1989-06-06'CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
r. DAKOTA COUNTY
'•; STATE OF MINNESOTA
AGENDA
JUNE 6, 1989
7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. ,ynda Adoption.
4a Approval of Minutes.
a. Approval of May 16 minutes.
5. Consent Calendar
a. Mendota Heights Road Lift Station Fire Damage
b. Wetland Protection Policy (RESOLUTION 89-45)
C. Easement Description Change w
d. Smallidge Request for Variance from Swimming I
Fence Height Requirement
e. Approval of Par 3 Golf, Inc. - License to care
business of.selling 3.2 non -intoxicating ma]
liquor (On -sale)
f. Approval of Tom Thumb Food Markets, In-. - Lic
to carry on the business of selling 3.2 non -
intoxicating malt liquor (Off -sale)
g. Modified CAO Site Plan Approval - 774 Sibley
Memorial Highway
h. Executive Drive Change Order
Job No. 8904
Improvement No. 89, Project No. 2
i. Final Payment - Sewers, Water, Streets: The Pc
of Mendota Heights and Rolling Woods 2nd Addii
Job No. 8622
Improvement No. 86, Project No. 9
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-46)
j. Bench Fencing at City Hall Baseball Field
k. Acknowledgement of May Building Activity Repoi
1. Acknowledgement of May 23 Planning Commission
Minutes ,
M. Approval of List of Contractors
n. Approval of List of Claims
a•
End of Consent Calendar.
of
on
ion
7. Response to Public Comments and Requests
a. Miller Water Problem
8. Public Comments and Requests
9. Public Hearings and Bid Awards
a. Duffy Development, Case No. 89-03 (8:15pm)
b. Posthumuus,Conditional Use Permit and Variance
for Garage Construction, Case No. 89-14 (9:OOpm)
10. Unfinished and New Business
a. Hanson Subdivision, Case No. 89-10
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-47)
b. Adrian Lot Division, Case No. 89-18
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-48)
C. Foley Fence Variance, Case No. 89-19
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-49)
d. Ward Wetlands Permit Application, Case No. 89-20
e. Alice Lane Feasibility Study
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-50)
f. DNR 1989/1990 Deer Control Program
g. Mike Scharrer Proposal for Oak Wilt Study
h. Follow Up Report on Furlong Area Home Purchases
i. Copperfield Area Traffic Control Signsq
j. Parks and Recreation Commission Appointment
k. Nominee for Airport Study Committee
1. Computer Purchase for Gopher State One=Call
Responses
10. Council Comments and Requests
a. Verbal Report from Councilmember Blesener re:
June 5 Meeting of Citizen's Parks Review
Committee
11. Adjourn.
Page No. 2550
May 16, 1989
CITY OF MENDO TA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, May 16, 1989
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, 1101 Victoria Curve, 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, and Hartmann. Councimember Witt
had notified the Council that she would be out of town.1
AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Cummins moved ado tion of the
revised agenda for the meeting.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Hartmann moved aproval
of
the minutes of the April 18th mieting.
ION."
Councilmember Blesener seconded
the motion.
Ayes: 4
Project Report
Nays: 0
1989.
Councilmember Cummins moved approval
of the
minutes of the May 2nd,neeting.
of the Treasirer's
Councilmember Hartmann seconded
the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
k
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Hartmann moved aproval
of
Department
the consent calendar for the me
ting along
for April.
with with authorization forexecutio
of any
necessary documents contained tierein.
a. Adoption of Resolution No. 09-40,
"RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL
PLAT FOR
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 5TH ADDI
ION."
b. Acknowledgment
of the EnginBer's
Project Report
dated May 16,
1989.
c*1 'Acknowledgment
of the Treasirer's
monthly report
for April.
4,
d.` "Acknowledgment
of the Fire
Department
monthly report
for April.
e. Acknowledgment
of the minutes
of the
-April 25th Planning commission
meeting.
=M
ms dated
152,335.76.
rom Senator
posed
e Advisory
ng.
the motion.
'as present
ssure
. He
install a
rm he had
water
inch is
responded
of the
* low water
* of the
son
t back to
ting for
on an
ry Club for
se. The
d
rk.
tions and
ents,
the
the motion.
Page No. 2551
May 16, 1989
f. Approval of the list of con -
license 6 dated May 16, 1989
'
attached hereto.
g. Approval of the list of cla
May 161"11989 and totalling
wledgment of a letter
h. Acknowledgment
Howar&Kuntson regarding pr,
legislation to create a St&
commission on Airport Plann
Councilm6mber Blesener seconded
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr, Art Miller, 1 Dorset Road,
to inform"'Council of a water pr
problem in'�the Somerset Additio
explainedthat he would like to
sprinkler system but that the f
contacted;ihformed him that his
pressure.6f 25 pounds per squar
too
Public Works Director Danielson
that heds',awarer that a portion
Somerset;�Addition does experien
pressure because of the elevati
area.
Council directed that lqr. Danie
investigate the matter and repo
council
HEARING: MENDAKOTA
Mayor M4 ' �it6nsotto opened the me
CLUB LIQUOR LICENSE
the puip'osie; of a public hearing
applicatioh from Mendakota Coun
renewal,,,6f:,.,its Club Liquor Lice
Council'acknowledged a report a
recommendation from the City Cl
Mayor Mertensotto asked for que
comments from the audience.
There being no questions or com,
Councilinember Cummins moved tha
hearing be closed.
Councilmember Blesener seconded
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
=M
ms dated
152,335.76.
rom Senator
posed
e Advisory
ng.
the motion.
'as present
ssure
. He
install a
rm he had
water
inch is
responded
of the
* low water
* of the
son
t back to
ting for
on an
ry Club for
se. The
d
rk.
tions and
ents,
the
the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
HEARING: SOMERSET
CLUB LIQUOR LICENSE
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
HEARING: MARRIOTT
LIQUOR LICENSES
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Page No. 2552
May 16, 1989
Councilmember Cummins moved app
renewal of a Club Liquor Licens
Mendakota Country Club.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded
Mayor Mertensotto opened the me
the purpose of a public hearing
application from Somerset Count
renewal of its Club Liquor Lice
Council acknowledged a report a
recommendation from the City Cl
Mayor Mertensotto asked for
comments from the audience.
There being no questions or com
Councilmember Cummins moved tha
hearing be closed.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded
Councilmember Hartmann moved apr
the renewal of a Club Liquor Lic
Somerset Country Club.
Councilmember Blesener seconded
w
oval of the
for
he motion.
ing for
on an
Club for
ase. The
d
irk .
tions and
ents,
the
the motion.
xoval of
:erase for
the motion.
Mayor Mertensotto opened the me ting for
the purpose of a publics hearing on
applications from the Courtyard Management
Corporation for renewal of its Limited
Service Hotel on -Sale and On -Sale Sunday
Liquor Licenses for the Courtyard by
Marriott Hotel. The Council ac nowledged a
report and recommendation from he City
Clerk.
Mayor Mertensotto asked for que$tions and
comments from the audience. II
There being no questions or com ents,
Councilmember Blesener moved th t the
hearing be closed.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Councilmember Blesener moved ar
the renewal of Limited Service
Sale and On -Sale Sunday Liquor
oval of
tel on-
censes to
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
HEARING - UTILITY
EASEMENT VACATION
There being noquestions or com ents,
Councilmember Cummins moved tha the
hearing be closed.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Councilmember Hartmann moved api
the renewal of the LAMA Corporal
Sale Liquor License for the MGM
Warehouse.
Councilmember B1"'esener seconded
)roval of
:ion Off -
Liquor
the motion.
Mayor Mertensotto opened the me ting for
the purpose of a public hearing on an
application from Mr. Tom Hastings for the
vacation of a utility easement cross the
rear portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Valley
Curve Estates. Council acknowledged a
report from the Public Works Director.
Mr. Hastings stated that when h s lot was
platted there was a large easem nt across
his rear yard for the purpose of running
sewer and water to his neighbor's lot, but
that only,water was installed ii the
easement area. He asked that tie easement
area be reduced. Responding to a comment
from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Has ings
indicated that he is not reques ing a
waiver of the vacation applicat on fee.
Mayor Mertensotto asked for qu
comments.
ions and
Page No. 2553
May 16, 1989
the Courtyard Management Corporation
for
the Courtyard By Marriott Hotel.
Councilmember Cummins seconded
he motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
HEARING: LAMA
Mayor Mertensotto opened the me
ting for
COPPORATION LIQUOR
the purpose of a public hearing
on
LICENSE
an application from the LAMA Co
poration
for renewal of the MGM Liquor Warehouse
Off -Sale Liquor License. The Council
acknowledged a report and recommendation
from the City Clerk.
Mayor Mertensotto asked for que
tions and
comments from the audience.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
HEARING - UTILITY
EASEMENT VACATION
There being noquestions or com ents,
Councilmember Cummins moved tha the
hearing be closed.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Councilmember Hartmann moved api
the renewal of the LAMA Corporal
Sale Liquor License for the MGM
Warehouse.
Councilmember B1"'esener seconded
)roval of
:ion Off -
Liquor
the motion.
Mayor Mertensotto opened the me ting for
the purpose of a public hearing on an
application from Mr. Tom Hastings for the
vacation of a utility easement cross the
rear portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Valley
Curve Estates. Council acknowledged a
report from the Public Works Director.
Mr. Hastings stated that when h s lot was
platted there was a large easem nt across
his rear yard for the purpose of running
sewer and water to his neighbor's lot, but
that only,water was installed ii the
easement area. He asked that tie easement
area be reduced. Responding to a comment
from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Has ings
indicated that he is not reques ing a
waiver of the vacation applicat on fee.
Mayor Mertensotto asked for qu
comments.
ions and
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Page No. 2554
May 16, 1989
There being no questions or comments,
Councilmember Cummins moved that the
hearing be closed.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Hastings
that if the vacation is approvee, recording
of the vacation will not occur until Mr.
Hastings executes and submits ar easement
for a relocated easement area.
Councilmember Cummins moved adol
Resolution NO. 89-41, "RESOLUTI(
VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTIL7
EASEMENT," conditioned upon the
a drainage and utility easement
with the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded
COPPERFIELD STOP SIGNS Several residents of the Copper:
were present in support of their
request of May 9th for addition<
control signs in the Copperfielc
developments.
w
Mr. Michael Dwyer, Mr. Phil Vil:
Mr. Dick Bjorklund, Jr., spoke i
the neighborhood. They felt thi
large number of small children .
and the high volume oftraffic,
are necessary to proviAe protec-
children.
tion of
N APPROVING
TY
granting of
consistent
the motion.
°ield area
• written
tl traffic
aume, and
n behalf of
t given the
n the area
stop signs
ion for the
Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that when the
Council requests installation of stop signs
on County or State roads certain warrants
must be met. He also pointed out that
Council has not received a complete report
and recommendation from staff.
'Councilmember Blesener stated t
,her concerns is that children c
on cars stopping at stop signs,
do not stop for the signs it wo
more dangerous situation for th
She felt that much of the probl
created by construction traffic
the area on a temporary basis.
Mr. Dwyer responded that many o
are still vacant and it will pr
at one of
me to rely
and if cars
ld be a
children.
m is
which is in
the lots
ably be
Page No. 2555
May 16, 1989
twelve years before construction traffic is
gone.
Councilmember Cummins stated tha his first
reaction is to not support the p acement of
stop signs on small feeder stree s because
this might cause the traffic to ove faster
on the primary roads. He did ag ee that
perhaps stop signs should be placed on
Copperfield and Fieldstone in the future
and that it might be a possibility that
children at play signs could be placed at
the primary entrances to Copperfield. He
felt that the neighborhood should put
pressure on some of the residents who are
speeding.
Mayor Mertensotto concurred in
Councilmember Blesener's concer, , pointing
out that strangers to the neigh orhood
might not anticipate the proposEd stop
signs and may not observe them, which could
create a hazardous situation. He pointed
out that Council often receives requests
for stop signs and that warrantE must be
met before such signs are appro ed.
Councilmember Blesener pointed ut that
Copperfield is a new neighborho d and there
are no other comparable neighbo hoods in
the City which are developing with the
significant population Copperfi 1d is. She
felt that given the po4ential number of
homes (198) and the large number of small
children, Copperfield presents a unique
situation and that Council should not be
concerned that it will get many similar
requests because of action take on this
request.
After much discussion, Councilm mber
Cummins moved to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance to provide for a four way stop at
Copperfield and Fieldstone and "Slow,
Children At Play" signs in three locations.
Administrator Frazell informed ouncil that
staff often receives requests f r the
children playing signs', but tha it has
always been City practice to re use such
requests. He pointed out that tate
guidelines suggest that these signs are
appropriate only in school area, because
Page No. 2557
;May 16, 1989
Furlong area, none of the developers has
expressed any interest.
Treasurer Shaughnessy, respondr
question from the Mayor, stated
Tax Increment District could of
$400,000 a year to purchase thr
of the homes per year, dependin
price.ranges
Mayor Mertensotto informed the
that the City has no ability to
the purchase of all of the home
use the Tax Increment monies to
homes on a hardship basis, sinc
been included in the district t
the -utility extension when the
Increment District was formed.
Administrator Frazell gave the
audience a brief synopsis of hi
In summary, he stated that staf
City could probably afford to b
homes per .year, and that while t
can't immediately,•meet all of
from the thirteen homeowners wb
Y,-' written letters requesting buy -
should be,possible to do so ove
".three or four years. He pointe
the City will have to work with
} neighborhood to come up with an
schedule of which properties wi
r'
'1 purchased first. Witt respect
neighborhood concern over appra
+' 'resulting in discounts for air
lack of utilities, he stated th
City's appraiser prepared appra
the Rogers Road area, he discou
properties 10 percent for the i
airport noise. He explained tr
appraiser indicated was that it
market transaction, a willing k
pay 10 percent less for that 1z
would otherwise pay if the pror
not impacted by air noise. He
audience that in the case of Rc
f, and the Mulvihill purchases, tl
has indicated that this would k
p�` in the sale and the sellers haN
take the discount:
y
.i
kr
gtoa
that the
ord about
e to five
on the
udience
commit to
but can
purchase
money had
assist in
�ouncil and
s report.
E feels the
ay 3 to 4
he City
the requests
o have
out, it
r the next
A out that
the
agreeable
11 be
to
isals
noise and
at when the
isers for
nted those
mpact of
at what the
a fair
uyer would
nd than he
erty were
informed the
gers Road
e Council
e a factor
e agreed to
A gentleman from the audience tes
ated that
in the past he submitted pictu of the
=r<
Page No. 2558
May 16, 1989
>' road conditions in the area but
been done:
atl; Public Works Director Danielson
til
"• that there have been several st
problems'in the Public Works De
4r :,
-'' recently and that road repairs
"jb: as soon as;is possible.
Mr. Bernard Biessener asked whe
the thirteen property owners as
bought out, have indicated they
and water 'problems and if their
will automatically receive a 10
discount because of those probl
Mr. Frazell responded that not
writers indicated they had util
and that the appraiser will mak
determination on values after c
visits. He further indicated t
appraisers job is to do the bes
in determining what the fair ma
is - what the property could be
given the problems of airport r
sewer and water systems that ar
functioning.
w
nothing has
responded
iffing
)artment
rill be done
her all of
ing to be
ave sewer
properties
percent
11 of the
ty problems
a
-site
at the
job he can
'ket value
sold for
,ise and
not
ere are 13
all 13
iority
veloped.
and
the result
residents.
s important
ship be
should be
has a broad
hat Council
f hardship
tablish
hips.
at Council
h input from
hat the key
use to
will buy
Mayor Mertensotto stated that t
requests and the City cannot bt
'
properties at this time, so a F
schedule of some type must be c
Mr. Robert Tousignant presentee
summarized a letter prepared a:
i
of a meeting of 16 neighborhooc
}
He stated that he believes it i
that a clear definition of harc
arrived at and that a procedure
developed so that the, community
general idea of what will happc
Councilmember Blesener agreed i
should arrive at a definition c
and to determine some way to e!
Al
4`.
priorities for evaluating hard!
Councilmember Cummins stated tt
needs to determine, perhaps wii
the community and from staff, i
'
criteria are that Council is t(
`�
determine which four houses it
this year."
• {
1 ', 1
9YA
nothing has
responded
iffing
)artment
rill be done
her all of
ing to be
ave sewer
properties
percent
11 of the
ty problems
a
-site
at the
job he can
'ket value
sold for
,ise and
not
ere are 13
all 13
iority
veloped.
and
the result
residents.
s important
ship be
should be
has a broad
hat Council
f hardship
tablish
hips.
at Council
h input from
hat the key
use to
will buy
RECESS
RECYCLING
I
7�
it
Page No. 2559
May 16, 1989
Councilmember Blesener stated that staff
has suggested that they prepare a standard
of criteria and she would like the
neighborhood to have a chance to review
those standards and give input
establishing the standards.
City Attorney Hart stated that the reason
the City hired an appraiser is to establish
the'fair market value of the properties as
they sit,:'Where they sit. He stated that
people must keep in mind that tiese are
public funds being used to buy he
properties and Councif is entru5ted with
responsibility to pay fair markat value for
any property it acquisition.
A gentleman in the audience sta:ed that it
was his understanding that the 5urvey done
by the City was predicated on gtting a
fair market value for the propeties and a
$20,000 relocation expense and :here was no
mention of a reduction in value for air
noise or lack of sewer and wal.
Councilmember Cummins responded that the
Council has never indicated it would pay
$20,000 in relobation expenses.
Mayor Mertensotto stated that the gentleman
was apparently referring to a statement of
the City Planner that the statutes allow
relocation benefits urk.to $20,0000.
Council heard and responded to several
questions from the audience. Staff was
directed to prepare proposed hardship
criteria, and establishing pricrities for
review by the Council'on June fth.
Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:15.
The meeting,.was reconvened at '�0:20 P.M.
Council acknowledged and discus
proposed resolution adding a c'
recycling7;'policy resolution to
family units
After discussion, Councilmembei
moved to rescind Resolution No,
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RECYCL1
sed a
ause in the
add multi -
Hartmann
89-22, "A
7 POLICIES
Page No. 2560
May 16, 1989
FOR 1989." '
'}
Councilmember Cummins seconded
the motion.
Ayes: 4
g€
Nays: 0
.;
Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption
of
Resolution No. 89-42, "RESOLUTION
RE-
ESTABLISHING RECYCLING POLICIES
FOR 1989."
Councilmember Cummins seconded
the motion.
Ayes: 4
r
Nays: 0
• r•
NORTH IVY
HILLS
Council acknowledged the North
Ivy Hills
2nd Addition final plat, Developer's
Agreement and plans and specifi
ations for
';
public improvements.
Councilmember Cummins moved adoption
of
Resolution No. 89-43, "RESOLUTI
N APPROVING
'
FINAL PLAT FOR NORTH IVY HILLS
2ND
ADDITION."
Councilmember Hartmann seconded
the motion.
Ayes: 4
;
Nays: 0
`
Councilmember Blesener moved adoption
of
Resolution No. 89-44, "RESOLUTION
APPROVING
FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO"SERVE NORTH IVN
HILLS 2ND
ADDITION AND ADJACENT AREAS (I
PROVEMENT
tT;',
NO. 88, PROJECT NO. 6) AND (IM
ROVEMENT NO.
89, PROJECT NO. 1) . "
�..
Councilmember Cummins seconded
the motion.
Ayes: 4
,
Nays: 0
OAK WILT
Council acknowledged a follow-up
report
from the City Administrator on
Oak Wilt
'o`
Disease. Mayor Mertensotto stated
that
Council received a generalized
statement
.a,•,,,
from Mr: Scharrer last meeting
on what he
• .h,; 1L t, ,; L
ti,• c•.:,.,
proposes to do for the City. He
pointed
out,that no money has-been app
opriated in
the budget. It was the consensus
staff
work out an alternative solution
as to what
might be done to use the consultant's
services to more accurately de
ine the
problem and what can be done t
is year to
implement control procedures.
PROPERTY
PURCHASES;:.s
Councilmember Cummins moved to
approve
.�
execution of the Standard Purchase
'�•
Agreement and supporting docum
nts with
Mrs. Margaret Rockhold for purchase
of the
. x
•e J
• Page No. 2561
May 16, 1989
property located at 2161 State Irunk
Highway 55, Mendota Heights and with Miss
Jeanne Tousignant for purchase cf the
properties located at 2141, 2143, and 2145
State Trunk Highway 55, Mendota Heights.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
MISCELLANEOUS Council'acknowledged a response to
Council's inquiry on the Mendota Plaza
Shopping Center status.
MARIE AVENUE STREET Council acknowledged a report from Public
REHABILITATION Works Director Danielson regardng Marie
Avenue street rehabilitation.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come
before the Council, Councilmemb r Cummins
moved that the meeting be adjou ned to 7:00
P.M. on May 30th for a joint wo k session
with the Planning and Park and ecreation
Commissions.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0 ,'
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 o'cl ck P.M.
w
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk k
ATTEST:
Kathleen M.'.Swanson
City Clerk 1';,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 26, 1 (
TO: Mayor, City Council and CiAe� Aator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Mendota Heights Road Lift Station Fire Damage (Asbestos
Removal)
DISCUSSION:
In the early morning hours on April 7th there was a fire at thE
sanitary sewer lift station located on Mendota Heights Road in the I I
Properties Business Park. The engine that runs the back up power t
station had been started automatically and did not shut down, it ha
until it overheatedand caused a fire. The engine muffler is insid
building and was insulated by asbestos. The asbestos got hot and i
away from the muffler. Staff had to have the asbestos removed imme�
so that we could get in and work on repairing the engine; the cost
$2356.16. We still have the engine repairs to pay and will probabl
modify the building to add more ventilation to provide for getting
into the building to avoid this problem in the future.
City's
sited
the
run
the
broke
iately
have to
re air
Once all the bills are in we will work with our insurance carr er to
determine any eligibility for reimbursement.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This memo is for informational purposes only.
1
I
i; .
TO:
FROM:
E
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 31, 1989
Mayor, City Council, and Ci �rator
James E. Danielson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Wetland Protection Policy
DISCUSSION: During their review of the Lower Mississipp'
River's WMO Management Plan, the Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR)�has made any approval contingent upon t
City adopting the attached Wetland Protection Policy.
RECOMMENDATION: The BWSR Board's request seems reasonable
and staff recommends that Council adopt the policies. All
other member City's either have already adopted the poli::y or
have agreed to do so.
ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the st ff
recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolu ion
89- , "RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WETLAND PROTECTION POLICY111.
I
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota;County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WETLAND PROTECTION POLICY
WHEREAS, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Orginization,
of which the City of Mendota Heights is a member, has its Watershel
Management Plan in for review by,the Board of Water and Soil Resources
(BWSR); and
WHEREAS, during the review1process the BWSR Board has said the member
cities must adopt the following!Wetland Protection Policies:
1. To identify DNR Protected Waters and Watercourses on the City
zoning map; and to notify persons proposing or carrying out
filling or other development activity in protected wate s that
their activity may require a DNR permit.
2. To maintain a copy of the national wetland inventory (M I) map at
City Hail; and notify,persons proposing or carrying out filling or
other development activity in areas identified as wetlards on the
NWI map that their activity may require a Corps of Engineers 4040
permit. i
3. To amend the City's adopted wetlands ordinance to requije proof of
compliance withwor exemption from the DNR or Corps of Eigineers
regulations concerning drainage, grading, or filling of wetlands;
that requires consideration of the affected wetlands' vzlues for
stormwater runoff storage and detention, sediment and ni,itrient
trapping and retention, fish and wildlife habitat, and the
recreation and open space needs of the community.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVjED by the City of Mendota Heights adopts the
above listed three policies. i
Adopted by the City Council ofthe City of Mendota Heights this 6,h day of
June, 1989.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City, Clerk,
i.
5
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
1
i May 31, 1989
TO: Mayor, City Council and City A �trator
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Easement Description Change
DISCUSSION: The Gryc'property or Evergreen Knolls projei
developed before the Kladdis plat therefore, the Kladdis
portion of the Evergreen Knolls right of way had to be
acquired by easement (see attached map). Kladdis is now
selling his first lot and the title attorney involved fe,
the orginal description is not correct. To correct the
description the City will dedicate the previously grantee
easement back to the Kladdis's and in return they will q
a new easement back to the City with the corrected
description.
i6h
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City quit cla
deed back to the Kladdis's the Evergreen Knoll right of
that they previously gave to the City. In return the
Kladdis's will quit claim deed back to the City the need
right of way with amended description language. This ac
has been reviewed and approved by City Attorney'Tom Hart
ACTION REQUIRED: If council desires to implement the stz
recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing the
Mayor and City'Clerk to execute the attached quit claim c
s
ay
d
ion
ff
eed.
O MEWDOT14 fiE GifT5 `
21, t90
$'o t
0
•sl i I I l�` �l ITS�Ml�R�E 1 1 ,�,i� ..
UI D N � 27
ZZ 2 2 2t ' ZJ
40 .G
1 r:l
PV, L7 74
23G.7100- 11837 so ie01�0 1•. i e• 1
,y 6 -
, Z -win ' - WAL.LACE-¢2ADA- -
• QI Z • \ j Sah.»z c ,E .r1�,/_//� KA LL: N
of 3J a- Z Ac 2G/99'A ✓o�a� 2b2.v-i, -,I-
C, fqq-4
, .-
26/9 C c.=1 A4,-.
VY177. J f Gr-aca
l h ��` l
0 ti a�` Q �► �! V w 8 Lois oh�svn
Z ,��-o�, i to
0 Q �` lJ � !, , 0 A. 8 G. G? �`'se• 1
V ri Scha.�,E ,�bzo3-AI DUKA14T W1'Xj
N 69x27'40' E.776 Bi
EV R G E EN �NO &L z.00,9`..OU OTA 3 4 5 52 SE RECO D P! AT ;rDET IL 14 2Y
Bei/f6'/-
= 89'4d'E. 2
I K N 0 S ' 69.62 15070 7E R CORFOR
D~ LATO� DETAIL 170.04 ^� zo
7 „� KLAD.Sa FIRST N ADDITION I °
4 DQNA1.1) F f f} LfVL4 }-E
a o d
mo A 1n ? 3 `n
14 D ER AUF n
2 O 6•07.00 107 00 12100 109 46IoZ,e yd Ac. Lo 38
– •-_ - —. __. _ '-- _ I s""{:�:'�� �?i:lA'.%Rfi$:;aQ'^E?:��i�"k4d'=1'r��•::`i�`''��':;..�`•.,.
CC 5
1A S T - • ---- - - L of d3
8 9 I 3 2NR A DIT ONRIGHARb
OUTLOT 9�
- , 4 \, �� R}CKARD C=.4 PATRIG}A �i 3 /JAc�.OD�
N 89^29*aet 2029. 18 ' y T. POOR_
i
-e 4Z2
.x-
_62.ia
2
�1 N
T
i3G iee off. I1S 120 Ile 13617
,XlLyMa-5RNDQ,A13 14
NZ7 �.� .. ..• 1e-
ti-
/�., 2 3 s s� !. 7
ti �,
Blanks (1975)
I Corporation or
to Joint Tenants
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
,19
County Auditor
by
Deputy
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $
Date: 19 $2
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, City of Mendota heights, a city incorporated
under the laws of
the State of Minnesota Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to harry J. Kl.adis
and Marearet Kl adis , Grantees
as joint tenants, real property iq Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Y
The Southerly 30 feet of Auditor's Subdivision No. 3,
Part of Lot 41 lying East of line at right angle to '
North line 57.3 feet West of Northeast corner and North
of line parallel and 7.83 feet South of North line.
(If rnore space Is needed, continue on back)
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
mfix1)vew'nxStamp Here By )9.,,-Q..
its
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
STANLEY J. MOSIO
Attorney at Law
800 Degree of Honor Bldg.
St. Paul., Mn., 55101
Attorney's I.D. #75723.
By
STATE OF MINNESOTA
}
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this lar By of 19_Q
by f QJJZ/ F, /�iERTE'A/5077'o
and .t_)
the 12OAL
and (f Cr/salt .
of the Cit, of Mendota Heights
a city incorporate
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
City off/ Mendota. Heights
on behalff oof th/e�
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR O7IIER TITLE OR RANK)
-.
SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
r1 .-R,'
5 �� 2)lane 7. 'Warr)
JI' Np1ARy PUBIC— MINNESOTA
�"
Tex Statements for the rut property described In th4 Instnunent chem
be sent to (Include name and address of Grant**):
DAKOTA COUNTY
My commission aspires Jan. 30, 1990
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
STANLEY J. MOSIO
Attorney at Law
800 Degree of Honor Bldg.
St. Paul., Mn., 55101
Attorney's I.D. #75723.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:, KEVIN 25XF�i�L, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Ronald J. Smallidge, 716 Stanwich Lane
Request for Variance from Swimming Pool Fence
Height Requirement
DATE: June 2, 1989
The City's swimming pool ordinance requires, among other
things, that pools be surrounded by a 51 high security fe
City Staff has received a complaint that the fence
surrounding the pool at 716 Stanwich Lane is only 41 in
height. When staff contacted the residents, Mr. and Mrs.
Ronald J. Smallidge, they informed us of confusion in the
directions they had received from City Hall about the fen
requirements. The Smallidge's feel that requiring them t
replace the fence at this time would be a financial and
practical hardship, and they are requesting that the City
consider a variance to allow the 41 fence to stay in plac
The Smallidge's have also pointed out that there a number
other swimming pools on their block, and throughout Mendo
Heights, that appear to only have 41 chain link &nces.
The City staff person responsible for enforcement of the
swimming pool ordinance,. Code Enforcement Officer Paul Be:
has been out of the office this week due to personal illni
Obviously, Staff has some further research to do, not onl,
this case, but on the history of the swimming pool fence
height requirement, and the extent to which we have a pro]
with non-compliance in the community. It will likely take
a few weeks to complete that research, and prepare an
adequate report for Council.
ACTION REQUIRED
To receive the request of Mr. Ronald J. Smallidge, 716
Stanwich Lane, for a variance to the pool fence height
requirement, and to direct Staff to prepare a report on
pool fence requirement for presentation at the City Cou
meeting of July 11, 1989.
KDF: j ak
of
Ij I
ss.
on
lem
us
In
Mr. Kevin Frazell, City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Frazell:
716 Stanwich Lane
Mendota Heights, N
May 31, 1989
I appreciated the opportunity to visit with you earlier today regardirg
the ordinance dealing with fences enclosing swimming pools. It was
very kind of you to take time from your busy schedule. to do some checking
on this matter for me. I am attaching a copy of a letter which I haVE
sent to Mr. Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer for Mendota Heights
concerning this matter.
After discussing our telephone conversation with my wife, we have agr
that we would like to present our case in an appearance before the Me
Heights City Council. We somehow feel that we need greater clarifica
and better understanding regarding this particular ordinance and situ
We would greatly appreciate it if you could arrange to have us placed
the agenda for an upcoming Mendota Heights City Council meeting to
request from them a variance for the fence currently installed on the
south and west edges of our lot.
Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation in this matte
We look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
R
Ronald J. Smallidge
ed
dota
i ion
tion.
on
716 Stanwich Lane
Mendota Heights,
May 30, 1989
Mr. Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Berg:
I am writing to,you to request an extension of time beyond the fourteen
calendar days for compliance stated on the Warning of Violation/Stop Wo
Order which you posted on our house dated May 26, 1989, at 10:07 A.M.
As I discussed with you per our telephone conversation of Friday aftern
May 26, 1 would appreciate an extension of at least five (5) weeks beyo
the June 9th date listed to July 14, 1989, for the following reasons.
1. In order to be in compliance with Ordinance 503 Section 5.1 (7)
requiring a fence of at least 5', 1 need time to secure estimat
for installment of the fence and a self -latching gate along the
side of our property. Having immediately contacted Midwest Fen
Manufacturing Company on Friday afternoon, we have discovered t
there is presently a four week waiting period because of the we
and a backlog of orders before they could install a fence. We
found Midwest Fence to be�very competitive in bids and have had
them do work for us previously.
N 55118
on,
d
S ii
east
e and
at
ther
ave
2. Before installing the'fence along the east property line, we wo ld
like to have our lot surveyed to insure that the new fence is a curately
installed along that property line.
3.
In addition, we would like to request the Mendota Heights City
for a variance on the fences currently constructed along the so
west edges of our lot. These fences were installed last June d
a combination of negligence,on our part along with misinfo*rmati
we received from an employee in the Mendota Heights City Office
My wife and I have been residents for over twenty-onA years in
Heights and have constantly tried to be law-abiding and contriL
members of this community to make it a better community in whit
We would like to think that we will continue to live here for a
twenty-one or more years. It has never been and never will be
intent to purposely violate any ordinance or code. We were wel
of the need for a fence surrounding our pool which we had inst
June, 1988. Although we have discovered within the last two wc
we were negligent, we feel that we acted in good faith when my
contacted the City Offices just prior to our pool construction
to check on city codes. At that time she was informed that thE
fence needed to be four (4)*feet high which certainly made sen!
seemed accurate in light of the fact that the other pools on ot
are enclosed by four foot fences. We unfortunately just naturi
assumed that installation of the fence was inclusive in the bu*
permit acquired by Prestige Pools for construction of the pool
it is mandatory to have a fence enclosing the pool. Even with
past two weeks when contacting the Mendota Heights City, Office�
have also been told twice that we needed a four foot fence. I
ouncil
th and
e to -,
n which
Mendota
uting
h to live.
nother
our
I aware
lled in
eks that
wife
last May
e and
r block
lly
lding
since
n the
we
- 2
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any question or
we could be of any further assistance, please contact either my wife, Ma y,
or me at our home or by calling us at 454-6009. Thanks once again.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Smallid e
cc/Mr. Kevin Frazell, City Administrator
E9
I
!AA nAA A A A ji
APPLICATION FOR
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK!
C Iy of
Mendota Hei hts
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN; 55118
I
ON SALE
CENSE
New -RENEWA�X_
Par 3 Golf Inc. with offices at 2010 Am.
'NRadt'l. Bank Bldg
St
.
Paul, Mn.
55101 DBAIMendota Heights Par 3 Golf 'Weyfdapply.ponanaHAtA An.
the
term of One Year in the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, State
of Minnesota.
Firm Name Par 3 Golf Inc. 1695 Dodd Road
Mailing Address 2010 Am. Nat'l. Bank Bldg.
Mendota Heig*its, Mn.
City_ St.* Paul, Mn., 55101
Telephone Number ottice ZZZ-64Ui Zip Code
Is this a firm, corporation, partnership, or private owne
(Circle one)
officers: President Harold Liefschultz
ip?
Vice President Dorothy E. Schway
Secretary Eugpne-j. Schway
Treasurer Sylvia Liefschultz
What cities have you been licensed in? operation of Par 3 Golf Course
at 1695 Dodd Road
The undersigned applicant makes this application pursuant to all the
laws of the State of Minnesota and such rules and regulat ons of the
Council of the City of Mendota Heights may fromt' e to time prescribe.
Date of Application 3/22/89 Signed4 4;,
License Fee Paid Amount 150.00 Recei:)t No. auaol I
For office reference purposes only:
Bond Expires Cert. of Insurance Expires I
APPLICATION FOR
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
Ci y of
Mendota He* hts
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN
47.
New
55118
At --/L
LICENSE.
RENEW L 4
I, hereby apply for a licens for the
term of one Year in the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota Ciunty, State
of Minnesota.
Firm Name 13
Address
0 A,1 J -J-(/ 3
y -
Cit
Telephone Number 1-3
Zip Code J -(j
Is this a firm, corporation, partnership, or private owne ship?
(Circle one)
officers: President W 6-1 ( t} C G- Pe- r v
Vice President
, a
Secretary
Treasurer
What cities have you been licensed in? VA K 10 'LLt
:i The undersigned applicant.makes this application pursuani to all the
laws of the State of Minnesota and such rules and regulalions of the
Council of the City of Mendota Heights may from time to lime prescribe.
Date of Application %signed �Cflv&Aev
6-
i License Fee Paid jr-
Amount OC Rece.,
For office reference purposes only:
Bond Expires_ Cert. of Insurance Expires.
M
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 24, 1989
TO: Mayor, City Council and City rator
7A0 01
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Modified CAO Site Plan Approval
774 Sibley Memorial Highway
DISCUSSION: Staff has received drawings, site plan and
building permit application from Mr. Segundo Velasquez fo- a
three season porch. During site plan review it was noted by
Staff that Mr. Velasquez's property it in the Critical Ara
District. Staff's review shows that the proposed three
season porch is not within 401 of any land 40% or greater in
slope. ordinance #403 Section 2.3(c) modifications proviles
for City Council consideration of the application if the 3ite
plan conforms to the standards of the Critical Area Overlay
District Ordinance. Also, City Council upon review may, Lf
it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying wita
any inappropriate requirements of this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Upon completion of plan review staff woi
recommend that City Council approve the modified site pli
and waive the $100.00 application fee. A
ACTION REOUIRED: If City Council wishes to implement the
staff recommendation to approve the modified site plan az
waive the $100.00 application fee it should pass a motion
approval.
of
.•e�.,^n.,'t�_ i i'�. r. - O _z;rs+..._.. �1. A,.t' _•� _v . __ Y _ _ �?:: 0'7. .�'.... .: "•' _. �'�2..:T:.::_ �r`�:�- -_ ._�.^_ �_...�• -:..' .
e.
NOTE: SANITARY M.M. 1 THRU 9 TO HAVE CASTING
• -
ASSEMBLIES WITH- TYPE E -LOCKING
l I 30'TEMPORARY
20• PERMANENT \ 1 lea <
So EClcl£� CONSTRUCTION EDGE OF RAVINE/.
UTILITY EASEMENT T10 0.5 EASEN ^r'
II RESZ Opp
j o pi °0
166
RESTORE WITH SOO AS 1 w °. r .
DIRECTED �_� O
EXIST COYC BLOCK ACOITION T �� ,O
Of CONTRACTOR SEE SPEC, O' -c REh10VEO r Op ti•
S�°
EV: p IN�o,a� 30
Q
w
v
W
Es1ST 123' 31 00 1 C� �,../, r! / •v
HO 7
asm
r. EXISTEL-=-a`l.� G �L 198 e
PRIVATE DRIVE 807.3• r 5�0� / 9 �3
d r�
,77/17'///;'1 CESS ROA 0
0A0
O"5- M,pT;O pC ' = .•!
2 /
3 PERMANE_NT -...U-.T I
-T � � •ter _ • I 7— �1-���_IT 1
Y_: i
k MIel '
- � -- �- - i - - � - - - —moi-•
rm
c11AQ 'Id 1
�1111lrW /M
zl�dd9}♦ 01x1r-� vs ISM
I
I I IA00071 tI,4 G CIA
r�
I , �
• 1
5 -ALIO vj-4 RN)W
�I � �.Mf� bl.L.. . , •
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 26, 1
TO: Mayor, City Council and City i i,� or
FROM: James E. Danielson ��//
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Executive Drive Change Order
Job No. 8901
Improvement No. 89, Project No. 2
DISCUSSION:
The Executive Drive contract originally called for the excess
excavation to be disposed of on adjacent lots. George Burkards, U
Properties, requested that the contract be changed to provide for
excess to the new Big Wheel Auto site located north of the Target
on Pilot Knob Road. f
RECOMMENDATION:
reet
ed
ing the
ehouse
Staff recommends that the City comply with the Developer's request to
move the excess dirt from Executive Drive to the new Big Wheel Auto site.
Costs for the work will be assessed to the project. (Because time was of the
essence and because the Developer requested the work and will pay for it
staff went ahead and have already completed it).
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they
pass a motion approving the Change Order and authorize the Mayor a:
to sign.
Clerk
S
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
1101Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
May 19, 1989
ORDER FOR A CHANGE IN CONTRACT
TO: H.R.S. Construction, Inc.
18140 Fenway Avenue North
Forest Lake, Minnesota 55025
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
Sewers, Water, Streets
Executive Drive
Job No. 8904
Improvement No. 89, Project No. 2
Gentlemen: t
The following work, deviating from the basic contract for he above
project, shall become part of that contract and shall comply wilh the draw-
ings and specifications for the project.
Because of a request by the Developer it has been deemed necessary to
add the following item of extra work:
1. Transport Excess Excavation to Mendota Heights Business Pak
3,000 CY @ $2.70 per cubic yard (4.V.) $11100.00
The above changes anticipate an addition to the Contractl Amount for
Street Construction in the amount of $8,100.00.
FOR THE CONTRACTOR:
Accepted:
I (Dat6)
V jzv V -411i k
Ja"i0s E Danielson
PudicE.
Works Director
FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By,
H.R.S. Construction, Inc. By_
(Clerk
#dthorized Signature & Title (Date)
I
i
i!
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
a=
It
1t
F" MEMO
,F.
is
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN D. FRAZELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Bench Fencing at City Hall Baseball Field
DATE: June 2, 1989
The new baseball field next to City Hall has won rave rev
from Mend -Eagan Athletic Association. However, as with a
building project, a few minor items are caught after
construction. . 11= w
Recessed team bench areas are included near home base. M
Eagan has requested that the City install a 6' high chain
link fence in front of each of these bench areas, for
protection of players from foul balls. City staff concur!
that this would be a wise investment to protecOthe playe
from injuries and the City from liability.
Attached is a graphic,"showing in orange the proposed
additional fencing.. Staff has solicited two quotes for
installation; Century Fence - $1,116; Abel Fence - $595.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with the need for this additional fen
it should pass a motion authorizing Staff to expend $595
the Park Development Fund for the purpose of installing
fencing in front of the players benches at the City Hall
baseball field.
KDF : j ak°►
Attachment
�i
s
i'
L ews
ung,
FerGe I
kc,e�b
r
C 3
O
(
- 275 rl
4' Du:.-ef-Play\ FeMcp Bleach
V/Co�^tq
cur —
v
0 50
Civic CI em4p- aal/ ff
Re' hDVA+)ar1- Pro .
RD
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 26, 1s
TO: Mayor, City Council and City AA s r34jr
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets
The Ponds of Mendota Heights and
Rolling Woods 2nd Addition
Job No. 8622
Improvement No. 86, Project No. 9
nTQ01TC0TnW.
Annandale Contracting, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the a
improvements. I
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council accept the project.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the recommendation, Council should pas�
motion adopting Resolution No. 89-_, RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ANf
APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 9.
a
I
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING
FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 9
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Men
Heights on June 4, 1987, Annandale Contracting, Inc. of Annandale,
Minnesota, has satisfactorily completed the improvement of sanitary
sewer extension, storm sewer extension, watermain extension, street
curb and gutter improvements to serve the area known as The Ponds o
Mendota Heights and Rolling Woods 2nd Addition (Improvement No. 86,
Project No. 9) in accordance with such contract.
)ta
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the Cityof
Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contract is here y
accepted and approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby d
ected to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contr
the amount of $5,563.63, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th
of June 1989.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto,
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
in
day
MEMO
1-0: Mayor, City Council, and �tgs ator
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code EnforcementOfficer
SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for May 1989
Current Month
Building
Date: May 24, 1989
Year to Date _ 1989 Year to Date)_ 1988
Permits: No. Valuation Fee Collected I No. Valuation Fee Collected I No. Valuation
SFD
11
1,690,372.00
15,048.85
j 27
4,160,042.00
36,984.82
j 45
6,777,800.57
APT
0
0
0
j 0
0
0
j 0
0
TOWNHOUSE
0
0
0
j 5
821,235.00
7,041.21
j 0
0
CONDO
0
0
0
j 7
1,500,000.00
7,490.18
( 0
0
MISC.
35
338,174.00
5,42.94
j 69
550,489.00
10,100.54
j 68
568,379.11
C/I
1
22,850.00
386.10
j 12
I
1,454,973.00
9,961.1-7
j 23
(
2,908,841.0
Sub Total
47
$2,051,396.00
$21,077.89
I
j 120
$8,486,739.00
$71,577.92
I
( 136
S10,255,021.11B
trade
'
I
1
j
Permits:
Plumbing
10
251.00
I
( 42
1,194.00
I
( 54
Water
11
55.00
j 34
170.00
j 52
Sewer
5
87.50
( 22
385.00
j 37
HVAC 8 Gas
19
1,173.50
j 56
6,799.00
( 71
Sub Total
I
I
45
$1,567.00
j 154
i
8,548.00
j 214
I
Licensing:
(
I
I
I
Contractor's
I
j
I
Licenses:
51
1,275.00
j 339
I
8,475.00
j 333
1
Fee Collected
60,099.15
0
0
0
9,313.63
17,268.48
$86,681.26
1,380.00
260.00
647.50
8,156.00
10,443.50
8,325.00
I I
I I
Total 143 $2,051,396.00 $23,919.89 ( 613 $8,486,739.00 $88,600.92 j 683 $10,255,021 08 $105,449.76
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, tan check fee, and
valuation amounts.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning
Commission was held on Tuesday, May 23, 1989, in the Cit,
Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chairman Mo
called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. The following me,
were present: Morson, Tilsen, Duggan, Krebsbach, Anders
Dwyer and Koll. Also present were Public Works Director
James Danielson, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batcheld
and Planning Consultant Tim Malloy.
on
APPROVAL OF commissioner Duggan made a motion to cofrect
MINUTES the minutes of the April 25 minutes, pa
13. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the mo ion.
AYE: 7
NAY: 0
CASE NO. 89-18 Mr. Edward Adrian, 1549 Dodd Road, was
ADRIAN, present to 'explain a subdivision that ha
SUBDIVISION and Toni Smith have applied for. They qould
like to purchase the lot between their
respective'lots, and subdivide it which
would make ' their lots larger. The lot -ihick
they would like to subdivide is a buildible
lot, but not a "good" buildable lot; thare
is a creek running down the center of ft.
It has been on the market for many yearg,
and has not*been purchased.
Commissioner Krebsbach moved that the p blit
hearing be waived and to approve the to
subdivision as presented. commissioner
Duggan seconded the motion.
AYE: 7
NAY: 0
CASE NO. 89-19 Ms. Diane Foley, 2359 Apache Street, h d
FOLEY, VARIANCE applied for a variance for a fence on le
property.. She had been notified of thr:
Planning'Commission meeting, but was n
present.
Public Works Director Jim Danielson
explained that she desires to build a
with approximately the same setback as
neighbor to"the rear of the property.
was
"
the City was not aware of any variance
ence
the
Since
on
V
R
May 2 3,
A:
the ne Is fence, and Ms. Foley's
request-'*b4,for exactly the same setback
:* � '
the neigi,bbi7f the commission was in
agreement
�I,that it was a routine request
in conformity with the neighborhood.
Commissio"hl"'eir Anderson moved to waive the
requireibbi"t.for a CUP, and recommend to
- - ,� t.t"
Council,�,;:tq`grant the 141 setback varian(
t' tii
requeste&-'.V:t1,t` Commissioner Koll seconded 1
W4
motion.,
AYE: 6
0.t
NAY: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 Krebsb
I
ge 2
1989
as
and
City
e as
`y 7� If I i .,' e.
commissioner Dwyer commented on the fact
that Ms;i.l:Foley was not present at the
meeting, and reiterated that Staff should
make a diligent effort to inform the
applicants that they should be in attenda
when theirrespective cases are brought
before the'
commission, in case a questIn
should arise.
CASE NO. 89-20 Mr. Jeffrey Ward, 609 Hampshire Drive, as
WARD, WETLANDS present for consideration of a wetlands�
permit to`;,allow the construction of a 4911
cedar fence (which was already under
construction) within 1001 of the wetlands.
ChairmantMorson asked if there was a
covenant'l.'in' * the abstract in Hampshire
Estates"Mr. Kevin Clark of CAntex Homes
(the deV6,iopers of Hampshire Estates) said
there are* no covenants restricting fences.
Public Wo % rks Director Jim Danielson
"I
explainedi,that City Staff considers this
a
routine ;batter; Mr. Ward is entitled to
a
fence i�,h�Iis backyard if he so pleases.
Commissioner` Dwyer voiced concern that
Centex isi.11,selling property without advising
the buyer"s"tthat there is a 1001 wetlands
requireieOht". Mr. Clark said that they
(Centex)j.'would include a disclaimer on the
City ordinance in the literature on th
development;
Commisis"I"Uni"e"r Duggan moved to waive
I `dW9", .
public,,'!*b'0',Lring, recommend to City
grant. lands permit to allow
construct, on of a fence within 201
the
it to
57W. M4_
Plge 3
May 23, 1989
wetlands;',second by Commissioner Anders
AYE: 7'..
NAY: 0
CASE NO. 89-15
Mr. Dick'Putnam, Tandam Corporation, w&
CENTEX REAL
attendance and presented a synopsis of
ESTATE CORP. -
material presented at the April 25 Plan:
CONDITIONAL USE
Committee Meeting. He proceeded to exp
PERMIT FOR PUD,
Plan C-2, which is what was decided upoi
SKETCH PLAN
the last',two Ballfields Committee meeti,
APPROVAL,
Included.in the complex would be tennis
COMPREHENSIVE
courts, parking lots, park building,
PLAN AMENDMENT
telephone building, large soccer field,
football -'sized soccer field, picnic spa
and tot lot space. The playing fields
been turned around a bit differently to
three softball fields. This plan provi
130-135 parking spaces, hockey and free
skating rink, and a park building. The
also are l6oking at continuing the publ
trail system around the pond and back u
that approximately 2/3 of the pond woul
public trail system.
The park 'average is estimated at being
approximately 27 acres,,as opposed to 2
acres under Plan C. The unit differenc
going.from 544 total units to 568 units
The single family lots will be at 15,00
sq.:ft.: There is an increase of 24 uni
whi6h,.is'5.5 units/acre as opposed to 5
in previous plan. The larges0condomin
building would be 16 units, which would
similar to the manor homes now under
construction.
Commissioner Duggan voiced his concern
the ' 'lack of ballfield space in -Mendota
Heights. The land that was available 3
years ago (7 sites) is now unavailable.
said that the City still has a ' chance t
purchase land, regardless of -cost, so t
the City could have a more extensive
ballfield system in keeping with the
estimated population size. As it is nc
the City is short on ballfield space, a
there is no more developable, buildable
that Mendota Heights can afford. Mr. r
explained that Mr. C.G.Rein is asking 4
75000/acre for his land near the fire
department; a substantial increase in t
value when the City rezoned it on the I
in
ing
ain
at
gs.
(a a
,e
have
make
les
is
P so
I be
4
a is
D+
ts,
.26
ium
be
1/2
He
t
land
65-
PaIlge 4
May 23,
1989
two years' ago.
Commissioner Duggan requested a joint
meeting with the Parks commission, Plan
ring
Commission and City Council in hopes of
resolving this issue.
Commissioner Anderson said that he's not
surd whether there is tremendous demard
among the residents and taxpayers for a
significant increase in ballfields sites.
Mr. -Putnam is already putting in more than
twice into ballfields and parkland in his
development than is required.
Mr. Putnam explained that the City of
Mendota Heights has already adopted a
Comprehensive Plan for this area. The
proposed plan is 50 units short of what
is
allowed by the City.
Commissioner Duggan said that he is
concerned about the high density, which
will
have tremendous effect on traffic probl
ms.
He feels that these issues are not beinj
researched thoroughly. He went on to s:ate
that Mr. Putnam is an excellent develop
r;
he has an excellent reputation in the
developments that he's done; but is wha
he
is proposing here good for the City of
Mendota Heights?
Mr. Kevin Clark responded by saying that
Centex could come back to the pity with Plan
A which would require park fees and no
parking. They have a park situation that
they are trying to work with the City on.
The dedication has almost doubled, and last
year's referendum did not point to
overwhelming support for the City to g out
and'purchase this property foripark laid. '
Mr.'Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, sai4
zoning is what prevails in this situat,
Until the zoning is changed, single fai
residential is what is there., Regardii
bond issue and parks, he feels there L
organization as to what a good.long te:
plan for Mendota Heights is all about.
There has reaction to every given situ
when'a parcel of land has been brought
Mr.:Losleben said that the Commission
not rezone land, and then have the Coui
and>Parks'Board recommend buying a hig]
that
on.
�ily
g the
no
tion
up.
hould
cil
Page 5
May 23, 1989
zoned parcel of property at twice the price.
The City is dealing with a Comprehensiv
Plan that was changed two years ago, and now
there is discussion of changing it again.
He questions how good the Comprehensive Plan
is if it should change that often.
Mr. Losleban added that he is concerned
about the significant traffic problem
already developing at 494 and 149 - before
the project is even begun. He stated that
traffic is a major issue.
Mr. Losleben commented on the ballfield
situation. He feels that at least 12 g
ballfield sites are needed in the City.
ballfield situation is more difficult w
the problems at Sibley. He doesn't thi
that a bond issue should be brought bef
the people at this time. he City shou
least tie down the land in a comprehens
plan and start developing some long ter
plans as to what should be done with it
Lighting of the ballfields is a situati
that must also be addressed. There is
policy on lighting of ballfields in a
residential area. Thesq,are some of th
loose ends that must be tied up before
City goes much further on this.
Commissioner Anderson explained that it
being suggested that the whole Comprehi
Plan for the City be redone; bAt that
unrealistic. He said that is not the
in front of the Commission at this poi;
time.•
Mr. Putnam said that the first phase L
under construction. It's zoned, appro,
graded, and the model is going up. Th,
is lost in terms of turning it into si:
family homes.
Mr. 'Putnam reiterated that what they p
(the sports complexes, playgrounds, pa
etc.) is unlike anything in town right
And'this is what is being proposed for
nothing.
Commissioner Krebsbach said that the
Ballfields Committee has very detailed
minutes; grids and reportings of the ci
available land have been included. Shi
od
The
th
at
C'lJ_
is
sive
sue
in
,
game
le
pose
ing,
ow.
t of
then
Pae 6
May 23, 989
asked Mr. Putnam where one could experi
this level of density in a Centex
development.
Mr. Putnam said the Williamsburg develorlme
in Bloomington (on Old Shakopee and Cou ty
Road 18) near Dred Scot Field would be
close comparison.
Mrs. Celia Kennedy, 2567 Delaware Avenue,
asked if there would be access for them (and
their neighbors), should they wish to
develop the 15 acres of land that they own
between them. She, and the neighbors, and
concerned about being landlocked.
Mr. Putnam responded by saying that the
owners of the land must decide what the
want done. If the owners want access,
street, water and sewer would be provid I
d.
Commissioner Dwyer moved to continue the
public hearing until the special meeting on
June 13 at 7:30pm. Commissioner Koll
seconded.
AYE: 7 w
NAY: 0
VERBAL REVIEW Mr. James Danielson, Public Works Direc or,
gave a verbal review of cases that had een
before the City Council since the previ us
meeting. R
- Bjorklund Wetlands Permit - granted
- Nides Rear Yard Variance - granted
- Posthumus Variance - will return to Cit
Council on June 6 for public hearing
- Blesener Builders: Alice Lane Subdivision -
granted
- Hanson Subdivision - applicant asked t be
tabled
- Centex - hearing was continued,tonight
- Ice Arena
Commissioner Duggan made a motion to
the meeting. Commissioner Krebsbach
seconded the motion.
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:25PM
journ
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
ON JUNE 6, 1989
Concrete Licenses:
Lee -Jay Brick & Stone Construction
Sta-Lor Masonry
Excavating Licenses:
Bjorkman Excavating
Dasen Contracting Co., Inc.
Glenn Rehbein Excavating, Inc.
Maplewood Mechanical, Inc.
Marty Bros., Excavating
Parenteau Excavating
Rayco Excavating
Weierke Excavating & Trenching
Gas Piping License:
Palmer Service Electric Company
General Contractor Licenses:
D.J. Construction & Excavating, Inc.
Dolphin Pool & Spa
Langer Construction
Linrod Custom Homes, Inc.
Merle's Construction Co."', Inc.
Pete Leverty Exteriors
Republic Building Corp.
Tad's Construction
Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses:
Palmer Service Electric
Plastering/Stucco License:
J & J Enterprises Drywall, Inc.
Dept 10 -Adm
Dept 50-Rd&Bridge
1
15-Engr
60 -Utilities
' -
20 -Police
70 -Parks
May 1933
6/6/89 Claims
Lister 30 -Fire
/C /J�
80-PlanningF'aoe
1
Fri 1:04 PM
Fr
City of Mendota
He. ch 40 -CEO
85-Recyling
90 -Animal Control
Temp Check Number i
Temp.
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
1 A T& T
01-4210-110-10
1 d calls
7.15
} 1 A T& T
01-4210-020-20
1 d calls
4.05
-
i1.20
2
Totals Temp Check Number
1
Temp Check Number 2
i
2 Earl F Anderson &• Assoc
01-4305-050-50
outlet
27.05
2 Earl F Anderson & Assoc
01-43x0-215-70
sicns
309.93
336.98 br
4
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 3-
3 AT&T
3
01-4210-020-20
Jun Svc
3. 9E, -
3 AT&T
01-4210-050-50
Jun svc
10.53
3 AT&T
01-4210-070-70
Jun svc
10.53
3 AT&T
15-4210-060-60
Jun svc
10.52
3 AT&T
01-4210-070-70
2nd otr
8.83
*,
44.37
15
Totals Temp Check Number
- 3
Temp Check Number 4
r
4 A P C Rentals
01-4305-050-50
rental/power
rake
i9.08
Totals Temp Check Number
4
Temp Check Number 5
5 Annandale Contr Inc
31-4460-839-00
Pymt 7 86-9
5,563.63 -
5,563.63
5
J
Totals Temp Check Number
5
Temp Check Number
6 P &• J Auto Supply$ -
01-4305-050-50
part
5.73
5.73
6
Totals Temp Check Number
6
Temp Check Number 7
7 Pills Guns -Shop
01-4305-020-20
mise solys
34.35
34.35
7
---*�Tota:ls—Temp,Chec.k-Number
7
26 May 158.7
Claims List
Pape 2
Fri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heignts
Temp Check Number, 8
'1
Temp.
_..
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
8 Banyon Data Systems
01-4220-133-10
data cons fee
1,190.00
8 Banyon Data Systems
15-4220-133-60
data cons Tee
--595_00
1,765.00
16
Totals Temp Check Number
8
Temp Check Number 9
9 Battery R• Tire Warehouse
01-4330-460-30
Batteries
97.24
97.24
9
Totals Temp Check Number
9
Temp Check Number 10
10 Kevin Batchelder
01-4400-110-10
exp reimo
20.00
20. 00
10
Totals Temp Check Number
10
Temp Check Number 11
11 Board of Water Commissioners
01-4425-310-70
Apr svC:
13.07
-
11 Board of Water Commissioners
08-4425-000-00 -
ADr svc
" 25.21
11 Board of Water Commissioners
01 -4425 -315 -SO
ADr svc
118.40
11 Board of Water Commissioners
53-4460-Es7-00
paid in error
855.32or
11 Board of Water Commissioners
42-4460-828-00
install tap 66-3
1,818.38
11 Board of Water Commissioners
68-4231-865-00
Aor inset
92.37
66
Totals Temp Check Number
11
Temp Check Number 12
_
12 Caoitol Supply
15-4330-490-60
marts
48.47
48.47
12
Totals Temp Check Number
12
Temp Check Number
-1
13 Century Fence
10-4460-000-00
fencing/backstop
12,124.00
�
12,124.00
13
Totals Temp Check Number
13
Temp Check Number 14
14 Collins Electrical Const
15-4330-490-60
rDrs
67.00
67.00
14
Io.tal:s Ternp-Check Numoer
i4
26 Mav 19b.v
Claims List
Page 3
Fri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
Temp Check Number, is
Teruo.
Check
Number Vendor- Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
15 Commissioner of Trsot
01-4211-420-50
55 & Mendota Rd
90.26
15
90.26
Totals Temp Check Number
15
Temp Check Number 16
16 Communications Center
01-4330-450-30
cors
713.95
is
79.95
Totals Temp Check Number
is
IF.
Tema Check Number 17
17 Continental Safety Eq
01-4410-030-30
Jacket/pants Kaiser
43.45
17
43.45
Totals Temp Check Number
17
Temp Check Number is
18 Coneveras Reloading Sply
01-4305-020-20
arafflo
171.85
Totals Temp Check Number
18
Temp Check Number 19
19 Dennis Delmont'
01-4415-020-20
Jun allow
120.00
19
120.00
Totals Temp Check Number
19
Temp Check Number PO
20 Designer Sign Systems
08-4490-000-00
sions C H
50.00
20 Designer Sion Systems
01-4490-110-10
nameplates
52.00
40
102.00
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 21
21 Bob Doan Painting
01-4335-315-30
interior painting
550.00-
21 Bob Doan Painting
01-4268-315-30
interior painting
1,475.00
21 Bob Doan Painting
01-4335-315-30
addtl ptg doors
270.00
63
2,295.00
Totals Temp Check Number
21
Temp Check Number 22
22 Dodd Technical Corp
01-4330-490-10
annl mtcn
346.00
l
ea May 19ey
'
Fri 12,0+ m*
Temp Check Number �e
Temp.
Check
'
Number Vendor Name
--
' eu
Totals Temp Check Number
^
Temp Check Number e3
23 Employee Benefit Adm Co,
23
Totals Temp Check Number
/
Temp Check Number e4
24 Fisher Scientific
e4 Fisher Scientific
*e
Totals Temp Check Number
)
Temp Check Number
eo Kevin Frazesz
/ 25 xevin'Frazezz
--
5m
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number e6
/
ua General Communications
ea General Communications.
--
52
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number e7
27 Goodyear Service Store
27 Goodyear Service Store
Claims List
City or Mendota Heights
Comments Amount
' .
348. 00
wo inc Kaiser
430'00
4om'mm
^�
fume hood
e,*em'OLD
misc splvs
84.59
e,5rw'o9
- `
Jun allow
175.00
exp reimu
1e.5e
187.52
pacer rors ' �- '�'-'--- - - om.02--
Pager rors e7.30
'
57.32
tires 2243
tires 2244
121. 98
121'9a
_
' c* e43.96
Totals Temp Check Number e7
^ Temp Check Number ea
- ua Gopher state One oazz 15-4e10-060-60 ' oor svc 375'00
_- _---__
ea 3r5'mm
Totals Temp Check Number ea
'
Temp cheax.w"mber ��
26 May lgd'J
Fri 12:04 PM
Temp Check Number
Temp.
Check
Number Vendor, Name
29
Claims List
City of Mendota Heights
Account Core
Comments
Pace 5
Amount
Totals Temp Check
Number
29
Temp Check Number
30
30 Hdwe Hank
01-4335-315-30
mise mzcn s3lys
32.34
30 Hdwe Hank
15-4305-060-60
wisc solys
9.42
60
41.76
Totals Temp Check
Number
30
Temp Check Number
31
31 1 C M A R C
01-2072
6/2 -payroll
107.70
31 1 C M A R C
01-4134-110-10
6/2 oayroll
62.55
62
190. 25" -
Totals Temp Check
Number
31
Temp Check Number
32
32 Paul Kaiser
01-4268-150-30
May Svc
786.50
32
786.50
Totals Temp Check
Number
32
Temp Check Number
33
33 Kat Keys
261-4335-315-30
lock rDrs
33
52.50
Totals Temp Check
Number
33
Temp Check Number
34
34 Knox Lumber
01-4335-315-30
mtcn solus
169.38
34
169. 38
Totals lemp Check
Number
.64
Temp Check Number
35
35 Krechs Office
Machines
01-4300-110-10
r1lisc solus
37.58
35 Krechs Office
Machines
01-4300-110-10
copier paper
397.80
35 Krechs Office
Machines
01-4300-030-30
copier oaDer
11.05
35 Krechs Office
Machines
01-43eO-040-40
copier pamer.
40.495
35 Krechs Office
Machines.-.,-
01-4300-060-80
a
copier p aer
9.10
35 Krechs Office
Machines
05-4300-105-15
copier paDer
145.60
35 Krechs Office
Machines
10-4200-000-00
cooier oaoer
5.85
26 May 1989
Fri 12:04 PM
Temp Check Number 35
Temp.
Cneck
Number Vendor Name
35 Krechs Office Machines
35 Rrechs Office Machines
35 Krechs Office Machines
35 Krechs Office Machines
35 Krechs Office Machines
420
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 36
36 Krechs Office Machines
36 Krechs Office Machines
72
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 37
37 L E L S
37
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 38
38 L. M C I T HP
38 L M C I T HP
76
Totals Tersio Check Number
Temp Check Number 39
39 Lakeland Ford
39
Totals Temp Check Number
Claims Lis'.
Citv of Mendota Heights
Account Code
01-4300-080-80
15-4300-060-60
01-4300-110-10
01-4300-040-40
01-4300-080-80
35
05-4300-105-15
15-43eO-060-60
36
01-2075
37
01-2074
01-4121-020-20
36
01-4230-460-30
39
Face 6
Comment s ArlIC'Unt
Copier` pamen
31.65
co",:Ler, oaoer
7.80
toner
27.60
toner
27.614
toner
27.60
770. 3,8
toner,
27. 6271
oner
27.60
55.20
Jun dues
175.50
175.50
Jun prem
339.01
Jun orem
711.65
rDrs 94.12410
94. Dui
IeMD UneCk Number 40
40 John Lappako 01-4400-030-30 reimb exp 13.57
40 13.57
Totals Temp Check Number 40
Temp Check Number - 41
41 Leef Bros 01-4335-310-50 Mav Svc 9.65
41 Leef Bros 01-4335-310-70 may Svc 9.70
26 May 1989
Claims List
Paoe 7
i Fri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
Temp Check Number 41
Temp.
-
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
41 Leef Bros
15-4335-310-60
May Svc
9.65
c9. 00
123
Totals Temo Check Number
t
41
Temp Check Number 42
-
42 Lees Bldg Mtcr,
08-4335-000-00
liners
%6.25
42 Lees Hldo Mtcn
08-4335-000-00
svrio/wax floors
148.00
174.25
84
3; ,
Totals Temo Check Number
42
Temp Check Number 43
t.
43 William Lerbs
01-4335-315-30
exo reimb
81.7='
43 William Lerbs
01-4330-460-30
exo reimb
-37_13 -
Totals Temo Check Number
43
Temp Check Number 44
-
44 Lillie Suburban News
08 -4490 -000 -00` -'janitorial
ad
60.00
60 00
44
r
Totals Temo Check Number
44
Temp Check Number 45
45 Mac Connections
.01-3615
software cr prev
573_00
573. 00
45
;.
. u' ....
Totals Temo Check Number
45
Temp Check Number 46
46 John Maczko
01-4335-315-30
exo reimb
36.80 r-- -'
46
3t). 812.
Totals Temp Check Number
46
Temp Check Number 47
J
47 Microsoft Update
01-4301-110-10
software update
161.00
- 47 Microsoft Update
01-4301-110-10
software update
80.50
241.50
94
Totals Temp Check Number
47
Temp Check Number., 48
48 Metro Waste Control
15-4449-060-60
e
Jun cps
33,118.04
26 May 1989
Claims List
Gage a
Fri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heiants
Temp Check Number 46
TemO.
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
comments
Amount
48 Metro Waste Control
17-3575
Jun
cues
2.796.08cr
48 Metro Waste Control
15-4448-060-60
Por
Sac C.11O.S
8, Oz'o. ow
48 Metro Waste Control
15-3615
Apr
Sac chos
80. 50ar
---
192
---------
38,291.46
Totals Tema Check Number
48
Terjio Check Number 49
49 Minn Cellular Tele Co
01-42*10-GaO-20
May
Svc
8.38
49 Minn Cellular Tele Co
01-4210-020-20
Maysvc
4.69
96
13. 07
Totals Tema Check Number
49
Tema Check Number 50
SO Minn Mutual Life Ins
01-2074
Jun
Orem
20.40
50 Minn Mutual Life Ins
01-4131-020-20
Jun
Orem
5.10
SO Minn Mutual Life Ins
01-4131-070-70
Jun
Preiii
1. 70
150
27.20
Totals Temp Check Number
50
Temp Check Number 51
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-2074
Jun
Orem
164.82
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-110-10
Jun
Orem
450.70
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
05-4131-105-15
Jun
Orem
320.55
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
.0-1-4131-020-20
Jun
Orem
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-050-50
Jun
Orem
112.27
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
15-4131-060-60
Jun
Orem
12.85
51 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-070-70
Jun
prem
11414.96
357
2, 010. 20
Totals Temp Check Number
51
Temp Check Number 52
52 National Safety Council
01-4402-030-30
1_" 0-
52
115.00
Totals Temp Check Number
52
Tema Check Number 53
53 John Neska
15-4410-060-60
clothing ailow
150.00
53
150.00
Totals Temp Check Number
53
--Temp-Check-Number 54
26 May 1989
Claims List
Page 9
Fri 18:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
Teruo Check Number 54
i
Temp.
Check
Number Vender Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
54 Oakcrest Kennels
01-4221-800-90
May retainer
135.00
54 Oakcrest Kennels
01-4225-800-90
may impounding
10.00
145.00
108
Totals Temo Check Number
54
} Temo Check Number 55
55 Oxvnen Service Co
-
01-4305-030-30
act thru 4115
8-40
'
6.40
55
r YI•:s '.Yt ..
Totals Temo Check Number
55
Teruo Check Number 56
56 Road Rescue Inc
01-4305-030-30
rnisc solys
340.90
56 Road Rescue Inc
01-4305-020-20
mise solys
101.55
56 Road Rescue Inc
01-4305-020-20
rnisc solus
102- 90
j i
545.35
69
Totals Temp Check Number
56
Temp Check Number 57
57 S R T Office Products
01-4300-02141-20
rnisc solys
5.25
5.2-5
57
Totals Temp Check Number
57
Temo Check Number 58
.,.
_._..-_---•-------__--..
__ .__ ._.---�----_-- ------ •----_-.._ ,.
58 Sanitary Products Co
08-4335-000-00
mats
_ 297-75
--
-
297.75 .
58
Totals Temp Check Number
58
=
Teruo Check Number 59
59 Seven Corners Ace Hdwe
01-4420-050-50
rnisc oarts
68.50
59
68.50
Totals Temp Check Number
59
Temp Check Number 60
- 60 L E Shaughnessy Jr
01-4220-132-10
May svc
1,160.65
60 L E Shaughnessy Jr
05-4220-132-15
May svc
100.40
60 L E Shaughnessy Jr,.
21-4220-132-00
May svc
164.60
60 L E Shaughnessy Jr
16-4220-132-00
May Svc
248.35
60 L E Shaughnessy Jr
03-4220-132-00
Mav svc
78.10
26 May 1989
Claims List
Page 10
Fri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
Temp Check Number 60
Terno.
- - -
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments -
Amount
60 L E Shauchnessy Jr
14-4220-132-00
May Svc
831.45
60 L E Shaughnessy Jr-
15-4220-132-60
Mav Svc
--206_45
---
2,790.00
4'20
Totals Temo Check Number
60
Tema Check Number 61
- -
61 .i L Shieley Co
10-44EO-000-00
rock ballfield
994.82
61 J L Shieley Co
10-4460-000-00
Hock ballfield
172.91 T
61 J L Shieley Co
10-4460-000-00
rock ballfield
858.56
61 J L Shieley Co
10-4460-000-00
rock ballfied
435"85
61 J L Shieley Co
01-442=-070-70
cl 5 parks
334.23
61 J L Shieley Co
01-4422-070-70
cl 5 parks
--246_23
3, 042. 60
366
Totals Ternp Check Number
61
Temp Check Number 62
l
62 Sign Center
01-4330-440-20
replacement signs
155_00
-
155.00 ov-.:P, -
62
>>_
Totals Temo Check Number
62
Ternp Check Number 63
63 Snyder Drug Stores_01-4305-030-30
keys
5.94
63 Snyder Drug Stores
01-4305-020-20
film
17.99
-- ------------
63 Snyder Drug Stores
04-4305-020-20
batteries "---"---' --------" ---"-`-3=99_-
63 Snyder Drug Stores
01-4305-020-20
misc solys
-5_38
-
33.30
252
V_
Totals Terno Check Number
63
Temp Check Number 64
64 St Paul Disoatch PP
01-4240-Z50-50
n:tcn ad P W
13850
64
Be
"
J
Totals Temp Check Number
64
-
Temp Check Number 65
65 Sun Newspapers
08-4490-000-00
empl ad
115.20
- 65 Sun Newspapers
08-4490-000-00
janitorial ad
68.40
65 Sun Newspapers-
01-4240-080-80
hrg not Centex Homes
15.57
65 Sun Newspapers
66-4240-865-00
ad for bids 89-2
32.20
65 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
hro not Blesener
11.28
65 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
hrg not Hanson
-11_28
253.93
X390
Totals Temp Check Number
65
26 May 1989
Claims List
Pane 11
Fri 12:04 PM
City of Mendota Heights
Temo Check Number 66
r
Tema.
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
_ Amount
1
66 Mike Thomas TV R• Appl
01-4620-030-30
washer
385_00
385.00
66
i
Totals Temp Check Number
66
Temp Check Number 67
67 U S West Communications
01-4210-110-10
May
Svc
234.19
67 U S West Communications
111-4210-020-211
May
Svc
400.24
67 U S West Comm unicat ions
05--A-21 0- 105-15
Nay
Svc
1-52.53 - -
67 U S West Communications
01-4210-040-40
Iwa y
svc
51.13
67 U S West Communications
01-4210-030-30A'?ay
svc
110.96
67 U S West Communications
01-4210-050-50
May
svc
35.49
67 U S West Communications
15-42iO-060-60
May
Svc
35.49
67 U S West Communications
01-4210-Z70-70
May
svc
35.48
1. 055. 51
536
Totals Temp Check Number
67
Temp Check Number 68
68 United Central Trustee
01-2071 _
.Jun
prem
181.35
jr
68 United Central Trustee
01-4132-020-20
Jun
Prem
43.93 J
68 United Central Trustee
01-4132-050-50
Jun
prem
18-'35
68 United Central Trustee
01-4132-070-70
Jun
prem
8.94
252. 57
272
Totals Temp Check Number
68
1
.
Temp Check Number 69
�
69 United Way St Paul
01-2070
Jun
conte
1L9�20
--
109.20 - -
69
f
Totals Temp Check Number
69
Temp Check Number 70
- -"
70 Van 0 Lite Inc
01-4335-310-3O
exiv cony
39.90.
39. 90
}
70
Totals Temp Check Number
70
'
Temp Check Number 71
- 71 Vomela
01-4305-020-20
squad
emblems
147.96
a-
147.96
71
Totals Temp Check Number
71
Temp Check Number 72
72 Western Life .ins
01-4132-031-30
Jun
❑rem
250.50
26 May 1989
Fri 12:04 PM
Temp Check Number
Claims List
Citv of Mendota Heights
72
Pane 12
Temp.
Check
Number Vendor Name' Account Code
Cortiments-'=
Amount
72
150. 50
Totals T6mp Check Number 72
t;s C
Temp Check Number 73tt>
73 Winthroo & Weinstine 01-4221-120-10
Apr retainer
515.40
73 Winthrop & Weinstine
Apr Re U S West
368.83 �4 z sty• :C.
73 Winthrop & Weinstine 10-4220-000-00
Apr Re U S West
292.50
Winthrop & Weinstine 16-4220-000-00
Apr Re Furlong
996.40
73 Winthrop & Weinstine 31-4220-839-00
Apr Re Krech
100. 00-
365
2,273.13
Totals Temp Check Number 73
-!SSY
Temp Check Number 74
'--
74 Zahl Eq 01-4330-440-20
f.,-. - mise parts
36. 30
74 Zahl Eq 01-4330-460-30,
mise parts
36.30 -fy
74 Zahl Eq 01-4330-490-50
ri 1 je -10 misc parts
36. 3o!wfWcX_! .-,Jf-fB 'IY 1
222
108.90
Totals Temp Check Number 74
iz-10.
t2si!, sa
Temp Check Number 75
75 Xerox Ventura PUbl 01-4402-110-10-
Ventura publ
149.85
149.85-
Totals -Temp Check''Numbe�i.a*.-A-vt-.y-'
J
MANUAL CHECKS 12173thru77 150.00
Softball umpires
12178-
500.00
Henneping County j,"
Warrants = a -
12179.
35.00
Peat Marwick, ttl -15
REgr. t"� -S•
---------
6883 12181
45.00
Sensible Land Use
Sens 465;�-1 9
Grand Total_ 12182
143.04
Tcm Knuth
mileage -G
g;Yis m9f;
12183
500.00
M. Rockhold'
earnest money
12184
1,500.00
J. Tousignant
12185
30.00
Govt Trng Svc ALI
Regr-_-7--4;,
12186-
1,162.00
M. &-j. Cornick
easement 88-4
12108
5,193.22
Comm Revenue
SIT w/h',
12189
11,284.42
Dakota Cty Bank*
5/19'�,/h
12190
875.00
-
5/19 payroll deductions
12191
J�� 71
2,984.70
SOCU
��'
12192
35,429.78
City'M.H. 'Payroll"
5/19 nc��'
n12193 -9T'150.00*
-
Softba l'umpares
66,540.08
G.T
153,005.27
5%
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 25,
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Cityrdr_) istrator
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Miller Water Problem
DISCUSSION: Mr. Art Miller, 1 Dorset Road attended the
16th City Council meeting to complain that his water pre
was too low, he followed up this verbal complaint with a
letter (see attached). After the Council meeting I call
St. Paul Water Utility to relay Mr. Miller's complaint t
them and asked them to investigate the problem. St. Pau
Water went to Mr. Miller's home on May 19th, and tested
pressure themselves. They did this because often time t
testing equipment of private contractors is not calibrat
properly and gives faulty readings. There is a fire hyd
located near the Miller residence, they hooked up to the
hydrant and inside the house. They then took readings w�
flowing that hydrant and one farther away.
Pressure in the house varied from 35 psi when no
hydrants were flowing down to a low of 15 psi when the
hydrant in front of their house was flowing "full blast
690 gallons per minute. St. Paul Water Utility feels t
there is enough water pressure and volume available at
Miller home to allow them to have a lawn sprinkler syst
provided that it is properly designed; however, the Mil
sprinkler Company says that they need a continuous 35 p
pop up their heads and keep them popped up. The Sprink
Company retested the Miller home and agree with the 35
static pressure however, they say that at 8 gpm the Mil
pressure drops to zero. St. Paul Water says that ther
be a problem within the Miller's plumbing to cause such
dramatic drop. They have offered to send out one of th
inspectors to trouble shoot the system.
General Comments The Sommerset neighborhood is at the
highest elevations within the City and consequently the,
our lowest water pressures. 25 psi is the lowest pressi
.989
ay
sure
ant
e
at
t
e
er's
i to
er
si
er's
must
a
it
have
ire
St. Paul standards recommend and the Greens who live at
Beebe Ave. are at that pressure. As far as we know the
Greens have the lowest pressure in town. To the east of
neighborhood in West St. Paul they are also at a higher
elevation and therefov lower pressures. Two years ago,
St. Paul closed several valves on Delaware Avenue that
provided circulation in Mendota Heights and connected th
low pressure neighborhood to a higher pressure system (s
attached map). This action probably has had some delete
effects on the pressure on our side, it certainly has
decreased our circulation. The lines in the Sommerset
Neighborhood are 6" lines and have a lot of dead ends, w
there is a larger demand onthe system I suppose that th
pressure within the Sommerset neighborhood would be less
what St. Paul measured on May 19th.
Alternatives:
1.) The Miller's seem to have excessive pressure losses
within their house. Staff suggests that the Mille
allow a St. Paul inspector review their plumbing an(
suggest sonte improvements.
5
this
est
Pair
e
ious
en
than
rs
2.) Mendota Heights could explore with West St. Paul the
possibility of adding some or all of the Sommerset
neighborhood to their higher pressure system. This
would involve a joint powers agreement with West St.
Paul and probably"a dollar contribution toward their
system.
3.) Add pressure boosting device or water tower to the
area. This option would be too costly for such a small
neighborhood.
4.) Have individual residents add their own pressuring
boosting devices as they are needed. This would b much
more cost effective for the small number of device
needed and as I understand at least one neighbor hs
already gone this route.
RECOMMENDATION: Select alternatives #1 & #4.
ACTION REQUIRED: Review the alternatives and select a
of action.
i
Mr. Jim Danielson
Public Works Director
City of Mendota Heights
Lexington & Hwy 110
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Danielson:
I am writing to you to reinforce the complaint I made at the city cou
meeting on Tuesday, May 16th. I.am a resident at 1 Dorset Rd. in the
Somerset View area.
I have had our water pressure tested and the results are:
1) 25 psi static pressure
2) this pressure drops to 20 psi when water is flowing at 5 gal
minute
3) when water is flowing at 6 gal. per minute the pressure dro
NOTHING
Last year we lostourcomplete lawn. Part of this was due to inadaqu
watering capabilities. I decided to put in a sprinkling system not kn
that our pressure was this poor. I am now in a predicament. Our pre
so low that we cannot water adaquately. When a hose is being used o
it is very difficult to havd°a shower in the house.
Something must be done. I pay my taxes, water and sewer bill like al
other Mendota Heights residents but I am not getting equal services.
Please let me know as soon as possible as to what the city intends t
about this problem.
Sincerely,
Art Miller
per
s to
to
wing
sure is
itside
the
do
4
4t
CIT
Y,,OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
log X, Yt, June 1, 1989
To: Mayor, Cit-yJ.`Council and Cit 1 rator
From: James Danielson; Public orks- Director
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant(r
Subject: Duffy Development, Lexington and 110
Planning Case No. 89-03
INTRODUCTION
After a pre -application meeting with the City Coi
Planning Commission;-::,; in . December, 1988, Mr. John Du
application for thepredevelopment of the Curley pro
Lexington Avenue and;Vrunk Highway 110. This applicati
December -30, 1988,.'3pr"ovided for maximum development of
and included requests for a rezoning, variances, plat
and zoning ordinance( ' I " cimendments. Public hearings were
the Planning Commissidn'meetings in January, February an
Prior to the ',appliaation, Council and Planning C
had suggested to 'Mr.'J,'Duf fy that neighborhood meetings
before the public `'hearing commenced at the January
Commission meet Mr., Duffy held a neighborhood mi
December 19, 19880At'-',-which time he did not perce
neighborhood resist`a"'ncei.'�,.: However, at thele January
Commission there was,�,%signif . cant neighborhood oppositio
1
public hearing was',,c . ontinued until February, to allow
time to address theneighborhood concerns.
At the February meeting, Mr. Duffy presented alterr
in an attempt to -address-,,the neighborhood's concerns.
the residents stillt'toje8ted to all the proposals pre.
the Planning Commission, again continued the hear
directions to the,'n4g'hb6rhood to form a committee to
Mr. Duffy and work out.,. 6', legitimate proposal for deve
corner (see attache d'�Ma'rch 22nd staff memo).
At the March PJA"ih4."commission, Mr. Duffy came b
proposal that had 7 b I eh.,,,.wo'rked out with the neighborh
Planning Commission!4"did!,, not -like this plan and r
approval of; an altlerhat6, plan with ten (10) condi
attached March 28th*'Plianniiig Commission minutes, pages
ncil and
ffy made
)erty at
n, filed
the site
approval
held at
March.
:)-mmission
be held
Planning
seting on
ive much
Planning
i and the
4r. Duffy
ate plans
However,
ented and
ing with
meet with
oping the
ck with a
iod. The
commended
.ons (see
2 & 13).
I
r. •
DISCUSSION i•`�.;' t:
The application:'�Ohas ',,been changed as a result of th6 public
hearings. There is'no: longer a request for a rezoning. The
requests include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A Conditional'Use;",Permit for a'Planned Unit Develop
Preliminary Plat",approval
Variances for.front-and rear yard setbacks
Variance for a!setback to proposed pylon signage
Zoning Ordinar cd,'.clianges to allow the following us
the B-2, Zoning district:
* Motor fuel/Convenience'store
* Minor auto, :jrepta1r
* Diaper aii&"laiundry service
* Furniture' sales';;
* Interior','decorating studio
* Locksmith
* Medical an`D,6ntal clinics (limit size)
* Picture framing...
* Health studio;(such as diet Center)
* Drapery shop, L
t
within
(Council should�noteie slightly diff
•these uses arerent than
those shown in'-',fatticled March Planning Commission minutes)
!i �i t Drat
There ' is now!['YF ';tfree standing gad station with
islands (two hoses`per,r'pump), architecture to match Cit
both the shopping,,"'center and the convenience sto
exterior with a sigri�`,,bai�id)'. The existing screening
evergreens along Ma "";Adele will be phased out of
g g �,. Xy;i��rt
replaced by a new wa11'and 'screen further to the north.
PLANNING CONSULTANT=DISCUSSION
Because of the complexity of this issue,.staff has
City Planner Howard'''Dahlgren to attend the Council me4
has made some preliminary comments and a more detaile
will be forthcoming before the meeting. The preliminar
concern:;': r
1. The screening'of,,.the;residential lots to the east.
2. The service roado7placement and its relationship to
space of the shopping center.
3. The elevations'•that+',.tshow a stucco exterior for tl
Y
the center which'.;he, feels should be bricked al
around.
4. The mansard roof ,,-�is in the front only, the,
parapets. A gabled"'or hipped roof may be more
to hide mechanical equipment on the roof.
5. The stacking capability at the drive-in bank wind
F.
t iTl1 _
six pump
Hall for
a (brick
wall and
er being
requested
ting. He
analysis
comments ,
the green
e rear of
the way
j,
are no
)propriate' .
t,
•' f
I
I
t
F
i q
r4.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND` -RECOMMENDATION
The prop cised''Duffy Development does not fit neatl
within
the,. strict provisions of the City's existing zoning
rdinance
categories, i.e.,.-convenience store with gas station,
urniture
store, etc. The,,,. original request from the develope
was to
rezone the property'A`to a B-3 district, a change oppose by the
neighborhood. As anr alternative, Mr. Duffy has proposed that the
B-2' District be amended to -allow his proposed uses,
ither as
permitted or conditional uses. While staff originally
upported
this approach as're'asonable, it does have the shortcoming
of
allowing these same ',,uses in other B-2 districts in
he City,
where they may be less appropriate.
We now recommend that a better. alternative might
be to
invoke the "use variance" section of the Planned Unit De elopment
provisions of the zoning code, [19.2(6)], for the co venience
store/gas station, furniture store, minor auto repair, a d drive-
in bank. These changes, along with the requested se
back and
signage variances could all be addressed in the r solution
approving the Conditional Use Permit for PUD. This w
uld have
the advantage of affording the City a higher level o
control
over the proposed uses, and avoid extending these uses
to other
B-2 areas of the City.
This approach woixld leave unaddressed the other us
s (diaper
service, locksmith,,,, interior decorator, picture frami
g store
health studio, electronics repair, drapery shop)
that the
developer requests be accommodated in the B-2 distric
These
uses are not presently proposed by the developer,
but are
anticipated as potential future uses. It would be dif
icult and
cumbersome to address''these in the CUP for PUD. These
uses are
likely more appropriate for blanket inclusion in
the B-2,
Neighborhood commercial districts of the tCity,
ither as
permitted or conditional uses. Therefore, Council migh
consider
a zoning code amendment to include them in such distric
s.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
Section 5 of: Mr."; Duffy's narrative materials ref
rence the
proposed tax: increment ,financing- assistance from the
City.
However, Mr. DuffyJ#.has retained a TIF consultant,
Mr. Walt
Hartmann, to ',come4up with a more concrete and definitive
proposal.
Mr. Hartmann suggests that the financing plan be
onsidered
by Council at it's-Ju20th meeting. With regard to t
e PUD and':'
other planning actions; itis staff's recommendation th
t council
direct us to preparelkthe- resolution for final conside: -ation
and
adoption at the June';.120th meeting as well. Therefor
, Council.
would have the opporunity to make sure an acceptable
financing
plan is in place, before taking final action on grantin
the PUD.
However, Council 'mair wish to discuss, in general erms, the
proposed financing, 1. put forth in the Duffy mate
ials.
PLANNING -COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the March meeting the Planning Commission voted 4l to 1 to
recommend approval of a revised plan that incorpor ted 10
conditions (see March 28 Planning Commission minutes, pgsrl2-13).
ACTION REQUIRED
Council should . hold the required public hearin on the
proposed Amendment to the Zoning Code (i.e., new v se! in B-2
district), and the Conditional Use Permit for a Plan ed Unit
Development.
Following that' . public hearing and Council discussion, if
Council wishes to grant approval to the requests, it sh uld pass
motions:
1. Directing staff to' prepare an amendment to th zoning
ordinance incorporating whatever changes are deemed
appropriate.
2. Directing staff to prepare a resolution for gran ing of a
conditional use permit for a planned unit de elopment
according to the plans, Exhibit E, dated 5-I5-89, and
incorporating whatever conditions are deemed app opriate.
Those might include:
a. a 4 acre variance from the -minimum PUD si e of 10
acres.
b. that a freestanding convenience store/gas s ation be
permitted,tic�s proposed, subject to a limitat on of no
more than 'six pumps (12 fuelingiti ns) , and
granting the 30!setback requirement Pos
�. I I t no=rmally required
for convenience store/gas stations. (18.2(2)b
C. that the proposed furniture store, minor au o repair,
and drive-in bank be allowed as use variances
d. that the shopping center and convenie*e store
incorporate a modern exterior facade of brik surface
with masonry band comparable to City Hall.
e. that all signage be in accordance with city
f. that zero -lot lines be approved to all
ownership of the furniture store from the
the shopping center.
g. that Final PUD approval will be contingent
of a survey that accurately details place
north service road.
3. Granting preliminary plat approval.
inances.
separate
inder of
isubmittal
nt of the
Dukllkly
10850 Highway 55
Ply -mouth, Minnesota 55429
Pb. (612) 544-6769
MaY 30,189
LO, PMENT C
Kevin Frazell
City Manager
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, IIIN 55118
Ret Lexington Plaza South
Final Plan Exhibit
Dear Mr. Frazell,
We are proposing to build a B-2 shopping center on the
Curley propertki- which is currently zoned B-2. it has
been one full year since we approached the city with
this project. During that year, several issues have
surf"aced. We feel the solution we're presenting
adE!quately addresses them all.
1. Allowed uses for B-2 zoning.
2. rp -he City' for a frontage road through
-ts :�
the Curley property
3. 1111eighborhood- concerns.
4. The city's desire to re-develope the SOS site.
1'. Economic viability to the city and developer.
6.$, Use of residential lots.
7. Actual project to be presented.
After reviewing all the criteria, I hope we can all
leave the June 6th council meeting with a project -
that all involved can feel good about.
Thank you for you. consideration.
Yours truly,
BUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPAWf
John D r
Prey -i0ii
Spencer Beach
.Iford, Iowa 51531
h. (712) 337-3582
1 a Allowed uses in P-2 ZoninE
After much discussion, the staff, neighbors, and planning
commission agreed that thb present zoning code should
probably be up -dated to reflect uses commonly found in
shopping centers today,. Those uses recommended to the
council are:
Convenience store with gas
Minor auto is epair
Diaper and laundry service
Furniture sales
Interior decorating studio
Locksmith
Medical and Dental clinics (limit size)
Picture framing
Health studio (such as Diet Centers)
Drapery shop
h
2. City's request for a frontage road extension
through the Curley property
Mendota Heights has an opportunity to resolve both a
traffic and safety issue by building a frontage road
through this quadrant, similar to the other three
quadrants. At this time, the state is willing to pay
for the roadway construction and the utilities. This
makes it an ideal time to install the road.
One impasse surfaced when the city asked Tom Curley
to donate approx1mately one acre for the project. A
compromise, Exhibits BI & B2, was arrived at where
Tom would Donate 24,900 s.f. of land, shown in pink,
and the city would deed back 9,705 S.f. of unsuable
property, shown in yellow, which they will have after
straightening the kink in the existing frontage road.
In doing this, the Curley°s understand the city will
purchase their existina building for part of the
roadway at a price of130,000. The Curley°s also
understand that the city will approve zero lot lining
so that he can invest the entire $130,000 into a new
furniture store with tax exempt dollars.
3. Neighborhood Concerns
e
Exhibit C identifies the neighborhood conderns and
solutions as detailed in our neighborhood meetings
and reviewed with the planning commission. The final
solution to be presented follows the market study
exactly but differs from the neighborhood desires on
the point of having a free-standing convenience store.
4. Re -development of the SOS Site
The city would like to re-develope the SOS Site as
part of this project,. While neither the developer
nor the neighbors what the free-standing vs. attached
convenience store, we recognize it makes alot of sens-
from both a planning and financial point of view. We
recognize that if the city is going to acquire the si
for 8220,000, the land will have to be sold for the c
tb keep their expenses In an acceptable range®
y
In this proposal, the developer understands he is buyiag
the SOS site from the city at their market appraisal oV
$69,000 and then re -aligning the road at no further co3t
to accomodate a building on this sites We are also
understanding that the city will immediately undertake
to provide this land, I pollution free, by a specified d1te
sometime in the fall. Without this specified date in i
resonable time period, there will definately be an
un -reasonable delay to the construction start of the
shopping center,
AgaiLi we don't want to acquire the SOS Site and buildl
the free-standing store. 'It is being done to relieve I
city's financial burden of re -developing the SOS Sitedl
i
There will be neighborhood opposition to the free-stanF
building. I
1K
E_
Ing
5• Economic Viability
At the time of this submittal, the developer still
does not have the fi.nanciAl report being worked out
by the city and a consultant, to be Exhibit Do
Our understanding isthat it will shows
`5130,000 Tom Curley/re-invest in furniture st
220,000 SOS cash walk -away
4.0,000 Demolition and Legal Allowance
0 To Developer for project subsidy
3909000 City Expenditure
69,000 Developer purchase of SOS Site
$32� 1,000 Net City Expenditure
I
I
The city is making the assumption that over the next
►? years there will never be any increase in property
taxes. Therefore, the city can find no money availabl(
to assist in this project development. Even though the
developer is willing to guarantee with a letter of crec
that property taxes will be higher in 2006 than in 198!
The Developer will still be required to put up a tette:
of credit equal to one year's taxes just for the right
to build on this sine®(
6. Use of Residential Lots
There was enough neighborhood pressure on the planning
c6mr,ission that they recommended re -zoning only a port:
of the residential lots to commercial. After several
from the developer and an outside consultant, Korsunsk,
Krank, Erickson, the center could only be expanded by
2,000 - 3,000 s.f. It would take six residential lots
accomplish this. We feel, with the conditions placed
the highest and best use of this land is to develop U
property as it is currently zoned. There will be no
neighborhood opposition to this.
e
it
on
tudies
9
Screening is, of course, the issue. We recommend that a
wall and new row of evergreens be planted as shown on tLhe
landscape plan of the final submittal (large sheets).
When the trees have reached a height of 121, there would be
sufficient screening to take down the existing wall al ng
MaryAdel. A minimal number of trees would have to be
removed for driveways when houses are finally built®'
Exhibit B1
i o
'Vice
ZZZZ��
'721' 4C
Donated by Curley
et Deeded back by city
I
'
Exhibit BZ
-- ---'--------
'-
/ .9 | / | | | / / / o | | | | ���
0 20 40 Ob Donated b« O�%�'�y
SCALE . /
Deeded back by City
Exhibit G
11011ITS OF AGRCi3P4L,NT
Neighborhood Concerns
1. Zoning
Leave the residential and B-2
land as zoned. Amend the
ordinance. Neighbors may
suggest limits on conditional
uses.
2.tffective screenin(r of
tesidential lots
Solutions
Zoning
Leave existing zoni
Amend ordinance to
following uses in
Convenience Store
Minor Auto Repair
Diaper or Laundry S
Furniture Sales
.interior Decorating
Locksmith
Medical and Dental
(limit site)
Picture Framing
Health Studio
(such as Diet
Radio and Tel6visio
(didn't finis
Drapery Shop
2. Screening
An eight foot high
be built And landsd
residential buffer4
kept to 3i1 for d r
appearance and easy
3. Conveinence store with gas is 5--4
d6s"I'ralble, but little support
for A large station with much
more than eight, servicing stations.
4. Need of bike path
Ro-freb-standing co
store; We show a 6
store as an end -cap
canopy merely an ex
the building roof .l
of 'servicing statin
determined by a icrtt
4. A bike path 'running
right-of-way fr6hi T
street to Hwy 114:
suggest a signalize
with a push button
by the sidewalk.
g in place.
llbw the
2 zoning.
th gas
rvice
Studio
linics
centers)
Repair?.
disbussioh)
6rra vrould
fed as a
The slope
m.ihtendnc6
venience
hv6hien*ce
with * the
erasion of
n6, Number
.s to be
fic study
down th6
m '�humib
W6 would
blk,6pjllght
6tivatbr
5. Trash removal 5. Provide a screened umpster
enclosure built int the
bermed slope.
6; WbUid like to see Phil ls
garag6 Incbrporat6d into
plan, but -!oncerned as to
how this can be accomplished
7. Aesthetics
6. The service gdrate Wo
as A sep6rato wing wi
doors facing;away
fro
Lexington entrances
to be in the re"a'r.
d be Wilt
over -head
the *
1 Parking
I-
7. Follow a bftls;�e_
style, but u§ing brick '6,1 i�1,3
sides. Entrance nbde8 would be
used as a raetin§ to brta'k ill the
linear app6arance of the �roht wall
8. 'tax Increment financing is' 8. The developer has bee
probably the best vehicle to enter into a D6v6lopm
accomplish this re -development. with the city since 1
that securities do the neighbors This agreement would
have. guarantees through th
period.
�eacl�r to
ntA�greiernent
s -VU . Autuj
nclud6
construction
t-
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AGENgA
JUNE 6, 1989
7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Calli
3. Agenda Adoption.
** 3 1/2. Pldque of Appreciation from Northern Dakota
County Chambers of Commerce -
4.
5.
Approval of Minutes.
a. Approlal of May 16 mini4tes . A
Consent Calendar
a. Mendota Heights Road sift Station Fire Damage
b. Wetland Protection Policy (RESOLUTIQ89-45)
C. Easement Description ghange
-•d. Smallidge Request for Variance tom gWimming
Fence Height Requirement,
e. Approval of Par 3 Golf, Inc. - Licegp,p to car
business of selling 3.2 non-intoX16Wng ma
liquor (On -sale) �
f. Approval of Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc, -
License to carry on the business of selling
non -intoxicating malt liquor (Off -sale)
g. Modified CAO Site Plan Approval - 774 Sibley
Memorial Highway
h. Executive Drive Change Order
Job No. 8904 -
Improvement No. 89, Project No. 2
i. Final Payment - Sewers, Water, Street,s: The
Ponds of Mendota Heights and Rolling Woods 2
Addition
Job No. 8622
Improvement No. 86, Project No. 9 ,
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-46)
-j. Bench Fencing at City Hall BasebaTT Field -
k. Acknowledgement of May Building Aptivity Rep
1. Acknowledgement of May 23 Planning•
Commission Minutes '
M. Approval of List of Contractors
n. Approval of List of Claims `
End of Conpent Calendar.
6. Introductions
7. Response to Public Comments an'dReguestss Q
a. Miller Water Problem — � -y--.
8.ublic Comment and Requests
9. A.Zb1"X�&ar,1'Vnqs anc'Y Bid Awards
a. Duffy �velopment, Case 89-03 (8:1 pm) D�
* b. Posthumuus Conditional Use Permit and Variance
for Garage Co strr}�ct'on, Cpas'e No.'89-14 (9:OOpm)
10. Unfinished. and New Business�,r-...-.
a. Hanson Subdivision, Case No. 89-10 /(RESOLUTION NO. 89-47) J-�-
b. Adrian Lot Division, Case No. 89-18 �.
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-48) '-
C. Foley Fence Variance, Case No 89-19�.
(RESOLUTION NO. 89-49)
* d. Ward Wetlands Permit Application, Case No. 89-20.—/l
* e. Alice Lane Feasibility Study
(RESOLUT NO. 89-50) -- -Kirt c
f. DN89/ 9 Deer 'Control Pro r —
7��
g. MiXe-StharM
Prposa:.'l or Oak ilt Study
uy�
h. Fo �w p Report Furlong Area Home Purchases —
i . Copperf iel Area raf f is Control Signs
j. Pa s and Vecreation Commission A pointment
-20 k. N i eecr, _A' rp S Committee Comp ter Pur ase for Go er State One -Call
1. C p
Responses
��s 7.11 l Lw � nf-c►n � Drnr.-. ^+7. —
�Ei
11. Council Comments and Requests
* a. Verbal Report from Councilmember Blesener re:
June 5 Meeting of Ci izen's Park�seview
Committee] C�
12. Adjourn. —t1:15
Mrs. Margaret Mori
538 W. Annapolis
Mendota Heights, 1
612/457-8414
June 2, 1989
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mayor Mertensotto, City Administrator Frazell, City
55118
iuncil:
Although I will be attending the city council meeting on J:1ne 6 to
voice my concerns about the proposed garage construction br my
neighbor, Mr. Bruce Posthumus, I felt it appropriate to re pond their
letter of May 22.
That letter referred to a conversation I had with Mrs. Pos-humus. To
my best recollection, I asked where the garage would be lo,lated and she
talked about it being set back 10 feet from the street. S explained
that since it would be an unusually deep garage, it would )robably go.
back further than the end of my garage. After the conversation, she
asked me if 'I would sign a document giving my'consent to c nstruction
of the garage. In an attempt to be a good neighbor, and since I*
believe they have the right to build a garage, I signed tha document in
good faith that what we had discussed was true (see attach d).
Since that time, construction plans have changed, and the garage is to
be set back quite a bit further than the originally planned 10 feet.
If that change would have been discussed with me, I would D9t have
given my consent. I also question the need for a three car garage on
that size lot. It seems excessive to me.
After seeing the construction plans, I know that the Post)
will be built very close to my property. If allowed to bi
back, it will block my back yard from sunlight and run pa!
room window. In addition, since Mr. Posthumus rebuilds s(
time, and uses sophistacted automotive equipment to do so,
activity will now happen much closer to my house. As it !
now, we've already experienced problems with gas fumes an(
truly concerned about the hazards of this work happening
property, and also its potential unsightlyness.
i
I've lived my house for more than 26 years. This is my he
pride in it. Since what I'm asking for in this situation
proposed to me originally and seems reasonable, I am look:
this agreeable conclusion.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Margaret Mortinson
umus' garage
ild 20 feet
t my dinning
veral cars at
this
tands right
noise. I'm
o close to my
me and I take
is what was
ng forward to
T. C. FIELD & COMPANY
INSURANCE & BONDS
P. O. BOX 64016
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55164-0016
May 26, 1989
Ms. T. Meidlinger and Ms. M. Mortinson
538 West Annapolis
St. Paul, Minnesota 55118
Dear Ms. Meidlinger and Ms. Mortinson:
We have contacted The North River Insurance Compa
carrier of -your Homeowner's insurance, regardir
concern on the garage being constructed adjoinil
property.
the
your
your
They have inxlicated that at this time, there would be no
changes made in your coverages or premium. If there should
be a loss resulting from the negligence of the neighbor's
business, they would settle the loss under your policy and
then subrogate against the negligent party.
At the time of a loss, they do underwrite the risk a d will
make a decision then as to whether or not they will c ntinue
to provide coverages.
I trust you find this to be in order, but should y�u have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours, truly,
T. C. Field & Company
Carolyn J. Ste ge, Manag
Personal Insurance Department
CC: Barbara J. Baumgarten
100 Memorial Drive #11-20C
Cambridge, MA 02141
I
dependentdrancar.
8
612 227-6405
MEMBER
Nn1�ITN�N IISXKFIt YI'i L.
;.1;11(,1 �' 11(INn Pln +tryv < NL
.S c� .�?� � ���vYr t��� ��1.C• 13,E
S�j h .4,,o „,,
Brij"m
Z&OO.e.
r
,J
isGJ7x� CN�
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AID
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WA ER,
STORM SEWERS AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE ALICE LANE SUBDIVI3ION
NO. 1 AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 89, PROJECT NO. 3)
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted his report of the City C Puncil
with respect to the proposed construction of the following improv p ments
to serve Alice Lane Subdivision No. 1 and adjacent areas, to-wit:1
The construction of an extension to the City's sanitary sewer
system, including appurtenances and incidentals thereto, and the acqui-
sition of easements, and the reconstruction where necessary of streets
and easements in the area hereinafter more particularly described.
The construction of an extension to the City's water distribution
system including appurtenances and incidentals thereto, and the acqui-
sition of easements, and the reconstruction where necessary of streets
and easementp in the area hereinafter more particularly desc ibed.
The construction of a storm sewer system including appurtenances
and incidental thereto and the acquistion of easements, in and for the
area hereinafter more particularly described.
The construction of 'street improvements consisting of the a(quisi-
tion of easements and the grading, stabilization, drainage End bitumi-
nous surfacing, and the construction of concrete curbs and gutters on
the streets to be situated in the area hereinafter more pariicularly
described.
WHEREAS, Jack Blesener and Vernon Eide developers of the propert3 has
heretofore in writing petitioned the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights requesting the above described improvements and in said
petition required that the entire cost of said improvements be assessed
against said property; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvemen and
construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reprted
on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction ther of;
and I
WHEREAS, the area proposed to be assessed for said improvements a
situated within the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Mimnesota
and is more particularly described as follows:
The area lying north of Wagon Wheel Trail, West of Dodd
(State Trunk Highway 149), East of Rogers Court.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows:
ty of
1. That the report of said City Engineer be and is hereby r ceived.
2. That it is advisable, feasible, expedient and necessary that
the City of Mendota Heights construct the above described improvements,
and it is hereby ordered that said improvement be made.
3. That the City Engineer be and he is hereby authorized-an
directed to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement.
4. That said improvement shall hereafter be known and desigiated
as Improvement No. 89, Project No. 3.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6h day
of June, 1989•
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto,
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
Mayor
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
June 6,
To: Mayor and City 'Council
From: Kevir I/ City Administrator
Re: Add On Agenda for June 6 Meeting
One item, presentation of a Plaque of Appreciation from tY
Chamber of Commerce, is recommended for addition to this
evening's agenda. Additional information is submitted foi
four items already scheduled.
3. Agenda Adoption
It is recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda
printed on pink paper.
3 1/2. Plaque of Appreciation from Northern Dakota
Chambers of Commerce
89
The Northern Dakota County Chambers of Commerce has requeted
a brief spot on the agenda to present to the Council a Pl que
of Appreciation for cooperation with the Chamber. Chambe
representatives present will include Jerry Patterson,
President of the Northern Dakota County Chambers, Jim Madigan
of Unisys, President of the Mendota Heights Chamber, and Dan
Aberg, Executive Director.
9.b. Posthumus Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Attached is some additional correspondence which staff
received concerning this matter.
10.d. Ward Wetlands Permit for Fence
The staff report for this item incorrectly states that t
proposed fence will be within 20' of the wetland. In fa
the fence will be set back 401. The misunderstanding
occurred because the survey submitted by the Wards does
locate the fence.
0
IP
1
10.e. Alice Lane Feasibility Report
Council may notice that the staff recommendation on page 5
the engineering report, and the resolution for Council
adoption are inconsistent, primarily with regard to whethe:
we hold a public hearing on this project.
The resolution previously included with your packet would
appropriate if Council does wish to hold a public hearing
July 11th, for all potentially affected parties.
In the alternative, Council may determine'this evening that
the scope of the project (and the resulting assessments)
should be limited only to the lands owned by Blesener and
Eides, both of whom have signed a waiver of public hearing
Attached is an alternative resolution that would accomplis)
the project in that manner.
ACTION REQUIRED
To determine which way Council wishes to proceed with the
project, then pass the appropriate resolution.
ll.a. Verbal Report of June 5th Citizen's,Parks Review
Committee
As indicated on the agenda, Councilmember Blesener will be
giving a verbal report of the recommendation that was made
last evening by the Citizen's Parks Review Committee.
Following that presentation, appropriate Council laction woi
be to direct staff with regard to any actions to be include
on the June 20th agenda.
of
ON
P
To make sure that we have accurate reporting on this
potentially sensitive issues, Councilmember Blesener has
asked that staff prepare a draft press release. Such a draft
is attached for your review and comment.
PAGE�2
Marc 28, 1989
Commissioner Anderson moved to
recommend waiving the public hearing
on this matter; moved to recommend to
City Council the subdivision as
proposed. Commissioner Koll seconded
the motion.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Jim Danielsn
gave a verbal review of cases tha had
been before the City Council.
Chairman Morson and the Planning
Commission commended Commissioner
Dorothy McMonigal for her years o
service to the City as a Planning
Commission member, and requested
City Council to do likewise.
CASE NO. 89-03`
Chairman Morson called the meeting
DUFFY, REZONING
to order for the purpose of a
VARIANCE, CUP FOR
continued public hearing on Mr.
PUD, ZONING ORDINANCE
John Duffy's application for the
AMENDMENT
rezoning, variance, Conditional U
e
"'Permit
for a Planned Unit Development,
preliminary plat and zoning ordinance
amendment for the property at the
Southeast quadrant of Lexington Avenue
and Trunk Highway 110.
Mr. Duffy presented the commission
with a design based on meetings with
the neighborbood, taking into account
the criteria that was presented to
him
by the neighborhood.
Mr. Duffy stated that the general
consensus of the neighborhood mee
was that no one was opposed to
developing the property. He felt
the community needs commercial
development for generation of tax
The residents preferred the B-2 z
uses to those within the B-3.
Residents were concerned about
effective screening of residentia
lots. Mr. Duffy recommended an
high berm to be built and landsca
a residential buffer. The slope
to 3:1 for a pleasing appearance
ing
that
R
as
PAGE
March 28, 1989
easy maintenance.
A convenience store with gas is
desirable to the residents, according
to Mr. Duffy, but no more than eight
servicing stations. A bike path i
needed, according to residents;' Mr
Duffy proposed a bike path running down
the right-of-way from Tom Thumb Street
to Hwy. 110 with a signalized stop
light with push button activator b the
sidewalk.
Mr. Duffy stated that trash remova
would be handled by a screened dum ster
enclosure built into the bermed sl pe.
The neighborhood would like to see
Phil's garage incorporated into th
plan; Mr. Duffy's proposal is for the
service garage to be built as a
separate wing with over -head doors
facing away from the Lexington
entrance, and all parking in the rear.
Aesthetics was a major concern wi
residents; Mr. Duffy proposes following
a basic Early American style, but using
brick on all sides. Entrance nodes
would be used as a means to break up
the linear appearance of the fron
wall.
Mr. Duffy stated that Tax Increme t
Financing is a good vehicle and wanted
to consider this as part of a
development proposal. He stated vhere
the road would be installed with lis
proposed B-2 zoned shopping cente.
There would be no variances neede ; he
has met all the required setbacks He
stated that parking and the traff c
flow would be maximized with two mall
loops on each end of the center. Mr.
Duffy stated that there are tax i sues
with a tax exempt statue and zero lot
lines.
Mr. Duffy presented the topographic
plan which included a berm proposal to
screen the residential lots. He stated
that Dundee Nursery has been hirel to
prepare the landscaping plan he
presented. Mr. Duffy explained tat
the sign band would be a white ba k lit
PAGE
March 28, 1989
strip to show up with words and
individual letters.
Commissioner Dwyer asked Mr. Duffy what
the distance is between Mary Adele and
the back of the proposed building. Mr.
Duffy responded by saying approximtely
200 feet; lots are 130' deep; ther -is
15' of boulevard between the lots nd
Mary Adele pavement.
Commissioner Dwyer asked if the ba k of
the building was brick? Mr Duffy aid
yes, there is brick on all 4 sides a
canopy in front with a stucco band in
back.
a
Commissioner Anderson said that ba k in
February, Plan A did not involve
residential lot development; the
residential lots would be rezoned Erom
the existing wall north. He then asked
what happens with the undevelopabl
land? Mr. Duffy said the city endg up
owning the strip. Commissioner
Anderson asked about maintenance o
zero lot lines. Mr. Duffy explainad
that there would be a general
maintenance agreement for the cents r.
Commissioner Anderson questioned Mr.
Duffy on the desirability of new
residential lots. He's not sure that
new residents will be thrilled with
this; what is the impact on the
community? Mr. Duffy said B-2 zo ing
is wanted. The neighborhood want
residential lots berming to appease the
neighborhood, both visually and for
sound. It was explained that Tom
Curley owns this property; a realor
would look at viability of these �ots.
Commissioner Anderson commented.or the
viability of the shopping center. We
need a decent sized anchor. Without
it, we may have problems. Mr. Duffy
said that they have anchors and tenant
lease mix. They have 3 open spacs
with letters of intent for occupa cy.
Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. D ffy
is he could still lease everythin if
he were proposing Plan A. Mr. Du fy
PAGE
March 28, 1989
stated the letters were signed whe
Plan A was proposed and that eithe
development was attracting tenants
Commissioner Anderson was concerne
il
with the exterior appearance of th
structure; it should have a modern look
to it - use same brick as City HalL to
tie the corners together.
Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. D
which proposed center did he feel
the best site: Mr. Duffy stated t
Plan A was the best use of the la
was based on marketing analyses.
Commissioner Duggan complimented 1
developer on the•improved plans.
had major concerns over the traff:
will mean a lot of trips for that
corner - he has a concern for the
neighbors. Mr. Duffy would like
signalized intersection with butt
crossing for pedestrians and bike:
However, the County doesn't seem
interested to complete modificatii
Commissioner Duggan displayed muc
concern over the traffic situatio:
City Planner Howard Dahlgren conc-
that the design will work suffici
for the amount of trips each day.
added that traffic on the north s
serve shopping area could be bett
more parking were added in front.
service road is workable, but Mr.
Dahlgren was concerned with lack
stacking ability at the proposed
drive -up - he feels the bank prop
is not adequate at this time. He
concluded by saying that the over
traffic scheme is not seen as a
problem. When the Frontage Road/
Lexington intersection traffic wa
a signal, a light will be install
there.
Commissioner Duggan commented on
auto garage; he felt it would not
harmonious to future residents.
also commented on the garage pit;
recommended that garbage be conta
in the buildings. Mr. Duffy agre
that inside storage of garbage wo
ideal, however, dumpsters are nor
fy
as
t
and
; it
see
ntly
He
de to
r if
The
f
ank
sal
11
rants
d
he
be
ld be
ally
provided behind the building.
Commissioner Duggan also made a co ment
that junky cars are unsightly. He
asked who would be responsible for
maintaining berm and landscaping. Mr.
Duffy said they are responsible ani it
would be included in the developme t
agreement. Commissioner Duggan fe is
there is a need for more substanti 1
landscaping, and Mr. Duffy will cone
forward with size of trees and adejuate
landscaping.
Commissioner Dwyer asked if the cr�b
apple trees could be saved. Mr. D ffy
didn't know if the trees could be �aved
or not.
Commissioner Duggan asked how man
residential lots are being planne
development. Mr. Duffy said 9 to
were platted. Commissioner Dugga
asked if he would consider elimin
some lots to increase overall lot
sizes. Mr. Duffy said that is
Curley's decision.
no
Commissioner Duggan asked about
pollution concerns with gas stati
Croix Oil. Mr. Duffy said that C
Oil has served SOS for the past 1
years, and would like to sell the
to the new station. Commissioner
Duggan thanked Mr. Duffy for the
Commissioner Koll asked about the
of the street and size of the fro
parking lot. Mr. Duffy said that
stalls, 24' drive aisles, and 20'
stalls is code; however, parking
could be made larger without vari
The road curvature was no problem
the amount of traffic in question
Commissioner Koll questioned the
repair in the back of the buildii
concern is the buffer area (jumpe
cars, etc). She said the desiral
of lots is still satisfactory to
A colonial type of construction i
choice, but whatever type is dec.,'
upon, the materials used must be
substance and quality. She askec
for
n and
oix
gas
dans.
curve
t
20'
lot
nces.
for
uto
her
lity
er.
s her
ed
f
about
PAGE
March 28, 1989
the existing evergreens on thepropsed
building area - can they be ed
moved? Mr. Duffy said he would li to
see as many as possible stay; poss I ly
half of the existing trees.
City Planner Howard Dahlgren elaborated
on his report, explaining parking
concerns, trees and screening, tra
fic
and parking. He said that the key
is
channeling traffic at entrance to
center; this is not a good situation
now. Mr. Dahlgren concluded by sa)ing
that Plan is the best alternativc
if
'A
it is adjusted somewhat. It solve
E the
problem of the screen: leave it anc
enhance it.
Commissioner Anderson feels that Plan
A
has a safer and better traffic pattern.
He said this was a valuable piece
of
commercial property at the western
gateway to the City; he asked why
minimize the buffer and miniscule
the
size and potential of the center.
Mayor Mertensotto gave an oral
ft presentation expressing his desire
to
maintain the existing wall and pin
tree screen, explaining the TIF po
icy
and the City's desire to see a ver
high quality project if public money
is
involved.
Chairman Morson opened the meeting
to
the floor. Mr. Harry Wise, 3077 Timmy
Street, presented comments from*tbe
neighborhood meeting which had been
held earlier. There was great
reluctance among residents to lose
the
screen. They were in agreement with
B-
2 zoning, and the 3 non-conforminc
businesses should be kept. A llsole-
point" issue is the drive-in bank;
some
feel this is high speed risk traffic.
The residents show heavy resistance
to
the drive-in bank and to fast foo�
restaurants.
Mr. Wise then presented his persoral
opinion. He is upset about sellirg
the
lots with berm and trees; he feel o
that
the rear parking is useless durinq
rush
hour. The garage, the biggest so*rce
PAGE49
Marc 28, 1989
not have a satisfactory recommenda ion
to make to the City Council, and a
decision must be made.
Commissioner Anderson said that a
decent opportunity to present a viable
project hasn't been given to Mr. Euffy.
He feels that at this time, there is no
workable detailed plan. We need to be
more specific with plans for Mr. uffy
and the neighborhood.
Tim Curley, son of the owner of t e
property, stated that they have been
trying to develop the property foi four
years. He want on to summarize t e
activity on this project since Au ust,
1988 when they came to the City fr
direction.
Chairman Morson stated that the
Commission has not been influencec by
the Mayor's comments. Many aspec s of
the presented plan are not accept ble.
He does not want to see trees rem ved.
He felt that the first developer cared
people with the huge Super Americ
first planned. Chairman Morson aded
that a decision should not be mad
under a stressed condition; he
recommends taking another look at the
situation.
Mary Sweeney, 2047 Theresa Street
stated that her front door faces he
trees. She wants to see the barr"er
rather than lots; she feels that new
homes there would not be an addition to
the neighborhood. She also wants to
keep the trees.
Harry Wise feels that points in P an C
are valuable and if incorporated 'n
Plan A, it could be much better.
Mr. Duffy addressed the commissio
saying that he has been presentin
plans to meet the needs and wants
the neighborhood and the City. H
feels the time has come for some
positive action; he wants to get
right solution - would like to.kn
what it is that is really wanted.
by
of
PAGE �0
March 28, 1989
Chairman Morson agreed with Mr. Dufy
that a decision must be made.
Joe Schmitz, owner of the SOS, said
that one year ago, they were told to
make no improvements with their
property. Now improvements are
necessary and insurance will be co tly
if improvements are not made. He
doesn't understand the direction being
given.
Mayor Mertensotto feels that Plan A is
a viable project economically for the
developer; Plan A should be developed
with the concerns addressed.
Commissioner Anderson said the
neighborhood has limited influence
on
the problem. Legal issues are
involved, along with health, welfare
and safety issues. As far as the
traffic issue goes, an increase in
volume is not the only issue. He
added
that Mr. Duffy's problem is that
he is
too nice and has listened to all of
us;
we've jerked him around from month
to
month. Mayor Mertensotto has given
us
a dose of political reality tonight;
now the time has come for clear
direction.
A neighbor stated that the develo er
and the community have been misled.
Mr. Duffy has presented a compromise
that was worked out with the
neighborhood.
Harry Wise added that they have
presented their concerns.
Commissioner Dwyer asked if the
Werthausers and Mr. Wise's commens
were a consensus of the neighborh od.
The neighbor said they're trying o
come to a compromise
Chairman Morson stated that he ses
merits in both plans, but cannot ccept
either as a whole. We must revie and
reassess.
Pat White, 2098 Theresa, express
PAGE�11
Marc 28, 1989
concern over the fact that a landowner
must pay taxes on residential lots but
then nothing can be done with them.
Commissioner Koll said that the
process has gone on too long. She is
hearing a dichotomy.
Commissioner Anderson explained th t
the Planning Commission is guided Dy
principles and laws that compel action.
A motion was made by Commissioner wyer
to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the
motion. City Planner Howard Dahlgren
explained that it can be moved to close
the public hearing tonight and continue
the hearing next month, or close
everything tonight. Commissioner
Duggan stated that he wants
clarification of the process of
closing or continuing the hearing. He
withdrew seconding of the motion.
Commissioner Koll then seconded t e
motion.
AYES: 3
NAYS: 2 Anderson, Duggan
Commissioner Dwyer moved that Planning
Commission recommends that the Ci y
Council approve Plan C with a fin
tuning of the dumpster enclosure and
berm area, a resolution of Ethan Allen
and drive-in bank situation, and the
inclusion of a berm with 30 foot spruc
trees. Commissioner Koll seconded,
with emphasis on the berm, its
landscaping, its screening and
buffering ability.
Commissioner Duggan felt the term
"finetuning" is inadequate. This must
be specified now. All of Mr. Duf y's
plans have been rejected; the
neighborhood will never be satisfied.
Chairman Morson said we are only lere
to approve the plans, but Commissioner
Duggan felt that we are also here to
give Mr. Duffy some direction.
e
Commissioner Anderson feels that Flan C
PAGE 12
March 28, 1989
is unsound and does not make the b 'st
or highest use of this precious
commercial property.
AYES: 2
NAYS: 3 Anderson, Duggan, Morson
Motion fails.
Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend
to the City Council that applicant
proposal be denied. The city should
not pursue a plan that nobody is h ppy
with; Mr. Duffy should be given a
chance to begin again.
Commissioner Anderson stated that this
motion has merit;.it seems to be the
only thing that everyone can agree on.
Commissioner Duggan withdrew the m tion
because of lack of second.
Commissioner Anderson moved to
recommend that the City Council approve
the preliminary plat for a modified
Plan A, subject to the following
conditions:
a. That the center be moved west
north away from existing wall
allow for a landscaped area.
b. That the free standing service
station be limited, or scaled back,
to six pumps.
c. That the zoning be retained as B-2
with amendments to the B-2 zoning to
allow for the following uses:
1. motor fuel/convenience sto e
2. drive-in back
3. minor auto repair
4. furniture store
5. locksmith
6. interior decorator
7. picture framing store
1 8.. health studio
9., radio repair
c. Recommend denial of any fast fod
drive -up use.
d. That the center incorporate t
AYES: 4
NAYS: 1 Koll
ADJOURN
PAGE 113
Marcli 28, 1989
more modern exterior facade pro osal
of a brick surface with masonry band
comparable to City Hall.
e. Recommend that the R-1 zoned area be
rezoned to B-2 zoning, and that the
B-2 zoning line be drawn 20' north
of existing wall so the requirel 30'
setback keeps building to the n rth.
f. Recommend approval of 4 acre
variance to allow a 6 acre PUD.
g. Recommend denial of the requestad
signage variances and that signage
be in accordance with city
ordinances.
h. Recommend approval of a 30' variance
to the 60' setback for a servic
station.
i. Recommend that final approval of the
preliminary plat be contingent on
the submittal of a survey that
accurately reflects the details of
the placement of the north service
road.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the
motion.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Anderson moved to adjourn
the meeting. Commissioner Dwyer
seconded. The meeting was adjoured
11:05pm.
at
�
+
PLANNING REPORT
_ DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
13
28 March 1989
Duffy Development
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of ngLon
and Trunk Highway llO (see
sketch) I
ACTION REQUESTED: Amendment to
Zoning
Ordinance to All ow
dditional
Uses in the B-
Zone,
Vacation of
Public
Right -of -Way, App
oval of
Preliminary Plat, Va
iance to
Pylon Sign Size and
Location
(not applied for), In,
olvement
of Tax Increment
Program
(under preliminary
ieview by
Staf f for ultimate
Council
PLANNiNG CONSIDERATIONS:
1. At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the public h0aring
was
adjourned to the regular March meeting to allow time for e
eveloper
and Staff to meet with a committee of neighbors to rev!
w revised
design solutions. The neighborhood meeting occurred on
Wednesday
evening, March 8 at City Hall. Approximately' 20 people
were in
attendance, including representatives of the applicant, the
wner, the
service station, Phil's Garage, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban
and Jim
Z. The general consensus seemed to be the preference for a neighborhood
center in reduced scale. The center would be a single structure
allowing for the development of the existing single-family lots currently
platted to the south of the property now zoned 8-2. J
3. The general ingredients of this development concept include:
p\ The removal of the existing screen vvaU (at least
immediately south of the proposed center), but not necessarily
all of the existing trees; |
h) The construction of o berm to the north of the
of the single-family }oLo to provide a visual sci
neighborhood to the south (and the lots to be built
r) The redesign of the* service road so as to
separate parcel in the immediate southeast
Lexington Avenue and Trunk Highway lIO;
bot line
for the
create a
jrant of
Duffy Development Co., Case No 89-03
3
Had the initial concept of retaining the existing screen wall qnd trees
been pursued, this question would not arise. However, with the new
development proposal, attention must be given to this question.
6. With respect to zoning, the neighbors and the applicant f vor the
retention of the existing B-2 Zone so as to not allow uses tha t are in
the B-3 Zone, which they feel would not be advantageous to the
neighborhood. Obviously, the B-3 Zone, being a general business zone,
includes such uses as: bowling alleys, pool halls, liquor stores motels,
etc. The neighbors regard these uses as undesirable.
If limited in scale, it would appear that the proposed use
to be
included
in the center are reasonably appropriate for a nei
hborhood
business
district. The uses .to be added to the B-2 District as
either a
permitted
or conditional use would include:
drive -up facilities is a permitted use in the existing B-2 District.
a)
Gasoline service station (with convenience store);
the
b)
Minor auto repair (up to three bays);
Highway 110. However, the development proposal does not include
c)
Furniture store (up to 10,000 square feet);
that
d)
Locksmiths;
should be a part of the preliminary plat proposal. This could
e)
Interior decorators;
A width
f)
Picture framing store;
9. The overall design of the shopping center utilizing a "colonia
g)
Health studio; and
be an
h)
Radio repair.
submitted have insufficient detail to merit final consideratioti.
Of these uses, it would seem that the service station and the
minor
automobile
repair should be listed as conditional uses. The other
uses
do not
seem to constitute a deleterious affect on a nei
hborhood
business
center.
7. The current application does not mention a carry -out pizza
shop.
However, we have heard discussions regarding this proposal on
previous
occasions. Such a restaurant and/or a carry -out facility would
have to
be added to the B-2 District, perhaps as a conditional use. Li
ewise, a
drive -up bank facility would have to be added, though a bank
without
drive -up facilities is a permitted use in the existing B-2 District.
B. On the subject of the pedestrian trail the applicant proposes
the
extension of the trail from Tom Thumb north on Lexington Avenue
to
Highway 110. However, the development proposal does not include
the
trail being extended through the single-family lot area. We suggest
that
the extension of this trail and the provision for a public
asement
should be a part of the preliminary plat proposal. This could
)ccur at
a diagonal between the two westerly most undeveloped lots.
A width
of perhaps 20 feet would be appropriate for this purpose.
9. The overall design of the shopping center utilizing a "colonia
motif"
complimentary to the Swenson's Furniture Store seems to
be an
appropriate and desirable solution. However, the preliminary designs
as
submitted have insufficient detail to merit final consideratioti.
For
instance, the use of materials is not clearly indicated in all
cases.
There is also a considerable difference in the exterior elevation
in the
plan that was submitted. The plan indicates a very minimal
mansard
roof exposure to . the front and a very minimal sign band.
Duffy Development Co., Case No 89-03 Page 4
The elevations, however, indicate both of these elements t be of
substantial height. Likewise, the rear elevations indicate the ikelihood
of a parapet, which would be very useful in screening the rooftop
equipment from the south neighborhood. However, the plan indicates
this rear wall to be only 14 feet high, which will not sc een the
mechanical equipment at all. This roof line is visible f rom the
neighborhood (as illustrated on the plan). Thus, the handlinc of the
parapet and the extent to which it screens the mechanical equipment is
important.
10. The landscaping
plan
suggests
tree plantings on the
berm and
on
the
periphery of the
site.
Drawn
at a very large scale,
the numbe
s appear
adequate though
they
are not. There are fourteen
trees proposed
for
the berm area.
This
is less than
three trees per lot.
The siza
of
the
planting is also
not indicated.
This problem can be
easily remledied
by
a more detailed
and
adequate
landscaping plan.
11. The handling of trash containers is always an aesthetic concer in the
development of such a small strip center in the Metropolitan Area.
The applicant indicates his intent to develop such trash facilities in the
berm. However, the design does not show how this is to a done.
Recently the more sophisticated cities in the Metropolitan A ea have
been requiring that trash containers be located within the buil ing and
accessible by overhead doors. This is the best solution to inimize
debris, exposed containers, and constantly damaged screen walls fences,
etc. The alternative is to have a well prepared design of how they
would be contained within the berm.
12. A design for the construction of a pylon sign has been submit d, with
a comment from the applicant that no variance is required. We do not
know where that information came from, but the sign ordinance allows
for a pylon sign to be located within 30 feet of the public
right-of-way, 25 feet high, with an area of 100 square feet. The sign
proposed is nearly contiguous to the proposed public right -of dway, 30
feet high, with the sign panels alone totalling 184 square feet. • The
sign design, however, is of such a nature that much of he sign
structure has to be counted as sign area, including the gabled peak at
the top. The design appears to be well done, however, the scale,
location, and height are a problem.
13. The proposed drive -up bank facility will not work 'as laid out on the
site plan. Obviously, there is inadequate stacking ' space for the drive -up
facility. If you have ever used such a facility, you are aware of the
need for stacking capability during peak business hours. Pat of a
solution here could include opening up the east end of the site to the
freestanding Swenson's Furniture Store also owned by Mr. Curley. This
would provide some flexibility and a possible solution to approaching the
drive -up windows from the east, as would be most desirable in this
case.
14. The overall arkin for the proposed center is approximately correct.
Though the criteria established in Mr. Duffy's letter are in some cases
different from the ordinance. The overall result is close to what is
required. In some cases, we are not aware of the exact square footage
proposed, nor whether there is a pizza carry -out store involved.
Duffy Development Co., Case No 89-03
15.
5
In summary, the overall concept will work as proposed on the plans
submitted. There remains, however, the significant concern a3 to the
relationship to the existing development to the east and the conditions
under which it was approved. It would appear that the remaining
concerns . can be mitigated through the preparation of addition1 studied
design detail and the review of well prepared plans to be revie ed with
Staff.
0
r
Iv ;
• ♦�/
1 Emmie L - .
020-30
26o�.8-B
SUBJECT PROPERTY
/ NORTH
-tD SCALE 1"=200'
b 6°° LpT
Ali Of1IH VOLj 1 a
O
R.60 80. 2 103 OB
1° 31 IA
6 0
m - b
} om 5
!:
a16a940/0' 6'
13'. o ,. .: n
6
103.20
60.10 100.34 .M.f 1
sYYdn j 030-30 96.62 wt�z 101.75w'aa t
d tiern�gk /
no 3u ° 9
Lini`l Fz �^ FI n� to_
040-306o 0
yr
i� �c Ac 2Go 67.B 1 e a
6 yoyaa 60.07 _ �!
101.
2LoG9-G 1 93.69 101.76 I
N8C 3� 4-e E. 1.04
/9o.S 20o i37 -
t
__ - - � .."L ire �- -• - .
No h��n Naf�r-'a Ges Co. (2 > i
i
c vlc6 E47
NX
s e V Ij I
Q, k
l
0
I
Q, o
i
i
u, o
ti u
3
o'
V
.�
I
to
z
0
Y
\ s
N
O O 1
O
1
i
- Q -
i o
li
ti
z
y
1
,
1
i
O
S
t•
- O C
05
.'10 LE
"AP -Y v
AVE.
t
,
•
a,
•4 .1
/
/}
•'�
•'•
2 5
1
'� I
•1 .se
f�� ti
50-50 '
/o y •to
1
rto y Lo `
Z4 -
�
h
1
GO -50 O a F
Z3
3
S
7'• //c .
- 2• 3
-
f z �' 1
z 1
A
`
Lou
d i9n�
1.
070-50
zl
5
h
yoo
r8 S
LI
M 17 -
,
2Lo 72-F i
t ,
9
080-50
_•O I i
�.
/9
7 z-
C }i A Ft
1.-E S e- 1
.c 7 t=
/o
vA>v
EgCxHovr ;
2
90- 50
,qc •
IS
3
17
9
AME
cs+r+ RE ualov�
Tow
HALL !v}E>=Tl
_
�'
V 5 1r 9
.17.
07
y Ito la L
11>
10
S
♦^
B`. Ac. ail BC
8.37
1 I m 39
y' !Z it
le
'
It
• _ SJ
�
\
tau
/�
1 1 ^�'
cu ZLEY
MENDOTA.HEIGHTS PD TEL No.612-452-2995 Mar 20,89.14:09 0.001 P.02
October 25, 1967
CASE:
APPLICANT
LOCATION:
67-5 and 67-5a
Thomas Curley
Southeast Corner of Highway 110 and Lexington Avenue
ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from "B-2" to "B-3" and Special Use Permit
for Parking
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1, Following the last Planning Commission hearing on the subject proposals, we
have furnished Mr. Curley with copies of our proposed development plans
presented at the Planning Commission hearing and with a suggested list of
conditions which we suggested appropriate for consideration of a special use
permit parking purposes as requested.
2. Mr, Curley has resubmitted a development plan, proposing the use of the
easterly 230 feet of the property in question (placing the building east
of the gas line easement). The design proposes a future parking exponslon
(but not the building) into the residential lots fronting on Mary Adele Avenue
utilizing lots i and 2 and about half of loft 3 for parking purposes.
3. Firstly, we would recommend that the proposed use of the property, involving
the construction of the furniture store for Swenson Brothers Furniture Company
is an appropriate use for the land in question. The principal decision remains
as to whether or not the future use of portions of the residential lots to the soul
should be allowed for parking purposes, or whether these lots should be reservF
single-family development. Thirdly, it follows that if the residential lots are
used for future parking purposes, under what conditions should this use be spec
with the permit at this time,
4. As stated in our previous report, we feel that the best interest of the single -fay
homeowners to the south are best protected if the residential lots in question (st
of the present "B-2" property) is retained for single-family purposes. We have
prepared a plot plan showing how this can be accomplished utilizing 288 feet c
frontage of land that it is currently zoned commercial roVher than the 230 feet
frontage which would be required if the residential lots are partially used for p+
purposes. If, however, the consensus of opinion among the property owners is
they would prefer a masonry screen wall and the use of the land for parking, th
amount of commercial development that could be allowable on the Curley prop
( would, of course, be increased. The latter situation would, of course, be adv,
f or
l'M
ily
Ith
•ki ng
gat
total
.ty
Itageous
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PD TEL No.612-452-2995 Mar 20,89 14:09
4` l
to the Village as a whole, inasmuch as we would have greater tax potential
by not restricting the extent of the commercial development by requiring the
single-family structures on the single-family lots. Thus, there is a question
here of weighing the advantage to the Village as a whole versus the immediate
interest of the property owners in question. Here, in our opinion the reaction
of the property owners affected should be seriously considered in weighing this
decision.
5. if it is determined that use of the single-family lot for parking purposes for the
future is to be considered, we suggest the following conditions be attached to
the special use permit allowing that use. Following this report is a list of
such conditions as proposed by Mr. Curley submitted to this office.
a. The future parking development plan shah be as shown in the plot plan
prepared by Midwest Planning and Research allowing expansion of parking
to within 10 feet of the proposed screen wall.
b. All parking areas to be surfaced with asphalt with poured in place curbs
on the periphery of all parking areas.
r
c. Remaining lands are to be landscaped with sod and appropriate plant-
material,
lantmaterial,
d. A solid masonry (brick) wall is to be constructed at the developers expense
30 feet from the south line of the residential lots on Mary Adele Street to
m4 mum height of 5 feet.
e. The 30 foot area between the wall and the south line of the residential I
shall be landscaped with sod and appropriate plant material and maintaii
by the developer at his expense. The wall shall be constructed From the
easterly side of lot 1 through lot 5.
f. All lighting shall be designed in a manner so as to prevent any direct
source of light reaching the residential properties to the south.
g. This permit shall be issued on the condition that a precise landscape plan
including specific specie prepared subject to further review.
!� V �X•� v � G �� �j�^f sa {.
h. A drainage and elevation Ilan shall be submittelindicatin precise
0 P 9
elevations of the structure, proposed parking areas, and drainage swales
subject to review of the Village Engineer.
i. The principal building on the principal properties to the north to which thi
condition is attached, shall be of substantially brick material as proposed
in the designs^presented to the Planning Commission. The south wall of thi
N0.001 P.05
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PD
0
TEL No.612-452-2995
Mar 20 , 89 14:09 I11a . 001 P.04
principal structure shall be generally consistent with the design of the rest of
the building and surfaced with wooden siding material or better.
j. The old barn -like structure on the applicant's property to the west shall be
removed (alternate consideration by Village to require the structure to be
repainted without additional signs on the building in the future).
We suggest that:the Planning Commission and Council give consideration to the re oning
of only that portion of land proposed for immediate development and restricting th
application -of the special use permit for parking purposes to the immediate properly in
question.
t�
' - - P}tUYOSED
' t3�i1t.U1ttG
r:
v I I
EXP%\N S+U nl
. ( I �tun+as►<T P�Ft 1'• nKa /�i i g�
• I i
l- - --- - _J 1 1
/
• , . NK
,
I 1 ( -
Er /'� • .r,j' :,{;� 1c.Pi K'n"3C v UOcxEf S1C:K-1
�l a rr�►r.;4t• p
� )(:i(,`(•,.� i.-: • .Y �%� i .f t/,''S'. 'Ji iC �}r, �,�r:J::� r • {.'!, •i(-IY-'
MARY ADELE AVE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
March 22, 1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James D. Danielson-
Public
3UBJQO7: Lexington Plaza South
Case No. 89-03
At the last Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commissio
ducted a continued public hearing to consider a request from Mr. Jo
to develop the southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Trunk Iiighw
The hearing had been continued from the January meeting to allow ti
Mr. Duffy to prepare some alternate plans in an attempt to answer s
neighborhood concerns. However, at the February continued hearing I
residents still objected to all the proposals presented. The Planr:
Commission therefore made it clear to the residents that the City d�
the corner upgraded. They continued the hearing once again, this t-.'
directing the neighborhood to form a committee that would have as a]
jective getting with the Developer and coming up with a legitimate I
for developing the corner.
The neighborhood did form the committee and have met many tim
vesting long hours to comm up with their objectives (see attached)
they arrived at their objectives the neighborhood mot with the Duv
City 8toff, business owners and 9lauuiuQ Commission Oha4mun Morau
present their objectives to the Developer to see if be could moat
the meeting Mr. Duffy stated that be felt that be could meet all t
bora 0000arnu and has submitted the attached proposal as his reunm
solution. I have given a copy of this proposal to the ueigbborboo
their review and they will attempt to have written comments availa
the Planning Commission before their meeting.
One of the main concerns of the neighborhood is traffic. 8bo
Elliot, Henderson, a traffic consultant, is preparing a report for
concerning the impacts of added traffic from the site on Lexington
The report is not available as of this date but will be uvuilablo,
handed out the night of the meeting.
Conduct the continued hearing and tbou if the Commission feel
is prepared to forward the proposal to the City Council they need
aider the following:
ng
d want
me
ob-
ropoaal
o, in -
After
lupyr,
to
hem. At
e neigh -
ended
for
le for
that it
1. If the desire is not to rezone the laud to B-3 but to retflin the
present B-2 zoning — tbey need to recommend amendments to allow the
following within B-2:
a. motor fuel/convenience store
6.
drive up bank
C.
minor auto repair
d.
furniture store
' o.
locksmith
f.
interior decorator
g.
picture framing store
b.
health studio
i.
radio repairing
^.
drive -up fast food
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Variances for the following:
a. oIroo ml8o area; 100 square foot required approximati
square feet shown.
b. plynu alAn setback; 30 feet required approximately 2
'
shown.
4. Disposition of the single family lots along Mary Adele Av�nueo
~
�
m
ISSUES
- Development: no one objected
Sound and sight barrier, including maintenance.
A major issue. There was a great reluctance to
lose the present wall and trees but a greater
resistance to the larger development that would
come closer to the neighborhood. It was agreed
that if a new barrier is required that it must
be in place and functioning before the present
wall and/or trees are removed.
- Traffic: "We consider this a major problem and
would like to see a development with minimum
traffic."
Service Station: There was no support for a larg
service station. There was general agreement that
gas was desirable, but that it should be the mini
size possible. There was a desire to limit the
of "service slots".
- Residential lots: there was a great resistance to
rezoning the R1 to commercial. There was a large
question as to an adequate sight'and sound barrie
behind the houses. There was some concern that t
lots are much smaller than the rest of the lots i
the development.
- Bike path: There was universal supportfifor the neied
for a bike path and safe access for children to thle
north of Highway 110.
- Rezoning: There was agreement that the B2 proper
should not be rezoned B3, but should have specifi
variances for the limited exceptions being discus
a
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
March 28, 1989
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES E. DANIELSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Lexington Plaza South
Case No. 89-03
DISCUSSION
In order to allow for individual ownership of the furnitur
store (by the Curley's), the Lexington Plaza South
development needs to be approved as a PUD to allow for som
zero lot lines. The individual ownership is to allow the
Curley's to take advantage of some tax breaks that they we:e
not aware of when they made their original application and
therefore, did not apply for the PUD.
w
By ordinance, the minimum sized area for a PUD is 10 acres.
The area of this development (including the Carriage House
is a little over 7 acres.,
ACTION REQUIRED
Make a recommendation on whether the City should grant a
variance to the 10 acre minimum size for a PUD and allow
PUD for the Lexington Plaza South.
NOTE: Also attached is a traffic report for the site
prepared by SEH.
A 90 EW, SAEf I
ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS ■PLANNERS
March 28, 1989
222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 484.0272
RE: CROIX OIL PROPOSAL
SITE STUDY
HIGHWAY 110 AND LEXI
SEH FILE NO. 88088 -
Jim Danielson, City Engineer
City Of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Danielson:
We have completed a preliminary study of the traffic im acts
which would result from Croix Oil Company's proposed retail site
in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Lexington Avenue
and TH 110.
Based on our review of the site plan, 'and the inform tion
provided by Bob Fields of Croix Oil Company, the site will
consist of a convenience market/service station of approxim tely
6,000 square feet with 8 gas pumps (3,000 square feet marker and
3,000 square feet service•station), a 1,570 square Fobt bank with
two drive up lanes, and approximately 17,100 square fe t of
additional retail uses .,composed of a Little -Caesars Pizza, Glass
Masters, a video / gift shop, a furniture store, a dry cleaners
and a yet to be named tenant.
In order to assess the traffic impacts of the site, we have
completed an analysis of project trip generation, traffic
distribution and traffic impacts to the intersection of Lexington
Avenue and TH 110.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
The retail site is expected to generate an average of 4,978 trips
per day. (2, 489 in and 2,489 out) . During the a.m. peak h ur of
traffic on surrounding streets, the project can be expected to
generate approximately 238 trips (119 in and 119 out). The p.m.
peak is expected to, have a higher trip generati n of
approximately 393 (189 in, 204 out). The actual generati n for
each land use within the site is actually higher. However, based
on the assumption that': some trips into a multi -use site are
combined, the overall trip generation for the site was reduced by
10%.
TT ST. PAUL, 1 CHIPPEWAFAL S,
IIENORIKS
SHORE CKSOON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
Although all of these trips will have an impact by crei
turning movements at the two entrances (frontage road ent
to TH 110 and the Lexington Avenue frontage road entrance
portion ' of * the traffic generated by the center can be expect
come from traffic which already passes by the site on e
Lexington Avenue or TH 110. These trips are referred 1
passer=by trips, and must be evaluated in terms of their in
at the project access points, but will not create addit
traffic volumes along adjacent streets or at the surrou
intersections.
Based won studies done by the Institute of Transport
Engineers (ITE) , the likely amount. of passer-by traffic f o
project as a whole was derived at 42 percent of the average
traffic volume, 43 percent of the a.m. peak hour volume, a
percent of the p.m. peak hour volume.
The percentages of passer-by traffic vary for different lane
on the site. Given the likely amount of passer-by trips fox
project, the "new" traffic generated by the center is expect
be 2,876 average daily trips (1,438 in, 1,438 out) , 136
trips ;(68 in, 68 out) , and 239 p.m. trips (115 in, 124
Included in the "new" trips is the traffic currently generat
the existing business although we suspect this is a relat
low volume.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Project traffic distribution is based on two factors: 1)
roundifig land uses and their proximity to, the proposed i
site, ,and 2) directional traffic volume flow along adj
streets (in terms of passer-by traffic). For this project
traffic distribution for .the new (non passer-by) trig
estimated as shown below: -
45% To /'from Lexington south of TH 110
25% To from lexington north of TH 110
15% To j from TH 110 east of Lexington
15% To from TH.110 west of Lexington
The traffic distributions for passer-by trips is assumed
consistent with the directional volume flow of through-traf:
Lexington Avenue and TH 110. Therefore, distribution of pi
by trips varied somewhat between the a.m. and p.m. peak I
"New" traffic generated by the site is shown on Exhibit
approaches on Lexington Avenue and on TH 110.
I
Once the project traffic distribution was determined, the i
and outbound vehicles were assigned to one. of two pro
frontage road entrances, based upon: 1) the arrangement o
on the site (for example, the gas station/convenience i
generates a large proportion of the project traffic and is
to the Lexington Avenue access, while the drive up bank is
tioned towards the TH 110 frontage road access), and
direction of travel upon arrival and departure from th4
K
ting
Bance
), a
ad to
.ther
,o as
nal
ing
tion
the
laily
id 39
uses
this
ed to
a.m.
)Ut) .
ed by
ively
sur-
�tail
,cent
the
s is
:o be
is on
sser-
1 for
posed
uses
.arket
,.loser
posi-
the
site
`(i.e., the majority of southbound passer --by trips will exit
the Lexington Avenue entrance, since it is consistent with
direction of the remainder of their trip). The resul
driveway volumes are shown in Exhibit 2. None of the peak
turning volumes are high enough to require separate turn lane
Lexington Avenue or TH iia; however, consideration for southk
left turns into the site from Lexington Avenue would facil9
the movement of vehicles at the frontage road entrance. Furt
more, once the site is developed, an assessment of the exis
signal phasing at TH 110 and Lexington Avenue shoul<
undertaken inorder to ensure optimal traffic operations at
intersection.
In summary, the proposed project
capacity improvements along TH 110
this project alone create the need
at TH 110 and Lexington Avenue.
91
does not generate the neer
or Lexington Avenue, nor
for intersection modifical
Sincerely,
Glen Van Wormer, Manager
Transportation Engineeri
Department
via
the
ing
W
ting
be
the
for
does
.ions
W
-ez� 6 9q/3/�ss- 2 yV3 �16 d
Q�/3i/6d/131/6i----:>
O
z
s
a
a
�
3
�
�
m
3
O
0T1
^3
,mac`=---,--,----
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
.z,
'Phi
TO:1 MAYOR AND�'CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN D CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Posthumus Conditional Use Pi
and Variance,for Garage Construction
Case No. 89:.14
Y, _
,pA
DATE: May 30, 1989
V._k.
Ko
;r kj -
BACKGROUND f }.
At the meeting of Mare,�,2, Council considered and approved
Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance for construe,
of a garage on property owned by Mr. Bruce Posthumus, 54
Annapolis, Street (copy -of Staff memos and Case report
attached). This being a through lot, City Zoning Ordina
requires that CouncilM1grant a Conditional Use Permit for
construction of garages and other accessory structures.
However,;because there are already so many garages on th
Pots, between Annapol grand Fremont, the City has'waived
public hearing requifements for the Conditional Use Per
t ,s,.,
when the applicant presents written evidence th t the
surrounding property -,,.:owners do not object to the propos
Mr.`:Posthumus presented such a consent form with his
application materialsl,13,
Subsequent,to Counc1l1!,;-'granting its approval for the gar
Mr.;Posthumus proceeded to lay out the footprint of his
garage with stake andkstring. City Staff was then cont
by Ms. Margaret Mortinson, 538 West Annapolis,.Mr. Post.
next door neighbor.';tMs. Mortinson indicated .(see attacd
letter) that the garage Mr. Posthumus was proceeding to
was different than that to which she believed she had g
her consent in signing the petition. Ms. Mortinson inf
City Staff that she -strongly objected to construction o
garage, both becauseo.of its close proximity to her prop
and because of the extent to which it would protrude no
near her home. x."t'
After consulting with'the City Attorney, I determined t
the building permit for this project should be temporar
suspended, and a duly called public hearing held so tha
Ms. Mortinson and any other affected neighbor might hav
opportunity to present their concerns to the City Counc
a
ion
ce
oug
he
t
ge,
cted
umus'
ed
build
ven : <<
rmed
the
rty,
th, ,
f
at.
ly
an
1:`
I
f,
(�t
Page Two
That public hearing has been advertised and noticed for
evening's agenda.
DISCUSSION
One area of confusion is the side yard setback for the g
from the Posthumus/Mortinson property line. Ms. Mortins
incorrectly assumed that the garage would be set back 10
was required at the time she constructed the garage on h
property. However, approximately eight years ago, the C
amended the side yard setback requirement for accessory
buildings from 10' to 51. This was because we were bein
asked to routinely process variances for small buildings
as storage sheds. Frankly, the construction of a garage
size proposed by Mr. Posthumus was probably not envision
when that side yard setback requirement was reduced.
The last time that the City granted a Conditional Use Pe
for construction of any garage for one of the Annapolis
was in the Spring of 1988. That was for Mary and Tony
Mancuso, 552 West Annapolis Street. By way of compariso
the Mancuso's were granted a variance such that their ga
was constructed 14' from the property line; this was to
it in line with the neighbor's garage. The Mancuco's ga
was also considerably smaller, 26' wide by 22' in depth.
10' side yard setback was also maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS
Except for the 10' from the street setback variance, Mr.
Posthumus' proposed garage meets all City code requireme
However, it does require the granting of a Conditional L
Permit. As spelled out in our ordinance, the test for
Conditional Use Permit reads as follows:
"If the Council shall determine that the proposed
will not be detrimental to the health, safety or g
welfare of the community, nor will cause serious -t
congestion or hazards, nor will seriously deprecia
surrounding property value, and that the same is i
harmony with the general purpose and intent of thi
Ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan, the Council m
grant such -Conditional Use Permit imposing conditi
and safeguards thereon."
Those of you who have not already visited the site in pi
will probably want to do so prior to the June 6 meeting.
a:
s
I
is
rage
n
as
r'
ty
such
the
d
mit
ots
age
ring
age
A
I.
[ts .
e'
eral
ffic
y
ns
son
Page Three
ACTION REQUIRED
Council should begin with a motion to reconsider its action,
of May 2, 1989 pertaining to Planning Case 89-14, Posthurus
Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.
Council should then proceed to hold the public hearing, ;I
giving the neighbors opportunity for input.
Following the closing of that public hearing, Council would
have three alternatives:
1. Reaffirm the previous action to grant the Conditionali
Use Permit and Setback Variance for the garage as
proposed.
2.
3.
Approve an alternative Conditional Use Permit and
Variance, including whatever restrictions council miy!
deem appropriate.
Deny the application for Conditional Use Permit
altogether (which would likely be unreasonable givei
previous granting of Conditional Use Permits for garages
on through lots in this neighborhood).
KDF: j ak
Attachments
k
~
. ` ''
.
^ ' `
/|
�
. . �
,
'
�� ,�
v-~ ~--- �~- - -��-- - � � '-~�~���
_
-
' J -
� � ---~ - '- - ^-- ' --' »r /�� '�~
��4� U �� �
, ,
.
/�
� . � � - '___'__
�
� �
.
' - � - _'- -___ .�' � -_---'_
`
'
' ', � __-.. __� -_� -_'-_---'
�
. . ' �� '� ' _--_-' . '_--_. . -__�' -__ -_-__
�
� _--' .. _ _- ' __'_-__'--__' __�-.�' . -_-_----__-____
�
. ' '� - --.-- -_'_-' �- ---_-_. �' __.-''-_____-
' � ' - - � - ---' -
�
. .
.
� .
' � '� - ---- '- ------' -
.
' |
�. ' ' - --- ' | ' ' - -----
540 West Annapolis Street
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
' F
'i
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
,
Mr. Mayor, and Members of the' Council:
May
In regards to the letter Margaret Mortinson wrote, stating that I, Debra Matuseski,
(Mrs. Posthumus) mislead her in the construction of a garage we plan on building.
I would like to convey to you what the content of the conversation was with Margaret Mc
and Teresa Medlinger to the best of my recollection.
;x
I went to their house on a Saturday evening in April to obtain permission to construct a ;
our property, 540 W. Annapolis Street. I told them it was going to be a three car garage
somewhat deeper than a average garage. They asked where it was going to be, and I tol
that Bruce and I had planned on having it further back from theirs so we may be able to
cars on the driveway off the street. I also told them the City engineer had suggested a Tr
further set back than what we had planned. Margaret asked me what the City suggestii
and I explained that the City believed we ought to be able to park our cars in the drivew
Right of Way; giving her a example that if there ever should be a sidewalk there, we wot
able to park in the driveway aff the sidewalk.
Teresa then asked how far from the side lot line the garage would be. Margaret interrul
saying "Mother, it's 10 feet", to which I responded that I really was not sure, all I know i
going to be built all according to the City Codes. I told them that Bruce had a City Plani
meeting corning up (April 25, 1989), and that we pretty much are going to put the garag(
the City would allow it according to the City Codes. Margaret then signed the petition a
reading it. , We then continued with neighborly conversation. I then left VAth the impres
they had given their consent to a garage as I described it to them, and subject to the app
the City Government. ` ' '
Concerning the statement Margaret made in her letter that there were considerable ch
made; I' feel that the City Planning Commission meeting on April 25,1989, approved a
I verbally dese'ribed'to Margaret and Teresa.
Sincerely 51
Debra Matuseski
(Mrs. Bruce Posthumus): ,
cc: Margaret Mortinson "
1989
arage on
and
them
)ark our
xch
n was,
y off the
d be
ted
that it's
ing
where
ter
ion that
oval of
,ges
an that
1.
May 25,1989
i+
Margaret Mortinson
538 West Annapolis Street
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Margaret,
I apologized to your mother last Thursday for all the things I said to the both of you last
(May 15, 1989) but I now feel I ought to apologize to you also.
I said some cruel things, but understand that I handled the situation the best I knew ho at the
time. I would like to express why I reacted as I did. When I heard that you were not go" g to let
us build the garage we truly need, it put me in disbelief. I went to you that day and ask d '
numerous times what you would allow us to build, and the only answers you were giving me,
were that of the things you would not accept.
It became more frustrating to me as I explained that I wasn't taking a view of the park
from your windows, to which Teresa declared that the view of the park did not matter.
over reacted at that point, I misunderstood and assumed that if the view to the park d
matter, then the view into my yard and home was more important, I took that remark ,
invasion of my privacy. I do apologize for the things I said, but I ask of you to respect n
on this matter. w
It is my yard, my home, and was my vision to have this garage built for my husband an
I felt threatened that something I believed I had a right to have was being taken away ;„
When you told me that what we were building was not legal (after it being approved by
it caused me to become angrier. t
I ask you to respect my wishes if I choose to not speak to you during this time as I am
all this has happened.
Once again, I do apologize for my behavior.
Sincerely,
Debra Matuseski
(Mrs. Bruce Posthumus)
cc: City of Mendota Height04TJV-k
not
an
feelings
children.
om me.
he city)
ll upset
i
540 West Annapolis Street
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mr Mayor, and Members of the Council:
25,1989
Attached is a copy of a letter I sent to Margaret Mortinson. For my own self respect, I felt it was
necessary to apologize for my behavior one day last week. I did say things that I am deely sorry
for.
Unfortunately, after learning of the statement of misinformation conveyed to the City c
my misleading them, and the statement that my husband runs an automobile repair bt
of our garage, I feel it is appropriate to send a copy of all correspondence to you and/or l
Mortinson to substantiate my own credibility.
Sincerely,
Owallo1g41' al
Debra Matuseski
(Mrs. Bruce Posthumus)
cc: Margaret Mortinson
Attachment
i• •
S' f
yR
Q
0
out
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
I MEMO
TO:
From:
April 26, 1989
Mayor, City Council and City,�40trator
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistan
Subject: Posthumus variance
Case 89-14
DISCUSSION
Mr. Bruce Posthumus appeared before the Planning C mmission
at their April meeting to request a 10 foot variance to :he front
yard setback for a proposed garage (see attached staf memos) .
Commissioner Anderson queried Mr. Posthumus about the s..ope down
from Fremont, on which the garage fronts. Mr. Posthumus stated
that the garage is elevated and will have a floor drain to
address that problem.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
waiving the Conditional Use Permit and its public hearing
requirements and approving a ten foot (101) front yard setback
variance.
ACTION REQUESTED
If Council desires to implement the Planning
recommendation they should pass a motion to waive the
Use Permit and its public hearing requirements and al
foot (101) front yard setback variance.
ommission
Inditional
_ove a ten
r
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES E. DANIELSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
KEVIN D. BATCHELDER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
SUBJECT: Posthumus Variance
Case 89-14
DATE: April 18, 1989
DISCUSSION•
Mr. Bruce Posthumus, 540 Annapolis, has requested a fron
yard setback variance to construct a detached garage on
through lot. City Ordinance 4.5(5) requires that all
accessory structures on through lots be processed as
Conditional Use Permits (CUP). CUPs are very expensive
process and require a public hearing. Several years ago
City waived a CUP and hearing, and granted a variance to
Mancuso's (one of Posthumus' neighbors) for a similar
application. The City.is presently amending the ordinan
allow these types of applications to be process -d as
variances.
When Mr. Posthumus was in to see Howard Dahlgren, he had
garage farther forward, however he has moved it back to
20 feet from the property line, as requested, to allow r
for'vehicles to be parked in his driveway. This will av
having vehicles park in the City right of way.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review the proposal with the applicant and make a
recommendation to the Council on waiving the CUP and its
public hearing and approving a 10' front yard setback
variance.
is
the
the
Ire
This
e
i
)om
Ad
` .,
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
�
APPLICANT:
�
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING
25 April 1989
Bruce Posthumus
Between Annapolis St and
Fremont Street (see sketch)
Approval
Appcoval of Varia ce to
Garage Location
J. The property in question is 80 feet by 120 feet in depth '
i frontagei 5 F S [) fro
� '
accessory
.lly require a conditional use permit for the constructiln of an
~ ', ' .
�
changing the Ordinance to allow such development L be proce sed as a
variance. Recently, this variance process was used to consider a similar
accessory structure for Tony Mancuso at 552 Annapolis. hus, this
application is being processed as a variance rather than the reviously
required conditional use permit.
2. Mr. PosLhunmuu proposes to construct a 30 foot by 33' foot -4 inch garage
along side his house which is constructed on the ouuLhvveat quadrant of
the two 40 foot lots that he owns. Attached is a copy of o survey
indicating the location of the existing houoe°and the proposed Jaraga.
3. A few weeks ago,, Mr. Posthumus reviewed his develo en proposal
with City Staff at which time he had proposed to cans t irTc t 11 a garage
only 9 feet from the Fremont Street right-of-way. ' e sugg�sted tha't
t 21
it would be important to set the garage back 4t leas feet, if
possible, to provide adequate space for him to park vehicl s in the
driveway without being out on the public right-of-way. The efore, he
changed his proposal to indicate , the p,roposed 20 foot setb ck. The
setback normally required is. 30 feet. I
4. Mr. Poudburnuo proposes to
set the garage back.
grade of the lot slopes downward on
the north side
setback, as required, would
bring the
garage
distance above the grade.
You will
note on the
of the
proposed structure, as submitted by the
applicant, that thie would
be approximately 2 feet, if
the structure
is located as proposed.
� 5. You will note that
'
north right-of-way of
' if members of the
property in question
|
area are located in ,
/ oaLbmoko.
the existing house is setback 1,9 feet
Fremont Street. It would be helpful, in
Planning Cornrnioolon and Council would
and the contiguous area. Many utcucLu
, nonconforming manner with laea than d
from the
this case,
view the
as in the
� required
-
Bfuce Posthumus, Case No. 89-14
6. In the past, the City hagconsideredauko,
|hhUpersistent U t attempt t L L least
feet
f garage setback from a frontage street to
allowh space
to
park
a car without h bumper extendinginto a publici h f-w
The
question is whether or not the placement of
the structure, 20 leet
back
rather than 30 feet, is reasonable in view
of the grade of
the
site.
Unfortunately, the applicant did not indicate
the topography of
the
band
.
mo as to ascertain this condition on the site
plan.
7, The garage is located 5 feat from the
side lot line, vvhi
h
is in
accordance with the ordinance requirements.
ON
, OR � INEWE ,-'
40
q
z`aZ oaf to,<� r 2� 4a
40
19 Il v-, of
u
vS 7S3
.Sat
6' r iI Lo
7 OQ V 40
40 120 �'
J
/v��•
/ O
FL E O NT
ST,14
5
s
' 4
SUBJECT PROPERTY '3 'I ° ' z
�o� sNr
`
3
At
r NORTH
4
' y B_ JI J3 Z.4' 7J, 7t J S S •
SCALE 1 2001
_�
'9P •fr �_ '� z 40
O
z
HIAWATHA
ST
7 +/Q /3 /2 /! /a 9 O 7
L S 4
't 9 rt�� 40 .. .. ..
4a !'124
-
--yo-
/io
r
40 14 Ll
L S ¢ J
7
.•
\
.�
1 IIS
z
• \3 1
o rq� 'p µ
w W Le 6o
it
s yJ
ST.
27
: I
_3
4
i 0
L Q 3 o
�p �° LS
tJRT
j!i 5 its
(`
'A1 I ` F5 Z 5° (o
71O
f U5i—cN1A 3T. ° � �♦ ��
4 3
za
L
Q' S
-1-77e-17 -5 24232-c KoENEN 1'• Iz \• ' S° L`
'�
\ z
Lo 1
IU
L4
7
/r7 r
' 2ct3L-8
2 LOf .9 ---- /o7s \ h J
to
QS 9 u
w
•< � �
Q
„ /a
• 7o La Sts Lt 97
co
• Lta� �
/4
/� " t
i z
'
p
V � ♦ O 17gs.
Gu /G t �
< 1
11
-EP R DD ti h `� h �°y
4
�i
h,S
3
14' 13 r rr « tO� 9 d ♦ 7
)<t�
:q
M
` L:
t3• rz bl rSJtt
''/f �
13
1
w 431 120
207.25 1/6 epb Sa to eo C° Qo
S <
j••'
lao
// Z
/4
�/s
ti q
!Z t "� 8 7 G 5-4 3 //Sfl7
/O a
Q
13 L
0
N
X,`'
.` L 4� Jt L!o j� r �9t{i•t trt/ h / lap
s J
V
S
STOW Cp v •
V'Q
a
=
9 c
8
7
7 I v
' V
} V �S lti tt jo LS/i ,.jt/ /4•
/ V ..
/Ss
Lt
tJ
q , % TL L 7: o! GAS) ..
•2s�t r. 1a t,�
• ut7
IV.N ,..°z 4, a V\ h I
o/
o
Nz 3 9 S i c 1 7-1
,
1
174 tttt e9.a¢ d0 80 p0 �O do
{'
91) 20i J7
' r LAWS0N Sr•
3
2 Ir 5,
' L ' ,�.PS ^ 4 tf f L
Z I
' F I •Q' 1 1 �
1 � l
L�
aJ _.o v .ti/ hoc
i 1 c
1 :712
��
RCITT'OF
I E I G H T
,
Vit:
"'31 D
"I,MINNESOTA:
R
L -CONSIDERATION e
W C,�,
'44.
0
'REQUEST
J01
of Application!-"
Fee Paid
C,e
.&IJ -,4- i'lly; �.k 1 •
.1
4t -
.All
initial I
Y 11�4.�t-IVFW 10', AV.
Last I.,,. First-
INIM 01$
X.
4;
11'A 46, 1 r-
7 (j
'01i YC :/,1` " * /_5
Ilk,
Y State
zi
r 79
I,__ �..;%Cjt
,Number &..S6r(iet(j it "It,:; I p Xj I,)
r. f4j* J,
It"
I
t
T
Nu
'Md it..
sl��hone! mb
W-
I(
lOwner, t 'j .,I),! A
it i,
N,
_57f "Aj k1j, RIf
Y1 q
Last F i r Initial-
Address:
na'
44,
j
Number Stree4 City State Zip
illi,4 ",1 1 4 1
`Location of Proper
14 S tree t, ty-in Question.rpf
no aege /r e
41
Legal" Description of
it -;j
,tat,�..i�.t �. .�:+' aGr• f /d /� •/ ' i -,� �.L/ %� rC..�••S� •� j).:;b•, �� :,,tr; i
—0 'jt.
0:
J."
q. .-I
4^1
it
CIL;
Type of;; Reques t: i' ':': " 1 h" " — ` I. , it ,, •t ..
ezon ng,,*.,.,
till
IA -
vil,
[Variance `ii,
14 1 i, j'! " �t! '';
Condition I -Pe it'e-
WI* A
)t,i Conditio U. D.
nal,Use Permit'for P.
.Y
a Use Permit;
''f Minor;' Pe
p; xmit
Subdivision Approval' 4 wt f 1,
"1011 4
4Plan'App,
roval
;`1i.lWetlands: Permitt
t
Other�t"',
11 Y4 I';
! 01 y1A '4�*,
It t�yfMr
it
it"
tu
, , Q : ,
Ll
9.
i t
Case. No.
lip
'j.
RCITT'OF
I E I G H T
,
Vit:
"'31 D
"I,MINNESOTA:
R
L -CONSIDERATION e
W C,�,
'44.
0
'REQUEST
J01
of Application!-"
Fee Paid
C,e
.&IJ -,4- i'lly; �.k 1 •
.1
4t -
.All
initial I
Y 11�4.�t-IVFW 10', AV.
Last I.,,. First-
INIM 01$
X.
4;
11'A 46, 1 r-
7 (j
'01i YC :/,1` " * /_5
Ilk,
Y State
zi
r 79
I,__ �..;%Cjt
,Number &..S6r(iet(j it "It,:; I p Xj I,)
r. f4j* J,
It"
I
t
T
Nu
'Md it..
sl��hone! mb
W-
I(
lOwner, t 'j .,I),! A
it i,
N,
_57f "Aj k1j, RIf
Y1 q
Last F i r Initial-
Address:
na'
44,
j
Number Stree4 City State Zip
illi,4 ",1 1 4 1
`Location of Proper
14 S tree t, ty-in Question.rpf
no aege /r e
41
Legal" Description of
it -;j
,tat,�..i�.t �. .�:+' aGr• f /d /� •/ ' i -,� �.L/ %� rC..�••S� •� j).:;b•, �� :,,tr; i
—0 'jt.
0:
J."
q. .-I
4^1
it
CIL;
Type of;; Reques t: i' ':': " 1 h" " — ` I. , it ,, •t ..
ezon ng,,*.,.,
till
IA -
vil,
[Variance `ii,
14 1 i, j'! " �t! '';
Condition I -Pe it'e-
WI* A
)t,i Conditio U. D.
nal,Use Permit'for P.
.Y
a Use Permit;
''f Minor;' Pe
p; xmit
Subdivision Approval' 4 wt f 1,
"1011 4
4Plan'App,
roval
;`1i.lWetlands: Permitt
t
Other�t"',
11 Y4 I';
! 01 y1A '4�*,
It t�yfMr
it
it"
tu
, , Q : ,
Ll
9.
i t
V-1 i-
IR I., I
-, I , j�ft*j3
'j.
" .1 .:*A
-Tam 7�-4f owne(I 07c r6 we
nlu nawe-,
/-5-
a He klr',�4 74 a ieckeg R ec-, co lot
dd r aa- el A 74
Oe4 V
ee c
Oct. �,e Al"ce 04 e
37�
t proper� r�• ��1r� J
C'+ek
f . t..F Fo: •
I r• ', '
/ + • I • t)t a UR
r— ... w. :•.i•r •_
0.0
0.0
as
+ j
• • • • U • • 1 • LL
�1 • • '10 t
• • •w NORTH P� • • • / !, •
• • < • PARK ��,� • i • ' •
• 1 1 --- �'.uyv �
' r` •'• ! �, 6 abu
.•• // '�
•
• • "4u Gu Uj
!
•
• / `` -
• LL
F
IVY FAL
c
LX— LANE
s / • t
•_ •
I �
. • SUMtNSi� Fl[M •-.t—.—... • j
1 •In.A • k SC.+cxYt th,tsttC: �� .. _ .—._ •. > >
PAUL R. McLAGAN & SON
233 Dakota Avenue WEST ST. PAUL, MINN. SS 1111
Minnesota Registaed Land Sun•e3•ors
Y .
I Hereby Certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me r under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor ur der the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
iurveyed ,For Bruce Pos thumus PAUL J. McGDVLEY, R.L.S.
Date.`March16t....1989i_!.......,... ................... ...... ... _......... __ I
Scale... ..; 1 inch20 feet ......___.._._..__ _. CJr
MIN EGISTRATION. 16099
Description
Lots -9 and 10, Block 1, C.D. Piercers Addition to Saint Paul, accordin to
the 1 `recorded plat thereof on file in the office• of ;the' County Recorder,
Dakota County, Minnesota.''' '
Annapo/is St
;.
I� ai' • �— as
0 I'1
%
5.0,� rra
• � I '� P.oPos�J ��
I,?
M-3,0.0 G.rejq �q
I. a 80
I` J
f�
3 0, t7
'6
o{ w I •i; f
• f ,•^��I, 80.00
Itr ?;� CLaS'C CURB
c
FrQ�no�t• : Sf
L4 i a' •-
4
C 0/ 41V %M? pine N W99
—a—e40j17 (1;7k6017ce;0'n1'¢'. '
Picke/ Farce
.a
FOUK s ; z r 000
,,---A; p k a1+
------------
I Owl c a L.O%%CC'C+t
33 '1
Sete view
56
May 26, 1989
T. C. FIELD & COMPANY
INSURANCE & BONDS
R 0, BOX 64016
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55164-0016
Ms. T. Meidlinger and Ms. M. Mortinson
538 West Annapolis
St. Paul, Minnesota 55118
Dear Ms. Meidlinger and Ms. Mortinson:
We have contacted The North River Insurance Compai
carrier of your Homeowner's insurance, regardin
concern on the garage being constructed adjoinir
property.
612 227-8406
the
your
your
They have indicated that at this time, there woul be no
changes made in your coverages or premium. If there should
be a loss resulting from the negligence of the neighbor's
business, they would settle the loss under your policy and
then subrogate against the negligent party.
At the time of a loss, they do underwrite the risk nd will
N
make a decision then as to whether or not they will ontinue
to provide coverages. I
I trust you find this to be in order, but should
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
R
Yours, truly,
T. C. Field & Company
Carolyn J. Ste?cgre, Manag
Personal Insurance Department
CC; Barbara J. Baumgarten
100 Memorial Drive #11-20C
Cambridge, MA 02141
ledepeetlenl
have
MEMBER
NRIIONnt ASSOVANON Of
SUITE IV OOND PHOWC(AS
640 West Annapolis Street Jun( 1, 1989
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mr. Mayor, and Members of the City Council:
In regard to the matter of the suspension of my building permit and the effort on my pato have
the permit reinstated, I would like to convey the following information.
The proposed building was in good faith on my part, designed and located in cooperation
officials of the city. With the exception of the Right of Way setback variance from 30 feet to
20 feet, conforms to all building codes in effect at this time.
In attempt to have the need for a public hearing waived, a petition was circulated to my
neighbors. At the time of request for each signature, a description was given and an offs
to answer any questions or concerns they may have with giving their support. All were
indifferent or slightly interested about specific details, except Mrs. Mortinson. My wife
the petition to Mrs. Mortinson for her approval, which she did give. The content of the
conversation is addressed in a letter to the Council from my wife dated May 22,1989.
This all took place prior to the Planning Commission meeting on April 25,1989. At this
I presented the plan and the petition of support. The site plan was unchanged in any wi
what was represented to my neighbors. Members of the commission questioned me aboi
aspects of my request, which I feel were answered to their satisfaction. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to accept my proposal as presented without change.
The City Council meeting of May 2,1989, also unanimously approved the permit and va
the recommendation from the Planning Commission, and after questioning me about m,
proposal. At this point, I felt everyone involved understood and supported the plan as
appropriate and proper. , After we started site preparation, Mrs. Mortinson withdrew he
stating she was mislead. My wife and I had no intention to, and have not mislead anyor
matter.
The following is to point out what'was considered in the design, size, and placement of t
j
garage.
1. I presently have an attached garage with approximately 300 square feet, which in
and I intend to convert to living space in the form of a family room and study for
daughters, ages five and six. This garage is of a size that I have not been able to
vehicle inside because of the space required for tools, work benches, and storage i
frequently used household items. Other items such as my utility trailer, spare w:
childrens toys, and garden supplies, are left outside even through the winter for 1
inside storage space.
made
from
several
on
support
in this
wife
rtwo
)re a
s, our
Of
2. Our two bedroom home, constructed in 1810, has a partial, low ceiling basement th t is
approximately 12 feet x 14 feet. With utilities and laundry, the basement offers no space
for storage, playroom, or hobby workspace.
3. I do virtually all work required on my four automobiles to keep them mechanically 3ound.
I have not and will not use my knowledge, tools, or facilities to work on automobile for
others. There is not enough time in my life, money paid for that type of work, or sp ace
available in the proposed garage to make this a possibility.
4. The previously approved Right of Way setback of 20 feet is the same setback of the garage
constructed at 852 West Annapolis Street in 1988. This was requested by Howard
Dahlgren for safety reasons and I concur with this. This setback is more in line widl other
structures on the street with exception of my next door neighbor, Mrs. Mortinson. I ly
property does not have the problem of space available for setback in that there is n
structure restricting placement to the north. Mrs. Mortinson does have this consideration
with her property. I feel that is why her garage has a setback of only 4 feet. In add tion,
requesting placement of this garage any closer to Fremont Street, will create a contractioj
hardship in that poured concrete and foundation from previous structures will hav to be
demolished and excavated so that the new slab could be poured.
5. As can be seen from the site plan, my design places the garage within 1 foot of bein equal
distance from my house to the garage and from Mrs. Mortinson's house to the garage. I
feel this gives a balanced appearance from both Annapolis and Fremont Streets. It does
not obstruct the view from the Mortinson yard or windows except for that of my hot ise.
6. A narrower or less deep building than the present design would mean that fewer tb an the
three spaces for vehicle storage would be available. Since the remaining space is required
for other than vehicle storage, this makes outside storage'bf my cars the only option. I feel
this is not desirable from a standpoint of security, safety, appearance of the property and
neighborhood, and weather affects on the vehicles.
In conclusion, .this garage will make a great deal of difference in the quality of life for my
family, in the form of more living space, and in the neighborhood from a st#ndpoint of
appearance, security, and safety. I am in compliance with all city codes, except for the sei
variance which all city officials have been previously aware and supported. In reliance or
issuance of the permit, construction had begun. I maintain that this building is approprii
consistent with the neighborhood and feel I should be allowed to complete its constructior
approved.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
V•-2.L�G ��Wc�u�.
Bruce Posthumus
cc: Margaret Mortinson
the
to and
as
(une 1, 1989
the undersigned, have reviewed the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission
"ity of Mendota Heights. I am without objection to the construction of this garage at
544 West Annapolis Street.
Mame/ddress
f the
�-Fl .4 11'st 10V 'i
��'/
4
V
�tucu
5 5 Z
WG��
5'44
5?a'4.
J
June 1, 19$9
I, the undersigned, agree with the following statement:
I have not seen any activity to suggest that Bruce Posthumus has operated a business,
in his garage or home at 540 West Annapolis Street.
n
nv kind
avua� fur) uroyJ .-..
6d09/ iy add uarr,,o,,rss o
,rs ltloalery
. Pd'/IJ Jii'CV .
00 lob 02 OR
ZF•• s•o
o• r 4 titvh o oz AOC Oh a
-- `�
5 0 H
077r S
04S
0h!
0'r, r 01r
00
w.. .......... ....
h M " / zb .. .• .
A_._
i7/Y0J
�s si/odouup� • . .
�aoddrs Aaj ma.4V I4, M a yr �ab s lom
v0$N1I.Iij,J j,aA Pl,,J 01 al I v4da 7.iV �14#; q 5V NOSt,,j',AOW
t�� �7iX%hj?►�1 �j�
S)lw)t`S2);'nfg 0
.w
1 S;4, flaK al ;t 01'iYltlrla�lt� `0.Ile c��n�i �h 1e aafer4�i10N LU
IL CiTe� G7�'6ld.11
as D+�ri;"5 App r0 Ni&t c t•NAllc064 0rm4,-,1 TO t1.1I C; /Y LU0' 1,45 G �ts tit i�
�►c tXcr�3 i0 o h e 0 N oT W� dciLtA vaei✓ailce fe pw O f f f0
9 y a et
► s fh a -a-ill ame repeeseA+J +o aK, o44 e i h this
Ma�Ttr
os. +o wlna} wo dA 6e Gottt�rucTetX l ��reviouf bra
r t{1iu�S
AiA not SkOw Sl v"Act%jvts Dk lof .$ y the* MOVIfthsak Prr V49')
. �tnnopolis. Sr`
1
Y
1 y0
WiJOW
. CO
O i ixto ti Q ) Story
P
Stu acv
{.t9i �tdt att!
5.0 � • •
x � a
! .3 l�rav4.'69�
"t 1ti ! o •r
... i Q•tILIy.0
cave• cu,�aT
. frQr»onf Sf
o Se/ 41d' iirjn pipe N /6Q99
—Y— thein link fence
--M—PMO/ fence
!
iiia rq q
M J
M
4.5)
1
{.t9i �tdt att!
5.0 � • •
x � a
! .3 l�rav4.'69�
"t 1ti ! o •r
... i Q•tILIy.0
cave• cu,�aT
. frQr»onf Sf
o Se/ 41d' iirjn pipe N /6Q99
—Y— thein link fence
--M—PMO/ fence
30.0
iiia rq q
M J
M
m '
{.t9i �tdt att!
5.0 � • •
x � a
! .3 l�rav4.'69�
"t 1ti ! o •r
... i Q•tILIy.0
cave• cu,�aT
. frQr»onf Sf
o Se/ 41d' iirjn pipe N /6Q99
—Y— thein link fence
--M—PMO/ fence
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 25, 1989
TO: Mayor., City Council, and Cit yrator
."�i *t
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Hanson Subdivision
DISCUSSION: Mr. LeRoy Hanson was before the Planning
Commission at it's April meeting to request a subdivisi4
the North end of the City off Junction Lane (see attach
staff reports). There was opposition to his request
from the adjoining lot owners and the Planning Commissii
voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. ]
Hanson has therefore, decided not to proceed with his
request. He proposes to transfer the south half of lot
the Barrots, owners of the %orth half of lot 13.
r
The east half of lot 1,Kirchners Addition which wa
part of the subdivision request has a city storm sewer
running through it without benefit of an easement. Mr.
Hanson proposes to donate that entire parcel to the Cit;
drainage and utility purposes. The City needs the ease;
for it's storm sewer pipe and having the City own the 1
for drainage & utility purposes would prevent anyone el;
from proposing to subdivideiof the rear of the Lametti
Addition Lot 13.
t
in
n
13 to
also
ipe
for
Mrs. Barrot, prospective owner of the south of Lot 13
would be in favor of the City accepting the east part of Lot
1 Kirchner Addition and she!said that she would maintain it
as a lawn if the City would 7agree to assist her initially in
removing some of the accumulated debris, trees and bushe .
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission voted unanimously t
recommend denial of the requested lot subdivision. Staf
recommends that provided Council agrees with the Plannin
Commission that they reject the proposed lot subdivision and
accept all of the east portion of Lot 1 Kirchner Additioi for
drainage and utility purposes.
ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the
Planning Commission recommendation they should pass a moi
adopting Resolution No. 89- , RESOLUTION REJECTING A
DIVISION REQUEST FOR THE EAST PART OF LOT 1, KIRCHNER
ADDITION AND THE SOUTH 89.33 FEET OF LOT 13, LAMETTI'S
ADDITION NO. 2, and pass a motion directing staff to pre]
the appropriate legal document accepting the east portioi
Lot 1 Kirchner Addition from Mr. Hanson for drainage and
utility purposes.
ion
are
of
9
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
RESOLUTION REJECTING A LOT DIVISION REQUEST FOR THE EAST PART OFT 1,
KIRCHNER ADDITION AND THE SOUTH 89.33 FEET OF LOT 13
LAMETTI'S ADDITION NO. 2 T
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted the
appropriate public hearing to consider a subdivision request from Mr. LeRoy
Hanson at its April 26, 1989 meeting; and
WHEREAS, at that meeting all contiguous neighbors were present
pointed out cogent reason not to allow the requested subdivision; a
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously not to reco
approval of the subdivision because of large variances required and
aesthetic differences within the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hanson no longer desires to pursue the subdivision.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City oi Mendota
Heights that the request for subdivision is hereby denied.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th
June, 1989. A
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
LIZ
les E. Mertensotto,
H1
I
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 25,
TO: Mayor, City Council and fi�tqaJlator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Hanson Subdivision
Case No. 89-10
DISCUSSION:
At their April meeting the Planning Commission conducted a pt
hearing to consider a requst from Mr. LeRoy Hanson to subdivide a
Junction Lane (see attached staff memos). Three lot owners along
Lane that abut the rear yard of the proposed lot were at the meets
objected to the proposal. They;all felt that the new lot would bE
context with the other Lametti Addition lots and that this proposE
just 'shoe hornirig° in another lot. The owner of Lot 13, Mrs. Bar
present and she stated that her and her husband originally purcha;
form Mr. Hanson and did give him a quit claim deed for the land bi
was as a condition of their purchase from him and not because then
to. She also discovered at the Planning Commission meeting that ;
been paying taxes on Mr.,Hanson's piece of the lot since they tray
to him many years ago because the split was never approved by the
therefore was never filed with the County.
•=i
oz on
inston
g and all
out of
would be
ott was
d the lot
that it
wanted
e had
fered it
ity and
The obvious solution to the problem is to have the BarrottsE�cquire the
property and attach it to their property as back yard.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denia of the
request based on the existance of aesthetic problems and the larg vari-
ances.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation the should
pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 89-_, RESOLUTION DENYING HE DIVI-
SION OF LOT 13, LAMETTI ADDITION NO. 2.
April 24, 1989
James Danielson
City Of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 56118
Dear Mr. Danielson:
We are writing in response to d letter dated April 5» 1989 from �
regarding an April 25, 1989 Notice of Hearing OO the subdivisim
Block l La0etti Addition NO. 2. We are the owners of the lot
the east side, to the ahOV2 described lot. Our address is 546 W
[0t 14, Block 1 [a0Stti Addition No, 2. �
Inasmuch as it is Our
neighborhood ambience,
division of Lot 13,
division is to create
constructed. BeCa6Se
surrounding lots, this
values.
Sincerely,
desire to maintain and conserve the CUrre
we hereby formally state our opposition
It is our understanding that the purpose
d new lot on which d single family hOi
of the close proximity of five existing �
new construction will negatively impact
~
�
L �y
C. Dennis Miller
Carol J. Miller
546 Winston Court
Mendota Heights, MN
Phone 457-6176
298-0997 D8ODi5-y0rk\
pVin Frazell
of Lot 13,
3didcent, on
nston Court,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES E. DANIELSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
KEVIN D. BATCHELDER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
SUBJECT: Hanson Subdivision
Case No. 89-10
DATE: April 18, 1989
DISCUSSION:
Mr. LeRoy Hanson'was in to see Howard Dahlgren and Staff
informed us that many years ago, he sold and developed a
on Winston Court. At that time, he divided off the rear
portion of the lot (Lot 13) and applied to the City for
subdivision approval. "It was recommended for approval b,
Planning Commission, but denied by the City Council. He
returning now to try again.
Staff visited the site and offers the following comments
1. There is a utility easement running approximately a
building setback line with overhead electric and
telephone lines on it. This easement and pole loca
will need to be addressed in some fashion.
2. There are a number of mature trees (cottonwoods
on the site that will need to be removed..
3. There is a shed and some playground equipment that
appear to belong to the home fronting on Winston Cc
that could be located on or very near the property.
There is also a garage on lot 14 that is located be
the house, and close to this proposed lot. This su
should have some of these surrounding structures lc
on it so that we can address any problems that may
associated with them.
and
lot
the
is
the
ion
ly)
rt
ind
vey
ated
4. The lot is presently not well manicured as are all he
other lots in the neighborhood and if a new home go s
in, it would upgrade aesthetic appearance of the
neighborhood.
5. The neighbor who lives on lot 14 called City Hall
expressed her opposition to the proposal.
6. In order to approve this development, the City woul
need to approve variances for area and frontage
(5240 sq. ft. of area and 20 feet of frontage).
ACTION REQUIRED
Conduct a public hearing and based on input from the Pla ping
Commission and public, make a recommendation to the City
Council on the requested lot division and the variances
(5240 sq. ft. to the area and 20 ft. to frontage).
I
{
,
' PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
'
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
25 April 1989
89-lO
Leroy Hanson
Between VV\noLon
Junction Lane (nno�
Court and
Subdivision of Platted Lot
l. Mr. Hanson owns Lot 13 of Block l in LarnaLd Addition 6nq a part of
Lot I of block 2 in Kirchner Addition. Attached is a eurva indicating
these lots and portions thereof and the proposed division.
|
2, The parcel described creates a double frontage lot on Winsto Court and
Junction Lane, with a portion of the frohtage extending in front of the
contiguous lot to the east' (Lot 14 of Block I in Lametti Addition No.
2). Lot 14 is occupied by a home fronting on Winston Court with a
garage in tpe rear yard oriented toward Junction Lane.
J. The properties to the east of Lot 14 are double frontage lofts and were
divided creating two smaller lots, which the applicant indicates
' 7,865 square feet. Thus, in the immediate neighborhood the -e has been
a previous division of Lhooa double frontage hata with 200 feet of depth
boLvvemn Winston Court and Junction Lane. �
4. Obviously, the lot division as proposed
is very strange
with
tile
extension of the very narrow depth of the
frontage to the e3st
in front
real
of Lot 14. We understand that the owner
of this lot is opp:)sed
to
this
subdivision. However, it would appear that
the applicant would
be
able
to transfer that frontage in front of Lot
14 to that owner,
because by
moving the garage there would be an
additional lo�t thalt
could
be
created utilizing the south portion of Lot
14. This is a
owned by
that
iolution
might be discussed at the Planning Commission and Council
earings.
5, The proposed lot, as indicated by the developer, would be ?,860 square
feet, which is a considerable reduction from the normal 1 '),000 square
foot standard. However, lots in this part of the City platted before
the adoption of the current regulations are substantially smal.er than the
current standard. We have attached a copy of the section map for this
area which shows the general lot pattern. Some of the subdivisions
that have occurred are not indicated,on the section maP4 However,
there are lots to the east of Lot 14 where the subdivision of the 200
foot deep through lots has occurred. I
22
Being a part of
the existing platted
lots, the
proposed su
division can
occur without the preparation of a
new preliminary l
real
challenge here
is whether or not
o now
lot can be
created in
cooperation with
the land owner to
the east,
where
frontage
on Junction Lane
(for the south half
of the
lot) in provided
by the
existence of the
narrow strip of land
owned by
the appUcan
.
.
I
11111111111111111M
,4U
i
%6UI
I I.,
4U
q
0
i
LU rL• C�G'�%%�i1 .J 2 232-G�KOEN EN .til'• r2 �\ '% \ ,o Le �o \ I W�`
s /So4 i 1)
! .2LzIz A Lor` 9 � o
/4 t i
7eID
tq i a b
C
•
O � M•
J., LCT 3 PERH�ADD• ti �, L�. 1 /q15 ,t (3 ,, . (oma 9 d ` 7' JJ 74.•7 T
o r7-
o .n w b• I ro o 10I-,
eo J/ � 207.75 //6 Sob 4a I ra ^ 8o I—
o //
J w--- -
b - �.
'+ 3 ,/ r ti ti O
y` � R « `f d•8 7 Gh 5-o0 4 o j ,/r,7
z ° N V4r- -2. O i✓
lz '20-
ff t 5 �o INev 7i ircl: rJ7 ^ / O y S 13 Mv
S � y1 ` Q'
�+ Qv I .ti _ yyt STON cou o oy CT,
;
V S <t // aIS7 , s i L J�•s
1)4.rl tst �1G / [ 7l tsr qjr el 4.5,2 i
i 9i.N
100 .0 z
a
I f.
4 h 7 c1 life. /7c ftic d 9.04 So 8O To
LAWS a N s T. = 3
SUBJECT PROPER ry �¢
Vw Y
1 O
i � ' f
A. iG o
�r lot 7
• "ti �� NORTH
P J o 3 1 SCALE 1"=200'
44
17
I t 8
7
! Iz /l o 4 V E L LIT
-0 qs ,S C I 11^0 !dvS\ �, 7
4 t
OO ` o ` <? 1 C I1O bif .. I •• v( Jr tL J`
;^ VA LLE�'�' LANE Z JOH N ST. 9 ^
,Io Q
W ro )e ,70 to. is 7S I 144.1- J�
ILA M 3 P J0 Si ,
J Z` ° I1 1 N
>> s t q •r t s 1
U �
a�a � ,,tS 4/ ci ♦ I V It. Ao(30
z �.
V � t4 7%
o �
e e e ao „ • lot 4. ! sr °� Q� (S 1.1
10
ns � r� os Ou L-3 V
10
to
Ills 4
.• 1
i to
pro �° 0 9po5 3
�5
- y ?.
t
.4: Case No.
'CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11
':t`:,DAK0TA COUNTY; tMINNESOTA' -
-APPLICATION FOReCONSIDERATION-c"I
aj
fit
PLANNING - REQUEST
!".!
Date of Application iiirch' 7
F ee.a "CIO -2/fw,75
P id
k.,
it TT
--I' ;Alutut;i ans on er
t Last
First Initial
IN .1,
'Qi ;
'IAddress: 530'Junction'Lane"' Mendota Heights 'Minnesota' If
41
T I;
Number.A.Street city State zip
7
Number: 457-3366'
Owner,*
1 Name: S ame
Last First Initial
"Address:
Number & Street CityZip
State
Street Location of Property in question:.,,-,
5510') Junction Lane
%1. I , . I
Legal Description of Property: I
(See attached for complete legal ael3crivti6n) l South'voi
Lametti Addition No. 2,4 together with
:ion of L,
of Lot 1. Block 2. Ki
3, Bloc
er Addition:};
A-
Type,of Request:. -'Rezoning
"'Variance
'(Conditional Use Permit-'
--j Xonditional Use Permit for P.U.
:ti Nit" Minor, Conditional. Use Permit
XXX- 1,,i'Subdivision 'Approval
Plan' Approval -", I, 14. ; i ". I_:, - .. . I. 1. 1' 1 4; ,
int
Wetlands Permit •;
"Other V.
it i
j.
`bNe"d66bt9",Ttofitag 16t`s'i`t'Uati6n"j*imil' ri'l t
a
i��4uest to divide� a
—2, and other's' '•d"
liliJ
d'o' n" e with Lots 1 &2 B lick * 1 Lai�md t t i 'Ad fii t i* rj imme iat�--
C
RE
j ti'
fLi, It t
3
j
C
RE
V J 7c/ VY3 0<106�1
0 E. --7 yh-,45-
Jo I
0 13
ul
cri Cb
rayY
u is uucvti,uu,>tt , � PAUL It. McLAGAN & SO
' q r SJ.t Il Am?:1+rnur It'1•.51' SI. PAIII., ttiti`..$I tN
t V t' t tCitl� i Atim+ca.rta as gioarJ 1.11"I Sn+n•an,
t )
ttL'►��u }
t ' / hereby Gerti(y thu( (his survey, plan or report was prepared by tic or under
1 uy direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Umd Survey >r undrr (11C. laws or tite'Siatc of Ntianesuta.
Stirueyed For Roy Hanson _. PAUL J. Nlet F.Y. It.L.S.
Date March 24, 1987.. ..... .... ..._..
Scale 1 inch .`� Sa....teaG... ... ..............
....................
Description
That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Kirchner Addition, beginning at the N rtheast
corner of Said Lot.l; thence West 158.8 feet along the North•line f said
Lot l; thence Southeasterly 50.7 feet to a point on the Southerly ine of
said Lot 1, said point being 133.8 feet Westerly of the Southeaste ly corner
of said Lot 1 when measured along the Southerly line of said Lot 1 on a
radius of 260.0 feet~; thence Easterly 133.8 feet along the said Su therly
line of said Lot 1 to the Southeast corner of said I,ot,l;.tttence N rth 4.15
feet•to the paint ofbeginning,
together with the south 89.88 feet of Lot 13, Lametti Addition No. 2,
according to the recorded plats thereof on file in the office of the County
Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota.
11 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 30, 199
To: Mayor, City Council and Cit `A I
From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative , Assistan(171
Subject: Adrian Lot Division
Planning Case No. 89-18
DISCUSSION
Mr. Edward Adrian and Ms. Toni Smith appearedefore the
Planning Commission at their May meeting to requE st a lot
e
S,
subdivision (see attached staff memos). They propose t divide a
contiguous lot between their two properties and dd equal
C
portions of it to their existing lots to create more e
o n space.
le
As stated in tie Planning Report, the,lot to be divide has soil
and wetlands variance factors that constrain the 0
deve pment of
t
,the site.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Cbmmission voted unanimously to recommend
waiving the requirement for a public hearing, under Section
11.3(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance, and to a rove the
requested subdivision. pr
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission
recommendation they should pass motion adopting ResoLution No.
89- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT DIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2,
.BLOCK 4, T.T SMITH'S SUBDIVISION NO. 2.
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT DIVISION OF LOT 1 AND LST 2,
BLOCK 4, T.T. SMITH'S SUBDIVISION NO. 2
WHEREAS, Mr. Edward Adrian, owner of that part of ots 1 and
.2, Block 4, T.T. Smith's Subdivision No.2 lying ea t of the
,north -south Quarter line of Section 24, Dakota County, innesota,
said parcel called Parcel One, and Ms. Toni Smith, ow er of the
West 131.05 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, T.T Smith's
,Subdivision No.2, Dakota County, Minnesota, said par el called
Parcel 3, have requested from the City to divide tha part of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, T.T. Smith's Subdivision No. 2 ying west
of the north -south Quarter line of Section 24 and e st of the
west 131.05 feet of said Lots 1 and 2, said parcel cal ed Parcel
'2, according to a survey prepared by Paul R. McLagan a d Son and
submitted to the City May 15, 1989; and
WHEREAS, Parcel 2 is to be divided and equal prot ons of it
added to Parcel 1 and Parcel 3; and
WHEREAS,_ the effect of the lot division is to
space; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lot d
finds the same to be in order.
NOT THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that the lc
submitted at this meeting be and the same is hereby ap
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota
6th day of June, 1989.
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEI
ate open
ision and
ouncil of
division
oved.
ghts this
S
`~ PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
11 May 1989
APPLICANT: Edward J. Adrian
LOCATION: South�est corner of Trunk
Highway 49 and Fourt-i Street
�
PLANNINGCONSIDERATIONS:
l~ Edward Adrian and Toni Smith own property an either side.f lot in
T.T. Smith's Subdivision No. 2 in the southwest quadrant of State
'^"''~ Highway -^ and Fourth ,^~'""^ They r~~r~~~ to ~^`^~~ the ^-t
.
between the two properties and add equal portions of it to their lots.
The attached survey includes a description of the three parcels to be
affected by the division. |
3. The existing lot to be dividad, although ample in size, hasother
development constraints. The soils on the site would require eUonificant
/
. modification.similar to that -_- when the Adrian _'. adjacent -
�
! the west, developed. The drainage occn in the center or
the lot
3. The
lot owned by Mr. Adrian is
14.941 square feet and, therefcre,
does
not
meet the City's minimum
lot area requirement of I500
square
feet.
The proposed lot division
would add approximately 13,13
square
! feet
to Kr~ Adrian's lot. The
resulting 28,074 square foot lot
would
meet
the City's minimum lot area requirement.
|
5. Since no new lot is being created and the resulting lots
minimum standards, the applicant has requested that the
3. The existing lot to be dividad, although ample in size, hasother
development constraints. The soils on the site would require eUonificant
/
. modification.similar to that -_- when the Adrian _'. adjacent -
! the west, developed. The drainage occn in the center or
the lot
' is "="^y'""""" on the City's.wetlands~^~r^ `'`~^~`~^e, -~'-'-r
. the ~~` _~u~~ ..,.^r~ . ,~~.~..~ to the 100 .--- --'___' f
rom the
ditch. This ditch also divides the back yard awkwardly and makes
the
space more difficult to utilize for recreational purposes. Due
to these
constraints, dividing the lot as proposed by the applicant may b
. one o
the more appropriate uses for the property.
4. Toni Smith's lot, at 26,354 square famL, exceeds the City's mini
-num
area requirement. However, - the additional 13,133 square feet
would
p(rovide this lot with more uninterrupted space for recreational
purposes
in the side yard area east of the existing structure.
5. Since no new lot is being created and the resulting lots
minimum standards, the applicant has requested that the
ConmrnlaoioP determine that no public hearing be required in accordance
with Sectioh II.3(l) of the Subdivision Ordinance. A copy
of this
section of the ordinance is included with this report. It woulJ
appear
that no one is adversely affected by this proposal since
no new
structure is required.
.
• NORTH
.WENTWORTHl ' �, S ALE: V=400'
PARK* SUBJECT P OPERTIES
WEN
V • • 1 I' J
� • � II I I • `,
• • i _� � III I
• �, it
KNOL
•
Hy^; ; OIL
/ 1
MENOOTA 14EIGHTS
PAR 3 G0LP:COURSE • `��i
(PUBLIC) 1
CHELOR AVENUE,
1 ( i
aNE
•
, • - i'ii.
fii '
%-,/'//% VAC.
V
I
I
-
y
�
� \\1
•
A NU
)
•
O
'
S0M
I
•
ENUE
+!'
COUNTRY
cc
•
w
•
•
I
i
I
GOLF
4TH
V
• NORTH
.WENTWORTHl ' �, S ALE: V=400'
PARK* SUBJECT P OPERTIES
WEN
V • • 1 I' J
� • � II I I • `,
• • i _� � III I
• �, it
KNOL
•
Hy^; ; OIL
/ 1
MENOOTA 14EIGHTS
PAR 3 G0LP:COURSE • `��i
(PUBLIC) 1
CHELOR AVENUE,
1 ( i
aNE
SECTION 11 COMPLIANCE
CONDITIONS FOR RECORDING
No plat of any subdivision shall be entitled to record in the Dakot
County Register of Deeds Office or have any validity until the plat
thereof has been prepared, approved, and acknowledged in the manner
prescribed by this ordinance.
11.2 BUILDING PERMITS
No building permits will be considered for issuance by the Cit
of Mendota Heights for the construction of any building, struc
or improvement to the land or to any lot in a subdivision as d
herein, until all requirements of this ordinance have been ful
complied with.
11.3 EXCEPTIONS
WhenWhen requesting a subdivision, if either of the two following
exist, the City Administrator shall bring the 'request to the
exist,
"L'
requesting
e
t , the
of the Planning Commission whereupon, they shall review said
and exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropria
requirements of this Ordinance.
11. 3 F(l) in the case of a request to divide a lot which is a part
recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding
parcel of land to an abutting lot or to create two lots al
the newly created property line will not cause the other
remaining portion of the lot to be in violati,,In with this
Ordinance or the zoning ordinance.
11.3(2) Such division results in parcels having an area of five
acres or more with frontage on a public right-of-way mea
three hundred (300),feet or more and when such division
not necessitate the'dedication of a public right-of-way;'
a lot which is part of a plat recorded in the office of
Register of Deeds of Dakota County is to be divided and
division will not cause any structure on the lot to be i
violation of the zoning ordinance or said new portions o
to be in violation of City Ordinances.
of ined
ly
conditions
Lttention
'equest
:e
)f a
)f a
id
5)
wring
oes
or if
he
uch
lots
;301)27
DESCIIIPTI
I "M
v
Ja
-11-
Th K p 4y L V,t -a' 1. and 2 T 41-T. SIiith,'ak,Sub. 'N
RESC IPTI
auateast ts;.F and 2, Block 4 T T. Stith's Sixb*.-No-:
West -131.05 feet of s;id L;i) s i unu,z.
IPTX
-Yhe*west'131.05 feet of Lots I and 2, Block A, T. T. Smfthl Sub.
N
snort south -Quarter line of
norffi:-:-.16u th quirter, line of
d—east-bf-the'wes%--131.05 feet of said Lots I* and*1*2
M M--'-:-
V s- sDESCRI9TI,
-'131.05 feet of Lots I and 2, Block
a 4, T. T Smith's Sub. N. -
I. �-rn
2L A 0
J7 f30-0
I
5. 5"3
5-3
N
r
;e 3
27 67761-- 022-
-.11Z4.49 ...
HG I
Pk
Ily
1 t
1 L.:
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 30, 19E
TO: Mayor, City Council and City mj�tor
FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista
SUBJECT: Variance for a Fence Permit c�
Planning Case No. 89-19
DISCUSSION
At their May meeting, the Planning Commission con idered an
application from Ms. Diane Foley, 2359 Apache Street, for a 14
foot side yard set back variance for a proposed f nce (see
attached staff memos). Ms. Foley did not attend th Planning
Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted unanimously, ith one
abstention (Krebsbach), to recommend waiving the requir ments for
a CUP and granting a 14 foot side yard setback varia ce for a
fence permit.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council desires to implement the Planning ommission
recommendation they should pass a motion to waive the C nditional
Use Permit and its requirements and approve a fourteen oot (141)
side yard setback variance.
1
1 ;�
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES E. DANIELSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
KEVIN L. BATCHELDER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTAN
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 89-19
Fence Variance
DATE: -May 17, 1989
DISCUSSION
Ms.•Diane Foley, 2359 Apache Street, recently -visited with
Staff to discuss a fence. Upon reviewing her application,
Staff discovered that her fence location encroached 14 feet
on a side yard setback abutting a street. The current City
Ordinances (4.8(2)a) require a CUP for such a fence locatic
however, under the proposed -zoning ordinance revisions, a
fence of this nature only requires a variance. Staff has
recommended that she apply for a variance under the propos
new ordinance because a CUP is a lengthy, expensive process
and we feel that her application is routine in nature.
ACTION REQUIRED
Review the request with the applicant and make a
recommendation to the City Council on waiving the requirem
for.a CUP and granting a 14 foot side yard set back varian
9
�CITVOF,;MENDOTA'�!HEIGHT
D&O'Tik. C'61JNTY,-'1:M1NkS1id
. . ... ......
V
IT t. AM,
wk
71
•A lic
am
PP
La *N,4
it
jj
N Last/ F vi � !
5 �jr:,
7
61 X Ad d re a a i
114
Ahli Number,-,;& Street,. I;t C rtyft ',State
,
`t''¢•• "v
v
Te
leph6ne,Numbir,
it
Namei
; Y
Lasmo First:v
lInitial
Lai�jy _ 4 1.
fi•t,
j i
-.'-Address:
Number. & S Ereef City'.'.' {;.!})riftate
Street tr"e"e"t' 1;6�afton'"of'Prop'ierty,in Questi'o*'n:
c/,
o p -
„J Jt,,140 ii,
Le D' ty:
gal. escription'of Pr6p�6r
Zi.;i
T
:4 PWI, Pit
is ; Ali
A F
ReqUest
1,_�f
T'�
"44 YPID.,
a
1_4 JIf
'W;
fo
0
RAT;r, . i7M;PWYPWW11WW%Tv,
k W ( � 4e.! 0 P) F V:
W"
Owl
:t .1
Vj
MA
. 4
4
t
I
P, It
R
Vii: I
; d,
A,, 'j.j.
x '11 r -v -g as 0;
, , .11. e N. WK
�,v
�CITVOF,;MENDOTA'�!HEIGHT
D&O'Tik. C'61JNTY,-'1:M1NkS1id
. . ... ......
V
IT t. AM,
wk
71
•A lic
am
PP
La *N,4
it
jj
N Last/ F vi � !
5 �jr:,
7
61 X Ad d re a a i
114
Ahli Number,-,;& Street,. I;t C rtyft ',State
,
`t''¢•• "v
v
Te
leph6ne,Numbir,
it
Namei
; Y
Lasmo First:v
lInitial
Lai�jy _ 4 1.
fi•t,
j i
-.'-Address:
Number. & S Ereef City'.'.' {;.!})riftate
Street tr"e"e"t' 1;6�afton'"of'Prop'ierty,in Questi'o*'n:
c/,
o p -
„J Jt,,140 ii,
Le D' ty:
gal. escription'of Pr6p�6r
Zi.;i
T
:4 PWI, Pit
is ; Ali
A F
ReqUest
1,_�f
T'�
"44 YPID.,
a
1_4 JIf
'W;
fo
0
RAT;r, . i7M;PWYPWW11WW%Tv,
k W ( � 4e.! 0 P) F V:
W"
Owl
:t .1
Vj
MA
. 4
4
t
I
P, It
R
Y
I M *1 ,i a
U e1PermWforjP.,U,
n UndiW
�a '
yse4 rmit**
AAJ Te
d visioni� po va,I��"tt
a Rrovalr.
9
I
IV S
qwi 1"Jet
:14
UIM V k;wi 7 1*.'9
Y
I M *1 ,i a
U e1PermWforjP.,U,
n UndiW
�a '
yse4 rmit**
AAJ Te
d visioni� po va,I��"tt
a Rrovalr.
9
I
IV S
i'LWLAWki LS i (IViAI L HiUU I'iiU1'UbA I Yu a, t� K, iI.
1 CONTRACT COPY SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.
t�t?i -
CtMF mn
any claims made by anyone about the location of the fence. I am responsible for any special worK describea in inns propo oi.
Unusuai Conditions - Additional Char es. I agree that Sears has the right to make additional charges if unusual grou conditions hinder the
installation. T a ion. uc unusualgroundcon Ihons may be rock formations, hidden foundations, tree roots,'and other similar ot�stales. Any charges neces-
sary to satisfactorily complete the installation will be based on actual additional labor, equipment and material costs.
INSTALLATION ESTIMATED A I understand that this is only an es imaled date and I will be
10 BEGIN WEEK OF . 65SQt2! conlacled prior to this dale to schedul ilia actual installation date.
ta9tPonCEI Customer can buy (DATE) For information regarding
at INS price until: your installation call:
l . '
❑ SC ❑ SC/MCP 4PjSUB,MEOB
POC AIE5E5i'-�i APPI040 By Imm I
(ADDITIO AL PROVISIONS OF THIS PR POSAL ARE STATE ON REVERSE SIDE.)
tcusloom-1*5 S. r ix c) (Spouse's SVmtuw) {Dain)
If sale is made in location other than Sears premises,* YOU, THE BUYER, MAY CANCEL THIS TR NSACTION AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT OF THE THIRD BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE TRANSACTION. SEE THE ATTACHED
, r ^ •IrrI I ATIMI rnRl+q FOR AN r- XPI AVIATION OF THIS RICHT.
OAtE
SIOTIE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
STOTTE PHONE
ILXV
`
4
AEN S NAME
HOME PI IONE
OFFICE F4 VIE
AtHNtESS r•�•-.�CjTY STATE
20 CODE
... � �
�j CL
)'q -b Wr, 7S
.-
S -
IISTALLAIION ALWESS NF RXrFER ENT CITY 61AIE
ZIP CODE
•
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
FENCING
KEY: TNEIPE -•_ X
E JGE
DUILtXIIGs ;
I
DIAGRAM
Ut",UaE ENPOST O
_.----- d /
VQ-LK
LK GATE . n
6:kaQ�v t/ I fi"Y L
ER •TER EXISTING FENCE ****I
note E nAiE
AR Of,t
: "
.
s . . . . .
. • . • r . •
be�'� r't000
{
•6 L+jt}a1 1. . 1 �r j�•
r..
:V-1
� :::,:
. • • .
1�C •'"�"*'. . • r r
!YIAtK
OVERALL
LENGni
OVERALL
II£IG111
1i!
U /
DNIVEGATE GATE
-
WIiiEK14UCKL£
GAUGE
r
Ws EJ
SAItO ❑
. .
. F(`
• . .
•%.J.}}}���.�jj.���. 14
UP
r'
/
' ' �2
: i t
(XAMEIEn
TOP 1
DtAMETEn
TERMINAL POST
. .. . . . .
r .. . . . . •�.
i . . . . . . .
_
,StnhOe T/ 0�
To-
.
. ,
. •! . _
' 1 , � r• . /i .
/ '
% j� V 4v J•
IXAMETEE(t
R LIME POST
LINE POST
SPACING
i
SPECIAL WORK TO BE
. , i . 'J
} .�
' `�
:...: .. , .... .. ! ..
• !!
• • '
' .. ... .
{ • ' ' '
PERFORMED BY CUSTOMER
•
i
A. FENCE TO FOLLOWEJ
SLOPE OF GROUND
•
y t1 • .
I, • I
I
a FENCE TO FOLLOW
COIIOUII OF GnoLNID
•
Q • • ri /• . • N • `
.
i .. . . .
C PENCE TO BE LEVEL (��
r .
. i
. -•
VAIII IGItESTGRADE lJ
FEIRCE TO BE j"""t
. . . ,
t j . .. .
�l 3 Y 6 i . . . . I •
.
.
n LEVEL
- .. ..
.
VAIIILOWESr GRADE L_I
: . •
. . . r . • 1
I ,
E. FENCE TO DE LEVEL
111E GnADE
i
AND SPLIT
LINES CLEAiIOF
. . . . . .
'
/A 4 �
. . . • . . . .
OBSUIUCTIOIS
LINES STAKED EJ...
VAMCUSiOIAIaI
.
. r
,. . .. • •
1 r• 1 r .
.
ascus W111 CUSTOMEII
i .. • i
• ,
.:. . . : ... . i ....
.
........ .
WIVC1TPOST GATE
SWINGS ON ALSO IF
..
GATE SwIIGS Ii On OUT
,
r
... • -
: •, : '. ,.
..::. . .
.. • • i . ( • • .
• a • •' s • r.
Res onsibility of Buyer.
resn- onsible of r tile location
i agree to locate and identify, the f
of the fence described in this
operty line, easements and all underground cables and pipes I
i)ror)osal..l will also defend Sears and reimburse them for all posts
agree that I am solely
In connection with
any claims made by anyone about the location of the fence. I am responsible for any special worK describea in inns propo oi.
Unusuai Conditions - Additional Char es. I agree that Sears has the right to make additional charges if unusual grou conditions hinder the
installation. T a ion. uc unusualgroundcon Ihons may be rock formations, hidden foundations, tree roots,'and other similar ot�stales. Any charges neces-
sary to satisfactorily complete the installation will be based on actual additional labor, equipment and material costs.
INSTALLATION ESTIMATED A I understand that this is only an es imaled date and I will be
10 BEGIN WEEK OF . 65SQt2! conlacled prior to this dale to schedul ilia actual installation date.
ta9tPonCEI Customer can buy (DATE) For information regarding
at INS price until: your installation call:
l . '
❑ SC ❑ SC/MCP 4PjSUB,MEOB
POC AIE5E5i'-�i APPI040 By Imm I
(ADDITIO AL PROVISIONS OF THIS PR POSAL ARE STATE ON REVERSE SIDE.)
tcusloom-1*5 S. r ix c) (Spouse's SVmtuw) {Dain)
If sale is made in location other than Sears premises,* YOU, THE BUYER, MAY CANCEL THIS TR NSACTION AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT OF THE THIRD BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE TRANSACTION. SEE THE ATTACHED
, r ^ •IrrI I ATIMI rnRl+q FOR AN r- XPI AVIATION OF THIS RICHT.
v
, +5 di
'��
4
-- EL,�tAW
RE CROS9�N
,o
�,
sat+
ODITIQIV�o
r,
1� v .r s 3
�,� 'Z
0 45
r21VtQIL
+
►
z
14
w I r
�� ��✓ / ° 's
�
o
to
c
• rl 4
14//
v
!0
, !fr I,, /de
S
y A �,
J .r
f
O <
IH
v`
r
y�.
I r
l
•c •t�I c rr
♦y
t
/ /
`
o
,tom t;
F
14
'
f 16
`_
16
14
14
Itof
rytr
s
r
4
r
,�
^�� .� �`
2 t r'APACHE
++
'•# 10
V
J4
,rar 140
T y5 w�
t c
s •
3
1
iJ�
i+5
S a `�
10
^S
* M
� O d • J
0 0 f 0'�'
r•
•.� fr
4fj.
Z T
i
j
s ri,c
�s
i
IV
11
� •
4
�a
/ a - r#w rpt
-- rst•j 76 • xs
!o
M
.S ;
t•
14'
s o ,�
13
17
OurLOT
c
• rl 4
zo
/I
7
y
r
16
14
r
r
,�
^�� .� �`
2 t r'APACHE
Sig
,rar 140
10
1
N
�a
/ a - r#w rpt
-- rst•j 76 • xs
!o
t•
►'✓ATE, C'C7./ �/LC'. 010. r•0
24!37-$
1
;- f,,, -if
n„r"IrT R•107
613237-A
1\
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
. MEMO
May 30, 198
Mayor, City Council and Cit dn)W for
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant
Wetlands Permit Application for a Fence
Planning Case No. 89-20
DISCUSSION
Mr. Jeff Ward, of 609 Hampshire Drive, appeared efore the
Planning Commission at their May meeting for consider tion of a
Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a fence. The fence
is within twenty feet (201) of a pond which is designa ed as
wetland. (See attached staff memos) The fence is al eady under
construction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to waive the
public hearing, under Section 8C ' of the Wetlands Ordinance, and
recommend to City Cduncil to grant a Wetlands Permi to allow
construction of a fence within twenty feet (201) of th wetlands.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council desires to implement the recommenda ion of the
-Planning commission they should pass a motion a proving a
wetlands permit for 609 Hampshire Drive to allow the construction
of a fence within twenty feet (201) of a wetlands.
I
L6�ck �f—.
a
"oo,7
E `j-%'{�t� jj/j� jet (JJ/JJ/���s++yjfn ��Jjj�(�.
pu
16P
C
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
a'
MEMO
May 31, 1989
TO: Mayor, City Council, City i��Ftor
k
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Feasibility Report for Alice Lane Area Development
Job 8911
Improvement 89 Project 3F'
r '
INTRODUCTION
Developer Jack Blesener has presented a proposal to the City
Council to develop the land north of Wagon Wheel Trail, an:
west of Dodd Road by the extension of Alice Lane. There are
potentially 7 different property owners that could be
V.
effected in some way-- Blesener, Eides, Hennessy, Gangl,
McCoy, Muehlegger, and Johnson.
This report will discuss the possible ways in which this area
s
could be developed, different methods of serving the area
with utilities, the cost of the utilities, and the
assessments that would result from such and improvement
i
project.
w
S
DISCUSSION
There are several ways this project could be developed. Each
'-i
9`
has some advantages. The most feasible option sppears to
oe
the one shown in Drawing A. This option involvds'extendin,
Alice Lane north all the way up through McCoy's property t
the edge of the Muehlegger and Johnson properties.
!
The advantages of this plan are in its ability to serve al
the property owners and its low cost per lot (as low as
$10,700). The disadvantages of this plan are that McCoy only
'
gets two lots because all the right'of way taken, and also
McCoy and Johnson don't want to participate at the present
time.
McCoy's concern over,'the loss of a lot could bealleviated
to,
a degree by purchasing all`the required right of way at the'
market rate (about $2.00 per square foot), then assessing
the
acquisition costs back to McCoy and to the properties that
are not contributing any right of way (Muehlegger•and
Johnson).
y
•
�
L .7.,
The problem of McCoy'and'Johnson's refusal to participate
an
be addressed in two ways: either the City can push the
i
project through or a temporary culdesac can be constructed
at
the south end of McCoy's property. If the project is pushed
through McCoy would be the only unwilling participant because
Johnson could be left out of it completely since no
construction will take place on the Johnson property.
The other way that this problem could be addressed is by
installing a temporary culdesac ending at McCoy's land. I
the project is temporarily dead-ended then Muehlegger will
be
without service. The temporary culdesac plan is shown on
Drawing B as solid lines.
A temporary Culdesac at the South end of McCoy's land
satisfies everyone except Muehlegger. But it has one other
weakness in that the"overall project costs and therefore
assessments will be`considerably higher for everyone because
the project must then be constructed in two phases (see
project costs and assessment discussion below).
r.
The other way this project could be developed is by buildi
g
a more permanent culdesac up into the south end of McCoy's
land which would allow McCoy the ability to gain three
additional lots. This option is shown on Drawing B as das
ed
lines. The major flaw in this plan is that Muehlegger and
Johnson would not be�served. In fact the only way their
properties could be served is via Dodd Road. Such an opti
n
could result in assessments as high as $30,000 per lot for
Muehlegger and Johnson if done as a separate project.
w
Since this shortened culdesac option does not service the
entire area, if Council desires to ensure that Muehlegger
and
Johnson have future access then Council may wish to designate
the full culdesac option shown on Drawing A as the approve
layout for developing these parcels. Thus even,if only a
temporary culdesac is installed now, in the futdre when Mc
oy
develops his land it will be necessary for him to do so
according to Drawing A.
Project Cost and Assessments
Since the most feasible options appear to be either the fu
1
culdesac option or a temporary culdesac ending at the sout
end of McCoy's land,,only these two options will be discus
ed
further.
In all cases it is assumed that all street grading will be
completed by the City and all other grading will be comple e
by the property owners. It is also assumed that Gangl and
Hennessy will be served with sanitary sewer in all cases.
Two scenarios could occur if the full culdesac is pursued;
either McCoy could decide to participate in the project or
McCoy could continue to oppose. The full culdesac option
project costs, assuming McCoy is willing to participate, a e
TOTAL COST $150,245
If McCoy opposes the project and the project was pursued
anyway, the costs would increase to about $173,245. In o
words Staff anticipates about $23,000 in additional legal
easement costs if McCoy opposes the project and Council
elects to complete the project anyway. The $23,000 could
than be assessed back to the project, resulting in higher
assessments for McCoy, Muehlegger, and Johnson.
Assuming that McCoy does participate the assessments to al
participants will be reasonable. The assessments for this
option would be split up evenly for everything, except for
the R.O.W. costs. Since Muehlegger and Johnson would bene
from the R.O.W. donated by McCoy, these,pwners would rece
higher assessments then the lots to the south. McCoy's
assessments would also be higher but the higher assessment
would be more than offset by the payments to McCoy for Rig
of Way. The table below shows the assessments and right c
way credits that would result if McCoy was accepting of th
project. R
OWNER J OF LOTS PER LOT ASSESSMENT
Blesener
4
$10,694
$42,776
presented below:
Eides
ITEM
COST
Sanitary Sewer
$36,465
Watermain
$25,750
Storm Sewer
$10,080
Street
$50,950
R.O.W.
$27,000
TOTAL COST $150,245
If McCoy opposes the project and the project was pursued
anyway, the costs would increase to about $173,245. In o
words Staff anticipates about $23,000 in additional legal
easement costs if McCoy opposes the project and Council
elects to complete the project anyway. The $23,000 could
than be assessed back to the project, resulting in higher
assessments for McCoy, Muehlegger, and Johnson.
Assuming that McCoy does participate the assessments to al
participants will be reasonable. The assessments for this
option would be split up evenly for everything, except for
the R.O.W. costs. Since Muehlegger and Johnson would bene
from the R.O.W. donated by McCoy, these,pwners would rece
higher assessments then the lots to the south. McCoy's
assessments would also be higher but the higher assessment
would be more than offset by the payments to McCoy for Rig
of Way. The table below shows the assessments and right c
way credits that would result if McCoy was accepting of th
project. R
OWNER J OF LOTS PER LOT ASSESSMENT
Blesener
4
$10,694
$42,776
-0-
Eides
2
$10,694
$21,388
-0-
Hennessy
1
$2,805
$2,805
-0-
Gangl
1
$2,805
$2,805
-0-
McCoy
_,,
2
$16,094
$32,188
$23,6
Muehlegger 2
$16,094
$32,188
$3,4
Johnson
1 ;s:t
$16,094
$16,094
-0-
TOTAL
$150,245
If McCoy
Ya ,
was opposed to
the project the assessments
to
Blesener,
Hennessy, Eides
and Gangl would not change,
but
McCoy, Muehlegger, and
Johnson's assessments would
all
increase
by a total of
$23,000 for an
average of $4,600
pe
lot.
a.
,r
it
ve
)0
)0
Since it does not appear to be advantageous to push a prof
through, and there is a good chance McCoy will not
participate despite the financial advantages, Staff examin
the option of constructing a temporary culdesac south of
McCoy's property. Drawing B shows this option (ignore the
dashed lines). This option has much merit, although the
overall cost to serve the area will be higher due to the 1
of economies of scale in utility construction.
The Cost to construct the temporary culdesac and all the
utilities necessary to serve Blesener, Eides, Hennessy, an
Ganql is shown below:
ITEM 'COST;
Sanitary $30;740
Watermain $15,920
Storm Sewer $10;080
Streets $29,870
TOTAL COST: $88!'610
The construction costs would be covered by assessments to
Blesener, Hennessy, Gangl, and Eides. The Assessment spl:
would be as follows:'.
OWNER LOTS. PER LOT ASSESSMENT
Blesener
4
$12,570
$50,280'
Eides
2'!"
$12,570
$251406
Gangl
1
$3,843
$3,843
Hennessy
1
$3,843
$3,8.43
Deferred
storm costs..
$920
***k $4,600
TOTAL
$88,613
In this plan the costs to the participating owners increai
by about $2,000 per lot from the full culdesac option. I:
this option were chosen, then in later years when McCoy
decided to develop the remainder of the Culdesac, the
construction costs to McCoy, Muehlegger, and Johnson woul(
increase due to inefficiencies of scale too. Note also t]
$4,600 of deferred storm assessments would be included.
The increase in assessments to McCoy, Muehlegger, and J
would be between 10% and 20% as shown on the following
�t
-ed
t
le:
Cost per lot for full culdesac constructed now: $16,0 4
Cost per lot for split project built in the future: $18,StO
In reviewing the options, it is clear that for all cases
best results would be obtained for all parties concerned
ne
f
:1Y
''f 1
McCoy chose to participate in the full culdesac option.
If McCoy does not wish to participate, then the temporary
culdesac option would have the fewest problems to overcome
and is the only plan that would have any chance of getting
underway this year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
-Council accept Drawing A, the full culdesac, as the
appropriate method of serving this area now or in the fut
-Council accept the temporary culdesac as the option to
pursue now unless changes his current position McCoy wish
to participate.
-Council accept the feasibility report and direct Staff t
prepare plans and specifications subject to receipt of a
final plat, a petition for improvements, a waiver of publ
hearing, and a developer's agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED
W
If Council wishes to act on Staff's recommendation, Counc'1
should pass Resolution 89_, RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEE 'S
FEASIBILITY REPORT.
0
ROGER"S COURT
28
27 28 2!
32
24
W�
�I
2 I EIDESi34
33 ��
S I I I K I MU84-EGGM
ALICE LANE AUENLEGGER
EIDESa I
1 2 1
BLr 2
BLOCK 2 MC COY
JOHNSON
J
EIDESui
v
w2 NSP
Z EASEMENT
3
3 HENNESSY GANGL
MC COY JOHNSON
g--�—yr CI�EANOUT -�
-} - — DODO — - - - -
Ja�_,_—� �— EXISTING I8"WATER MAIN—�—i—� —�—
NORTH
a w 1w
DRAWING A
MENDAKOTA ESEITES OUTtAT A
I
-EXLSTING SANTARY ••— .. -O—
FULL CUL DE SAC OPTION
ALICE LANE EXTENSION
IMP. 89-3 JOB 8911
FEASIBILITY REPORT SHEET I OF 2£
]/1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Mendota Heights..tinnesota
.sd'. v*„a'�ti:� -..;.+ �"`5 "-f~".+•'•y�" "�"` ",w1,.;�� ..: J''.a.. =f,;z �r'• _..,�: 4... �s � - _ .:. - -- - -. ... -..
�+•.3. •���aiii:.%r'. •.+i7 •. :c y' � „�.;� .:.iC,SF��::. .rra+`Ps yi�'""org' ey.�.:' �.�: • �.;� - �,y�•..r• xt::'�
ROGER'S COURT
28
27 26 23
24
IIS y
CUL DE SAC OPTION -SOLID LINES
ALICE
LANE EXTENSION
SHORTENED
CUL DE SAC OPTION - DASHED LINES
IMP 89-3
JOB 8911 ,
BLocx L
2
1
{
33
EIDESi34
3
.: zy,:���r..w.• _ ':� � �„�.M.k 4'T•• �.r:;u,{'ti,•'�y.: :.„�,riy; r->e'Vr7i.: �fzz^������ .,.�, - ^'=sib; �r_- �i.::v;���r, "';,"' =x;.:, =3..-'•: `�;u — -
�wli•+l�i" � E` '1 - Y,��. �.. KA .4.e>'Rw:r'��'"�f,• S.�,i!•i{; ...�-.. r.._+ Y. �..�.y-4,.!., ��_{` i..� �; ...r A.� :. �.•
33i., Fr .r:"Y ^t ::viM1^�v ii�r� �.f•• fr�::�.i�.~
-' �..k.� _ �_�"r�_ ..L.-: .n. �L....
f ..+:M ..,qp r. i:l��.'"' .w'+I.:Y'1'1'� r
r.
i
B
1
TEMPORARY
I
CUL DE SAC
------_ -+��'
t
MUEHLEGGER
It
t
i
'
ALICE
LANE
I
EIDESOI
\,
• =
1
BLOCK2
MOO D Y `a
lit
2
I
\
6
CK2
1
EIDES
w2
-
JOHNSON
BLOCK3
t�
+
+J
HENNESSY
GANGL
NSP
EASEMENT
CLEAN OUT-
'^ rG DOW -
-.._ EXISTING 16'MWTER MAN
NORTH
d W Iw
DRAWING B
MENDAKOTA ESTATES OUTLOT A
-EXISTING SAN11ARY ••-••-(.� ••^fi
TEMPORARY
CUL DE SAC OPTION -SOLID LINES
ALICE
LANE EXTENSION
SHORTENED
CUL DE SAC OPTION - DASHED LINES
IMP 89-3
JOB 8911 ,
FEASIBILITY REPORT SHEET 2 OF 2
CITY OF MENDOTAr HEIGHTS
Mendota HeighmMinnesota
3
.: zy,:���r..w.• _ ':� � �„�.M.k 4'T•• �.r:;u,{'ti,•'�y.: :.„�,riy; r->e'Vr7i.: �fzz^������ .,.�, - ^'=sib; �r_- �i.::v;���r, "';,"' =x;.:, =3..-'•: `�;u — -
�wli•+l�i" � E` '1 - Y,��. �.. KA .4.e>'Rw:r'��'"�f,• S.�,i!•i{; ...�-.. r.._+ Y. �..�.y-4,.!., ��_{` i..� �; ...r A.� :. �.•
33i., Fr .r:"Y ^t ::viM1^�v ii�r� �.f•• fr�::�.i�.~
-' �..k.� _ �_�"r�_ ..L.-: .n. �L....
f ..+:M ..,qp r. i:l��.'"' .w'+I.:Y'1'1'� r
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT
AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER, AND STREET IMPROVE-
MENTS TO SERVE ALICE LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 1
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 89, PROJECT NO. 3)
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted his report to the City Cou
with respect to the proposed construction of the following improvem
to serve Alice Lane Subdivision No. 1 and ajacent areas, to -wit:
is
The construction of an extension to the City's sanitary sewer
system, including appurtenances and incidentals thereto, and th3
acquisition of easements, and the reconstruction where necessary
of streets and easementsin the areas hereinafter more particularly
described.
The construction of a storm sewer system including appurtenances
and incidentals thereto and the acquisition of easements, in an for
the area hereinafter more particularly described.
The construction of an extension to the City's water distribution
system including appurtenances and incidentals thereto, and the acqui-
sition of easements, and the reconstruction where necessary of 3treets
and easements in the area hereinafter more -particularly describBd.
The construction of street improvements consisting of the acqui i -
tion of easements and the grading, stabilization, drainage and bitumi-
nous surfacing, and the construction of concrete cVbs and guttars on
the streets to be situated in the area hereinafter more particuLarly
described.
WHEREAS, the area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is
situated within the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minne-
sota, and is more particularly described as follows:
The area lying North of Wagon Wheel Trail', West of Dodd Road (State
Trunk Highway 149), East of Rogers Court.
WHEREAS, in said report said City Engineer reported that the propos
improvements and construction thereof were feasible and desirable a
further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the report of said City Engineer be and is hereby re-
ceived.
I of
2. That a public hearing on said improvements be held on Tuesday,
July 11, 1989, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. or as soon as possible there-
after at the Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve in the
City of Mendota Heights.
3. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Cit3
Attorney, be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare a notice
of said hearing and to cause said notice to be published and mailed to
the owners of the property situated within said area, all in accordanc
with applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th
of June, 1989.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
Charles E. Mertensotto,
R
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN D, Raa, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Department of Natural Resources Presentation
regarding 1989/1990 Deer Control Program at
Fort Snelling State Park
DATE: June 1:, 1989
For the past several years, the DNR Wildlife Service ha
conducted a hunt in Fort Snelling State Park to control
deer population. Each year, DNR Staff has appeared bef
the Council to describe that year's program, and to see
permission for that portion of that hunt conducted with
City limits of Mendota Heights.
Council may recall that a few months ago we were notifi
that the DNR was beginning a deer control task force;
Kathleen Ridder was appointed as the Mendota Heights
representative. The Task Force has been meeting for se
months, and has reached a tentative concensus on a 1989
control program. Due to significant differences of opi
among Task Force members, they have not developed a lon
range plan, and intend to reconvene their meetings begi
next September.
Attached is the short range report of the Task Force fo
1989/1990 Deer Control program. No open hunt was propo
within Mendota Heights City Limits this year. However,
is proposed that Mendota Heights would be included in t.
followup sharp shooting program by DNR personnel, if ea
hunts in other parts of the park fail to adequately lim
number of deer.
the
re
your
n the
eral
1990
ion
ning
a
ed
it
lier
t the
DNR Staff will be present late in the meeting to give t eir
presentation, and to discuss this item with the Council.
They will also be soliciting your concurrence for the
possibility of a sharp shoot within Mendota Heights.
Kathleen Ridder is not available to attend the meeting, but
we understand that it is possible other members of the ask
Force may be in the audience.
ACTION REQUIRED
To receive the DNR presentation, and take whatever act
Council deems appropriate in approving or denying the
proposal for a sharp shoot in the Fall.
KDF:jak
Attachment
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 30, 19E
TO: Mayor, City Council and Cit
d for
FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant (El
SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit Application for a Fence
Planning Case No. 89-20
DISCUSSION
Mr. Jeff Ward, of 609 Hampshire Drive, appeared I
Planning Commission at their May meeting for cohsidera
Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a fence.
is within twenty feet (201) of a pond which is-designat(
wetland. (S'ee'attached staff memos) The fence is alrf
construction. t,
RECOMMENDATION
efore the
tion of a
The fence
d as
ady under
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to aive the
public hearing, under Section 8C of the Wetlands Ordinance, and
recommend to City Cduncil to grant a Wetlands Permit to allow
construction of a fence within twenty feet (201) of the wetlands.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council desires to `implement the recommeindat
Planning Commission they should pass a motion al
wetlands permit for 609 Hampshire Drive to allow the c(
of a fence within twenty feet (201) of a wetlands.
q
i of the
oving a
truction
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
SHORT-RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
INTRODUCTION
At meetings held on April 25, May 3, 10 and 16, 1989, the
Management Task Force (see attached list of participants) disc
evaluated the proposals of the Department of Natural Resourcef
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding deer management in Ft
State Park and that portion of the Minnesota Valley National G
Refuge between the Ft. Snelling State Park boundary and I -35W
1989-90 season. After extensive discussion and negotiation tt
force was able to reach consensus on a number of recommendatic
to these short-range issues. These recommendations are listei
The task force also discussed issues on which the members were
reach consensus after repeated attempts. Those issues are a1.
It should be clearly understood that in agreeing to the follo'�
task force members are in no way obligating themselves to mail
positions in any future discussions or deliberations regardinj
management activities beyond the 1989-90 season.
RECOMMENDATIONS (1989-90 only)
The Deer Management Task Force agreed to the following b�
consensus:
1) The deer management objective should be to redu
population density.
2) The no -action alternative for deer population d
reduction is not acceptable.
3) The use of sharpshooters for deer population de
reduction is acceptable. In taking deer by sharpsh
emphasis should be on first removing the obviously
or injured deer, then antlerless deer, then other d
healthy bucks should not be taken.
4) The cities should identify those areas with hig
of deer -vehicle collisions and investigate placing
in those locations.
Deer
ussed and
and the
Snelling
ildlife
during the
e task
ns related
below.
unable to
o listed.
ing the
tain these
deer
e the deer
nsity
sity
oting, the
ick, weak,
er. Prime
incidence
eflectors
The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on the use of public
hunting as a method for reducing deer population density. However, if
a public hunt is proposed and approved, the Task Force recommends the
following:
1) only antlerless deer should be taken.
2) mandatory hunter orientation should be a prereq
receiving a permit to hunt. For the Ft. Snelling p
hunt the orientation should be verbal with written
instructions handed out. For the Minnesota Valley
portion of a hunt, a limited number of hunters shou
pre -selected and thereby required to attend a forma
orientation session.
site for
tion of a
fuge
be
group
The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on the following:
1) The deer population density number which should be the
objective of population reduction efforts.
2) If a public hunt is proposed and approved, theethod by
which deer would be taken (i.e. shotgun, muzzleloader, bow).
3) The use of non -lethal deer population control me hods.
4) The use of trap and remove as a deer population reduction
method.
Other proposed recommendations related to deer management were
offered by members of the Task Force but were unable to be dis ussed
because of the lack of time.
The Task -Force members agreed to continue to meet and wil
address issues related to a long-range deer management plan at
next meeting in September.
The summaries of all task force meetings held to date arel
begin to
their
attached.
I
page
DRAFT 5
MINNESM DMA ! OF NATURAL MOURCES AM O.S. F=,& MILCL FE
����TT ppi�p ��__�y� �r•��q �E�p. ry .. p�p�
PBOP SAL PUR, 1989— 0 VALLEY hint L � � {,.�.Oii M
(Prot Floc t 9oey 7� State Park to Iuterst�t�e ; 35W)
SUM'9ARY. A combination of shotgun and bow bunting arra siAa ooting in F
Snelling State Park and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge f
November 5, 1988 through February 10, 1989, removed. 129 deer (51%,female)
The past -reduction survey indicated at population of 243'(29 per square
whic.,h agreed closely with -our model's prediction. • Our 'goal. was to re
deer in 1988-89 to reduce the density to 22 per square mile.° This was t
followed by the removal of: 91 deer in 1989-90 to reduce, the, density to 1
square mile. The 1988-89 goal was not met. Surveys of deer in Bunrsvill
Eagan, and Bloomington were not complete but they indicated an increase
Eagan, a stable population in most of Burnsville, arra a decrease in the
Bloomington Ferry area of Bloomington.
We propose a combination of shotgun and bow -hunting followed by
sharpshooting to remove 175 deer in 1989-90 to reduce the population dens
to 15 per square mile. Hunters will be required to talm antlerless (femal,
immature mule) deer only and sharpshooters will be required•to talm .
antlerless, sick or injured deer only. In following years we propose to
remove 15 to 25 deer per year or about 50 deer every other year to stabil
the population at 15 to 20 per square mile in Spring (pre -fawning): DNR
USFWS propose that this be done with hunting and sharpshooting.
Long-range management will include more study of deer in this area,
continued monitoring of,vegetation.and improved aerial arra deer -car colli,
surveys to measure the effects of the deer reduction. DNR will work with
cities to integrate our control program into a comminity-wide deer manage
strategy. A citizen -natural resources managers task force has been cone
and has evaluated this proposal over four meetings starting April 26, 198
Concensus (unanimous agreement) was not reached on this proposal. The to
force agreed to evaluate this short-term proposal arra to continue to att
to adopt a mutually -agreeable long-range, community -wide plan. The next
meeting is scheduled for September, with monthly meetings to follow.
/89
le)
211
be
per
1. 1958-89 Deer Iedoction Effort. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS)
conducted one special deer hunt with shotguns and one with bcw and arrow i
1988. Additional deer were removed by shaprshrooting follaving the hunts.
The shotgun -hunt was held on the weekends of November 5 - 6 and 12.-
The hunt was held in Fort Snelling State Park south of I-494 and in the Lc
Meadav Lake and Black Dog units of the Refuge (units F1, B1, and B2 shown
map 1). Ninety-three permits were available, but only 62 hunters claimed
permits at the mandatory orientation session. Hunters took 51 deer of whi
only 20% were adult females, and 20% were immature females.
The baa -hunt was conducted in the Black Dog unit only (B1 and B2). A
unlimited number of permits were available to be picked up by the hunters,
pe -_•�:., z the Refuge headquarters. Hunters were required to study hunt
: :sem:.- . and boundaries at that time and to sign an affidavit of
ng. A total of 1573 bcw-hunters picked up permits, but we do r
lana -t ha many of then hunted. Bcw-hunters took only 5 deer fran November
ty
or
the
3.
in
t
page
through December 31.
Sharpshooting was done by DNR and USFM officers' from December 20, 988
through February 10, 1989. They took 73 deer which included 51% adult
females, 15% immature females, arra only 8% adult males:
A total of 129 deer were killed, of which 51% were female . (35% adul } .
No trespass or safety problems were noted among permitted hunters. One
bow -hunter was apprehended, taking a deer in unit B1 during'the'shotgun- y
season.
2. Deer Papalatiam Status and Goals. An aerial sunzey of,,'deer numbers in the
hunt area and in surrounding communities was conducted'in February and ch,
1989. This was after completion of sharpshooting. 'The'pouapulation in the Park
and Refuge area was estimated at 243 (Table 1). Deer density was down f 35
per square mile in 1988 to 29 this year, a 17% decline. This reduction d
not meet the goal set in 1988, which was to remove 211 deer,,to^reduce the
density to 22 per square mile. If this goal bad been met, 'M" proposed to
remove 91 deer in 1989-90 to reach 15 per square mile.
Again this year we surveyed Eagan, Lebanon hills County Park (Pagan d
Apple Valley), Burnsville, and parts of Bloomington. We:received pledges f
funding for surveys from Burnsville, Eagan, and Dakota county Parr. The
estimated deer population in Eagan, excluding Lebanon Hills, was down from 122
to 89 (4.1 to 3.0 per square mile). The Lebanon Hills population was up f
85 to 201. This indicates fan increased number in Fagan, but a greater
concentration in Lebanon Hills. The Burnsville survey included an additi
area not surveyed (by error) in 1988. This was the northaaest corner,
by I -35W and Highway 13. This new area held 7 deer or 117 per square mile
The remainder of Burnsville had an estimated deer (O.,W per square mile) C.
ern from 12 deer in 1988. The Bloomington Ferry deer population in j
.ioanington was dcµm from 108 to 85 (180 to 142 per square mile). This hi
density is due to deer feeding. We did not survey the Ninamile Creek or
Purgatory Creek areas due to lack of funds.
The harvest and survey data were entered into the mathematical model
which is used by DNR to predict deer populations. The model predicted a
Spring (pre -fawning) population of about 250 resulting from a'kill of 129
which we had in 1988-89. This corresponds well with the observed number of
243.
Using this model, we predict that we must take about 175. deer includi
34% adult females, 29% immature females, and only 9% adult males; to reduce
the 1990 Spring population to 128 deer or 15 per square mile., To accompli
this goal we propose a public, special hunt with shotgun and. bow and arrow.
If necessary this will be followed by sharpshooting by DNR and USFWS office
If we accomplish the objectives this year, we could maintain astable
population with a kill of 15 to 25 deer each year or a kill of,'about 50 deer
every other year.
3. 1989-190 Daw i\educ icuProposal.
A. Iu STM PARK (Mendota Heights and Ebc)' j)
(1) Wnting
(a) Park area south of I-494 (Unit FI on mag, l71Eagara)
(i) Bow -hunting from September 16 thr
Aough, Nov®ber 12,
,1.
L• •
y'
page 3
1989.
(ii) Permits will be unlimited.
(b) Hinter requirements/Safety Consisiderations
(i) Hunters must obtain permit in person at the
headquarters.
(ii) A verbal orientation arra written regulations and
Instructions will be given with the permit.)
(iii) A permit application fee will be $5.00.
(iv) Only antlerless deer may be tarn.
(v) Up to two deer may be talmn with two license.
(vi) All deer muast be registered at the Park
headquarters. ;•
f
F
(iii) Blaze orange clothing must •be worn when gun
season is open in the Refuge (November 5-12).
(2) Sharpshooting �..
(i) To be done. only if hunting does not accomplish deer
. gpals . :
• r
(ii) Areas to be used include the entire park, Units F
( Eagan) , F2, and F3 (Mendota Heights) on map 2 .
(iii) Dates and procedures are identical to those des ibed
below in section (b) (2).
(1) ranting
j (a) Rati cnca l e for type of densities:
t' Ranter densities are based on National Wildlife
is Refuge standards developed,fron e:4periences with
11 controlled hunting. The standards are 1 b mter p
�1 acres for and 1 biter per 10 acr
' These standards provide for min
contact among hunters and promote a safe experien
Areas selected for archery -hunting were those whi
closest to residential areas to maximize safety t
residents. Archery -hunting areas in Bloomington
Burnsville are located near areas where such hunt
been allowed on private lams in the past-!
..- •F _ .. ..- .•.11. • O- • -
25
for
were
has
page 4
The hunt last year was two weekends, or 4 days. Th
year the proposed hunting period includes two week
plus the intervening week, or 9�days;total.. This
intended to give the hunters additional time to le
the area and deer locations and,,to,'increase the ch
that weather and deer movenent„will be optimal. A
these factors will increase hunter'success,and red
the need for sharpshooting.
(c) Long Meadow Lalm Unit (Blooaingbon)j `
(I)' Sbobgun7bmt9ng from Novembor 4-12, 1989 , on
bu ntable re
foga lands ea''t„ �of Cedar Avenue (;
L2, and L3 on map 1). Ten permits will be is
(1 hunter per 25 acres). These areas were hu
with shot
gun last year.
of
all
from November, 4-12, 1989, on all
huntable lands west of Cedar; Avenue and, south of
Long Meadow Lalm (L4, L5,' and L6). Unit L6
property owned by the City of,, Bloomington.
Seventeen permits will be issued (1 per 10 a ).
By having the archery -hunt coincide with the
gun hunt east of Cedar Avenue, harvest
potential will be maximized. These units were
not hunted last year. '
(d) Buck Dog Lake Uait (Burnsville)
(e)
(i) Sb�tg m7h mting from November 4-12, 1989, on all
huntable refuge lands north of the railroad tracks
and south of Black Dog Lake (B1 arra B2 on ma 1).
Twenty-six permits will be issued (1 hunter per
25 acres). These units were"hunted last
(ii) from November 4-12, 1989, on
certain refuge lands south of the railroad
trach (B3). Last year numerous deer were
observed entering.this land, whsch was unhun ed,
as they were "pushed" by hunters on land north of
the railroad trach. Archery -hunting south of the
trach will provide additional harvest but will
not cause safety concerns associated with -
-hunting near the bluff•. 'Twelve permits will be
Issued (1 per 10 acres).
Hunt Requirements/Safety Considerations
(1) Permits will be required for 'the gun and
bcw-hunts.
(ii) A permit application fee will be $5.00.
i. .
r
(III) Deer taken by gun and bow must be registered at
the refuge headquarteri.
(Iv) Only antlerless deer (females and immature mal2s)
may be taken, this is to minimize the number
needed to be taken to control the popalation. Up
to 2 deer may be taken per hunter.
(v) Gun -hunting may only be done frau portable or
temporary stands elevated at least 5 feet from the
the ground.
(vi) Guns must be unloaded and cased while the
are going to and from a stand.
(vii) Blaze orange clothing must be worn while gun
bow -hunting.
(viii) All gun and bow -hunters must attend a mandat
verbal orientation with written instructions
(J,x)� Brochures containing rules, regulations and mar.
'will be Issued to all hunters when they obtain
permits.
(x) Boundary signs will be clearly posted.
(xi) Refuge'law enforcement officers will actively
patrol the hunt areas.
(2) Sharpshooting
(a) Will be done only if hunting does not ! accomplish
redaction goal. t
(b) Only antlerless deer will be talmn except,that priori
will be given to taking sick or injured deer of eie
sex.
(c) All areas that will be hunted within the Long Meadow
rAte and Black, Dog Lake Units will be hunted by
sharpshooters fran November 13,,1989,'to March 30, 1990,
or until the reduction quota is reached.
(d) Will be done only by Refuge and DNR law enforcement
officers.
t
(e) Weapons used will be centerfire rifles of .243 or .2,
caliber.
(f) All procedures will be as in 1988-89.
I
's
page 6
us 0 Z. zi r=s= =f
When the population goal of 15 per square mile observed during
winter aerial census is reached, we will manage the deer to maintain this
density while the effects of the reduction are monitored. W have been
monitoring the vegetation damage by deer in the Park and Refuge. We also
records of deer -car collisioris through 1986, when road authorities began
disposing of the deer. The Department of Natural Resources will work wit
cities to obtain an accurate estimate and trend of deer -car collisions. I
vegetation damage and deer -car collisions are reduced to acceptable levels
population reduction and -other feasible damge control methods, the deer
population will be allowed to increase until damage or collisions inc
significantly. The population would then be slightly reduced and maint
If vegetation and other damage are not significantly reduced, we will eva
the need or desireability to reduce the herd further.
The DNR wildlife manager will assist the cities in Identifying areas
high deer -car collision numbers. DNR will assist the cities in obtaining
information about Swareflex(TM) deer warning reflectors which have been st,
to reduce such collisions. The DNR will give technical assistance to cit."
eyperiencing damage to residential landscape and garden plants. ,These
measures are in response to recanmendations of the task force.
The DNR will work with interested cities to integrate our control
measures into a plan which includes the entire city as well as the state a
federally administered lands. DNR research biologists are making prelimir
plans to do studies of deer movements, productivity, and human interaction
this area. These will build an previous U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service stud
"'uture studies depend on additional funding. We plan to continue our aeri
surveys of the three cities and to expand ' them If funding can be obtained.
A deer managihent task, force was initiated on April 26, 1989 and has a
four times. The task force has 18 members including a facilitator provide
DNR. Represented are: 3 animal protection or animal rights groups; the
cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, and Mendota Heights; 3 hunting
groups; 2 general environmental groups; Hennepin and Dalmta County Parks;
Parks and Wildlife; and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (membership list
attached).
The task force agreed to evaluate this proposal and supporting
documentation, and to defer discussions of long-term, comprehensive manage
-so that the issues could be studied in depth. The task force made
recommendations only when a unanimous decision could be made. This propos
was modified based an recammendations of the task force. The recaumendatJ
and issues discussed are attached, as are the summaries of the four meetir
to date. The next meeting is scheduled for September, with monthly meetir
to be held after that date. Although the agenda has not been agreed upon,
is expected that the discussion will involve the evaluation of altenative
methods of deer population and, deer damage'control. We will also attempt
propose a comprehensive deer management strategy for the four (possibly fi
con.=nitles represented.
Jc-i Parker . and Steve Lewis, Assistant Manager
"I Area Wildlife Manager Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Holmes St. 4101 E. 80th Street
ski-=Icopee, M 55379 Bloanington, M 55425
the
have
i the
of
in
R
by
page 7
TABLE 1.
MINNESOTA VALLEY POPULATION ESTIMATES
1982- 1989
DATE OF CENSUS
UNIT 2/82 1/83 1/84 1/85 2/86 1387 1/88 2/89
Fort Snelling+
Long MeacbwF-
Blackdog
Count 267 254
Estimate(a) 356 339
Density(b) 42 40
Area = 8.4 s care miles
Number of Deer Removed
by hinting &
Sharpshooting
286 251 461
381 333 576
45 ` 40 69
N 219 183
0 291 243
35 29
S
U
R
V
E
Y
57 52 226 76 129
(a) Research with observations of marked deer from helicopter in similar
habitat shcwed a maximum of 75% observed.. Thus "Estimate" = "Count" x 1.33.
(b) peer per square mile.
-r 7
1Lzagoay
AampaV
Aawoav
ur,540gs
UnB40tS
un -64~q M
Aaagoav
UnB4cyiS
unf54cilS
buF400taamqS
BUT40mlsamts
Aaatpav
JNIZOOHS&rMS/DMIN1H
so 3ju
OT
T
9
8 6
T
T
ZT
9
OZ
amN
auoN
pazTmTlufl
m•
£T
09
ooZ
OT
£Z
9TT
89T
005
9Z
sPualI
5I
£'I
Z^
T'.
£S
Zfl
TS
aBn3a,d
a3FTPTTM
TBmPW
AaTTEA
ISI
£2T
Z3
T3
:qxea
azezS
BUTU uS
:Pog
sllw3 m (SZ&W) HZIS IIM
ao Haa4lN IINn
PAGE 9
MAP I
Proposed Hunting Zones, 1989/1 90
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Ft. Snelling State P rk
CR YN.D.N.R. State Parit -sciam
5
L=;T.
U.SAW.S. Refuge dqrsl
T 1:[- 5 1-6
I Qd
a,-tj It
dill
cil
I L4
4
86th St.tone Oak
I t
LOOMING 0 4.
E
r
7
17, Y-
A
I'
*9CC" IC4 <:3
47.
0
. glit,
.117
O.
g:
--5 L EAPAN
L6
4
[33
E
4
35
w
77
.0y/i..l��7 7N
P,
V
BURNSVILLE
aft Rd.
to/
S ale
6 0 ft.
0 Access point
Black Dog Lake Unit -F.W.S.
Fort Snelling jUnit - O-IM
Long Meadow Lake Unit - F.W.S.
' //� �yQt����' �rii♦ri. �: +��� Vii' t' J
MAP 2, FORT SNELLI NG UNITS
r` "00,
A3. +
• �«tat•t;• v
IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND ..
'• 1
EAGANI
sis
M•wi .S. ,S• j • 1 '� •.�•• I t ,•
�.' �..� ' I � •. tom�{(•� �� 4Hn A _��. 4r'S` � ' .
' • :' :_, ;; � +� »�. ' -�• � t `fit �+ - : . � /
ZZ � •."' •' ` .ir � ��r • "33" 4"u� •_ ,_lt• ��c'1 .�� ..• j,� �../
+ ` - • . • T` .- .. • II � � • : •`.r.•:. '''CGCG'''
•♦ at•+t ►t .iM•♦ •y, \ j •' Q, � � .lt t i;
17
i �•.... ,�e„•"7 ,(� w r .y, - • .rte+ • •�
.J94 BBIDC,
ra
RIVAT
ktlrtc•�� '{w1 ��..__.. a1•atrtl'IT ��•.��
- � � .... • • • .. • .• ... . , � ..... - ' ..,. # � +1 *.,s air .! i • •tlMr • � � 1 • 'i
—' 'o" I
AFFL D In, 1111 NNESO 1 A VALLEY DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE,
MEMBERSHIP,*RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MEETING NOTES,
MINNESOTA VALLEY DEER MA VV0v P TASK FORCE
t
MEMBERSHIP LIST May 18, 1989
"Aeotu]ar" Members/Alternates '
Representing
r.
Don Davis......................Bloomington
Oliver McColloch...............Eagan
Charlotte Shover...............Burnsville
Kathleen Ridder................Mendota
Heights
Richard LaVbourn ...............M:Innesota
Network for Animal Concerns
Dean Weigel replaced by ........
Minnesota Valley Humne Society
Jacqueline Zschokke
Linda Hatfield .......... ......Friends
of Animals and Their Envircronent
*Arden Aanestad.................Isaac
Walton League/City of Edina liaison
Joe White .......................
Minnesota Valley Audubon Club
Andy Anderson/Scott Maas .......
Minnesota Deer canters Association
Jim Goodoien/Rich Williams.....
National Muzzleloading Rifle Association
Duane Johnson ..................Minnesota
State Archery Association
Lary Gillette ........ ....
Jienn,epin Parks
Chuck Lcwery/Barb Schmidt......
Dakota County Parks Dept.
Steve Legis/Terry Schreiner....
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge'
Nancy Albrecht .................Minnesota
Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR,'
Div. of Parr & Recreation
Wallace Bartel.................MN
DNR, Fort Snelling St. Park
Jon Parker.....................MN
DNR, Area Wildlife Manager
"Supporting Menbers
Don Buckhaut ...................Facilitator (MN DNR)
Rick Meierotto .................Biologist, College of St. Thomas
Sue Senecah....................Sociologist, taiversity of Minnesota
(Taping meetings for research)
Jay McAninch...................MN DNR, Deer Research Biologist
* Added by group concensus, but slid not attend any meetings.
I- ti -
I
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
SHORT-RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
INTRODUCTION
At meetings held on April 25, May 3, 10 and 16, 1989, the I
Management Task Force (see attached list of participants), discu
evaluated the proposals of the Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding deer management in Ft.
State Park and -that portion of the Minnesota Valley National Wi
Refuge between the Ft. Snelling State Park boundary and I -35W d
1989-90 season. After extensive discussion and negotiation the
force was able to reach consensus on a number of recommendation
to these short-range issues. These recommendations are listed
The task force also discussed issues on which the members were
reach consensus after repeated attempts. Those issues are also
It should be clearly understood that in agreeing to the follow
task force members are in no way obligating themselves to maint
positions in any future discussions or deliberations regarding
management activities beyond the 1989-90 season.
RECOMMENDATIONS (1989-90 only)
The Deer Management Task Force agreed to the following by
consensus:
1) The deer -management objective should be to reduce
population density.
2)- The no -action alternative for deer population det
reduction is not acceptable.
3) The use of sharpshooters for deer population dens
reduction is acceptable. In taking deer by sharpshoc
emphasis should be on first removing the obviously sl
or injured deer, then antlerless deer, then other dee
healthy bucks should not be taken.
4) The cities should identify those areas with high
of deer -vehicle collisions and investigate placing re
in those locations.
leer
sed and
,nd the
Snelling
.dlife
ging the
task
i related
ielow.
enable to
listed.
tg the
Lin these
leer
the deer
sity
ity
ting, the
ck, weak,
r. Prime
incidence
flectors
The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on the use of public
hunting as a method for reducing deer population density. However, if
a public hunt is proposed and approved, the Task Force recommends the
following:
1) only antlerless deer should be taken.
2) mandatory 'hunter orientation should be a prerequ
receiving a permit to hunt. For the Ft. Snelling po
hunt the orientation should be verbal with written
instructions handed out. For the Minnesota Valley R
portion of a hunt, a•limited number of hunters shoul
pre -selected and thereby required to attend a formal
orientation session.
ite for
ion of a
fuge
be
group
!
he Task Force wasi'unable to reach consensus on the foll(wing:
1) The deer population density number which should be the
objective of population reduction efforts.
2) If a public hunt is proposed and approved, the method by
which deer would be taken (i.e. shotgun, muzzleload(r, bow).
3) The use of non -lethal deer population control methods.
4) The use of trap and remove as a deer population reduction
other proposed recommendations related to deer management were
offered by members of the Task Force but were unable to -be discussed
because of the lack of time.
The Task Force members agreed to continue to meet and will begin to
address issues related to a long-range deer management plan at their
next meeting in September.
The sumnaries of all task force meetings held to date are attached.
�
.
"
.
DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
Summary of May 3, 1989 Meeting
TIME AND PLACE:
7:00 p.m.; Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge He
Bloomington
ATTENDANCE: See attached sheet
PRELIMINARIES:
}
All members introduced themselves. Don Buckhout, facil
reviewed groundrules and the results of, the last meetin
EXPLANATION OF CONCERNS:
Task Force members who were not present:at the first me
given an opportunity to add to the list;of concerns tha
developed at that meeting.The foliowing'conerns were ad
impact of public hunts on non -consumptive users
impact of public hunts on other wildlife
relationship of management to refuge act
relationship of HR 2724 to refuge management
page v
rters,
stator,
ting - were
was
ed:
PRESENTATION OF AGENCIES' 1989-90 DEE3 :�.ANAGEMENT PROPOSALS:
Steve Lewis (USFWS) and Jon Parker (MDNR) presented theLr
respective agencies' proposals for deer management in tie 1989-90
season. There were several questions regarding clarifi ation of
the proposals. Mr. Parker also handed out and explained data that
.the ,MDNt .uses . to• predict deer population levels and the emmpected
outcomes of control efforts. Some specific suggestions made by
task force members included a further division of hunting periods
within hunting units and proficiency and written testin for
hunters as a prerequisite for obtaining'a permit. Ther were also
comments made relative to the accuracy, reliability, an
feasibility of deer population model numbers and projec ions.
As the focus of the discussion was on obtaining and que tioning
information regarding deer management proposals, there as no
attempt to reach agreement on either the proposals or t e suggested
modifications. s
NEXT MEETING/ASSIGNMENTS:
The next meeting of the task force will be on Wednesday May 10th
at 7:00 p.m. at the National Wildlife Headquarters in B oomington.
The task force agreed that the focus of the meeting wil be to
review, point -by -point, the short-range deer management proposals
in an attempt .to identify areas of agreement that can b forwarded
to the approporiate city councils. The meeting will co elude with
a polling of task force members regarding their willing ess to
continue the process and scheduling future meetings, if needed.
Jon Parker and Steve Lewis will provide copies of their draft
proposals to the task force members prior to the meetin . Jon
Parker also agreed to send out a list of the dates and imes for
city council or city commission meetings at which the d er
management proposals will be presented and discussed.
DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
Summary of May 10, 1989 Meeting
TIME AND PLACE: I'+'
7:00 p.m.; Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Bloomington.
ATTENDANCE: There was no attendance record from the meeting
PRELIMINARIES:
.All members introduced themselves. Don Buckhout, facil
briefly "reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
PRESENTATION OF SHORT-RANGE DEER MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS:
Task Force members were given an opportunity to present
for deer management that would apply to the interim shor
objective of the task force.+ Linda Hatfield (FATE) prop
following:'1) use of Swareflex reflectors to deter dee
highways; 2) use non -lethal methods (e.g. dog hair, nois
keep deer from over -browsed or ornamental shrubery; 3) 1
and two should reduce the need for deer population contr
would go along with a gun hunt; 5) for a bow hunt would
written atad proficiency testing to be funded with permit
any deer taken should be antlerless with emphasis on wea
crippled animals; 7) sharpshooters can be used to take d
reach target populations; 8) it is DNR's responsibility
that it will be a safe and humane hunt. Richard Laybou
Network.for Animal Concerns) presented a 1� page rationa
discontinuing deer hunting in national wildlife refuges
short-term compromise proposal for deer management. The
proposal includes the following points: 1) no public hun
refuge between the Mississippi River and 35W; 2) profess
sharpshooters would be permitted to take weak, sick, inju
old deer starting mid-November through a pre -established
Department of the Interior should start to persue non -let
management alternatives; and 4) the Deer Management Task
should start no later than September 1989 to explore long
solutions to deer management in the refuge. Jon Parker
(DNR -Wildlife) indicated that he has modified his draft p
include a requirement that in a public hunt a hunter must
antlerless deer first, and that bucks could'only be taken
bonus deer permit. There was general discussion and quer
related to these proposals and the proposals presented at
t meeting.
tens,
ator,
roposals
-range
sed the
from
makers) to
ems one
1; 4)
fees; 6)
, sick and
er to
o insure
(Minn.
e for
nd a
hort-term
s in the
onal
red and
period; 3)
Thal
(Force
oposal to
take an
with a
ioning
the last
Additional background information was distributed to the ask
force. Steve Lewis (USFWS-`.ZRVR) handed out a response to concerns
and comments raised at the last meeting. Nancy Albrecht
(DNR -Parks) handed out copies of state laws that authoriz /mandate
deer population control in state parks. Richard Laybourn and Jon
Parker handed out additional informational material.
DISCUSSION OF SHORT-TERM OPTIONS:
The task force identified several options for considerat'
would apply to deer population control:
-no action
-sharpshooters take:
obviously sick, weak or injured deer
antlerless deer
any deer
-pulic hunting to take:
obviously sick, weak or injured deer
antlerless deer
any deer
by means of:
shotgun and archery
shotgun only
-non-lethal control (e.g. contraceptives)
-trap.and remove
The task force then identified possible criteria that
to select from among the options:
-bio-effectiveness -legality
-needs of deer -cost effectiveness
-administrative time -impact on total en
-humaneness -meets management g
-feasibility or do -ability
The task force then explored for possible agreement on w
short-term management objective might be. Three propose
objectives were presented: increase the population densi
population density the same, or reduce the population de
task force agreed by consensus that the short-range obje
should be to reduce the deer population density. There
consensus on what the density objectiv should be in ter
per square mile although a range o€(l5-2 animals was di
The group then disussed the population control options 1
in light of the agreed-upon management objective.
There was consensus that the no -action option should be
for the short-range. There was also consensus that the
sharpshooting option could be used to meet the managemen
objective. It was further agreed that in taking deer by
sharpshooting, the emphasis should be on first removing
obviously sick, weak, or injured deer, then antlerless d
then other deer. The group also agreed that prime, heal
should not be taken.
The task force was unable to reach consensus on the use o
hunting as a method for reducing deer population density
short-term. However, the group did agree that if a publi
proposed by the management agencies and approved by the c
antlerless deer should be taken. There was no consensus
non -lethal control methods or the trap and remove option
short-range period.
page vii
that
be used
onment
s
t a
general
, keep
ity. -The
ive
s no
of deer
ussed.
ted above
iminated
r, and
v bucks
public
Ln the
hunt is .
Cties only
)n use of
.or the
page viii
NEXT MEETING/ASSIGNMENTS:
Jon Parker informed the task force members that the Blooms gton NR
Commission meeting presentation has been changed so that t iere is
an opportunity for another task force meeting prior to the time
that he must finalize his proposal. The group agreed to m et one
more time to continue discussion of the short-range proposals. The
next meeting will be on TUESDAY, May 16,�1989 beginning at 7:00
p.m. Jon Parker will find a location for the meeting as the MV
Refuge headquarters is not available. He will notify task force
members of the location as soon as possible. At the end oF the
next meeting the task force members will be given the opportunity
to decide whether or not to continue the'process and address
long-range issues.
r
t
DMTF3
I
DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
Summary of May 16, 1989 Meeting
TIME AND PLACE:
7:00 p.m.; Ft. Snelling Hemorial,Cliapel,-Ft.'Snelling Stat
ATTENDANCE: See attached sheet.
PRELIMINARIES:
Don Buckhout, facilitator, reviewed the agenda for the mei
Two people from the DNR, Tim Bremicker (Wildlife Resource.,
Suptirvisor) and Ross Opsahl (Coiiservation,Officer), were :
as observers and resource persons available to answevquet
provide information to the task force. Task force member:
asked to review the summary of the previous meeting to ch4
accuracy of the wording of agreed upon reconnnendations. I
pointed out that in the eighth line of the third paragrapl
2, the range of 15-20 animals should be corrected to read
animals. This correction was noted.
page ix.
:e Park.
ting.
ntroduced
tions of
were
ck for.
t was
on page
15-25
DISCUSSION OF SHORT-RANGE PROPOSALS:
The task force members continued the consideration and di cussion
of proposals for recommendations regarding the deer managtment
program for the 1989-90 season. Jon Parker distributed a revised
draft of the DNR/USFWS proposal (dated 5/16/89) for the 1189-90
season. Task force members reviewed this proposal and qu stioned
various items. In response to a,question, Mr. Parker rev sed the
proposal to reflect the task force recommendation that
sharpshooters give priority to taking injured, weak, or s ck deer.
The task force addressed the issue of orientation requires
hunters if a public hunt is held. The following was agree
consensus:
If a public hunt is held, mandatory hunter orientati(
prerequisite for receiving a permit. For the Ft. Sat
portion of the hunt the orientation should be verbal
written instructions handed out. For the Minnesota I
Refuge portion of the hunt,' 'a limited number of huntt
be* pre -selected and thereby 'required to attend a form
orientation session. 1,�
The task force addressed the issue r6f hunting method (i.e,
bow, or muzzleloader) if a publid.,hunt is held. In gener,
proposals were offered. The irs,t'essentially reflected I
DNR/USFWS proposal to allow shotgun 4nd bow hunting in the
portion and bow hunting only in the Ft. Snelling portion.
second essentially allowed shotgun and/or muzzleloader, bt
bow, use in all areas of the proplosed hunt. After repeato
attempts to find a mix of conditions or to seek a recommet
each method separately, the task force was unable to react
consensus on this issue.
is for
to by
n is a
lling
with
'alley
rs should
al group
shotgun,
1, two
he
refuge
The
t not
ation on
The task force addressed the issue of the use of deer refli
reduce the incidence of deer -vehicle collisions. The foll(
recommendation was agreed to by consensus:.
That the cities identify those areas with high incidei
deer -vehicle collisions and investigate placing reflec
those locations. .;,
Jon Parker indicated that he would make information on deet
reflectors available to the cities.
.i
TRANSMITTAL OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS:
During the course of the meeting'the issue of how the task
recommendations would be transmitted to the appropriate pec
discussed. In general, the alternatives discussed include(
incorporating the recommendations! in the agency proposals 1
cities or listing and transmitting the recommendations in a
separate document. It was agreed that Don Buckhout would 1
one page document that would list`all the items agreed to t
consensus, the issues on which there was not consensus, anc
indication that there were other proposals offered by membe
were not addressed because of lack of time. The summaries
four task force meetings will be attached to this recommen(
document, and the entire package would be attached to the E
proposals submitted to the various cities. The recommendat
document will be identified as a draft until all task force
have an opportunity to review it, after which time it will
identified as final.
rt
NEXT. MEETING ASSIGNMENTS:
The task force members agreed that the group should contin
meet, although there was concern expressed by several memb
the continued use of consensus decision-making.. Other iss
raised about balance and membership. It was generally ack
that upon reconvening the group would need to address seve
these procedural items. Don Buckhout indicated that he ma
to provide information on consensus decision-making and dr
groundrules prior to the next meeting.
The members agreed that the group should not meet again unt
September. September 20, 1989 was selected as the date foi
next meeting. Future meetings will be held monthly, possit
the third Wednesday of each month.
page x
ctors to
wing
ce of
tors in
orce
ile was
the
,epare a
an
-s which
,f all
.tions
;ency
.ons
members
e
to
-s about
s were
wledged
.1 of
be able
t
the
Ly on
lidy e .11
V !V
DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
May 16, 1989
"'ATTENDANCE LIST
NAME '
REPRESENTING ,
(.h
Jon Parker
DNR -Wildlife
Ross Opsahl
�C'
DNR -Enforcement
Don J. Davis
City of Bloomington
Larry Gillette
,;,Hennepin County Parks
Linda -Hatfield
;F.A.T.E.
Jacki Zschokhe
!, �� Minn. Valley Humane Society
'Richard Laybourn
Minn..Network for Animal Concern
Wallace Bartel
,.
:"DNR -Ft. Snelling State Park
"''Nancy Albrecht '
t +•,
;DNR -State Parks
Steve Lewis :`
`1 USFWS Minnesota Valley Refuge
Andy Anderson
�{ Minn. Deer Hunters -Assn.
Joe White
�• Minn. River Valley Audubon Club
Charlotte Shover
�' City of Burnsville
Timothy Bremicker
;�' DNR -Wildlife
Sue Senecah
'-Don Buckhout
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
a
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIQ6AZELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Mike Scharrer Proposal for Oak Wilt Study
DATE: June 2, 1989
Council requested that I obtain a more definitive proposal
from Mr. Mike Scharrer, Consulting Forester, to do a study
the presence and problem of oak wilt disease in the
community. Mr. Scharrer's proposal is attached. As you c
see, he is quoting a time and materials rate, with a total
cost not to exceed $3000. If Council wishes to proceed wi
this study, City staff will draw up a formal contractual
document. . • i W
of
As previously indicated, no funds were appropriated in the
1989 budget for this project. If Council wishes to have the
study completed during 1989, it should appropriate the $)000
from general fund balance. k
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to proceed with the project, it. should
a motion authorizing the Mayor and City staff to -execute
agreement with Mr. Mike Scharrer for an Oak Wilt Disease
Study as outlined in the proposal of May 25, 1989, and
appropriate $3000 from the general fund balance for the
project.
KDF : j ak
Attachment
ss
After Initial presentation of my report and proposal
regarding the subject of OAK WILT within the Clty'of Mend
Heights, and subsequent discussions with Mr. Kevin Frazel
City Administrator, I am presenting this revised proposal
outlining preliminary, though specific, efforts to determ
the'degree of OAK WILT presence (and other community
forestry -related concerns) within the city. Specific
Information and recommendations will be provided at the
completion of this project, which will hopefully lead to
establishment of a:community forestry program to deal wit
the continuing threat of OAK WILT,;,as well as other
Important Issues that Impact the tree resource of Mendota
Heights. 1
In order to adequately conduct thls,city-wide Inspection,
will need some form of authorization from the City Councl
This will have to be In the form*of.a recognized legal
document that will.allow me to enter private property on
behalf of the clty , I will, of course, be knocking on do
or otherwise contacting property•owners beforehand, to
Introduce myself, the purpose of;my,lnspectlons, and the
subject Itself.
This Initial OAK WILT project wlll,:'lnclude the following
points:
A. Complete `'lnspectlon of propertles;withln the
f boundar fess; of • the'! c 1 ty of ` Mendota ' He i ghts for
' evidence o''f, OAK WILT, and,, -appropriate
'.'•, documentation: �s ,+
,• PJM` t1�. o - J ' i%j T
!,' ; B. Co 1 1 ect 1 onl;'and 1 aboratory!;, test 1 ng of samples f torr
certain sueNpedted,.OAK WILT''cases.'',j
C.' Ident i f 1 cat 1n oan_ d,'document'at ton of; other commun 1
Via'` forestry''=related 'needs''and 'Issues.during the proc
of OAK WILT,,:Inspections.(e g. other Insect and
disease problems;',,'city'-tree maintenance needs/haz
tree ldentl,f.lcat ion;rcity5p'lanting):
.iS�iy'�: , :}•. ,1'11`14.. .1' i .�. ' 1f �t ,�y, ,
';'§. ' fY�::• � % 1 .. I ;;� '.1! .' i sl:f.l ilii 1
t
f �
DATE: May: 25, 1989
1
TO Mendota Heights City Coun
FROM:,4Mlke Scharrer, Consulting
• 1`
i
,Forester/Arborlst, Plan
�:.
Health Specialist
SUBJECT: Proposal to. -carry out
•fir .�+
1ly'.
Initial, complete Inspect
1
for OAK WILT within the c
t
of'Mendota Heights --to
ess
establish the degree of
ton
.,current Infection and Its
Implications city-wide.
After Initial presentation of my report and proposal
regarding the subject of OAK WILT within the Clty'of Mend
Heights, and subsequent discussions with Mr. Kevin Frazel
City Administrator, I am presenting this revised proposal
outlining preliminary, though specific, efforts to determ
the'degree of OAK WILT presence (and other community
forestry -related concerns) within the city. Specific
Information and recommendations will be provided at the
completion of this project, which will hopefully lead to
establishment of a:community forestry program to deal wit
the continuing threat of OAK WILT,;,as well as other
Important Issues that Impact the tree resource of Mendota
Heights. 1
In order to adequately conduct thls,city-wide Inspection,
will need some form of authorization from the City Councl
This will have to be In the form*of.a recognized legal
document that will.allow me to enter private property on
behalf of the clty , I will, of course, be knocking on do
or otherwise contacting property•owners beforehand, to
Introduce myself, the purpose of;my,lnspectlons, and the
subject Itself.
This Initial OAK WILT project wlll,:'lnclude the following
points:
A. Complete `'lnspectlon of propertles;withln the
f boundar fess; of • the'! c 1 ty of ` Mendota ' He i ghts for
' evidence o''f, OAK WILT, and,, -appropriate
'.'•, documentation: �s ,+
,• PJM` t1�. o - J ' i%j T
!,' ; B. Co 1 1 ect 1 onl;'and 1 aboratory!;, test 1 ng of samples f torr
certain sueNpedted,.OAK WILT''cases.'',j
C.' Ident i f 1 cat 1n oan_ d,'document'at ton of; other commun 1
Via'` forestry''=related 'needs''and 'Issues.during the proc
of OAK WILT,,:Inspections.(e g. other Insect and
disease problems;',,'city'-tree maintenance needs/haz
tree ldentl,f.lcat ion;rcity5p'lanting):
.iS�iy'�: , :}•. ,1'11`14.. .1' i .�. ' 1f �t ,�y, ,
';'§. ' fY�::• � % 1 .. I ;;� '.1! .' i sl:f.l ilii 1
he
lI
t
f �
• 1`
i
j %� ;•airy.
4;;.
t
•fir .�+
1ly'.
°'' '"a
t
ess
ton
and
t ty
• •';ter
!• •'
'
• , • est. %
•�;,�-��'
•`�ti#th
ota
�!7
Ine
he
lI
• �M1'f
• 1`
i
j %� ;•airy.
4;;.
•fir .�+
1ly'.
°'' '"a
t
ess
and
'
• , • est. %
•�;,�-��'
•`�ti#th
i
�!7
D Provide ln"formation/r*ecommendations to City Plann ng!,,,;,
Commission and developers regarding construction
damage control and the spread of OAK WILT.
E. Provide information/recommendations to City Counc I�
Park Boardl0and Planning' Commission:.regarding:.
possible public service messages,establlshment ol
appropriate, ordinances . address ing:-community fores
lssues,,and, 'the process of: establlshing an on -got
communityf6restry program:.for Mendota Heights.
K, I IQ
t
.estimated --this project,,and
The; tlme"required to complete
VA.
the associated costs are as follows: t4i
Z
TIME:,, 80 hours
. . . . . . . . . .
HOURLY RATE: $35.00 per hour
MILEAGE: $.30'per mile 4
i Mir
EXPENSES: laboratory charges,
flagging, spray pain.;'
office supplies etc.
L r
4!4 p
elling cost of.$3,000-00 total will be assigned to th 13
project.
T�e'.,hourly rate"'IS.Increased fromi my prev mous proposal. he Nc
1 J
*35�',00/hr rate Is 'my standard consulting fee --versus
Ar
which Is what I am currently charging for 1
,a!dm'InIstratIon and management of anjestablIshed community
forestry program - ,'The understanding I received from Mr.
Fraiell Is that the Initial OAK WILT -related efforts are to,
be;on more of an exploratory/consulting-oriented basis,
6e'r'ef ore the Increased cost. at 4
4v(
f.A
'
Tha6k you for your*!",const deration.of thls Important matter..-:J."tA,
.,.S il
Ltt�"ir'. X, el;
I,hope this proposal meets with your approval.; I will be °;tj
L
N' V�
looking forward to!hearing f rom'you"."
,
,
Respectful ly*;.'submltted:
4,01,
44
$4"
V
!4
lit
41-
WE
N
VA
A
4
A
WE
N
VA
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kevin F L RI—ty Administrator
Re: Follow Up Report on Furlong Area Home Purchases
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of May 16th, Council and staff continued
discussions with residents of the Furlong neighborhood
concerning the City's willingness to purchase properties
the neighborhood. As a result of that discussion, staff
directed to do �he following for the June 6th meeting:
1. Draft a statement or criteria for determining
"hardship."
in
was
2.', Draft a Statement of Purpose and Objectives that culd
adopted by the City Council and sent to the reside ts.
3. Contact the County Assessor's Office concerning whether
assessed values in the Furlong area ought to be reduced
for tax purposes.
4. Report on the status of street repairs in the area
HARDSHIP DEFINITION
At the May 16th meeting, it was reported that 13 letters of
request for purchase had been received. Actually, we halre
14; one from Hollis and Ramona Hueber, 1305 Kendon Ln., Was
inadvertently omitted. Based on our cash flow projections
for the tax increment district, staff believes that we c uld
purchase 14 homes in the next three years, 1989 through 1992,
perhaps even a bit sooner. However, it will be necessar, to
give "hardship" an operational definition that is useful in
setting priority for purchases.
Those who wrote letters of interest in selling their homs
cited reasons ranging from immediate and severe sewer/wa er
problems, to a general desire to relocate from the Furlo g
area. Obviously, the airport noise and lack of municipa
utilities create somewhat of a hardship for all. Howeve ,
staff feels that the priority of hardships should relate as
closely as possible to public purpose of this offer to
purchase homes, and to the purposes set forth in the original
tax increment plan.
Consistent with that philosophy, staff suggests the following
prioritization of hardship:
1. Houses requiring immediate repair of the sewer and/or
water system, where the cost would exceed $750.
i
2. Houses with other immediate repairs needed to remain
! inhabitable, where the cost would exceed $1,000.
3. Pressing personal hardship, i.e.'failing health, j
b
transfer necessitating a move, etc.
4. All other requests.
!
The purpose in setting a dollar figure on the first two
categories is to distinguish between minor and expected
repair items, versus those that, in fact, become a more major
and permanent investment in the home. An example of the
former would be repair of a broken water pump.
i
Staff would further suggest that once the requests have teen
assigned to one of the four priority categories, the schedule
for acquisition within each category be by lottery.
It;seems that to try to do otherwise, we run the risk of
falling into a quagmire of differing opinions about what
constitutes har ship, and who has it the worst.
Even after adoption of a three-year acquisition schedule
people's individual circumstances will change, and their
need
to relocate become more pressing. Staff proposes that w
keep a small reserve set-aside for such emergencies, so that
accommodating these people doesn't cause us to renege on
our
commitments to others on the waiting list.
Based on the letters we have received, it appears that
homes in the first category would take up all of the fun(s
available in 1989, and perhaps a bit of 1990. Few reque
is
fell into the strict definitions of categories 2 and 3, so
most who do not fit the immediate sewer/water need categ
ry
will likely have their priority set by lottery. All sho
ld
be'able to anticipate having the opportunity to sell their
home to the City no later than 1992.
E�
PURCHASE OF LUCHSINGER PROPERTY
Attached is a letter from Eileen Luchsinger, 1306 Kendon
Ln.,
offering to sell her property for the appraised value of
$70,000. Based on her description of the water problem
and
confirmation of that by appraiser Blake Davis), it appeas
that Ms. Luchsinger would be a top priority for purchase
Ms. Luchsinger's letter also references representations
by:me and the Mayor concerning the City's willingness to
purchase the home. Ms. Luchsinger was the first Furlong
resident to approach the City, shortly after Council
determined that it would be willing to purchase problem
properties in the neighborhood.
While I recall giving Ms. Luchsinger a very strong disclaimer
about not knowing what the price would be, I probably was
encouraging about the likelihood that we would purchase ter
home; she approached me before we had any idea that the
neighborhood response would be so strong. Based on my
optimism, Ms. Luchsinger proceeded to actually purchase
another home, so it would seem fair to include this
complication in making her one of the highest priorities.
It may be inappropriate to agree to this sale at the Jun
meeting, prior to -the time that other Furlong residents
received our policy statement (see below), and had an
opportunity to comment on it at the June 20th meeting.
However, I would recommend that we go into the June 20th
meeting with the thought that Ms. Luchsinger's home will
one of those to be purchased as soon as possible.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Council directed staff to prepare a Statement of Policy
regarding how the City will respond to the requests for
acquisition of homes in the Furlong Addition. The idea
that the statement would be adopted by the Council and
circulated to the affected homeowners. Such a proposed
statement is attached.
6th
s
After Council has adopted a statement, staff will mail it to
all of the Furlong residents, and invite them to attend t e
June 20th meeting for further discussions with the Counci .
STREET REPAIRS
During some of the previous meetings, Furlong residents
complained about the condition of their streets. Staff H
asked to see that necessary repairs were accomplished
expeditiously, and report to Council at the next meeting.
Although our street crew has been severely short-handed due
to personal illnesses, we have put priority on the Furlong
repairs. New gravel has been placed at each intersection
with Highway 55, and the worstMpot_holes filled. Some
additional restorative work needs to be done on bituminous
surfaces that are deteriorating; that will be scheduled w'th
other street repair work during the summer.
In commenting on the condition of the Furlong streets, it is
useful to recall a bit of history. The Furlong area was
developed with only gravel roads. Apparently, the City, it
one time, oiled the streets each summer. Several years a o,
the public works department began to build makeshift
bituminous streets by bringing in the leftover materials t
end of a day of patching other _areas of the City. Wh'1e
the result was very second-class road surfaces, it was done
at no cost to the local homeowners. This accounts, in large
part, for the fact that the streets seem so substandard
compared to other Mendota Heights neighborhoods, and are
difficult to maintain.
TAX ASSESSMENTS
City Treasurer Larry Shaughnessy has discussed the issu
assessed values in the Furlong Area with Bill Peterson
Dakota County Assessor's office. Mr. Peterson reports
when the County reassessed all Mendota Heights properti
1985, Furlong lots were determined to have a value of a
$5,000 less than similarly sized lots in neighborhoods
similar valued homes , i.e. Friendly Hills, because of
lack of municipal utilities. However, the across -the -b
percentage increases applied to Mendota Heights land si
1985 have tended to decrease those differences.
Peterson further indicated that actual Furlong area sal
1987 and 1988 tended to substantiate the values placed
properties by the Assessor's office. He felt that thei
values for the neighborhood overall are accurate, altho
problems with individual properties, such as failing
sewer/water systems, might mean that that particular pr
is overvalued.
Unless an owner has already filed an objection at the Bi
of Review, it is too late to seek relief from the 1989
(applied to taxes payable in 1990). However, each resit
should carefully check the Statement of Value which the,
receive from the County next Spring, and be sure to fill
appeal if they believe the value to be inappropriate.
ACTION REQUIRED
To review and discuss the information provided in this
memorandum, and to adopt a policy statement regarding
City's willingness to acquire properties at the reques-
the owner.
of
f the
hat
s in
out
f
and
ce
s in
n the
gh
perty
and
alues
ent
an
of
STATEMENT OF CITY POLICY REGARDING ACQUISITION OF
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN FURLONG ADDITION
BACKGROUND
The Furlong Addition in western Mendota Heights consist
36 single-family homes, many originally constructed in
19501s, but some added as recently as 1986. The neighb
lacks municipal sewer and water, as well as urban stand
streets.
When the City of Mendota Heights adopted a tax incremen
financing program in 1979, one of the identified projec
to subsidize the installation of sewer and water. Howe
subsequent engineering studies estimated the cost of
installing those utilities to exceed $25,000 per househ
an expense -that the City Council believes to be excessi
both the City and for the homeowners, who would pay the
portion of the expense through special assessments. Th
Furlong Addition is a,so heavily impacted by airport no
from Minneapolis - St. Paul International.
A 1986 survey of residents by the City indicated that
approximately 65% would prefer to relocate out of the a
rather than make major investments to upgrade their
properties. However, the private -sector development
community has not shown any interest in the area at thi
time, so it is not possible for the City to consider a
wholesale relocation and redevelopment of the Furlong a
CITY PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES
The City recognizes that while many Furlong residents
content with their circumstances, others have a strong
to relocate. Many are faced with major expenses to re
and upgrade failing on-site sewer and water systems, a
would prefer not to make such an investment in the exi
home. They have requested that the City do what it ca
acquire their properties.
of
he
rhood
rd
s was
er,
ld,
e for
major
Y4
ea,
esire
it
ing
to
To accommodate those who need and want to sell their
properties the City of Mendota Heights will purchase the
homes at fair market value (as determined by a certified
appraiser), and will allow the seller to remain in the
property for up to six months following closing. The vacated
structures will either be relocated from the neighborh od, or
demolished, depending upon their condition. The City TAill be
a "good neighbor" by maintaining the lot in an accept le
fashion, until a permanent plan for resue is determine
CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY OF ACQUISITION
Fourteen (14) homeowners have indicated an interest in h ving
the City purchase their homes. Financially, the City will be
able to purchase 3 -5 homes per year, depending upon values
and other expenses. Consistent with the original planning in
the 1979 tax increment district, first priority for
acquisition willibe given to households with immediate o
imminent sewer and/or water problems. The overall metho of
setting priorities is:
1. Houses requiring immediate repair of sewer and/or water
system, where cost would exceed $750.
2. Houses with other immediate need of repair in order to
remain habitable (i.e. leaking roof), where cost would
exceed $1,000.
3. Pressing personal hardship, i.e. failing health that
precludes routine maintenance, job transfer
necessitating a move,'etc.
4. All other requests.
Where these foulr criteria are insufficient as a basis fo
setting priorities within the City's financial ability,
lottery system will be used within each criteria.
Based on the letters of request received, it appears that the
City should be able to acquire all requested homes by 1992.
It is the City's intention to adopt a schedule for
acquisitions, such that each homeowner knows when they will
be able to sell their property, if they continue to want to
do so.
It is recognized that new problems will come up, for example,
homes that develop significant sewer and/or water problems.
The City will keep a reserve fund available to speed up the
acquisition of these homes, without affecting the position
of
those already on the priority list.
CONDITIONS FOR CITY PURCHASE
The City of Mendota Heights is not condemning these
properties, nor in any other way soliciting sales that ate
contrary to the desires of the owners. The City is only
willing to purchase properties on a friendly, fair -market
transaction basis, at the written request of the property
owner. As a condition of the agreement to purchase the
property, the City will require the seller to waive any
relocation benefits that might be available were the Cit
intending to acquire the property against the wishes of
e
owner, or otherwise soliciting the owner to sell to the City.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Coucil
June 6, 1989
i�
ti
I
V.
~
|
''--1 -------'
MENDOTA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 23, 1989
TO: Mayor, City Council, Cit 6/dAi trator
FROM: Chief of Police
31641W.WWWWWWWIMS M*W
I met with members of the Copperfield neighborhood to attempt to
a traffic control system that would answer their concerns and sti
provide for the efficient movement of traffic in the area.
lop
On September 29, 1988, 1 generated a memorandum to Council recomme ding
19 Stop signs and 4 Yield Right of way signs. Councilmember Cummiis
disagreed with one of the Stop signs and Councilmember lesener objected
to the confusion created by the Yield signs. These signs were omitted
and ordinance 258 authorized the placement of 16 Stop signs on the
perimeter of the development and no signs in the interior. No one was
present to speak for the Copperfield residents.
At the request of the Copperfield neighborhood, the Council discussed
the matter again at the meeting of April 18, 1989. The Mayor mentioned
the "warrant" procedure and Councilmember Cummins suggested that further
action be delayed until the construction in the area was substantially
completed. There were no members of the neighborhood present at he
meeting. i
After viewing the April 18th meeting on Cable TV, the neighborhood again
petitioned the Council to further discuss the issue. They indicatd that
they would have representatives present at the meeting. f
The matter was again discussed at the meeting of May 16, 1989, and t
discussion ended with a motion to amend the ordinance to include a 44wav
Stop at the intersection of Cugpezfield Drive and Fieldstone, for a
total of 20 Stop signs, and to refer the matter back to the Police a
Engineering Departments for further study and another recommendation
At the direction of the City Administrator, I have reviewed the desires
of the residents, the requirements for maintaining an efficient flow of
traffic, and the concerns of the Council as they relate to traffic
control signs in the Copperfield area. My recommendation is not
substantially different from the recommendation of September 29, 1988.
It involves deleting two Yield signs in the Hampshire Estates area and
adding the two Stop signs, ordered by the Council, on Copperfield at
That Ordinance #1113 be amended to include four way Stop signs at tle
intersection of Copperfield Drive and Fieldstone," a Stop sign on Stone
Road at Copperfield Drive, and Yield Right of Way signs on Watersedce at
Pondview and Pondview at Fieldstone. The attached diagram illustra es
this recommendation. I further advised the residents that any othe
signs, such as "Slow, Children Playing", would have to bA approved y
the Engineering Department and purchased and installed at the resid nts
z
m T
•s - rri
S
�7p � PL
,d
I a
i
PON
DELA F? E.
m
c�
�fl
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1113
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota,
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1113, known and referred to as "An
Ordinance Establishing Stop and Yield Intersections Wit in the'
City of Mendota Heights," is hereby amended'in the following
respects:
The following streets are hereby added to Section of said
Ordinance, "THROUGH STREETS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS,"
THROUGH STREETS STOP STREETS
Copperfield Drive Stone Road
and,
ALL -WAY STOP INTERSECTIONS
Copperfield Drive Fieldstone Driv
The following streets are hereby added to Section of said
Ordinance, "THROUGH STREETS AND YIELD INTERSECTIONS,"
THROUGH STREETS YIELD INTERSECTIONS
Pondview Drive Watersedge Terrace
Fieldstone Drive Pondview Drive
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and a fect from
and after its publication according to law.
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this Sixth day of June,
1989.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensot o
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
0
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN D.4
L, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Parks Commission Appointment
DATE: June 1, 1989
Applications for appointment to the Parks and Recreation
Commission were open through Wednesday, May 31, 1989.
Attached are the four letters of response received from
citizens interested in appointment.
ACTION REQUIRED
Consistent with past precedent, Council should schedule
date and time for interviewing the applicants.
KDF:jak
N
I
Michael G. Lundeen
1824 Twin Circle Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 5511E
H:454-9078 W:339-0771
May 23, 1989
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mayor,
This letter is in response to a recent article in the VOICE newspa
soliciting citizens interested in serving on the Parks and Recreatio
commission to submit letters of interest to you. I am interested in
appointment to the Cosran.ission should you desire my services.
A few brief conment§ on my background:
- I lived in the Friendly Hills edition of Mendota Heights for t of my
childhood years, 1963-1980. In May 1988, I returned to Mendota Heights
as a homeowner.
1.
- I am married, have a two-year old son, and am expecting another family
addition in early August. Having chosen Mendota Heights as the place
to raise my family, the future of the parks and recreation program is
of obvious importance to me.
- From 1984-1987, I served this corm mity as a volunteer hockey ch for
the squirt "B" level travelling team in the Mend -Eagan Athleti
Association.
- I am employed as a consultant to the financial institutions ' ustry by
Ernst & Whinney, an international accounting and consulting f' . I am
currently enrolled in the MBA program at the College of St. Th s.
Appointment to the Commission would enable me to contribute my time and
talents toward helping set the future direction of the parks and ea
facilities and programs. As a resident, I am both interested and dedic
to serving our c mmrunity in this capacity.
I appreciate your consideration for this important cmmmmty
look forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
k S- 4 -
Michael G. Lundeen
.ty and
MICHAEL SAEGER
Attorney At Law
2624 American National Bank Building
5th & Minnesota Streets
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 228-1028
May 23, 1989
CHARLES MERTENSOTTO
Mayor, City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mayor Mertensotto:
CERTIFIED AS CIVIL TRIAL SPECIALIST
By TIE NATIONAL B RD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY
I am interested in serving on the city's Parks and
Recreation Commission. I reside at 1817 Valley Curve Roz
Mendota Heights,k tel. 454-4206.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL 4SAEGE
MS: es
in
0
I
RICHARD G. SPICER
PETER H. WATSON
HOWARD S. CARP
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ
May 12,'1989
SPICER, WATSON & CARP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
82B NORWEST MIDLAND BUILDING
401 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
TELEPHONE(612)341-4334
MN TOLL-FREE
1-800-329-755B
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mayor Mertensotto:
I understand there is currently a vacancy on the ParRs and
Recreation Commissiop. Based upon my current involvement on
the Citizens Parks Review Committee, I would like to be
considered for this vacancy.
If further qualifications or other information is ceq ired,
0_1:6a�contact me. I
ly Nurs,
Rid 1,(and G. Spicer
Attor'agy at Law"
,-
RGS: sb
I
19
"' .4f Ino.
988 NORTH DALE STREET + SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117
TELEPHONE 487-3275
May 16, 1989
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Ma.yor�Mertensotto;
A..1ter talking with Kevin Frazell regarding the
vacancy on the Pa.rks & Recreation Commission, I would
like to submit this letter of intent to apply for
that opening. "
I feel that I have the necessary qualifications
and would be able to handle the duties and obligations
expected of a, member of this Commission.
Sincerely,
Christine Le tsch Koc
CK/ml
REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGES
CONSTRUCTION
INSURANCE
AUTO
FIRE
LIFE
CASUALTY
a
it
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN DITY ADMINISTRATOR
E
SUBJECT: Request from Senator Howard Knutson regarding
Nominee for Airport Study Committee
DATE: May 31, 1989
With the May 16 packet, Council received correspondence from
State Senator Howard Knutson regarding the Airport Study 3ill
being considered by the legislature. By that time, the Ull
included a provision that one representative on the Study
Committee would be a resident of the City of Mendota Heigats.
I have now received the attached correspondence from Senator
Knutson indicating that the provision for specific municipal
appointments have been deleted. However, he is still asking
that we provide the name of someone who hA can recommend be
appointed to the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED
I
To offer to Senator Knutson any suggestion of names who
be nominated for this appointment.
KDF: j ak
Attachment
light
HOWARD A. KNUTSON
Senator 38th District
1907 Woods Lane
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
Phone: 890-1218 (Home)
Phone: 435-7704 (Office)
During Session:
121 State Office Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Phone: (612) 296-4120 (Senate)
May 25, 1989
Kevin Frazell
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Kevin:
Sena
State of
In the legislative process, as you know, a lot of thing
happen.
w
On the airport study bill, the Conference Committee, over
my vigorous objection, took out all of the specification
of the various cities that members should come from. How-
ever, we might still have a chance.
I would like to have a name suggested by the 6ity of Medota
Heights that I could promote with the appointing author ty.
In this case, we are looking at promoting this with Ro
Moe.
All I can say is that we tried and we ended up not
successful.
Very truly yours,
HOWARD A. KNUTSON
State Senator
HAK:rp
COMMITTEES . Education . Finance . Health and Human Services . Rules and Administration .
Minnesota Future Resources Commission
Irl SERVING: Burnsville, Eagan, Lilydale, Mendota, and Part of Mendota Heights
� \11NVfS(Tf�
�r
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO .
Y
s'
TO: Mayor, City Council, Ctrator
S
FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson *, t
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Computer Purchase for Gopher State One -Call
Responses
INTRODUCTION
You may recall that legislation was enacted in 1987
mandate that the operators of underground utilities part
in a one -call notification center. The purpose of this
notification center is to receive notice from excavators
planned excavation and transmit that notice to participa
operators. The Gopher State One -Call Notification Cente
operational in October of last year and, as mandated, th
has been participating since that time. The purpose of
is to recommend purchase of "automated receiving equipme
required under the Gopher State One -Call agreement for a
receiving more than 30 messages a month.
INFORMATION
Our Engineering Department has been receiving call
One -Call at a rate far exceeding 30 messages a month.
example, 20 calls came in yesterday. We must pay $2.50
telephone call which results in a "no location required
response and $5.00 for each call which results in a "lo
required" response. If the City purchases and installs
computer, modem and printer to receive one -call transmi
there is no charge for the "no location required" calls
for the other calls. Less that one percent of the call
in a requirement to locate and mark the affected underg
facilities.
If the electronic equipment is installed, we will i
charged for NLR's. Last month there were 150 NLR calls
cost the City $375 exclusive of staff time. We anticip;
the number of calls per month could as much as double f
through September. If this expectation is met, the Citl
spend more than $2,200 during that timeframe in Gopher.!
Call NLR responses. All of the City's costs for one -ca:
been charged to the Utility Fund.
2, 1989
to
.cipate
of
ing
became
City
his memo
t" as is
encies
from
an
or each
(NLR)
tion
ions,
nd $2.50
result
of be
which
to that
�om June
will
tate One -
1 have
RECOMMENDATION
We have avoided recommending purchase of electronic
equipment for the one -call activities as long as possibl . -The
City's cost for NLR's has reached the point where it is iot cost
effective to further delay the purchase. I therefore re ommend
that Council authorize the purchase of a computer identi al to
that recently purchased for the Administrative Assistant along
with a high-speed dot matrix printer and a modem. The
anticipated cost for the computer is $1,400. I have not yet
"shopped" for a -price on the printer or modem, but antic pate a
combined purchase price of $700.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council 'concurs in the recommendation, it should
motion to authorize acquisition of an Express -XT compute
monitor, printer and modem for an amount not to exceed $
be financed by the Utility Fund.
E7
a
pass a
color
,100, to
I
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 30, 19E9
TO: Mayor, City Council and Cit 44V:Ltor
FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit Application for a Fence
Planning Case No. 89-20
DISCUSSION
Mr. Jeff Ward, of 609 Hampshire Drive, appeared�teoonre the
Planning Commission at their May meeting for consider � of a
Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a fence. The fence
is within twenty feet (201) of a pond which is designatad as
wetland. (See attached staff memos) The fence is alraady under
construction. 1,
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to aive the
public hearing, under Section 8C of the Wetlands Ordiiance, and
recommend to City Cduncil to grant a Wetlands Permit, to allow
construction of a fence within twenty feet (201) of the wetlands.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council desires to implement the recommendation of the
Planning Commission they should pass a motion arproving a
wetlands permit for 609 Hampshire Drive to allow the construction
of a fence within twenty feet (201) of a wetlands.
i
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL R. BERG, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
KEVIN BATCHELDER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIST,
SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit Application for Fence
DATE: May 23, 1989
DISCUSSION
IM10
During the course of inspections, our Code Enforcemen
discovered that Jeff and Tracy Ward, of 609 Hampshire E iL
constructing a fence without a permit. Staff directed t
to apply for a fence permit. Ms. Ward submitted a site
application foV a fence permit. Staff review of her s'
discovered that a Wetlands Permit was necessary because I
is within twenty feet (201) of a pond which is desig
wetland.
Office
re, were
ie Wards
)lan and
to plan
to fence
ated as
Staff has put this on the agenda as an add on item bcause we
thin the Wetlands Boundary i s a mi
feel that a fence within or issue
and because of the short agenda tonight. Ms. Ward's Ifence is
three-quarters (3/4) constructed and it was felt thee is no
reason to delay this until the end of June. t
Section 8C of the Wetlands Ordinance allows the waiv
public hearing by the City:
In the case of a minor development or chanc
development involving a single family or two
residence, the City Administrator shall bring the i
the attention of the Planning Commission at its ne),
meeting following receipt of an application fc
whereupon, they shall review such request and may
so determine, exempt the subdivider from complying
inappropriate requirements of this ordinance.
ACTION REQUIRED
g of the
and/or
i family
quest to
regular
permit
if they
with any
Review with applicant the proposed wetlands permit request,
determine whether Planning Commission would waive a public
hearing, and make a recommendation to City Council. I
',1 .+{7 ! ?', .. �,: J' `ry+.�'`',ii'e :a.�i�,,.�F.y a iat, i a.R�,�h,<' �.`. „4 n.':'i 4`a'•i'agti' '}: y'je��, { ,,�.
4 r'f .5 YY, `+„ri+" kF!'f! Y :`i i"•+i; + l ' i ��.ji i,`,f,. j ti?: " •:1'.. "oa l -j
�`" �'Jsr •,i 'r• ,a; "��k,! �T' :i �t;i`�yf,' `'ts• '�jiti f���1�•�3:' .1
":'('Case
4,1NO. -r• ,
' f,' :► �y, I,l.'ki ,s't•e, •�' t�. i'r' �r"•tt a;,' i�l��� fi �,a� 4 di{^s, =�i ,.1.{t., `•+ `
?;n .,F, nr Q.�'i y,�:+:` '{'r"•r/ �.i., � 1,. "'�.. Ii%' �•!:: y��4,.,? ,' ':. ,r.�,t`. j gg�� i , ,,
'err "" �.iris 7,�s±,/'�'}; .r`�`'! 'X" y! •''jt rI Y,� 'rYc. �, .• ,5,', :.t f, .,p;,. ,•iL.i: i � �, :.rv• t r:«t r �` •'i:,,` i; i. '
CYTV OF: MENDOTA?; HEIGHTS'; �
r',y� ''` i :• :t r . ,:r ,s F ��r 1't.jY:��:r . G,. .',�'CT'rai`;:i.i::!fs.,.;�ir:,!7�."t}:. +vi.�;+ tetr �I?AC K�OT.A,."•+rt'`' C".'O'fi/tekU'•"/NT%lf.rr;,YJ j ' -,i. :M7• Ir''r• N'. +zN.,,E, +'S• ;t `O;�,,..,;Ti. A
'ri.`!i'r' `•,•'i.i`aZcsy'': ,',' ,�it. :r : ���lt{{'(i rN,Ft#f }yy4i �ytfi''N,y,t i}'i' ,�s �'.i�,i.=J,',i`'t 1f_1
Jill"'APPLICATIONFOR$'1CONSIDERATION7Il.JA;f:.r7 "4I'��tr4, ''':, '/'',»�atc'�� 'i:•+''i't7�i' \1'�y'}
'
r ,,i •' (' • ,• .r. ,) " `
`+ !t',;.2 �i f r r,M7 Oli; 7 Is:7 F•�7; +t,i".; ,,1•., � ., �Y,tiSi' '•�:'��;'"�• i` iUi �. ..5! ••gi. ��,�.t.
' !( ;11' s{'i p,`i, ., l �r r'y� "�j,l�t.1 r a •,,,•,ii'3''` `• •a '! Y .'' i i • ' RL.` t, .
r Yfill'PLANNING.'REQUEST
ii l rx.sr,.9;«a�j•-+ t t? a ' ;i . 1'• ? ' /i+; : �' fi
•ttt••� ,� ft;7v,.� •�i r• t �'*JiT+'^i''�'•t �'tl {,� 'k .''t j
`1jC '1 ii.'d Id., P� .4 '1'�tikl,it!'�;f,�� ! f>,. i
3 ' , r } � :Fs ; �. �z,.'..:., G? a �;r Date,' of,'A plication•• .3-23 97:a .
i:: r?{ �p`d' e, �11'F•,a.i,r:`'ii(:in•:1j, i• P V'.1
/, i
1t �.1' "rlw�•T:i 'f p� Feeri�aid
N
k '} y •YC'' i�•:c' i,t: b�,;1,9 '!.5'.±•ii a .y F
}� ], :,li S'k },21�! ' 'i� 13t y,•.n�',.,-i �;��qYr��°nti'.:'i� 7 t','.1� �o'',y •,�. ,{.: (7,�t �,�! } :, ,�i., ,7 j •. :, '
pgtiillr ��7 .fid t� j yI+Pt 4t/ } 'Fj �d+i.F;, .itN• rLi i•d` �Y.7tt'�',�C! :;1yyar i,i,.':1' i •:y;.A' f h r•.
,«I ➢ k '•..� ..1 G'. I `'+•L. r .ti`;' .1' S� , ; . w , !•: `r;, t � j; i'o .
��rt +.r~ »S �� i ., ^3alrr�• v�..frr.c: ar i, 'i• . f, r ,
J'ehwt'it •'�'!'
�La$t ,U'4?iii
Initial?
,.; + ;:,,, ,{• ,t�:r::7' '
a i. yt F J r.FFi' ,
} l
,t �'��!�irr`2•�,=a'�'�tt'�•1. t ! i � lt+l •1 .
�',i a "` R �+if:''J'::,t'. 1 f i,�.��'•t4� 'ri�' �,, � •,Y•.f1�tt`... •YR 4 , �+�
'Numbs &'''Stre• t "•�' �,(� c C,it r '0',-;:1M1'. t' Sta e,/ �t/s, °= y Z l.•a` • ,yd {1 i.,
Vii- ` ,1 t Y4 z4Uil �t,t n##r 3:; 4a 17 :t.�: ?; „k cr . sr'tt. ! iP r•: : ,t'., .
! ,j�?{• '1. t;.t,� r', ! t .fi, +� •1,"• Oxy �z ti'ttJ ,-. '�: ,.-r•< • r�:
"e ,, 1 Y"i� }` �!� ;� �i:itr q• ��, `i ,'•. : `.,
r: ,C•# f' ,' 7pp [i'�t�*,:,� t.f,�S 1:� ti.•:t`1,,3 i'; FF }%'w„'yii :. tr• i'' ;,t..; g• .)� , t...
�. F S ��, 1d,5'.:.,, ✓. .ii, ,,t t7 .:7 j'• ''� :7 rf.f` r• !F.
TaXe hone' Number:' +� rt ;, a? :• .? .fir ;9a;,y :�., ,..r t s: i ; u' '? :', ' • .
P
c Y u, t`, $ r 1�t• Y Xf'i;+•'jAjtigit;.;t 3rr ' 's's ''t'i '-,. ,• 1• tii i ' { +''
i�' •u.'"�i:t`. i' ', i'{'.'�:.h;} 5 •!r :}«+`i �TI (u., l�t4��',,. NSrLj�;%. .•i •> 'i :r`
'' + � r1 't ; } ' r t,"{{ynr•1i', . V� y` 1 ,i, ii ':1,!,. y, rji,•, ,' i � },';.. ,,, 7. •'r, Il , •,},, ,.
�y,� K7 � ! .y'.:•J � 7',1'�.'�'' j.� �, � r!„ -F e .t•,��•Efi�.ah' � : f ,t ,
Vllftie�r .{ i' �, :�.1� 1 `{' ,':il,r.}u� a iia 4,;i5,}'y;lY9'�'�.' kM �jit,�.'i' It�i ;41:i,':,�'.'a �`•` '+i,?L!'Nr• :f r 7 i f +;
+'I`, • 1, /: .r �;•�, '�y ,+,, r. i,,..; �• 7"�',' , �?;.. `J•, ,.•' ;,:: `•� +
'M ,1 .J•y ,.,..:L .41,ir: ,'iy+•:d••!W�.!!1„ ,;ijyl,'i.t,; ,,+•.,,: %''Y'Y" '{t :'t }'•, , f t
• •lrlr: 1 .�1 t �,tr,'f;. ! r;7:'e) L. ,••S :, ��r,
Name • i $rr �a r. r .{;c>.s / r.. F.{ • '
,F;Last.,,,
;{' %i=;r tt;.(; >�.;Fir$t;.",�`r " •r"if ' 1;', Initial fi
!,�'., :J' fi' ', :';f+:C i'"�•r=;f;.,•�r;�r,•i,ra;�3�'.~�,•`�d,:r,•j iy�/¢�. :i•t••�i'rr i
`� ,,:! . .,:� .• Yru '"'iPf'.t'-1,;1�� � , .i.r 1'`w, .� ,� r'{; :, •; � i, 'r
t 3!9'..1 ..` , w;.�t r • �i:; 'z14 �lr,�l•:J';:t ` ih,,?rq; i ,'�. .+1, • ti i .
Addt ^!t. , » A i.: �+7 » tt? • f �k-.iit{fi' • ri;• r, ^'�ti;ali' f � •�t ':; '' �:'� F' '�! • . , • �?� .�# r � i �� . `' ' , � •i �'
ress:` ` r' : a, . :•: ` L ' ' tr,�;r,i,.ti: +11 2i'jfi . 4! f, f ;(+'
Number & Street,
City' i,`'�, „';z, `'y' t,'tI State Zip
c1 7�;�1:',•, :iY., a,. i !r� `, jl�i?('.�}�1,'� 7',t r'w t��ir: ),r +fid,, S•` ji'i,f w;j.`'i t`"'}!' . �rr #• - 7.`, � ,'. Ii ..
-s. tt�'C'.. •t• " .. •i':,:ii, y7 .+dtt,�, �i��, t' '�+.'tj<it,';;J 1t•�f r. ��ajfp.itli. it{` , �'' .,}' j
�6 w"�•'' �• i 1.u``r:•:.�. !"I#�„t'#•.ir.y,�S:il..,';:,i�'...4.C. +�'{t4• ,"
3tr{�eet • ,ocatian"of ' Property,•; in! Quest on:'":� i';Y•, 4,
"'Hun
! J,- ` r i4. !•�,• Jy]? i� Y ). • r ,.1: ., li ;r.,' • • a .
Hu �{, �,i, P•i'; p.,,,t � .t.%.i'l t:•�+�« ti" th,,:' .1;,; ' i ii` ;�`t
i ''7 .t'', i. �i� 2•�'ti�tl1!1i �'tl`i�t{,`ii,,. fi, f4�''•j:i+';%' ',;.<.,' .,
• ��''rk i"tl!lf`,,>�}:.��i,�. .,, � dt,•�,'`1i,,,:t 'j,: �':�: 'i, t. i.j .. i., ., ? ,,y.�•'
.�sl � •.1 ry
t ''Lega�lr('+tl)escrtptian of Property.;,,.sq:
e•}r :y!i (1�i i!'.''•Ek tY wi , .. r, i5 r7 ,'l1 .j` {, RI'�, t',�,/�3'. � ♦ • ,
t11i ••, ��• i�3Y r�.li't,»., ilt } 4,1t�4'jIr `''! .r y� ,, }1` t+. t `r '')1�`f' r
,rt.{i `Yi ,'tiu '''r<Jar ',�'''f'' , "a Sd't%, fi!.''1'j 5'•rfi i:ir' i.�•7� i'a, :{ �i�%{i: ;,':ii .li�7. ..;R !' 1( '•,�� ,
��, h�Gf � w},{F�;rte• •j�( ' '• �t '"ii! ,�,�i �':' ` !. l;y;;i.'"%. ' .i. .. ,
'�' { ��=�V�;►a +`f't'ri y.�i� r' 'r R•r•: ri:�''iR`;'i 'i'.`• ,QY�'fi.hz,d';i? ' � ..
L 7,! .�t1i{; Y'•,.e ,.j•r:ai �::`r.', .,t•y l; 7,{t,r t. ! J C.. , + ,
l , r V. ji :,, ti Z'r: rn 7 ti :•,>�, `i• ;' 7
r • , !'4 t.}: �.••. .'r. r:,•..r.5.ii.•«N '';t, %.rw•ir,,..rld.j'•� �:,Y;"" t 61 '
�!: t':�i,•,r,i•': r-:, .. •!. ;,T» :tf_t' ';`:r,' .. .f if?.s � 1
• '�1 �i `;`�; •,''i! .. ,w •I .S•'irt;S•d-•i,„ ;�' ij i�i,J j�Jq t'l,t� >.,, ., •.; a ,. ,.
t i� '1����1►+: ii. Y,w,'l. ... .(� ,,t .t'i;� �Yr IA"iw,.�-f. n}�`tfi;:..t.i 7hj'.. i..,:,' �,: r• r7:. '.,.. . i
#i �i i. .,a•� ;. ..., t•, ..r ;fi•ys'd;t'..:.1':w:', ,: ��1•..I ,.'�,,. r..., .
! Y,. 7 .'y .., t• ,a,,. .ut'',•7? d{i t'_L':,:e;'i '�'{*.:.+.. ,r �.:� '+' , '
,tq',t,ijt(i'fsfi4,
Type 'of Re ue$t ) t ;(ili f ;
• r',:r e, d+,f,..,,• ,i s'`�.t{ Rezanin }r,' :i;'1
LL��'1t�^.7..4:•n'��+�{r•yi.••l'.,�';,3•w 4`iry�i; rr+..f,t. r.4.+K; i�Ja -.. •« �"t � f
}.i .T e,�aS.r.: f, .,, 7a I'"•7 •. '.;,Variance ^.51t, i'i:'1 •."� f,''r' ' ' 1R' .. '::i .1:. ,! , J!'!#� '''r' •
: � i ! } f1i;;;h6. ' "R 'S.'. ;Jttitr,r7+u';,1;`:i::J•t s=' "i,:Fi1 1�c^i; Conditional ' Use! Permit ,' i .r i •ty
+ Nj4� ,/9 �.h'. Ja X,'t,y .�, ; ,i,�,t';r, ,rt.tri•?`t"'`''i+J'{.?/.«,;+.f;Con
ditional Use`'.Permit for T.U. s``}}'t .,?;1-f••+ i
•' i•at; M,''fj•+H ;;,il ♦>♦ # •4' e4• .t i;.�,a .'i• �, ' •i,r� 1,1 , ,'^•
Y > '`., .!l}f .'' t, 7,; ir', ,, �: ..,, s -t x; j';;.Y; =' 4'rr�t;.l,•,•+.a:Minir...Conditio" L,Tse Permit
N + ?},�• `;+i «yi - ,,,� i �• rr , �, j; • i- • • , ,kr• r. F.:.. „f4 ..7 ,.y. �, a;„, t
'Nir :f Subdivi$ion,;APProval',Jt
,ty74;ti,rF,r„ �;:''��f''�it' 'y'rk�t'',�i• ...v„.•.;s'r'r; 1.. Plan Approval <"
1,1,4'44•Wetlandai,Permit A.
i,, i• t.
_ �t., 11 i:•'i' ,.ri':i,t:r h�'1:t7-"'�;t' '• ,'.•'f, !
�.i:',:st•t7i; '�> r. �{,r'�,•��.7.yrrai•+',..:, "�+ =fhS;: h r""fi .; •i� +r''•' `
rc 'j� ° �';i<��' '� �'fi• �.., '"�.: � Ot a .; :,; t r: 7
�� ; , r:11 '�� � •.t'� rl • 1 .• .17 ,i5.. •. '�F'J,, ' ' i' ~ •. ,
, •�'f'` ,y, .�r y, �Y'�.. ,y• �fft r,. ::., �•,! � C. t , `: i, n •,� r • +'.', :4•
1�r, •�.-!?�' 1� ' r �',.tlr ti i} lry'ri,;�,i r7 I''7 •F• t� r'.i, : ¢JY
if' -i ii/'• 't'' ,i'}.!r•iftf'' 'r,'' :i�rtit,iS;
�'n5•' 1„? t, ! , . ti, '�����1 j • Y r i, + , ,. ii,i�:a .t, •,'
�y{�`i�t},•r i��r;•�:r':1r"icy ri/i'q;`tti:•x"1}•°';ji•i;�y' ,i'��.. ' :• ;,Jni "if.•'.t.i{i't,,,!,i ,S
Address
.U. ,5s: cfT'r 7 +< r V 9�!"L"iF(+;+N ah '1r �.:'4''#t';! •km" ny ; /d7 rt'!i1'?f-1k, '!It :i �F'-' 't `• , ,z $ 1 i. f,"1• I • t
`R; V10 4i fl iP A?7�7',•;''}; �i+ # ; ,�y k.i ri{r x� � i ►FF{ i',
,b' . n+5' •2 •.t•, ., , ',.r• y., K: � ,. � .,,» p..1 R �'� t , , ��'�'f`4':'t, -! «i;r
� .f,a'y;y, t° ';y •S,!' '� .s��y�t�pr,t,[}e• +1 t °A 9'' jwii'+t? eyJi'� y,,� t.. , h :�r,..t't'' � , .,;f,i,,
,S'a1eh eCi^�'�•J:1 !y, •�.:.tkF•!+'"A',`,!';id,`..•yy��.-t, �i:1.7.j5- 1`�,pp ti'.'1 �. .n .. J:'Y.+� t T1. •lR�,::: j't.�t:.. .'iF•r' .
Yr } il[j. ii,I•�r ,t>7 , •.{;';�J,; 4' t? i .l:•i •. i; ' i.'. (:: .q�yr, Yr r: :j :s';, �'i, r' `"
R•1•. + ti r, ti� rfii k 3 h �r. 8i+,i'>r;, td `�.ry:. +�i• r. 1 ,. ss. Rl.: 35: .'y t'. !1.'.
� `� ' •q•a {'k,1 ���'�`F�'t;�t�'t'r''�';:t reF�S�; 5..,'�"7';, 'S>: •n ;4 y: r:�•• ,�: ;,'�., yr,�•' ._.
y, •�1 °L�S G#Rihi'.t."•F• +,Wq �,j ,gtRi:'la�, ��. .�- *F i ,7,J,{ r:7'�'' !�i (, t1{'�1((''�y��',s';'',.'1: Fr•' r ''S -F J, { %'' ' C••' ": t 'i
:b' F �'ir��%-;''�w ,y,'•{�. "t,1�' 7 •L"''•., � •,4,, Fii�t��,1',{'�,�'t S•w, A .� rya'�ri f.' ., p.lS 1 1`!Ji il..r •'k; �` �4 �`' ! i,4' .F 'i,1t Y:71ry F'�.
�i,iv;�,'i+;:Y�ia'�iti�iiilh;;zt3' ''<!:t}�>#t#3 . g'r".. ' ,� ,•ltt3 ^�7 `i" .r ,!
7.a
;,."' n�+rrt''i-/'t.} ,sir �; . „ r. • e,. •r^4,�i,:,: , r,t ..t;;:,�a�;•.,,F .. i,,.. � ,}� ,
j`t't7,••i/,1,}Jt,+M'�, �`%4f '1{!•i',4'r1R .: e!�'!,Y'r', !;•.J,t `F '•, `I
I, 60418.01 2 i
SUP, VEY FOR: Cr~NrGX HOMES
.I
Prepared By:
SCHOELL & MADSON, 11.4C.
' Engineers - Surveyors - Planners - Solis Testing
10550 Wayzata Boulevard I
' Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 i I
Tel. 546-7601
o !:
POND
t+
P�
NORTH I
` a,: c
N !ji
r �Ornin09Esmi. .. ..
DESCRIPTION:
lot It , Block .I-InmpsAiRti
t.
aT I
3It £STATES
.,.,
GENERAL NOTES:
I tass.o} It o - Oen t i
and that I am a Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws
%off the State
of Mi=90-t& iLtG /Z
Theo ore emna
Date: Wov.a,lai e. Lic. No. 1 00
t
Y."
o es ron monuments
2) x(ea1.e) -Denotes proposed
t.
spot elevation par
grading plan!
��
Q Denotes direction
Al
f
Q, 0
P)(L
i
surface drainage.
4) Proposed garage floor
0 J
`�• }
elevation -813.5
Q
°`;ea
I hereby certify that this survey
V
• ,
was prepared under my supervision
and that I am a Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws
%off the State
of Mi=90-t& iLtG /Z
Theo ore emna
Date: Wov.a,lai e. Lic. No. 1 00
t
Y."
0.1
Ai IUYN o
. J•
's\rV
vls[INC
W 1-;�Q 1—
;I 2 5 Z l�NltI (/) o. .. _ ��
,; .1_._�;.JUI is oaE i 1 J
AY HIP 1
1H91NH DP
-
-
IM
O l8
X
X
4161x
z
z
'OSNHor
1UY3
AY H161
010003 010903
Er
1H3EIOU
)Iy r
1)10
/Fx
H311MDYM
1.3
0
•
< •
Vw• AV ...r .cal } 914I113N�
OW wW N3•
ti J II AY M3IAUIVI r�
O HVA
■
AY ■ �a ONY13A313 CW �.'-. co.
• 'q OZ '�-
c_ =1 d2 - 0 -
pi: o 14 <��r,, ,iN Co.
H191, r`vl
` $‘4.
W 2 1n
•
AV
)i IVd
aYO3�
ilY11 dOd
O NYutlOd
1311031N =
-1-.J
OA16 31YONVPIH
AV SVX31
I
1 W
1
I1 .
0►,
3)IY19
Oe
b 11,
°4'-J
ac
NS B
3471 4
V
i23T
x
L'
o
_r I.,i.-/`
as 3))l I HSI -16
('f
I;'7
6361-c)_,
uJ
W
J
J
W
> to.
W
m
U CZ ft w
Z 4
v f
l�
F
pcc 4nnu.
Q r o
n
4
U Z
w bl
4
o.
0
0
Lp
.01
S-211
5 211
S 61
'
c. S
tIZ
as./ 3 3Nr CVIZ; LVN
4S0-18 'wigs 'sNO]
?.L Oit
._I
A
1 I
1 1 "
b
10
—
— —0 —
I
4
..a
1.S xWWl1 I
•
o
---r
fLl
09
1S bS32:13H1
(
126
1
t0
N•
(v
c�
1, 1
— _rte I
Le X 1 NG%J PLAZA
Ni gNG '('ogE,. \ ,
6urete•-c- ruKkitm../gEt
SIF 2.
r'1PL 1:- TO 1..1-C.)"
T<�IJh cL=r1 Ij C1CU'V LP
Tc..)
JII 11.1 jIr osL: r
Ill
A..,_. r-cr GCLOF
- — F' t r :01,1k, t>1 -L L'..1-1 I\ ,r{-1 L.- 5
• l .:" . I\( -YL. t C r-,\ L: C,
----\LL. t I1t i .•i -I J.r�uCi l'i I ki/
..•ItiC:11_.t.. ,�; .__^t. I.t:.C7r-, it -I
'-Ci::.}} GCJ -f1 r:F
c rl-r -iL.!,_Ju`:, Iy A--Ll•i� ./\y.
Customer
Address
City
State , t
Scale
1/..1,• 11_0,.
Drawn By
rL.
Salesperson
H.r.
Date
7i /1/ti 7
Revisions
Customer ier Approval Date
This drawing is the property of
N11R111 111NT
►41iix 1.o INC
3IZ West lake Street
Minneapolis, MN 55408
612.823.7291
4
•
i --
3dV3SQNV1
$NOIIIAIY
►IwxCT
DUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
1010114�w)Y *maw Bra
Pp.." ism..r .O Y.* Loa SWI
R •IL Mali. R CR* Q14113
SHIFT TITLE
DATE
DRAW ET
CHIC SKS ST
3aniiNan� A31811D
0
c
r
0
ac
a
0
L
0
.I i Ilaj IpIJ(
m
P1
DUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
MOO 11!ft.., Ai
Pb.t\+45r !!Is
A @Itr bN-TO
SO.-drSnob
NII6rd Y.1 4Lll
M. -1613
PROJECT.
SHEET TITLE:
DATE,Ti�`?
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY,
IMOISIAIY
PUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
1011144..O Y h..=&mg
moo - Nor. 1111/1
t. M w.w11 w VIII era
►t!n;.UUULI
onto; s7 0,
IRA
cn[ccll /r
m
-o
rz-
)),
_ft 1.00.1011 AVestis
1
•
1
mre
40'
rf.ty‘e•
,44 1.44'
ir
to4e
bO
L.
0
/ F
0
3
0
0
0
0
DUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
nwommik. Mow.... — %mom Irdi
3.• ens ro,•.• lairt Iv., WO
I% PM NUM
PROOILKT
Data 5/5749
It
CittCILED WY
A
/NO111UIY
• e�
NO1JNIX31
r
N
n..,.. A....e
1
odir
.i
tgni
111
'1
a
34„,
P
4. )
CEM
A
A
r� _
D>
w.
cIR
N13 ONIddOH/
z AN
B
•
DUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
NM MO., be agemo
PYramakJ✓. MOP 119.144. 1... 11111
�►pip WII. h Rill 18,4.1111
PA9xCt
LEXINGTON PLAZA
MENDOTA NEIONtS MINNESOTA
TITLE
SAES s' /,,
9A Arno 1t
65
cwtctcu Si
tIort. eas
Northwes
bfl
1.<44
0
4
oo ing Southeas
1,00 ,in• Southwes
2.
f. 4.e.,P , •
• in't. 1k 30
11
- , ,1" t • . t 4i.re ' Aiii.7,4'.1 t.'ir' : : .. . rbli'.. . - : i 1;... '';‘ .114 "'.
° ''' bo41140141:.
°t*'( '
'4 .: 514 4
•
. 4, • ", 4 •:, , ;:,....
eit
1". "tt:.1,.$1r :, ‘: ,_
,
-.= ' - • •
k.
91111's'""A"""1.44''''4.4 '4 i.-'
. .
• ,
A
- • '