mach 1 Flight under FAR Part 91.55. * e. Issuance of an air carrier operating certificate, an operating certificate, the approval of operations specifications or amendments thereto that may significantly change the character of the operational environment of an airport. The person responsible for issuing the certificate or approving the operations specifications is also responsible for assuring the assessment is prepared. Thorough coordination among Flight Standards District Office personnel, the Regional Flight Standards Division and the Regional Noise Abatement Officer is essential. Coordination among regions is expected if actions cross regional boundaries. Normally, the Flight Standards District Office personnel will collect from the operator the information necessary to prepare a noise analysis for an assessment. The type of information needed includes; airports, types of aircraft and engines, number of scheduled operations per day, and the number of day/night operations. The information should also include the operator's long range plans and operation assumptions which are sufficiently conservative to encompass reasonably foreseeable changes in operations. If the carrier declines. -to furnish the information, or if the furnished information on operations at the airport does not address night operations, or if the information otherwise patently understates the potential operations (when compared with carrier's operations at other airports or with other carrier's operations at that airport), the responsible Federal official will develop an operational assumption which includes night operations and which is otherwise consistent with the typical operations of similar carriers at similar airports. This operational assumption will be used in the environmental assessment after coordination with the affected air carrier. If the air carrier objects to the use of this operational assumption in the assessment, the carrier may specify that a lesser level of operations be used in the assessment, provided that the carrier agrees that this lesser level will serve as a limit on the operations specifications. If the carrier refuses such a limitation, the FAA will include all reasonably foreseeable operations in the assessment. In this situation the assessment shall state the operational assumption was developed solely for the purpose of environmental analyses and that it is not to be viewed as a service commitment by the carrier. If an EIS is required; the affected operator phould be advised as soon as possible and should be requested for any additional required information. District Office personnel will coordinate, as necessary, any activity with the operator. The certificate will not be issued or the operations specifications approved until all issues and questions associated with the EIS are fully resolved and the Regional Director has concurred with the issuance or approval. No decision on the proposed action can be made until 90 days after EPA has published a notice in the Federal Register for a draft EIS or 30 days after publication of the notice for a final EIS. Normally, the following situations will require the preparation of an environmental assessment. Page 2 12/5/86 1050.1D CHG 3 Appendix 4 * (1) Approval of operations specifications authorizing an operator to use turbojet airplanes for scheduled passenger service into an airport when that airport has not previously been serviced by any scheduled passenger turbojet airplanes. (2) Approval of operations specifications authorizing an operator to use the Concorde for any scheduled/nonscheduled service into an airport, unless an environmental assessment for such service has been prepared previously. Note: An assessment could be required, depending upon the situation, for issuance of an air carrier operating certificate or approval of operations specification when a commuter upgrades to turbojet equipment. f. New Instrument Approach Procedures, Departure Procedures, En Route Procedures, and Modifications to currently approved instrument procedures which are conducted below 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL) and which will tend to increase noise over noise sensitive areas. This requires consideration of those operations that will be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas and includg,s residential neighborhoods•;_ education, health, and religious sites; and cultural, historic, and recreation areas. A significant increase in noise is based on reduction of distance between aircraft and noise sensitive areas of more than.20 percent. 4. CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED ACTIONS. a. Certificates for new, amended or supplemental aircraft types that meet environmental regulations or new, amended or supplemental engine types that meet emission regulations, or new, amended or supplemental engine types that have been excluded by the EPA; medical, airmen, export, manned free balloon type, glider type, propeller type, supplemental type not affecting noise, emission or waste; mechanic schools, agricultural aircraft operations,, repair stations and other air agency ratings; b. Special flight authorization controlled by operating limitations, FAR sections 21.193, 21.199, 91.29, 91.42, and 91.45. c. All delegations of authority under section 314 of -the FAA Act (49 U.S.C. 1301), e.g., designated examiners and engineering representatives. d. Approvals of aircraft and engine repairs, parts, and alterations not affecting noise, emissions, or wastes. e. Aircraft and engine certifications or approvals under regulations which have•been covered by prior EIS's or FONSI's provided there have been no significant changes in circumstances. f. Acoustic change actions that demonstrate compliance with FAR Part 36. * g. Issuance of Airworthiness Directives (ADs). Page 3 1050.1D CHG 3 12/5/86 Appendix 4 * h. Operating specifications and amendments thereto which do not significantly change the operating environment of the airport. These would include, but are not limited to, authorizing use of an alternate airport, administrative revisions to operations specifications, or use of an airport 'on a one-time basis. The use of an airport on a one-time basis means the operator will not have scheduled operations at the airport or will not use the aircraft for which it requests an amended operations specification on a scheduled basis. (See para. 3e(4) for the Concorde.) i. Regulatory documents which cover administrative or procedural requirements. J. Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment). k. Instrument Approach Procedures, Departure Procedures and En Route Procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL); Instrument Procedures conducted below 3,000 AGL which do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved instrument procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas, and increases minimum altitudes and landing minima. Noise sensitive areas may include residential neighborhoods, educational, health, and religious sites, and cultural, historic and outdoor recreational areas. A significant increase in noise is based on a reduction of distance between aircraft and noise sensitive areas of more than 20 percent. 1. Denials of: (1) a petition for exemption; (2) a petition for reconsideration of a denial of exemption; (3) a petition for rulemaking; (4) a petition for reconsideration of a denial of a petition for rulemaking; (5) exemptions to Technical Standard Orders (TSOs) when they are routine in nature and have no significant environmental impact. m. Ongoing actions which are categorically excluded or actions for which FONSI's have been prepared, normally, need only documentation in the project folder that the action is not subject to further environmental consideration. However, should it be determined that a particular action in the above category has a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, an EIS will be required. 5. TIMING OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES. Environmental assessments shall be initiated along with technical, economic antd operation considerations, and'at the earliest practical point in time. The EIS or FONSI shall be filed prior to action; for example, in the case of certificates, prior to issuance. Page 4 October 5, 1988 Mr. Walter Rockenstein, Chair Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Rockenstein: With regard to the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor Study, the City of Mendota Heights wishes to reiterate its support for the simultaneous flight departure pattern described as Alternative 4. We base our position on the belief that Alternative 4 most equitably distributes noise over residential areas in the two communities, and leads to the least number of total households being directly impacted b y aircraft noise. As requested, Mendota Heights and Eagan have provided household counts for the areas included in the Ldn 70, Ldn 65, and L10 contours for flight alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Recognizing that adjustments for magnetic shift, wind direction, and other factors will lead to routine deviations from whatever flight patterns are selected, those numbers show Alternative 4 to be the best "baseline" for achieving equity of impact in the respective communities. Alternative 4 also affects the least number of total households. Below are the household counts in the L10 contour showing residences in place today. Single-family homes only are shown in parentheses. Flight Alternative Eagan Mendota Hts. Total 3 554 (374) 1083 (858) 1637 (1232) 2 725 (405) 889 (664) 1614 (1069) 4 861 (539) 560 (335) 1421 (874) Reducing the total noise exposure should be an objective of equal standing with attempting to spread the noise equitably between two communities. After all, city boundaries are largely arbitrary, and people, not municipal governments, suffer the consequences of noise. While Mendota Heights contends that the decision should be based primarily on households affected, Eagan argues that the alternative selected should be that which most nearly corresponds to the "Policy Contours" found in the Metropolitan Council's Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Airport Noise. We reject that position. The Policy Contours were developed in the late 70's and early 801s, prior to the dramatic growth in air traffic which followed deregulation and the advent of hubbing operations at MSP. The contours were premised on the belief that most aircraft departing either 11R or 11L could make a 5 degree northerly turn from runway centerline, thereby flying over I- 494 and industrial areas, while almost completely avoiding residential districts. Those flight patterns and the resulting prescription for land use regulations were acceptable to both communities, not because they purported to equitably distribute noise over homes in Mendota Heights and Eagan, but because they were an attempt to avoid such overflights all together. How we wish it could still be so! Unfortunately, in 1988 we are faced with an entirely different set of circumstances. If 50% + of the flights from MSP are to depart to the southeast, a 15 degree cone of separation is required for an estimated 12 or more hours per day, making the assumptions in the Policy Contours obsolete. Eagan asserts that to the extent we must deviate from those assumptions, we should straddle the noise impacts equally over the Contours. However, a review of the household count data provided by the communities (or even an "eye balling" of the land use map) reveals that shifts to the north affect far more homes than shifts to the south. In its letter of September 23, 1988, Eagan states that Mendota Heights is encouraging new residential development within the Policy Contours, and ought not to use the increasing number of homes as a basis for changing the land use compatibility policy of the region. However, a quick review of our actions over the past three years will show that we have been most active in promoting land use compatibility with aircraft noise impacts Specifically, the City has: 1. Worked with the Metropolitan Council and local legislators to achieve passage of statutory authority for local governments to adopt the building restrictions contained in the Guidelines. 2. Adopted the Metropolitan Council's model noise ordinance for promoting compatibility. This includes zoning restrictions on land use types, as well as imposing additional building code requirements for new structures (residential and commercial) within the noise zones. 3. Amended the City's Comprehensive Land Use plan to be consistent with the restrictions in the Guidelines. Specifically, a 20 acre parcel within Noise Zone 3 was changed from single-family residential to office. Also, multi -family, rather than single-family uses are promoted in much of Noise Zone 4. 4. Initiated discussions with home owners in the western part of the City (in the Ldn 65 contour and Policy Contour Zone 3) about buying out properties impacted by airport noise. All of these noise compatibility efforts have been totally at local expense, without financial assistance from any regional agency. It is true that Mendota Heights is allowing construction of new residences within Policy Contour Zone 4. However, such construction is totally consistent with the restrictions for Zone 4 as prescribed in the Metropolitan Council's model noise ordinance. The new homes include the noise attenuation features discussed above. From a noise compatibility standpoint alone, we recognize that it would be best to have no new homes in this area. However, these lands are in close proximity to single-family neighborhoods that have existed since the 1950's. As we are sure the -members of MASAC can appreciate, other land use objectives dictate that we not try to force commercial or industrial uses into this area. Eagan indicates that they have relied on the land uses prescribed in the Policy Contours, and that past land use decisions based on these reliances must be respected in the present decision. However, the Contours were not adopted until April, 1983, and we are unaware of any major changes in land use direction implemented by Eagan since that date. In fact, despite their stated proclivity for the Policy Contours, Eagan has yet to enact them into law, five years after their adoption by the Metropolitan Council. This is not to impugn Eagan's past land use planning efforts. Both communities have been very responsible in promoting land uses compatible with the needs of the airport. It is simply that we cannot accept the argument that Eagan has placed great reliance specifically on the contour maps found in the Metropolitan Council's Guidelines, and therefore those contours must be the controlling factor in the present decision regarding acceptable flight patterns. To the contrary, the two cities and MASAC should select a flight pattern option that: 1) distributes unavoidable noise impacts as equitably as possible between existing residences in the two communities, and 2) impacts the least total number of households, regardless of the community in which they are located. The Metropolitan Council should then redraw the policy contour maps, as they have already stated they will do, to be consistent whatever flight patterns are determined to be most consistent with those objectives. To do otherwise would be to allow the proverbial "tail wagging the dog." The City of Mendota Heights continues to raise its concern that past decisions expanding the flight corridor have not been subjected to the appropriate environmental review process. We understand that the FAA is doing further research on this issue, and we eagerly await their analysis. We also concur with MASAC Chairman Rockenstein that the FAA should attempt to quantify its contention that a 114 -mile no turn" rule will significantly reduce the operational capacity of parallel operations on Runways 11R and 11L. Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on this issue. Sincerely, Kevin D. Frazell CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin , City Administrator SUBJECT: Plans and Details for Moving City Offices The city hall is supposed to be "substantially complete" by mid-October, which means that it should be ready for our occupation by around early November. Because the few days prior to running a general Presidential election tend to be very hectic ones for city staff, we prefer to delay the move until after November 8. Therefore, the following plan is suggested. MOVING DAY! Staff proposes that we close the City offices in their current location at 12:00 noon, Thursday, November 10. That will permit us to move Thursday afternoon and all day Friday, which is a holiday (Veteran's Day) when we would be closed anyway. I think many City employees will be willing to work on this holiday, and will simply take their eight hours of holiday time off at another time. GETTING RID OF OLD FURNITURE Attached is a list that staff has put together of office furnishing items that will no longer be needed after the move. We feel that there are two reasonable alternatives _for disposing of this furniture: 1. Allow used furniture office supply houses to bid on the whole package by sealed bid, awarding to the high bidder; or 2. Have an on-site auction. The auction, would of course, be more work but would likely also lead to more revenue. We leave it to Council discretion whether we should bother! If Council prefers the auction option, it should be scheduled for Saturday, November 12. CANCELLATION OF OUR EXISTING LEASE I would recommend that we cancel our existing lease in the Dakota County State Bank Building effective Tuesday, November'15. I mentioned this to bank officials, and they have indicated it is acceptable. This will give us a couple of days after the move to come back and reclaim anything that got left behind. LOCATION FOR OCTOBER 25 PLANNING COMMISSION AND NOVEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETINGS Oddly enough, the one portion of our current space that the bank has already leased is the Council Chambers. Their new tenant needs the space beginning November 1, and the bank wants it as soon as possible to begin remodeling. Since we do not pay anything for the Council Chambers, and the bank has been so accommodating in extending our lease month by month, I felt that we should accede to their request. I told them that they may have the Council Chambers as of Wednesday, October 19. I am recommending that we plan to hold the October 25 Planning Commission meeting and the November 1st City Council meeting at the Fire Hall on Dodd Road. Chief John Maczko has reserved the meeting room for us those evenings. If we can keep the agenda relatively brief, I think there will be no problem accommodating whatever audience may wish to attend. The location of those meetings does need to be finalized for the purpose of public hearing notices. ACTION REQUIRED: The main purpose of this memo is to obtain Council concensus with this moving plan. Specifically, Council should indicate whether it wishes to have us auction off the furniture or sell it by sealed bid. _ Finally, if Council concurs with the above recommendation it should pass a motion establishing that they October 25 Planning Commission and November lst City Council meetings will be held at the Mendota Heights Fire Hall meeting room, 2121 Dodd Road. KDF:madlr POLICE DEPARTMENT # ITEM FROM 1 Wesco, gray metal desk Squad Room 2. Walnut grain desk top organizer Squad Room 3. 2' wide, 6' long formica top, metal table Squad Room with folding legs 4. 12 metal lockers Squad Room 5. Wooden cabinet and credenza Supply Room 6. Green metal filing cabinet Supply Room 7. Wooden storage cabinet used for Supply Room fingerprinting and supplies 8. Credenza, approx. 7' with 2'"L" Investigator 9. 2 drawer, gray filing cabinet Investigator 12. Brown vinyl chair with chrome legs Investigator and wooden arm rests 13. Brown desk chair Investigator 14. Art Metal, metal desk Sgts Office 15. Green metal desk Sgts Office 16. Green desk chair Sgts Office 17. Approx. 2'x2' walnut grain, formica Sgts Office table with chrome legs 18. Burgandy chair Chief's Office 19. Brown side chair Chief's Office 20. Brown side chair Chief's Office 22. Walnut, formica topped secretarial desk with 3' typing return 23. Tiffany typing table with wheels 24. Heavy duty, gray metal printer stand 25. 6' Executive desk, tan metal with walnut formica top 27. Conference table, 18" by 6' long with formica top and folding legs 28. Brown side chatir 29. Brown side chair 30. Orange desk chair CITY HALL 31. Rust colored metal desk with a formica top 32. White lamenant computer table 33. Taupe and wood office chair 36. Gray, metal coat rack with shelves 37. Vinyl and gray metal side chair 38. Vinyl and gray metal side chair 40. Brown, metal desk with secretarial return 41. Rust colored, metal desk 43. Tan fabric and wood secretarial chair 44. Tiffany typewriter stand 9 Becky Main Office Main Office Carol Main Office Main Office Main Office Carol Shirley Shirley Shirley Shirley. Main Office Main Office Nancy Rita Rita Em 47. Rust colored, metal desk 48. Fabric and wood chair 49. Brown fabric chair with metal base 50. Brown fabric office chair 52. Rust colored, metal desk, formica top 53. Fabric and wood desk chair 54. Padded arm, side chair 55. Table, approx. 2x4', metal legs and formica top 56. 6' bookcase, doors and pullout workshelf 57. Padded side chair 60. Green padded side chair 62. Vinyl fabric and wood desk chair 63. Brown stool 66. Green office chair 67. Brown office chair 68. Gray office chair, fabric and vinyal 69. Brown fabric and office chair 70. Gray, metal stool 71. Grey, metal, two shelf cabinet 93. Chair 94. Blue cupboard MaryAnn MaryAnn Mary Ann Nancy Larry Larry Larry Larry Larry Kathy Paul Berg Paul Berg Paul Berg Lunch Room Lunch Boom Lunch Room Lunch Room Machine Room Machine Room Dick Gill Lunch Room ENGINEERING 72. Table with non -folding legs 78"x36" formica top 75. White formica top desk with a 4' wooden return 77. Green chair 78. Brown vinyl couch with attached end table 80. 6'x4' cabinet unit with individual shelves 81. White scoop chair, fiberglass 82. Side chair, rust colored 83. Green chair 84. Green desk chair 85. Green desk chair 86. White scoop chair, fiberglass COUNCIL ROOM 87. 5 green, vinyl and gray, metal side chairs 89. Gray, 6' coat rack with three shelves 91. Custom made Council table, two tables cut at an angle to fit together Conference Room Diane Diane Diane Drafting Klayton Klayton Klayton Jim Jim Jim Council Room Council Room Council Room POLICE DEPARTMENT 92. Three shelf, V bookshelf Main Office # ITEMS TO BE SAVED FROM WHERE IT GOES 10. Brown, metal desk Shorty PD: Interogation 11. Brown vinyl chairs with chrome Shorty PD: Interogation legs and wooden arm rests 21. Office desk chair, no arms, orange Becky PD: Interogation 26. Gray storage cabinet with sliding PD -main PWG: Tom Olund doors and 5' walnut grain formica top 34. Computer desk, oak in color, approx. 48" wide and 6' tall 35. Tan and wood side chair 39. Small occasional table, chrome with a walnut grain formica top 42. Computer desk with hutch 45. Tiffany typewriter stand 46. Computer desk 51. 3' wooden, two shelf bookcase 58. 61, 4 shelf bookcase with doors in base 59. Oak file cabinet, antique, home- made top 61. Gray metal desk wih gray formica top 64. Table, formica top with chrome legs - 42" x 2' Shirley Admin. Assistant Shirley Kevin Admin. Kevin Rita Dennis MaryAnn Kevin MaryAnn Sgt.'s office MaryAnn Shorty Kathy PWG: Tom Olund Kathy Kevin I Paul Berg Admin. Assistant Lunch Room Community Room 65. Conference table, approx. 2'x 6' Lunch Room Community Room 95. Rust desk chair 96. 2 rust side chairs 73. Seven orange fabric office chairs with chrome legs 74. 72" eliptical brown, formica conference table 76. 42" table with chrome legs and a formica top 79. 7' bookshelf 88. Small table, 4'x 2' with chrome legs and brown formica top 90. 4 folding tables 97. 7 Council table chairs 98. Folding chairs Kevin PWG: Tom Olund Kevin PWG: Tom Olund Confernence PWG: Tom Olund Room Council Conference PWG: Tom Olund Room Diane PWG: Tom Olund Drafting Engineering Council Community Room Room Council Community Room Room Council Community Room Room Council Community Room Room I