1987-12-01PRE -COUNCIL MEETING
ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM, 7:10 P.M.
1. City Administrator's 1988 Salary Compensation.
2. Adjourn to City Council Chambers.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
DECEMBER 1, 1987 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Adoption.
4. Approval of November 19 Minutes.
5. Consent Calendar:
a. Acknowledgement of November 24 Planning Commission
Minutes.
b. Acknowledgement of Date for Joint Meeting with
Planning Commission.
c. Acknowledgement of Letter from Mr. Douglas Geier.
d. Acknowledgement of Code Enforcement November Report.
e. Approval of the List of Licenses.
f. Approval of the List of Claims.
End of Consent Calendar.
6. Introductions.
7. Public Comments.
8. Bid Award and Public Hearing:
a. Street Light Bid Award
b. Equipment Certificate Bid Award. (Resolution No.
87-113). K
c. Hillside Creek Improvements HEARING, 7:45 P.M.,
(Resolution No. 114).
d. Case No. 87-29. Learning Tree, Conditional Use
Permit HEARING, 8:00 P.M.
e. Case No. 87-24, Centex Homes, Rezoning, Conditional
Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Preliminary
Plat, HEARING, 8:30 P.M. (Resolution No. 87-115,
Ordinance No. 245 and 246). 1
9. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Damage Claim from Bernard Karon, 1781 Summit Lane.
b. Case No. 87-36, Nelson, Preliminary Plat.
C. Case No. 87-37, Poore, Rear Yard Variance.
d. Request from Cray Research for Building Permit.
f. Transfer of Funds to City Hall Fund. (Resolution
No. 87-116).
g. 1988 Legislative Policies for AMM.
h. Annual Boar,4 of Peview.
10. RespoYse to Council Comments.
a. Use of Overtime Hours for Public Works Employees.
11. Council Comments.
12. Closed Session to Discuss Pendine Litigation Regarding
Claim for Extra Costs An Connection with Yorkton Centre
Pointe South Contract.
13. Adjourn.
z
PRE -COUNCIL MEETING
ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM, 7:10 P.M.
1. City Administrator's 1988 Salary Compensat'on.-Y_W'600
rA1J.
2. Adjourn to City Council Chambers.
REVISED
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
DECEMBER 1, 1987 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.- �: 3
2. Roll Call. - 6
3. Agenda Adoption. v
4. Approval of November 19 Minutes. -.
5. Consent Calendar: -
a.
Acknowledgement
of November 24 Planning Commission
Minutes.
b.
Acknowledgement
of Date
for Joint Meeting with a
Planning Commission.
c.
Acknowledgement
of Letter from Mr. Douglas Geier.
d.
Acknowledgement
of Code
Enforcement November Report.
e.
Approval of the
List of
Licenses.
f.
Approval of the
List of
Claims.
End of Consent Calendar.
6. Introductions. _� .4. X4
7. Public Comments . - p -F,0.
8. Bid Award and Public Hearing: ®�
a. Street Light Bid Award.* -
��,4 - /� 3z) 1'7 F, 0D
b. Equipment CeyrtificWte Bid Award. (Resolution No.
*
87-113)•—/�Xw,ilc�, - c /7C x
c. Hi�lllside Creek Improvements EA NG 7:45 P.M.,
_ [ (R/ �I
n No,.(7-114) .-
I� �
0
d. Case No. 87-29, Learning Tree Condition 1 Use
Permit HEARING, 8:00 P.M.
e. Case No. 87-24, Centex Homes, Sketch Plan Approval,
Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development, Preliminary Plat, HEARING, 8:30 P.M.
(Resolution No. 87-115,4=;
nce No. �Q
245 and 246) . * - � `/S" �x � %p
NOTE: -Recommended action on this item includes
adoption of zoning code amendments which were tabled
by Council on May 6, 1986 - Ordinance 245.
9. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Damage Claim from Bernard Karon, 1781 Summit Lane. _ ,faoo W
b. Case No. 87-36, Nelson, Preliminary Plat. -
C. Case No. 87-37, Poore, Rear Yard Variance. - tea`.
d. Request from Cray Research for Building Permit. ;"-I
f. Transfer of Funds to City Hall Fund. (Resolution
No. 87-116).
g. 1988 Legislative Policies for AMM.-- A
h. Annual Board of Review.- "�V"' 01 I I ff, %: 3 op.,,.
i. Agreement with Soo ine Railroad for Utility
Crossing. ** —/4_.
Response to Council Comments:
a. Use of Overtime Hours for Public Works Employees. —/
11. Council Comments.
12. Closed Session to Discuss Pendine Litigation Regarding
Claim for Extra Costs in Connection with Yorkton Centre
Pointe South Contract.
13. Adjourn. , ( f : ((
0
MEMO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
December 1, 1987
To: Mayor and City Council
X/
From: Kevin Fra�7.�`tty Administrator
Re: Add -On Agenda for December 1, 1987
One new item (marked with **) is recommended for addition to
this evening's agenda, and additional information is
submitted for three existing items (marked with *).
3. Agenda Adoption
It is recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda
printed on blue paper.
8.a. Street Light Bid Award
Attached please find a letter from City Attorney Tom Hart
discussing the informal bid protest of Hitek in connection
with this bid award. Also attached is the letter of protest
from the Hiteck representative.
Attorney Hart finds no valid basis for the Hitek claim, and
recommends that Council adopt the resolution awarding the bid
to the lowest responsive bidder, Collins Electrical Const.
Co. of St. Paul.
8.b. Equipment Certificate Bid Award
Treasurer Larry Shaughnessy will hand out the tabulation of
Equipment Certificate bid offers at the Council meeting.
8.e. Case No. Centex Homes
The November 25th cover memo from Public Works Director Jim
Danielson recommends (as action # 5) adoption of Ordinance
246, effecting the rezoning of the subject property.
However, as further indicated in that memo, the PUD zoning
approach is new for the City, and this will be our first case
so processed.
Rather than adopting the ordinance this evening, staff
recommends that Council pass a motion directing staff to
prepare a PUD rezoning ordinance that adopts the Kensington
Phase I PUD plan. That ordinance would be presented for
Council adoption at the December 15 meeting.
9.i. Agreement with IP&AwLine Railroad for Utility Crossing
Please see attached memo from the Engineering Department.
SH'CRMAN WINTHROP
ROOERT R. WEINSTINE
RICHARD A. NOEL
s ROGER D. GORDON
STEVEN C.TOUREK
STCPHEN J. SNYDER
HART KULLER
DAVID P. PEARSON
THOMAS M. HART IV
DARRON C. KNUTSON
JOHN A. KNAPP
MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT
DAVID E. MORAN. JR.
DONALD J. DROWN
SANDRA J. MARTIN
JON J. HOOANSON
GARY W. SCHOKMILLER
JAY R. NAFTZGER
TODD B. URN ESS
SCOTT J. DONOOSKE
WILLIAM D. HITTL ER
PETER J. OLEEKEL
PAUL B. JONES
ROBERT S. SOSKIN
JEFFREY W. COOK
EDWARD J. ORENTTCL
DANIEL C. ADAMS
JEFFREY R. ANSEL
JEFFREY N. SAUNDERS
LAURIE A. KNOCKE
WILLIAM F. MOHRMAN
K£NN ETH D. ZIORINO
JULIE K. WILItAMSpN
JAMES P. PETERS
MARK T. JOHNSON
OROOKS F. POLICYPATRICIA 1. REDING
WINTHROP & W E I N S T I N E
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
1800 CONWED TOWER
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SSIOI
December 1, 1987
Mr. James D. Danielson
Public Works Director
City of Mendota Heights
452 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Re: Street Lighting Project/Davis & Associates, Inc. Bid Dispute
Dear Jim:
TELEPHONE 16121292-8110
TELECOPY 16121292-9347
STEPHEN & YOUNG
COUNSEL
I am enclosing herewith for your information
a copy of a letter which I
recently received from Greg Alford of
Davis &
Associates.
I believe you will
find that this letter sets forth the
position
of Davis
& Associates, Inc.
("Davis") with respect to the "Hitek"
lighting
product.
As you are aware,
Davis has raised essentially three issues
in their informal
bid protest. They
have alleged the following:
1. The Hitek Executive Product is "equal" in all material characteristics of
the approved Sterner product;
2. The City of Mendota Heights is paying substantially more than the actual
value of the Sterner product in the bid of Collins Electric; and
3. The City's action in limiting the scope of approved products to Sterner
violates public bidding requirements.
At your request, I have discussed the facts involving this bid dispute not
only with representatives of Davis & Associates, but also with Dale Glowa of
United Properties and Messrs. Steve Wright and Steve Hahn, Sterner
representatives.
In summary, after reviewing the facts and circumstances involved in the bid
process in connection' with the subject project, I do not find any material
violations of the public bidding requirements or other laws.
Mr. James D. Danielson
December 1, 1987
Page 2
Davis' first issue involves comparability of the Hitek product to the Sterner
product. In order to prevail on their allegation that the Hitek product is the
"equal", of the Sterner product, Davis would have to establish that the City's
action in rejecting the Hitek product was "arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable". (See, Bud Johnson Const. Co. Inc. vs. Metropolitan Transit
Commission (1978) 272 believe, however, that you have amply
emonstrated that there are "salient characteristics" which distinguish the
Hitek product from the Sterner product. First, although aesthetics is not
always a legitimate basis for rejecting products in public bidding, I believe it
is a relevant concern, in an ornamental lighting project. In such a project,
appearance is key in establishing the appropriate image in the area affected.
In this : case, the City has made what appears to be a reasonable determination
that the appearance of -the Sterner product is far superior to the appearance
of the Hitek product.
In addition, the City has apparently determined, based upon advice from
objective third parties including the City's technical consultant on the subject
project, that the extruded aluminum housing of the Sterner product is much
sturdier than the formed aluminum housing on the Hitek product.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Hitek product simply does- not meet
the specifications in terms of "tool -less access." Mr. Alford at Davis makes
the point that access to the lamp would be necessary to change the lamp only
once every six years. However, any required access to the lamp, however
infrequent, will be a difficult maneuver at best since the maintenance
personnel will be perched atop a thirty foot ladder. Requirement of use of
any tools will make this operation significantly more difficult, especially if
access is required on a cold or windy day. In addition, it is my
understanding that NSP will accept maintenance responsibilities on such
projects only if access is indeed "tool -less". Although it is not certain that
we will ask NSP to assume maintenance responsibilities in the future, it is my
understanding that we wish to preserve flexibility to do so. This alone would
seem to justify strict application of the tool -less access requirement.
Davis has also alleged that the City is paying far in excess of the market
value of the Sterner assembly. It is my understanding, however, that the
original engineer's estimate prepared by Hayes Contracting, which has no
affiliation with the Sterner group, was $353,500. The low bid of Collins
Electric came in at $321,198, over $30,000 lower than the engineer's estimate.
In addition, it is my understanding that you have had conversations with
engineers at the engineering department at the City of St. Paul who estimated
the cost of similar projects at approximately $3,000 per light assembly. - If the
Collins Electric bid (using Sterner products) is accepted, the price per light
assembly for the Mendota Heights project would be approximately $3,001.
Accordingly, it does not appear that the City is paying in excess of the
market value for the subject product.
Finally, Davis has alleged that the City has violated public bidding
requirements by eliminating all competitors other than Sterner. It is my
Mr. James D. Danielson
December 1, 1987
Page 3
understanding that several other light assembly suppliers sought approval from
the City but that each, for various reasons, was rejected. The City does
have an obligation to avoid drafting specifications in such a fashion as to
eliminate or unfairly restrict free and open competition. However, the fact
that the City rejected other potential suppliers is not of itself grounds for a
,finding that public bidding requirements were not followed. Davis has alleged
that the specifications were drafted by a Sterner representative in a manner
that effectively eliminated all competition. As I understand it from you,
however, the specifications were actually drafted by Nelson-Ruedy, Electrical
Engineers, the consulting electrical engineers for this project. I do not
believe there has be * been any allegation that the Nelson-Ruedy firm is in any way
tied to or otherwise affiliated with Sterner. Again, in making a determination
as to the application of each supplier, the City must have a rational basis for
its decision. Assuming this to be the case, I do not believe that Davis would
have legitimate grounds to set aside the bid process on the basis of violation
of the i"open competition" aspects of our public bidding laws.
it is also my understanding, however, that you have now been made aware of
a product available in the marketplace which does satisfy the City's
requirements and - which is not manufactured by Sterner. If the City Council
does elect to rebid this project, I would therefore suggest that you make an
effort to obtain bids based not only on Sterner products but on all other
acceptable alternatives as well. In any event, however, I believe the City has
more than ample grounds to reject the Hitek product from further consideration
in connection with this project.
Should you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
i
WINTHflOP & WEJPSTINE
<JTh
y V
as M. Hart
TMH: pjk
cc: James Sander, Esq.
Mr. Charles E. Mertensotto
`1 r. Kevin Frazell
Enclosure
6446 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 • 612/941-0410
November 16, 1987
" RECEIVED
Mr. Thomas G. Hart
Attorney at Law
Winthrop & Weinstine
1800 Meritor Tower
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 65101
Dear Mr. Hart:
THOMAS M. HART
As discussed, please find enclosed confidential data to support
our contention that the City of Mendota Heights is being
overcharged for Job #8624, You will note this invoice copy does
not match the -,product specified and is for your information only.
This particular job was a small parking lot in Richfield, and the
products purchased were 20' straight steel poles and, 15OW HPS
luminaires whereas the City will be purchasing 30' tapered steel
poles and 40OW HPS luminaires.
It's important, to realize that the $60,000 price difference
between the Hitek proposal and the Sterner proposal As package
pricing of $100,000 versus $160,000. Simply, Hitek could supply
this material for an average of approximately $1,000 per
assembly, whereas Sterner has quoted approximately $1,600 per
assembly.
This 60% difference cannot be justified by higher' performance, °.
quality of product, or minor manufacturing methods. If compared,.:.
to the Invoice enclosed, and adding additional monies for the
`
source difference and taller pole, this is still ' almost three
times the cost of the units billed. It's safe to assume the
costs for both packages should be somewhat similar. For example,
our pole price is approximately $400, our fixture $400 and the
40OW high pressure sodium lamp $60.` ' If you take • $850 per the
,
quantity of single assemblies and $1,300 'times the -twin units,
you will arrive at the distributor cost we quoted. ' ' Add -to this •
the distibutor margin and contractor markup, and you will see how.
our package was quoted. Trying to justify an additional $60,000
for these 102 assemblies is impossible.
The Hitek family of products is part of Lithonia�'Lighting, the
largest lighting manufacturer in the country:' ` The --Davis
Associates organization has been the representative" far' Lithonia .•`
since 1969. Our reputation in the market has 'been • built' on
service, competitive pricing, and a commitment = to quality
'�•`.
products.
It's our opinion that this situation and the circumstances
'. }
surrounding it are a total misuse of public trust and a blatant
abuse of specification guidelines. This can't be justified with
either common sense or good business judgement, nor can it be
L�AVlf &Aff0.C1ATCfj`.1nC;
6446 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 e..612/941-0410
attributed to tactical positioning on the part of 'Sterner'or, '.
their agent. Salient characteristics is not the issue -here.
Subjective terms such as "crisp" and "substantial".'.'• don't
necessarily apply to a product mounted 30' In the air when the
task is actually defined in the terms of performance : not
appearance.
We also take issue with the tool—less• access feature for two
primary reasons. First, the lamp used in this product has a' life
of 24,000 hours. This means at a burning rate of a maximum 4,000
hours per year, the lamp will be changed once every six years.
Secondly, the method used by Sterner to accomplish the tool—less
access in not necessarily safer, a cam like mechanism is never as
good as a drilled and tapped fastening method. Also, due to an
eventual breakdown of the gasketing material•, Sterner's method
may actually allow an entrance for insects, which is always a
problem with any outdoor product.
Under normal circumstances we would not be taking issue with this.
situation. It is only because we were asked to submit voluntary
alternates by two of the contractors that we are involved. Once :.
we received the pricing information, it became apparent that the
City had put itself in the position of defining .a precedent for
future business • that would inhibit our ability to go to"market.
This precedent obviously locks us out of any future_ business and
leib dam In in other areas of our trade It also`•means
cou a ag g
competitive forces will not be allowed to drive the • natural
course of business. We ' take exception to this based on open `° {
trade principles that historically have always been a part of our",,,
Industry practices when public funds were involved. This would
apply to not only municipalities, but also the State of Minnesota
Itself and any public agencies under its control or influence.
It is our opinion that unless the City of Mendota Heights can
Justify the huge cost difference between products, we be,,allowed
to furnish our products as a "value engineered" change;,order to.
the low bidder. This is an accepted method used by the, industry
and would satisfy all parties concerned. It has also come -to our •. ': .
attention that the original design and budget criteria..* were • done
through the Sterner agent ' on an arm's length basis,. 1P This *would.
certainly raise the conflict of interest question `and" make,` that -
budget itself questionable. Depending on various contingencies «-
such as soil conditions, spacings, raceway specifications, and
Job timing, a $2,500 to $3,500 installed cost per lighting
assembly would be a realistic budget parameter.
It's unfortunate this set of events took place. I would hope the
evidence exposed is due to misjudgements and inexperience on the '
part of loyal public servants. Though I must . ' say • I'm quite
confused with the aggressive stance taken by certain persons
within the City structure 'and their desire to proceed with the, <
Sterner purchase. ' This doesn't outwardly express fiduciary
responsibility.
L�AVff &AffOCIATC1,
6446 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 • 612/941-0410
I hope we have made our position clear. If further assistance
desired, please don't hesitate to call. �a ;i• . °•;,..
Sincerely
G. C. Alford
Davis & Associates ;
Enclosures
cc: Mr. J. Sander
Wagner, Johnston & Falconer, Ltd.
4
1W
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
December 1, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and CityA
,XAVrator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Railroad Rental Agreement
Job No. 8427
Improvement No. 85, Project No. 3
DISCUSSION:
Attached is an agreement with the Soo Line Railroad to allow the City to
auger a casing for a watermain under their tracks at Northland Drive and
Trunk Highway 55. This is at the same location where the City will be in-
stalling a street crossing sometime in the future (Dale Glowa, United Properties,
was to attend a future Council meeting to discuss the financing of that crossing).
This watermain connection is needed to provide a looped system in the area.
The cost for this easement is $150 now and $100 per year. However staff
is negotiating with the railroad for the surface crossing at this time and
that cost is estimated at a flat rate of $5,500. The railroad staff tell
us that these easement funds can be applied to that fee and once settled there
will be no annual fee for the Utility easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City pay the $150 and sign the railroad permit.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should
pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 87- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF SOO LINE RAILROAD PERMIT NO. 27743.
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SOO LINE RAILROAD PERMIT NO. 27743
WHEREAS, The City of Mendota Heights desires to install a water -
main within a casing pipe under the Soo Line Railroad tracks at Mendota
Heights Road and Trunk Highway 55 (Railroad Station 2400+77); and
WHEREAS,'in order to install said watermain pipe a permit is needed
from the Soo Line Railroad..
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights that the Mayor be authorized to execute Railroad Permit
No. 27743.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day
of December, 1987.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
RIE Form No. 3889 — Revised 8184 PIPE LINE CROSSING PERMIT NO. 26743
IIIISAGREEMENT, made and entered into asofthe let dayor December 19 87 ,by and between
SOO LING RAILROAD COMPANY, party of the first part, hereinafter called "Railroad Company", and CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Hts., Mn 55120 , party orthesecondpart, hereinafter called "Licensee",
W ITNESSETfr:
I. The Railroad Company grants to the Licensee permission to install and maintain a
pipe line, not exceeding 24 inches in diameter, hereinafter called "pipe line extending upon and across the
Railroad Company's property and tracks in the SW} SE}
Coudtyof Dakota ,at or near Mendota Heights
for a distance of approximately 109 feet
of Section 34 , Township 28 N., Range 23 W.
,Stateof Minnesota
at Railroad Survey Station 2400+77
In the location indicated in red and in accordance with the details as shown on the map hereto attached marked "exhibit A", and specifications hereto
attached marked "exhibit B", at a depth of not less than 7.5 feel beneath the base of the rail in any railroad tracks located on
sold property, to be used by the Licensee exclusively for a Water main
subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth.
2. The Licensee shall pay the Railroad Company the sum of S 100.00 per annum billed on a S year basis, payable in advance as rental for
the permission herein granted, and shall assume and pay all taxes and assessments that may be levied or assessed against the pipe line, or against the
Railroad Company's property by rection of the location of the pipe line thereon. White this agreement remains in effect, the Railroad Company reserves the
right to adjust said rental after the first year upon thirty (30) days written notice prior to the anniversary date of this agreement. This provision for
payment shall in no way. restrict the Railroad Company's right of termination under Paragraph I I hereof. Acceptance of any payment for any five year
period, even though a bill has been rendered and payment made thereof, shall not constitute an agreement as to the rate of payment to be paid during each
S year period.
3. The Licensee, arter first securing all necessary public authority, shall at the Licensee's sole expense install and thereafter maintain the pipe line
upon and across the Railroad Company's properly and underneath any railroad tracks located thereon at The above described location, in a manner
satisfactoty to the Railroad Company's Chief Engineer, and in strict conformity with the requirements of all laws, ordinances and orders of competent
public authority now existing and future modifications thereof, so as not to endanger tire safety of railroad or other operations upon said property and so
as not to endanger the safety of the persons or properly near or adjacent to the Railroad Company's property.
4. The Licensee shall be responsible for determining the location and existence of any pipes, wires, conduits, sewers, piling or other obstructions
to the construction of Licensee's Ripe tine and shall Indemnify Railroad Company for any and all liability for damage to the foregoing pipes, wires,
conduits, sewers, piling or other obstructions, if any, caused by the construction or maintenance or Licensee's pipe tine, The Railroad Company makes no
representation by the granting of this license that its property is free of any such pipes, wires, conduits; sewers, piling or other obstructions.
S. The Licensee shall not carry on any work in connection with the installation, maintenance, re air, changing or renewal of the pipe line
underneath or in close proximity to any railroad track at the above described location before giving the=Engineer at least three days' written notice
al his headquarters Located at pB { Chief
and nor until an authorized repreicn�altvg�ieilroa3�ompnystall be present to supervise same, Upon bills being rendered therefore, the Licensee
shall promptly reimburse the Railroad Company for all expenses incurred by it In connection with such supervision, including all labor costs for flagmen
supplied by the Railroad Company to protect railroad operations. and for the entire cost or the furnishing, installation and later removal of any temporary
supports for said tracks, which said Chief Engineer or his authorized representative may consider necessary while such work is in progress.
6. The Licensee at the Licensee's sole expense whenever notified to do so, shall promptly make such repairs to or changes in the pipe line,
Including change in location, as said Chief Engineer or his authorized representative shall for any reason consider necessary and require. The Railroad
Company shall have the right, at its election, to make emergency repairs to the pipe line, and in such event the Licensee, upon bills being tendered
thererore, will promptly reimburse the Railroad Company for all expenses incurred In connection therewith.
7. Maintenance and use of the pipe line upon and across the Railroad Companys properly at the above described location, however long
continued, shall not vest in the Licensee any rights adverse to those of the Railroad Company.
P. The Licensee shall assume all risk of damage to or destruction or the pipe line through any cause whatsoever white located upon and across the
Railroad Company's property, and shall at all times fully indemnify the Railroad Company against all liability, claims, demands, suits, judgments, costs
and expenses by reason of loss of or damage to property and injury to or death of persons whatsoever or whomsoever, in any manner arising from or
growing nut of, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, the installation, maintenance, repair, changing, renewal, existence or removal of the pipe line upon,
across or from the Railroad Company's property at the above described location.
9. The waiver by the Railroad Company of a breach by the Licensee of any provision hereof, shall be limited to the act or omission constituting
such breach, and shall not constitute a continuing or permanent waiver.
4 10. This agreement or the permission herein granted shall not be assigned or transferred by the Licensee in any meaner, by operation of law or
otherwise, without the written consent or the Railroad Company. Subject thereto, this agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the
successors, assigns and legal representatives of the respective parties.
I L This agreement shall continue in effect until terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party, Any notice
SStven by the Railroad Company hereunder shall be good if deposited in a United Starts post office, certified mail. addressed to the Licensee at the
Licensees last known address. When so terminated, the Railroad Company shall make proportionate refund to the Licensee of rental that shall have been
paid in advance after deduction of any amounts payable by the Licensee hereunder.
12. The Licenses at the Licensee's sole expense, within thirty days from the date of service of notice of termination as above provided, shall take
up and remove the pipe line from the Railroad Company's propetly at the above described location and restore said property to a condition satisfactory to
said Chief Engineer. Failure on the part of The Licensee to do so shall constitute an abandonment of the pipe line by the Licensee, and the Railroad
Company shall then have the right, at its election, to disconnect the pipe line at the points where It enters and leaves the Railroad Company's property, or to
take tip and remove the whole or any part of the pipe fine from said property and perform said work of restoration, and in either event the Licensee, upon
a bill being tendered therefore, shall promptly reimburse the Railroad Company for all expenses incurred in connection therewith, plus fifteen per cent.
13. The Railroad Company shall not be required to assume any portion of the cost or the construction of said pipe line or future maintenance
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be duty executed, as of the day and year first above written.
Witnesses;
SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
By
Asst. Vice President Real Estate
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Its
NOT TO BE RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORDS
JTM GtSN6 PlAire l -V LD#
min Thi-bvnv Aides. ol, w
0 16w: ....... "mow )s'
0 2f9 ........ ��'!� if
orrx�..........., saw
0.3/2............ 2s'
0J44........,..,24'
a!7.l..........., s6'
0 401, ...... Z044, 00-
0. 4id..•. •. ....•3+w
0. 469....... is"dfJe
as 0 0. . . . -.3d, 40,1042'
M%n Yic/d ,Slr * Of ,F4*el
P%pr 10 bs J &V A X1..
tart
Wahott! Pvlldive COOVV &W C**,4g*e
pmrfAwl, wW lac M -d J* wr o! bl!
Jholl bf hd'vw#W :t If1"j0.rAwWa V Pub
^**/} is 0 450L of 006r prower Abe VA/
diom#nr rrc,t,cJ' qtr 4"Var lz flit„'
JIX AfA
.f; A(zUrl w"Ovs r
40me bshvron
Cr b/sAW full
Poe 4woI.
core w- and Cil 400" jb*11
of o t y 40*"f ar*tr' qtr W C"
f Tr�oicx
.r $we of Roil
,s'•a'.vri.OF/W.,yQ
lbrA42W JrockL
4.6'efGitOw ew&WdA
elarlk�i�i dr.sI� .3ll�:rr.
?o. --rm , A*A,y
'o-rier rwr
T S/S/N6 PIPE Vr4fS
Q ftir pWWW NNW xvAu it me .j W rW pow
per A.R.I.A Nees - oftroo r► * 4 4opw
F•7? rWlroad l wW,#V.
c,1 Twr�rl ltntrr ,rvpt.
Z M510lkrtA1n Af*#sad:
.4- J of Pyo - gr Oo" �
G GrrrotovW 441Wl1Npt - #r A&%br ar iw&::v
. C*S** f tpo of Mrve- 0affelrr. -
Ja TwWAV - oftc.#A*Ciod 4#A%IUW OJAWW
and bye AR Co. C4*f f*VAPCt
J 4«V/As:
a/�t .04pe W/
/fit is, 4 to.*** WF AO l
d + O=V brow bw Of rorty) MOMWW o
. _.. r19b1 o�Jrar ii+rw •cw1�►yiot of ��
4. Sw�t44:
PW:?A* dry or"m 1p* o✓�ir
J At prWAW *m MW.itr vlt or444* oibm ,
!/k, Comer p�is,�orW or sottwtfr�w,1�►' cr
lips t /sxr Jflr�s ht o►,tin OW of Awe -0.4
ywrltr ,far coviw / WO AT. *W ~. In
c~,,�r 1! %4al 6r Awyr oswrpr lfir �wr4•,
!o of rv~r#w. 4 ..
--
T4s
"EXHIBIT S"
-- - - - - 380 LINE R.R CO.
PIPE LINE CROSSING
UNDER . RAILROAD TIRACK$
Growing 5 FOR NON-FLAMMABLE StASTANC!
•riv. A3,t! 1►l J4iw
4-.9-73
/"s
2•
O�
a
yL
o �
co r w v
0.1acv
w �- _F �►
~ 441
c 0 ti4j "fi'
/V
%4llov b
N q cr
`= %44
• h
DKI! 7 "�C o c o m14 x
No. 1 001
q vri t
c
N
r
(144
%" �. ;►rte-- 5� ` A/
""'"°�ifr"'s .w j eri`cE"••�i •.�.,\ 0.13 �It
• • '' • / • 0 t `MMI`•
N� ,'ja MJF. NQ y18w to/ •�► •MM�
100
0 01
too Quitc�A1M�D
oAP
,% ;• y:".,.. "EXHIBIT X*
Ile
.}✓~'
t.. �.
+ 4
o
Soo tine Railroad Companyj
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Engineering Department
PROPOSED UNDER TRACK WATER MAIN
CROSSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA CO. `MN.
11/23/87 Til = 400'
BIDS RECEIVED
$380,000 EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
ACCOUNT
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK &
TRUST COMPANY
St. Paul, Mn.
FIRST BANK CAPITAL MARKETS
Minneapolis, Mn.
RATES DISCOUNT
6.1% 1989/91
6.2 1992 $2,000.00
6►25% 1989/92
$1,998.80
$ COST % RATE
$ 89,120.00 6.276%
NORWEST SECURITIES 6.0% 1989/91
Minneapolis, Mn. 6.1 1992 2,000.00 $ 87,700.00 6.176%
-t
AMKUA 1tLLUUV1tK Lys ; 12- 1-UY; !.):1b NM; 612 941 4568 4
-D-7,;C -1 ' 87 17:12 FROM DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES
ff 6446 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 • 6121541-0410
I� December 1, 1987
2929347 ; # 2
PAGE.002
Mr. Thomas G. Hart
Attorney at Law
Winthrop & Weinstine
1800 Conwed Tower
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Re: Mendota Heights
Mr. Hart: - -
Thank you for your response to my leetiter of
cSander.
reeived from Jim Sander . �
_ , Tqm; i t' t- apparent that . th'x:s.' !ii.tua't'ibn
has gotten somewhat out of..,hand• and tYia(t•• our-
-intent* ..to luiti:y
nthe purchase of the Mitek.produ✓t has faigja. My' 901•y lgr6ring.
concerns are that ' you have been .mi.sinfor_mdd and pb.ssi.bly d•(:,caived
with regards to some key issues: I have io d saqreement'with the
legal decisions you hate -expressed but do -take exception-to'the
following
:..r
#1) Our. feeling is stip. that- 'sae meet' -the- perfcrmati0.e:..9titnd$rd.
of the specified product; not 'neoes4arily tht .;
architectural flavor,.but'.the periprlimance•criteria.
r
#2) The city is indeed paying.,a price, txat is .abnbm7.y high:
due. to the lack of competitive fore's' involved; This- f'aCt_
can easily be seen by the. di€fer.ence iA 'the pa><lc$e
pricing.
#3) The oity's' action has • violated. the intent- of 'plsb' c
bidding requirements by issuing ai�d:.gx► Lintainiri_q- e'
one line spec".
04) NSP does not mandate ••tool-les•s • acce0's. We haves. a high
quontity. of . products installed and operating:..it NSP
jurisdiction.
#5) Lamps are not changed with•ladders 0nymare. vtIset
trucks are used. by all maa.n� enance•persongi0j.. • '
#6) Mr. ; teve Leppa of iiayes .Contract ani. coiitiixit that ' he ..did
indeed give a "-ball parkes's in. gtto" 't!*, a -city employee
approximately one. year. ago.: This :was done ver.Wally. withqu•.::
docu*ents and was strictly a `'high 'sj.de" unglialif`ied
statement based on little if any acttival informatfoo. He
didn't *eve'a follow-up in wrritintr. -
.... ! ..
llEC C 17:12 FROM DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES PAGE.003
AVIf Ci k
-D
6446 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE + EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA X344 + oin41-0410
#7) The Nelson-Rudie firm had no design, concept, or layout
participation. Mr. Jim McShanoch states "I received.*
set of completed documents". In other words, they did not
have any input i4to the spi�cif iGati: rLt .
We did not' set out to disrupt the . * acti;#i.ties..' .of the Citi cf
Mendota Heights. However; we felt; .and stxll..mairata n, tkxatt the.
circumstances zurrounding 'this'particular;•:-t.ituation-:a>ke• bnoihsl,
unusual, and peculiar in nature. We und; rstand the city'-i-right
to purchase equipment they feed. is. neGe-#sarp to perform and', :t'o
appeal to a certain criteria., Yet, 060, 0a0:' does seelm. to
a premium to pay. Also, Mr. Danielson'-s •• of forty -to '`' qct the
outside consultant to specify Sterner .dk on •floe nese City Hall
failed. and.. as a consecrtience, we.. will- • be sup7.n those
assemblies:
In closing, Tom, I want_ ' 'to•• thank yoti for the time: ybu. s);i�it�
investigating *the Issues.•iiopifiily you" r.:• efforts:.
future abuses of power within the - • city- structuiro
for these actions to he repeate6. "'
Sincerely,
G. C. Alford _
Davis & Associet-es
_s
Page No.2205
November 19, 1987
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Special Meeting and Rescheduled
Meeting Held Thursday, November 19, 1987
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special meeting of the City
Council, City of Mendota Heights was held at 7:00 o'clock P.M. at City
Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The
following%members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener,
Hartmann and Witt. Councilmember Cummins notified the Council that he
would be late.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of the
revised agenda for the meeting.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilmember Cummins arrived at 7:05 P.M.
HEARING - TANDEM/CITY Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN purpose of a public hearing on applications
AMENDMENTS; CENTEX from Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive.Plan
SKETCH PLAN (CASE NOS. amendment for the proposed Dodd Corners
87-23, 87-24, 87-25) Neighborhood Commercial use and for the City's
application for plan amendment for Parks and School
designation on the School Forest property and an
application from Centex for sketch plan approval
for the proposed Kensington Planned Unit
Development multi family residential use.
Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Dick Putnam, president
of the Tandem Corporation, to review the proposed
Centex and Tandem projects.
Mr. Putnam stated that the Centex project
(Kensington) is located south of Mendota Heights
Road, from the former Butler property on the west
to Delaware Avenue on the east and consists of
approximately 102 acres; the proposed Tandem
project involves 10 acres at the corner of Dodd
Road and Mendota Heights Road and the seven acre
Clark property which is proposed to be developed in
housing and neighborhood shopping uses. He stated
that the original Centex plan was an 80 acre
project, which was about two-thirds of the Riley
property, and involved high and medium density
housing, all of which was owner -occupied townhouse
and condominium units, and a neighborhood park.
Page No.2206
November 19, 1987
He then reviewed a sketch plan which had been
presented to the Council and Planning Commission
prior meetings.
Mr. Putnam stated that at the request of the City,
he has taken a look at incorporating a community
athletic facility into his plan, and he reviewed
the sketch plan for the Council and audience,
noting that the plan had been reviewed by the Park
Commission at its November meeting. He stated that
the housing area has been increased from 80 acres
to 102 acres but that the same types of housing are
being proposed: townhouses and condominiums ranging
from four to sixteen units which will be neither
high-rise nor rental. He pointed out that the
major change from the original proposal is that a
community athletic facility is now located in the
south center of the property. Mr. Putnam stated
that the plan includes a neighborhood park, and
tot -lot and will be similar to the Friendly Hills
Park. He stated that the public areas will
comprise about 40% of the property and will include
a trail system around the lake areas and through
the prime area in the woods.
Mr. Putnam stated that Centex proposes 500 units
over the 102 acre property, and that if a bond
issue passes, the City would be purchasing a
portion of the area for community recreation space
and the neighborhood park would be dedicated and
graded by the developer.
With respect to the neighborhood shopping center,
Mr. Putnam stated that in the original plan the
area at the corner of Dodd and Mendota Heights Road
nd I-494 was planned for high density housing. He
asked that the Council consider changing the five
to six acre parcel to a neighborhood shopping use
rather than high-density housing. He informed the
Council and audience that if the use is approved he
would propose a convenience store, neighborhood
retail shops and a family restaurant. Mr. Putnam
stated that at this meeting he is only requesting
the City to approve a comprehensive plan amendment
from HR to NB, and if approved, he would then
prepare detailed plans for submission and approval.
He informed Council that he does not know when or
how he will develop the remainder of the property
between the Patrick property and the proposed Dodd
Corners, but suggested that he may consider elderly
housing on part of the property and possibly low
density townhouses in the woods.
Page No.2207
November 19, 1987
Mayor Mertensotto asked City Planner Howard
Dahlgren to give the audience and Council an
overview and comment from a planning standpoint.
Mr. Dahlgren stated that the school district plans
to sell the site designated for school use and one
of the hearing components this evening is to change
the designation for that site to single family
residential. The other school district parcel, now
designated for park, would be designated as a
school site. He stated that if this were to occur,
the City would be without a park site, and
therefore Council has asked Mr. Putnam and Centex
to provide for a community athletic complex on
their property. He stated that he feels the basic
concept of traffic circulation to the athletic
facility and Kensington is excellent and noted that
a park close to a freeway is a good land use.
Regarding the neighborhood business proposal, Mr.
Dahlgren stated that there is a good deal of
development going on south of I-494 and
considerable traffic generation. He noted that the
developer could put an office on the property, but
it would only add more traffic to the area. He
suggested that if;a neighborhood center were
located on the -.site, the traffic would be off-peak
and the kind of mixed use that is proposed would be
serving our community rather than as a regional
service area, such as an office building which
would bring in added traffic. He stated that if
nothing is done there and the neighborhood must be
served by the shopping center to the north, the
traffic would create problems for homeowners on
Decorah, which he felt would be used as the access
to Dodd and the Mendota Plaza. He felt that if the
neighborhood center were allowed, people could use
Huber Drive to get to Mendota Heights Road to shop,
and he believed that this would benefit the
Friendly Hills neighborhood by relieving potential
traffic impact.
Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments
from the audience.
Administrator Frazell reminded the audience that at
issue this evening is the three Comprehensive Plan
amendments, that the Kensington development
proposal is not under discussion this evening but
will be discussed at a public hearing before the
Planning Commission on November 24th and the
Council on December 1st.
Page No.2208
November 19, 1987
Mr. John Lapakko, 825 Cheri Lane, stated that the
City has an athletic facility at Sibley and the
City has lots of parks. He asked whether the
public could not be better served by having an
athletic complex to serve the high school at Sibley
and a passive park on the Centex property. He
stated that he doesn't know why the City needs such
an enormous park in the opposite end of the City.
Mayor Mertensotto responded that the athletic
complex envisioned at the Henry Sibley site was at
first a 28 to 29 acre complex which turned out to
be a youth complex. He stated that what is
proposed for the Centex site is a community
recreation center and that he is sure that some
time in the future the City will need not only this
park but also one at Sibley.
Mr. Lapakko asked Mr. Putnam how he expects to have
a successful neighborhood business center when
there are so many spaces empty in the Mendota
Plaza.
Mr. Ultan Duggan, 813 Hazel Court, asked what
guarantee the City can give to the residents that
there will be a 31 acre park in the southeast area
He stated that the City is technically losing par.
land, (by changing the designation on the School
Forest property), and that if a referendum doesn't
pass the City does not know whether there will be a
park on the (Centex) site. He also suggested that
the tendency when commercial is placed at a corner
is for the same type of use across the street. He
asked what guarantee the Council will give that it
will not allow commercial on the school district
property.
Councilmember Blesener responded that there has
never been a guarantee that the 31 acre school site
would ever become a park.since the land is not City
owned.
Councilmember Hartmann pointed out that the City
does not own any of the land that was designated as
park on the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember
Cummins stated that there are absolutely no
guarantees, but that while the Council has been
divided on where an athletic complex should go, it
is united on the fact that there should be an
athletic complex: the voters will decide at a
referendum.
Mr. Duggan felt that the tendency would be to
rezone the north side of Mendota Heights Road once
the neighborhood center
asked what guarantee the
this would not happen.
Page No.2209
November 19, 1987
were to be developed, and
Council could give that
Mr. Bob Doffing, 1900 Twin Circle Drive suggested
that the voters could be offered a choice of the
Sibley and Centex sites at a referendum. He stated
that the Park and Recreation Commission did a
comprehensive needs study of the community and came
up with the conclusion that the City needs only one
major athletic complex which should be centrally
located. He asked how many parking spaces are
planned for the complex and how much the land will
cost the City.
Mr. Putnam responded that there are about 300
parking spaces on the plan, expandable to 350 or
360. Regarding the property cost, he explained
that the athletic complex would result in the City
acquiring roughly 30 acres more than what would be
required as park contribution for the development
and that Cbntex has suggested that the value of
land is dependent on the number and types of
housing allowed on the land. He indicated that if
the City approves the Kensington Plan B as
submitted with approximately 500 units, the price
per acre to the City could be $22,000 to $25,000,
which is 30% less than the cost per acre Centex has
contracted to pay Mr. Riley for the land.
Mr. James Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that
the 1979 Comprehensive Plan showed the land as
single family and that he has always been concerned
on impact on the area, density and traffic. He
stated that a petition against an increase in
density signed by 880 people was submitted in 1985,
and resubmitted a copy of the petition. He also
read and submitted a new petition signed by 400
people, asking for no change in the Comprehensive
Plan for the Southeast Area. He felt that an
increase in the density will have a negative impact
on the values of homes in the area and that the
park site is so clouded that it shouldn't be an
issue. He also stated that he wants to keep the
park designation on the School Forest property.
Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that
Mr. Duggan made a good point on the park area
designation being on the Comprehensive Plan for a
long time. He felt that an effort should be made
by the Council, since it was designated on the
Comprehensive Plan, it should go to a bond issue to
implement the original plan. He further stated
that it should be made clear that while the plans
Page No.2210
November 19, 1987
shown by Mr. Putnam and the City indicate HR and
MR, the fact is that those changes have never
become effective and the Comprehensive Plan still
shows that legally the property is still single
family, and that the City withdrawing its request
for change from the Metropolitan Council in the
spring of 1985. Regarding the commercial area
proposal, he felt that such a development would
bring in more than a little traffic from the
freeway: He stated that on October 15, 1985, the
Council by a 5 to 0 vote rejected any change to
commercial for that property, and that he knows of
nothing that has happened to change the Council
position. Mr. Friel stated that under the existing
zoning and Comprehensive Plan, if a park were to be
put on the Centex land there could be 120 to 240
units on the land rather than 540 units; the
commercial site involves five plus acres and an
additional 7 acres (under the Putnam proposal)
would create an additional 99 family units for a
total of 640 units where current zoning would mean
240 units. He stated that this significantly
impacts the quality of life in the area and in the
City in general.
Mr. John Schwab, 753 Evergreen, asked whether they -
are any plans for additional stop lights at Mendo
Heights Road and Dodd and whether the City has the
jurisdiction to install lights. He stated that
with the anticipation of a new school in the area,
in addition to St. Thomas and Visitation, a large
percentage of the City's students will be in the
area and traffic control is very serious to
consider.
Mrs. Rita Lew, 726 Decorah, stated that in the year
she has lived in the City she has seen the rural
atmosphere diminish and asked what power the
residents have to affect what happens in the City:
who makes the final decision.
Mrs. Ruth Hipp, 2124 Aztec Lane, stated that it
seems like developers are "on the prowl" in the
City and get whatever they want.
Mr. Steve Nelson, 666 Apache, asked how the
decision will be made to resolve the questions
before Council and when the decision will be made.
Mayor Mertensotto responded that the hearing this
evening is to consider the Comprehensive Plan
amendment requests.
Page No.2211
November 19, 1987
Councilmember Cummins stated that none of this is
very new except for the idea of locating a park in
the area. He stated that in 1985 Council
commissioned a study on what was appropriate to do
in the Southeast Area and the Council has spent
many months discussing the issue. He stated that
the Council has worked very hard on planning for
the area and decided on and made changes in the
Comprehensive Plan after many hearings. He stated
that the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan
amendments require that none of the buildings could
be more than 16 units and that Council did what it
could to guarantee owner -occupancy. Councilmember
Cummins noted that the issues have been discussed
at great length over several years and that in his
opinion Council is not likely to change its mind on
the density it decided on two years ago.
Mr. Friel stated that it should be pointed out that
in 1985 the Council acted to make Comprehensive
Plan changes and that he and others instituted a
lawsuit. He alleged that it was determined in the
suit that the Council had acted illegally and that
this is a part of the history.
City Attorney Tom Hart stated that while Mr. Friel
is much more intimate with the details of the suit,
the City was not a party to the lawsuit. He stated
that the question in the lawsuit was whether the
people who initiated it had probably cause: that
was the issue, not whether the City had acted
illegally.
` Mr. Losleben asked, if the Comprehensive Plan
designation is changed from School to single
family, what language Council can place in the
amendment on the property so that its developer
cannot'trade water area for density for housing.
Councilmember Blesener stated that she would have
no problem with putting language in the amendment
affecting that land to not allow a PUD or whatever
which would allow density for water area.
Mr. Richard Gabriel, 670 Apache Lane, stated that
he doesn't understand what the procedure is. He
stated that he has notices of meetings on December
1st and November 24th and asked when the
applications would finally get approved.
Councilmember Blesener responded that a
Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved by the
Council two years ago and that what is being
discussed tonight is three changes to that
Page No.2212
November 19, 1987
amendment and submission of the entire Southeast
Area amendment to the Metropolitan Council. She
pointed out that the November 24th Planning
Commission hearing will be to look at the details
of the first stage of the Kensington housing
proposal.
Mr. Duggan asked Council to reconsider that this is
the last major piece of land we have anything to do
something with in Mendota Heights. He stated that
he believes the Council must consider a "maximum
minimum:, reducing the number of units to an
acceptable level.
Mrs. Julie Losleben stated that she is confused
over where we go from here. She did not understand
how Council can designate changes in the area on
changes made two years ago that have not yet been
put into affect. She stated that the 1985
amendments have not yet been acted on.
Mrs. Rene Schuster, 729 Mohican Court, stated that
she moved to Mendota Heights a short time ago for
the openness and now there is discussion over
development.
Mr. Jack O'Brien, 807 Hazel Court, stated that he
moved here a year ago and bought his home with a
view of the open space and now is having that taken
away. He stated that he has been to several
meetings on these issues and that Council is moving
like a glacier.
Mr. Paulsen stated that he is considering moving to
803 Hazel Court because it is a desirable
community.
There being no further questions or comments,
Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be
closed at 8:22 P.M.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener moved to revise the
Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
reflect a change in designation of the School
Forest site from Park to School and from School to
LR and to provide language in the Comprehensive
Plan amendment that allows only single family
residential development without transfer of density
- free-standing homes on 15,000 square foot lots
without use of water in the calculation of densit
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Page No.2213
November 19, 1987
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Council discussed the City Administrator's report
relative to whether the Comprehensive Plan should
be amended to reflect a recreation center/park on
the Centex property.
Mayor Mertensotto felt that the Plan should be
amended to show the incorporation of the recreation
facility as shown on Centex Plan B.
Councilmember Witt asked what would happen if the
referendum doesn't pass and the land is designated
as Park on the Plan. Administrator Frazell stated
that the Comprehensive Plan would then need to be
amended again.
Councilmember Blesener stated that she doesn't see
that the Council needs to get itself involved in
that potential re -hearing on the issue.
Councilmember Cummins stated that people are
interested in a park on the Centex land and would
like to see Council's -intent by designating the
land to show that Council intends to go to a
referendum for this site.
Councilmember .Cummins moved to amend the Southeast
Area Comprehensive Plan amendment to reflect the
location of the park in the area indicated in
Centex's Plan B.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 1 Blesener
Regarding the Neighborhood Business proposal,
Councilmember Blesener stated that when Council
first looked at a concept plan a few years ago, it
was denied with the intent that Council would not
consider neighborhood business until it has
` something of merit to consider.
Councilmember Witt stated that her interpretation
of the past discussions over neighborhood business
was that Council would consider a proposal if there
was neighborhood support for it. She stated that
when the area was discussed two years ago one of
the parameters was that commercial would not cross
TH 149, that the east of 149 should remain
residential. She did not feel there is support for
a neighborhood business center and would therefore
not support the concept.
Mayor Mertensotto stated that other members of the
Council are as concerned as he is on the domino
Ayes: 2
Nays: 3
Blesener
Hartmann
Cummins
Mertensotto
Page No.2214
November 19, 1987
affect on the property across the street and
pointed out that the school property is for sale
and Council will soon know who its developer will
be. He stated that he feels Council should see
what is being considered for the remaining ten
acres between the proposed center and the Centex
property before it considers the neighborhood
business request.
Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the
language Council just stipulated in the
Comprehensive Plan amendment for the School Forest
property should address the Mayor's concern over a
domino affect and that nothing other than single
family use will be allowed on that property.
Councilmember Cummins stated that he too is
concerned that a neighborhood business center might
attract additional traffic into Mendota Heights and
that he could not support a Comprehensive Plan
change at this time:
Councilmember Hartmann stated that very recently
Mr. Putnam reviewed a number of uses which could
possibly go on the subject site, including a
church, and that everyone must recognize that it is
a difficult piece of land to develop.
Councilmember Blesener stated that she feels a
neighborhood commercial center is a reasonable use
for the land and that the number of people in the
southeast area who would use this type of facility
might mandate it.
Mayor Mertensotto suggested putting the request on
hold until a proposal for development of the school
property is known. ,
Mr. Putnam responded that he does not think it fair
to opus (the property owner) who has had the land
under option to Tandem for two years and that "wait
on it" was exactly the same thing Council said two
years ago. He asked that Council act on the issue
so he and opus can move on.
Councilmember Cummins moved to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to change the western portion of
the high density residential area to be designated
as NB -PUD.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Witt
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
RECESS
HIGHWAY 55 CORRIDOR
Page No.2215
November 19, 1987
Councilmember Blesener moved to direct staff to
submit the approved Southeast Area Comprehensive
Plan amendments, including changes made this
evening, to the Metropolitan Council.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Administrator Frazell stated that the Metropolitan
Council has notified the City that it would approve
the already -submitted Southeast Area amendments as
soon as the City has complied with the guidelines
for airport noise and that the action earlier
tonight amends the document already submitted.
Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 8:45 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:55 P.M.
Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the
purpose of an informational discussion on the
Highway 55 Corridor Study.
City -Planner Dahlgren stated that the purpose of
the informational meeting is to review the TH 55
Corridor Study with the people who live along
Highway 55, and to discuss the findings and the
recommendations to Council. He pointed out that
there is no intention to make any decisions this
evening, but rather to inform everyone to the
maximum extent possible.
Mr. Dahlgren then showed slides of the corridor and
reviewed drawings and charts on the impact areas
and analyzing costs for a potential City buy-out of
homes in the area. He reviewed results of a mailed
survey to the area residents, which indicated that
approximately two-thirds of the respondents would
rather move out than stay in the corridor area. He
stated that he believes the interests of the land-
owners would be best served by making a decision on
whether to bring in utilities to serve the area,
which would result in the homes staying in the area
in perpetuity, or to remove the homes. He pointed
out that the City must have a developer interested
in using the land so that TID financing is worked
out before the City can get involved in purchasing
the homes. He also pointed out that it will not be
likely that developers will show any interest in
the area until a completion date for Highway 55
improvements and replacement of the Mendota Bridge
is established.
Mayor Mertensotto stated that the study indicates
that it is feasible to put the Furlong area into a
Page No.2216
November 19, 1987
Tax Increment District and recover acquisition ane
improvement costs but that the people must let the
Council know if City acquisition is the direction
they want the Council to take.
Mr. Galen Funk stated that he lives on Rogers Road
and that the Rogers Road area is already in the
TID. He stated that unless that City can get the
airport runways changed he is ready to have his
home acquired.
Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that he hopes the
residents don't have expectations that the City
can't meet: it will be five years before the City
could begin to implement a buy-out program.
It was the apparent consensus of the audience that
the City should proceed in the direction of buying
out the homes and trying to find a developer who
will enter into an agreement to buy the land from
the City.
Responding to a comment from Councilmember Blesener
that it doesn't make sense that this project must
wait until the Mendota Bridge is reconstructed,
Planner Dahlgren stated that a developer would wan*'
to know that the highway•system would be complete
when his buildings would be ready to market. He
suggested that the City pressure Mn/DOT to get the
system done.
Councilmember Blesener asked why the public
utilities cannot be installed now since other land
uses will need the utilities in the future. Mayor
Mertensotto asked whether there might be federal
grant money available.
i
Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that the installation
of utilities in the Furlong area is one of the
projects identified in the Tax Increment plan
currently in place, as well as is the take-over and
redevelopment of the Rogers Road area, however the
purchase and redevelopment of the Furlong area
properties is not in'the existing plan. He stated
that the current TID plan would subsidize sewer and
water to the area to the extent that the utilities
would cost the same for the Furlong residents as is
currently being assessed to other residential
properties.
Planner Dahlgren stated that the real question is,
under the aircraft noise conditions the area now
endures, do the residents want to stay there, and,
Page No.2217
November 19, 1987
also, will the value of their properties increase
another $15,000 by virtue of utility installation.
Mr. Art Mulvihill asked that the Council put
pressure on Mn/DOT, demanding that they accelerate
the bridge reconstruction.
Councilmember Blesener stated that it appears that
the City's next step would be to have Mr. Dahlgren
and the City staff develop a program to see what
can be done to attract a developer and to contact
Mn/DOT with respect to speeding up the highway
construction program, and also, that the residents
should contact their legislators to pressure for
funding for the highway and bridge construction.
RECESS
There being no further discussion on the Highway 55
Study, Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:25.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the minutes
of the November 3rd meeting with correction.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the
minutes of the November 10th Adjourned meeting with
corrections.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the
consent calendar as submitted and recommended for
approval as part of the regular agenda, along with
authorization for execution of all necessary
documents contained therein.
a. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly
reports for September and October.
b. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly
report for October.
c. Approval of the list of contractor licenses
dated November 19, 1987 and attached hereto.
d. Approval of the List of Claims dated November
19, 1987 and totaling $346,592.96.
e. Approval of a modified critical area site plan
for 1221 Culligan Lane, to allow C.J. Homes to
construct a new home on Lot 7, Block 1, Valley
Page No.2218
November 19, 1987
View Oak Addition, along with waiver of the
$100 site plan review fee.
f. Acknowledgement of a refund of the $5,013.00
reserve assessment payment made by the City to
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
in 1985.
g. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the November
10th Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
HEARING -- WARRIOR Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the
DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY purpose of a public hearing on an application
VACATION from Richard Bjorklund and Leroy Hanson for the
vacation of Warrior,Drive right-of-way and slope
easements. j
Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments
from the audience.
There being no questions or comments, Councilmember
Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of Resolution
No. 87-108, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS TO SERVE
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86,
PROJECT NO. 14), awarding the contract to Lessard-
Nyren Utilities for their low bid of $19,295.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Cummins moved that the hearing be closed at 10:39
P.M.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Resolution
No. 87-107, "RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT," and
authorization for execution of the associated quit
claim deed by the Mayor and City Clerk.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Mertensotto noted some errors needing
correction in the quit claim deed.
FIRE HYDRANT BID AWARD
Council acknowledged receipt of bids received for
the installation of fire hydrants to serve the
Lexington Heights apartments.
Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of Resolution
No. 87-108, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS TO SERVE
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86,
PROJECT NO. 14), awarding the contract to Lessard-
Nyren Utilities for their low bid of $19,295.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Page No.2219
November 19, 1987
Nays: 0
On the recommendation of the Public Works Director,
Councilmember Witt moved to authorize the Mayor to
execute the necessary easement agreement with the
City of St. Paul.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
G & L BID AWARD Council acknowledged receipt of a tabulation of
bids received for construction of public
improvements to serve the G & L Properties plat.
Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Resolution
No. 87-109, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWERS,
WATERMAINS, STORM SEWERS AND STREETS TO SERVE G & L
PROPERTIES (IMPROVEMENT NO. 85, PROJECT NO. 3),"
awarding the contract,to Richard Knutson, Inc. for
their low bid of $231,939.50.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
G & L PROPERTIES Council acknowledged a letter from Langer
Construction Company requesting that payment of the
park contribution for the plat be tied to sale of
the lots and also requesting City participation in
the cost of relocation of the NSP gas lines to
the east of proposed Northland Drive. The Council
also acknowledged an associated report and
recommendation from Treasurer Shaughnessy.
Mr. Lou Langer, present for the discussion, asked
that Council approve a phased payment of the park
contribution. Mayor Mertensoto informed Mr. Langer
on recent action taken to collect delinquent park
contributions and on Council's reluctance to
schedule payments. He felt, however, that the
Treasurer's recommendation that half of the amount
should be paid at final plat execution, with the
remainder payable in one year, at 7.5% interest on
the unpaid balance.
Council directed that the Developer's agreement be
amended to reflect the Treasurer's park
contribution payment recommendation.
Mr. Langer explained his request for Tax Increment
District financial participation in the relocation
of NSP gas lines which restrict the development of
Lot 3, Block 1. He stated that if the gas lines
are moved, a mound of dirt which exists on the site
can be graded in accordance with the grading plan
Page No.2220
November 19, 1987
and that the lot would then allow a larger
building.
Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that relocation of the
lines could result in a building which would
increase the tax increment by $12,000 to $15,000
annually. He stated that -- NSP will
not move the lines until next spring, after,the
heating season, and recommended that Council
consider granting the request for the TID to pay
half of the estimated $75,000 to $85,000 relocation
cost, subject to the developer having a firm
building proposal prior to May, 1988 which would
prove the increased value to the Tax Increment
District.
Mr. Langer stated that he needs to do the grading
before he can develop the lot. Responding to a
question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that he
is willing to spend $40,000 or more to improve the
lot because he knows that development of the lot
will be limited without the line relocation.
Councilmember Blesener asked whether Mr. Langer is
willing to commit to the total cost and then come
back after he has a'commitment on a building. She
stated that the City could go on record that it
will pay half of the cost via TIF once a building
is committed to the'lot. She felt that in the
meantime it6Mr. Langer's responsibility to pay the
costs.
Councilmember Cummins agreed, stating that until it
is down on paper (plans for a building) that the
City will get demonstrated'value he doesn't see
that the Council can do anything on the request.
He pointed out that the City's engineering staff
can tell Council what can be built on the site in
its current condition, and if Mr. Langer can prove
to Council after grading and a building is planned
to be built on the lot, Council can consider the
request.
Councilmember Blesener stated that the applicant
must bring someone forward who will want to build a
bigger building than the lot will currently
accommodate and that in the meantime Mr. Langer
must bear the risk for doing the line relocation.
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS On the recommendation of the Public Works Director,
Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution
No. 87-110, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS."
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
r
Page No.2221
November 19, 1987
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Resolution
No. 87-111, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR VICTORIA
HIGHLANDS."
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Blesener moved to authorize the Mayor
and City Administrator to execute the Victoria
Highlands Developer's Agreement.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CITY HALL FINANCING
On the recommendation of Treasurer Shaughnessy,
Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Resolution
NO. 87-112, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPROVING THE ENTERING
OF A LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH
JURAN & MOODY CAPITAL CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF ANY RELATED DOCUMENTS."
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Staff was directed to work out details on the
description of land to be included in the lease.
CITY HALL PROJECT
The Council acknowledged receipt of a proposed
MANAGER
agreement with Eugene Lange for service as City
Hall Project Manager.
Councilmember Witt moved to approve the City Hall
Project Manager Consulting Services Agreement with
Eugene H. Lange.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
JOINT MEETING
The Council acknowledged a memo from the City
Administrator relative to a request from the Park
Commission that Council conduct a joint meeting
with the Commission on December 10th.
Councilmember Blesener recommended that the joint
meeting be conducted prior to the date of the next
Council meeting.
It was the consensus of the Council that the joint
meeting be conducted at 7:15 A.M. on Tuesday,
December 1st. Council selected Monday evening,
November 30th as an alternate meeting date should
the Park Commission members not be able to meet on
December 1st.
Page No.2222
November 19, 1987
STORM DAMAGE Council acknowledged a report from the Public Work.
Director regarding bids received for repair of
damages caused by the July 23rd super storm, along
with information on federal disaster assistance
monies. Public Works Director Danielson
recommended that purchase orders be awarded for the
repairs.
Councilmember Blesener moved to adopt the Public
Works Director's recommendation and award purchase
orders for storm damage repairs as follow: Federal
Project No. 11752, St. Thomas Academy pond repair,
$870.00 purchase order to Sherff; Federal Project
No. 11742, Marie at Wachtler ditch and culvert
cleaning, $1,440 to Reisinger; Federal Project No.
11746, Somerset School gabion repair, $7,085.65 to
Reisinger; Federal Project No. 11762, Somerset
Country Club dam repairs, $3,465.00 to Reisinger;
and Ivy Park storm sewer repairs, $1,000 to -
Reisinger, and to direct staff to submit a request
for additional federal funding for projects 11746
and 11763.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PERSONNEL The Council acknowledged a.memo from the City
Administrator requesting a meeting to.discuss the
City Administrator's 1988 compensation.
It was the consensus of Council that the Council
meet with the City Administrator at 7:10 P.M. on
December 1st to discuss his 1988 compensation.
KENSINGTON ESTATES Public Works Director Danielson reminded the
Council that it had not taken action during the
Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing portion of the
meeting to consider the Kensington Estates EAW.
Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve- the
Kensington Estates Environmental Assessment
Worksheet, modified to incorporate the changes to
Item 5 as recommended in the Public Works
Director's report dated November 19, 1987, relative
to the City's decision to put an active park on the
site.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COUNCIL COMMENTS The Council acknowledged and discussed a resoluti
from the City of Mendota, which had been sent to
all Council members, regarding drainage from
Page No.2223
November 19, 1987
Mendota Heights. It was the consensus that the
Council should encourage the City of Mendota to
become a member of the Lower Minnesota River
Watershed Management Organization.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the
Council, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the
meeting be adjourned to 7:10 P.M. on December 1st.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:27 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
4
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
ON NOVEMBER 19, 1987
Concrete Licenses:
D & S Cement Company
Dave Bell Masonry
E. E. Masonry, Inc.
Melek Concrete, Inc.
R. Holmes Concrete, Inc.
Excavating License:
Steininger Construction Co., Inc.
Gas Piping License:
Vallhaber Heating
General Contractor Licenses:
Advance Construction
All American Building Systems, Inc.
Chasid Construction Company
John David Contracting, Inc.
Kathys Konstruction Krew
Loeffel-Engstrand Company
Lund Martin Construction, Inc.
Lynhoff Enterprises
McDonald Construction,Inc.
Paragon Designers & Builders Corp.
Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses:
Air Flow Systems, Inc..
Vollhaber Heating
Sign License:
Mohr Advertising Agency
r -
November 24, 1987
Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES, NOVEMBER 24, 1987
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning
Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 1987, in the
City Hall Council Chambers. Chairman Morson called the
meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. The following members were
present: Morson, Anderson, Burke, Duggan, Henning, Krebsbach
and McMonigal. Also present were Public Works Director
Danielson and Planning Consultant Dahlgren.
APPROVAL OF
Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the
MINUTES
October 27 minutes as submitted
'
previously.
Commissioner McMonigal seconded the
motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE #87-36,
Chairman Morson called the meeting to
NELSON, PRELIM-
order for the purpose of a public hearing
INARY PLAT
to consider a request from Phillip Nelson,
PUBLIC HEARING
1576 Boardwalk (formerly 1573 Wachtler)
for the subdivision of his 1.5 acre site
into three lots. Mr. Nelson was present
and noted that his house is situated on
Lot 2 and that utilities are available to
serve each lot. He also noted that the
easterly retaining wall will be eliminated
due to future landscaping and that there
is about a 7-8�foot drop over the 300 foot
area.
Chairman Morson asked for questions or
comments from the audience. There being
no questions, Commissioner Burke moved to
close the public hearing at 7:36 P.M.
Commissioner Henning seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of Park
Place 2nd Addition as submitted.
Commissioner Henning seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
JOINT MEETING DATE
The Commission preferred to meet in a
joint session with the City Council to
discuss zoning ordinance amendments on
-Y
November 24, 1987
Page 2
Tuesday, January 26, 1988, at 7:30 P.M.,
if the agenda is light. Staff is to
advise Council of this date and will
advise the Commission and Council of the
exact time of the meeting the week prior
to the meeting.
VERBAL REVIEW
Public Works Director Danielson gave a
verbal review of the cases that had gone
before the City Council.
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 7:47, to
review handout materials and for the
arrival of the next applicant.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:49 P.M.
CASE #87-37, POORE,
Mr. Richard Poore, 1660 Dodd Road, was
VARIANCE
present to request a five foot rear yard
variance to allow construction of a
garage addition to his home. He noted
that he has received written approval
from his neivhbor to the east. Mr.
Poore's lot is 5.4 acres with a lot depth
of approximately 950 feet. The property
is zoned R -1A, 40,000 square feet and the
rear yard setback for•R-1A is 30 feet or
20% of the average lot depth, whichever
is greater. It was noted that in this
case, 20% of the average lot depth is
approximately 190 feet.
Commissioner Burke moved to recommend
approval of a variance from 20% of the
lot depth to within 25 feet of the rear
lot line to allow construction of a
garage addition.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE #87-24, CENTEX
Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation,
HOMES, REZONING,
was present to present a sketch plan for
SUBDIVISION, AND
Plan B for development of a portion of
CUP for PUD
the south east area from Delaware south
(PHASE 1)
of Mendota Heights Road to the Glewwe
property, down to I-494 and up to the
power lines behind the ponds and back to
the Owens property. The property
consists of 105 acres and Plan B is a
result of the end of negotiations between
the City and School District for property
for a community scale athletic complex.
He noted that two proposals were looked
November 24, 1987
Page 3
at, one being a cul-de-sac type and the
other a looped street concept. Mr.
Putnam stated the cul-de-sac proposal had
not been satisfactory and had been
dropped and that staff and the Parks
Commission and Parks Consultant Barry
Warner had all,favored the looped street
concept. One of the major concerns was
the cost for the City to acquire the 30-
33A park site, which could cost about
$750 million.
Plan A called for 81 acres, 540 units and
a 20 acre park, while Plan B was 500
units on 105 acres. Mr. Putnam noted
that if the City's proposed park bond
referendum, the developers would go back
to Plan A. He also noted that there
would be 136 manor homes in Plan B, and
that they are uncertain as to what will
be constructed on Outlot A at this time.
Chairman Aorson called the meeting to
order for the purpose of a public hearing
for Phase I of the Kensington preliminary
plat which would contain the manor homes
portion. It was noted that staff
recommended a 60 foot right-of-way and a
25 foot minimum setback with a 30 or 33
foot wide street with turning from both
directions at the ends of the project.
Mr. Tom Boyce, Centex Homes, spoke on the
buildings and noted that they are
proposing 4 and 8 unit buildings with a
basic unit at a basic price. some homes
would have walkouts and unfinished
basements, with base prices ranging from
$70,000 - $82,000, with FHA and VA
approval. He noted that an income in
excess of $40,000 would be needed to
qualify. The estimated total development
time for the 136 units is three years,
and landscaping will be done as the
buildings are constructed.
Chairman Morson asked if a lawn
irrigation system would be installed.
Mr. Boyce stated that such a system is
not being proposed, but that he will
investigate that possibility. Chairman
Morson also commented on the complaints
he has heard from other townhouse owners
on the rising costs of association fees.
November 24, 1987
Page 4
Mr. Boyce stated that there would be
berming along the freeway on a portion of
the site where the elevation is low.
Mr. Keith Nelson, engineer from Westwood
Planning, spoke on the utilities and
grading plans, noting an existing 12 inch
sanitary sewer line in Huber Drive which
will be extended westerly to serve the
entire area south of Mendota Heights
Road. He also noted a 42 inch storm
sewer in Huber Drive and stated that
these are of adequate capacities. It was
also noted that the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet was done for the
entire project, not just Phase 1.
Planner Dahlgen recommended the land be
rezoned for Phase 1 to the new district,
HR -PUD, for the 136 units. He noted the
current zoning of R-3 allows 10 units per
acre, while the HR -PUD allows 8 units per
acre. He also noted that Centex has to
buy the land prior to January 1, 1988,
and that 500 units will average 8 units
per acre.
Chairman Morson asked for questions or
comments from the audience.
Dr. Ted Owens, 2455 Delaware, asked the
Commission if they were concerned with
the isolation of this park, with it
having very little supervision, and he
expressed his concern over possible drug
use in this area. He felt if the
athletic park were adjacent to Sibley, it
would be safer with central observation.
He asked if this is the right place for a
park this large.
Commissioner Krebsbach noted that she had
spoken to City Administrator Frazell on
this possibility and he felt this area
would probably be safer with more
supervision by the police department.
Mr. Richard Gabriel, 670 Apache Lane,
asked about the density of Plan A versus
Plan B. Plan A would have 540 units on
81 acres and Plan would have 500 units
on 103 acres. He also asked what the
total development time would be for
either Phase A or Phase B. Mr. Boyce
November 24, 1987
Page 5
stated it would be nice if the
development were completed in 5+ years.
Mr. Russ Wahl, 631 Callahan Place,
responded to Dr. Owens concerns, noting
that the drugs are already at Sibley. He
also asked if the first phase could be
condominiums and if later townhouses
would be constructed.
He also expressed concern for the fire
code and the proposed two hour fire rated
walls and what would happen if a
watermain breaks and if there would be a
fire. Mr. Boyce responded that
everything would be constructed according
to the Minnesota State Uniform Building
Code.
Mr. Merrill Biel, 2563 Delaware, asked
why the west side of Delaware couldn't be
maintained as low density single family
residential.
The matter of parking spaces was
discussed with there being a total
exterior parking space of 1.66 spaces per
unit for a total of 240 exterior parking
spaces.
Mr. Steve Nelson, 666 Apache Lane asked
if all the land will be reshaped at once,
or will it be leveled in stages.
Mr. Russ'Wahl asked about the park
dedication for the 103 acres including
the large scale park. He was concerned
about the 10% dedication required by the
City. Planner Dahlgren responded that if
the City buys the 30-33 acre part from
Centex, the developer would only have 70
acres to develop, thus 10% of the 70
acres would be a seven acre neighborhood
park, which is planned.
There being no further questions or
comments, Commissioner Henning moved to
close the public hearing on the rezoning,
planned unit development and preliminary
plat for Phase 1 at 9:54 P.M.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Commissioner Henning noted that he could
November 24, 1987
Page 6
not support Plan B for sketch plan
approval. He stated that Plan A was
approved by the Commission two months ago
and it was a very good plan, therefore,
why not should the Commission be asked to
now approve Plan B just because the City
Council decided to break off negotiations
with the School District for a community
park at Sibley High School, and instead
chose to focus the park in the southeast
area.
Commissioner Anderson agreed with
Commissioner Henning and asked what will
happen if the Commission denied approval
for Plan B. Planner Dahlgren said if the
Council went along with the Commission's
recommendation of denial of Plan B, then
the developers will go back to Plan A and
the City will forever have inadequate
parks in the City. He noted that this
piece of land is the last major area for
an athletic complex.
Mr. Putnam noted that the real test will
come with the referendum, then the City
will know if this large scale community
park is really needed and wanted.
Planner Dahlgren said the Commission
could confirm the desirability of Plan A,
accept Plan B if a community scale park
is to be located on the 30 acre site in
Plan B, and that both plans be kept as
active alternatives, depending upon the
outcome of the park bond referendum in
1988.
Commissioner Anderson said he would not
support Plan B.
Commissioner Duggan said he -was happy
with Plan B, since he voted against Plan
A and the higher density two months ago.
He asked if this proposed park size is
going to be adequate for the size of the
City.
Commissioner Duggan moved to accept Plan
B, dated November 10, 1987, as submitted
by Centex, conditioned on the Commission
confirming the desirability of Plan A,
that Plan B be accepted is a large scale
community park is to be located on the 30
November 24, 1987
Page 7
acre site on Plan B, and that both plans
be kept as active alternatives, depending
on the outcome of the park bond
referendum in 1988.
Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the
motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 2, Henning and Anderson
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Commissioner Burke moved to recommend
approval of the preliminary development
plan (stage 1) subject to the following
conditions:
1. the sidewalk be increased from 4 feet
to 5 feet.
2. proof of parking be added to a
minimum standard of 1.5 spaces per
unit, exclusive of parking spaces in
front of garage facilities.
3. subject to staff approval of final
engineering, grading, and landscaping
plans.
4. that the developer be required to
construct a lawn irrigation system.,
5. that the public street loops be
completed initially.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Krebsbach moved to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of Stage
1, Phase A or B, on the following
conditions:
1. dedication of right-of-way to a full
60 foot width.
2. dedication of Mendota Heights right-
of-way for Mendota Heights Road
easterly to Huber Drive.
3. subject to engineering staff review
of easements and engineering details.
4. a 25 foot setback from the front lot
lines.
November 24, 1987
Page 8
Commissioner Burke seconded the motion.
Ayes:
7
Nays:
0
Commissioner Burke moved to recommend
approval of the rezoning from the current
zoning of R-1, to HR -PUD for Phase 1.
Commissioner McMonigal seconded the
motion.
Ayes:
7
Nays:
0
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come
before the Commission, Commissioner
Anderson moved that the meeting be
adjourned.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes:
7
Nays:
0
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:41 P.M.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
NOVEMBER 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City )rator
FROM: Mary Ann DeLaRosa, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: Date for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
At the November 24 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commissioners chose their regular Commission meeting night of
January 26, for the joint meeting with the City Council to
discuss proposed ordinance amendments.
Staff feels that this evening should be a light agenda
for planning matters, and will advise Council as to the exact
time of the joint meeting. If the agenda is light, the
Commissioners will start their regular meeting at 7:00 P.M.,
in the hope that the joint meeting could begin at 7:30.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council is agreeable with this meeting date and time,
they should agree to meet in a joint workshop session with
the Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 26, 1988, with
the exact time to be established the week before the meeting
date.
madlr
cc: Planning Commission
•--•__W�.,�'�/\•V�^ _._—Y'��➢..:YZ('QC�.ie11L1•.�- <_ .-- __--._..._`9.��... �CJa!�.y-tX_.._.--___.,
CJJ. /'L9.�
_.. v�e�,,,,,, . _._now---o.m•c� �cu�.� --•-�a..w .. - .rnz �--------
._._..1��., _ ..�.�.�'. _- cS�-o_-- Mme..... ��m -•-� --- - - - - - - - •- •- -- - -- ---
----- - --9r�_._ {�.�_J�j,n��__1.mA,�(�[.M�.lxiw�.._..CtiJc.-._��_ �`n'�.Q.,Q.,�ln'i�--- -•-
cvo—
ti
__ - - - --
C�u.�`.. _ - (LJCG G-�.Q _•-----1�� UYZ �. G/rLSL - ' �l/L' -�aA -
— . 0
�
Grrj--. CP(3(9-..-rJ)'I()-
0,_'`'ti %-1,A aAlD
0,/,,sL, aAJ,�- ......
40.
ckj4-,
N
TO: Mayor, City Council and !"u�11`rator
FROM: Paul R. Berg
Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for November, 1987
CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE - 1987
DATE: 11-25-87
SUB TOTAL 33
NO.
VALUATION
FEE COLLECTED
BLDG PERMITS
. 594.00
Wtr 25
125.00
SFD
19
3,168,957.68
27,409.02
APT
0
0
0
C/I
3
1,985,2.40.00
5,726.33
MISC.
11
139,490.25
2,122.77
SUB TOTAL 33
5,293,687.93 $35,258.12
TRD PERMITS
3.;621.00
Plbg 23
. 594.00
Wtr 25
125.00
Swr 20
350.00
Htg, AC 34
2,043.00
& Gas Pipe
22,966.50
SUB TOTAL 102
3,112.00
LICENSING
Contractor's
Licenses 33
825.00
39,195.12
TOTAL 168 $5,293,687.93
NO. -VALUATION
148 21,488,319.80
0 0
57 11,369,541.56
216 1,477,538.48
421 34,335,399.84
FEE COLLECTED
191,660.07
0
60,656.36
26,648.51
278,964.94
YEAR TO DATE - 1986
NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED
101 12,254,002.89 81,105.55
0 0 Q
36 7,.713,477.00 37,080.55
180 1,092,046.30 15,324.89
317 21,059,526.19 133,510.99
173
4,588.00121
3.;621.00
203
1;015.00
129
712.50
158
2,765.00
103
1167
1;642.50
222
22,966.50
10,705.50
756 31,334.50 1520 16,681.50
466 11,650.00
1643 $34,335,399.84 $321,949.44
439
1276 $21,059,526.19 $161,167.49
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee and
valuation amounts.
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
ON DECEMBER 1, 1987
Concrete License:
Tom Ostertag Masonry
Excavating License:
Dakota Plumbing
Gas Piping License:
Air Flow Systems, Inc.
Bruce,Nelson Plumbing & Heating
General Contractors Licenses:
Christ Construction, Inc.
C.J. Homes
The Joseph Company, Inc.
Kingswood Builders, Inc.
RK & T Construction, Inc.
Heating & Air Conditioning License:
Red Wing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
.
15 -Eng r
hV-Utility
17 Nov 1967
Claims Lis* 12/1,
20-p»lice
70 -parks page 1
`'.L 3:07 pm
City or Mendota Heights
30-Fi'e
80-Plnnning
40 -CBO
90 -Animal Control
-e".o Check Number
.ernp~
Check
vumder vendor Name
Account Code
Comment
Amount
I Arneson Fuel Oil Service
01-1e10
neouzar
8132'00
1 Arneson Fuel Oil Service
_
01-1e10
No lead
1,777'75
e
' 2,669.75
Totals Totazs Temp Check Number
I
'
remp Check Number 2
P AT&T '
01-4210-050-50
Dec Svc
o.*e
2' AT&T
01-4e10-070-70
Dec Svc
8.42
e AT&T
-
15-4e10-060-60
Dec Svc
8'4e
6
Totals Temp Check Number-
2
e5'2a
-emp Check Number 3
3 o&z Auto Supply
01-4305-050-50
m/so spzys
15'e4
3 auJ Auto Supply
01-4305-070-70
wisc sp/ys
15.e4
3 ooJ Auto Supply
15-4305-060-60
misc sozys
15.e5
3 omz Auto Supply
0/-4305-050-50
rt r,
*2'9scr
3 omz Auto Supply
01-4305-070-70
Oil filters
8.96
2 B&J Auto Supply
--
01-4330-440-20
wiper blades
eg'ms
1u'
80.76
Totals rotazs Temo Check Number
o
emp Check Number 4
4 Case power u eq
15-4330-4e0-60
Hose assmy
95.44
+ case Power m en
_
15-4330-490-60
Kit/seal
40.38
e
133.82
Totals rotazs Temp Check Number
4
e*p Check Number 5
5 City motor eupnzv
01-4330-440-20
Parts
15./5
5 City Motor Supply
01-4330-460-30
parts
11.80
. 5 City motor Supply
01-4330-490-50
Parts
zz'me
5 City Motor Supply
01-4330-460-30
parts e290
86'89
5 City motor Supply
01-4330-490-50
parts
10.81
5 City Motor Supply
15-4335-310-60
Sates
35'17
o City Motor Supply
--
01-4330-490-70
parts
34'34
35
------
2mo'25
Totals Temp Check Number
5
ewp Check Number a
s Dahlgren aoardzow uuan
01-4221-135-80
Oct retainer
1,e42.0141
7 Nov 1987*
Claims List
Pane
ri 3:07 PM
City of Mendota Heights
emo Check Number 6
Temp.
Check
lumber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
6 Dahlgren Shardlow Uban
01-4220-135-80
Pct RE TA extras
123.36
6 Dahlgren Shardlow Uban
01-4220-133-80
Oct RE Zo Code amend
11600.00
2,967-36
Totals Temp Check Number
6
emp Check Number 7
7 James E Danielson
05-4404-I05-15
Mbrshp dues
15.00
7 James E Danielson
01-4415-080-80
Mileage thru 11/19
22.05
7 James E Danielson
05-4415-105-15
Mileage thru 11/19
38-11
21
75.16
Totals Temp Check Number
7
emo Check Number 8
8 DCR Corp
01-4200-600-10
Dec rent
1, 64.2. LAO
8 DCR Corp
01-4200-600-20
Dec rent
928.00
8 DCR Corp
05-4200-600-15
Dec rent
1,705.00
24
4,275.00
Totals Temp Check Number
is
emp Check Number 9
9 Dennis Delmont
01-4415-020-20
Dec allow
120.0141
9
120, 00
Totals Temp Check Number
9
emo Check Number 10
10 Kevin Frazell
01-4415-110-10
Dec allow
175.00
10 Kevin Frazell
01-4400-110-10
ICMA Conf exID
398.67
10 Kevin Frazell
01-4400-110-10
LMC mtg
11.68
30
585.35
Totals Temp Check Number
10
amp Check Number 11
11 ICMA RC
01-2072
11/20 Payroll
69.60
11 ICMA RC
01-2072
12/4 Payroll
69.60
11 ICMA RC
01-4134-110-10
11/20 12/6 Payroll
147.90
33
287.10
Totals Temp Check Number
11
amp Check Number 12
12 Tom Knuth
05-4415-105-15
Dec allow
.7 Nov 1987
Claims List
Pane 3
Irli 3:07 PM
City of Mendota Heiahts
emp Check Number I
Temp.
Check
Jiumber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
12 Tom Knuth
05-4415-105-15
Mileace thru 11/24
25.20
12 Tom Knuth
31-4415-839-00
Mileane tnru 11/24
25.73
12 Tom Knuth
85-4415-829-00
Mileaae thru 11/24
25.72
48
86.65
Totals Temo, Check Number
1p
remo Check Number 13
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-460-30
Parts 2295
30.90
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-460-30
Brake adjustment
30.65
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-460-30
Rors/parts fire truck
98.72
13 Lakeland Ford
01-4330-460-30
Rpr cab heater
47.45
52
207.72
Totals Temp Check Number
13
temp Check Number 14
14 Leef Bros Inc
01-4335-310-50
Nov svc
10.25
14 Leef Bros Inc
01-4335-310-70
Nov svc
10.25
14 Leef Bros Inc
15-4335-310-60
Nov svc
10.24
42
30.74
Totals Temp Check Number
14
remp Check Number 15'
15 LELS
01-2075
Dec dues
136.50
15
136.50
Totals Temp Check Number
15
Temp Check Number 16
16 LMCIT HP C/O EBP
01-2074
Dec ins
36.85
16 LMCIT HP C/O EBP
01-4131-020-20
Dec oms
588.71
16 LMCIT HP C/O EBP
01-2074
Dec dental
180.88
16 LMCIT HP C/O EBP
01-4131-020-20
Dec dental
89.12
64
895.56
Totals Temp Check Number
16
rerip Check Number 17
17 MA Associates
01-4305-050-50
Tissue
20.45
17 MA Associates
01-4305-070-70
Tissue
^0.45
17 MA Associates
15-4305-060-60
Tissue
20.45
17 MR Associates
01-4305-050-50
Mop/bucket
32.40
17 MA Associates
01-4305-070-70
Mop/bucket
32.40
D7 Nov 1987
Claims List
Pane 4
1'ri. 3:07 PM
City of Mendota Heights
Temp Check Number 17
Temp.
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
Amount
17 MA Associates
15-4305-060-60
Mop/bucket
32.45
17 MA Associates
01-4305-020-20
Iso
alcohol
110.80
17 MA Associates
01-4305-030-30
Iso
alcohol
19.80
17 MA Associates
01-4305-040-40
Iso
alcohol
19.80
17 MA Associates
01-4305-050-50
Iso
alcohol
19.80
17 MA Associates
01-4305-070-70
Iso
alcohol
19.80
17 MA Associates
15-4305-060-60
Iso
alcohol
19.85
204
368.45
Totals Temp Check Number
17
Temp Check Number 18
18 MA Associates
01-4305-050-50
Misc
clnrs
133.65
IS MA Associates
01-4305-070-70
Misc
clnrs
153.65
IS MA Associates
15-4305-060-60
Misc
clnrs
153.60
54
460. 90
Totals Temp Check Number
18
Temp Check Number 19
19 Metro Waste Control
15-4449-060-60
Dec
Svc
49,337.30
19 Metro Waste Control
14-3575
Dec
svc
833.33cr
19 Metro Waste Control
17-3575
Dec
Svc
2,083.33cr
57
46,420.64
Totals Temp Check Number
19
7efflD Check Number 20
20 Miller Printing
05-4300-105-15
Time
records engr
39.05
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-040-40
Insp
reaorts
84.00
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-110-10
Misc
forms
14.80
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-020-20
Misc
forms
14.80
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-030-30
Misc
forms
14.80
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-040-40
Misc
forms
14.80
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-050-50
Misc
forms
14w80
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-070-70
Mise
forms
14.75
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-080-80
Misc
forms
14.75
20 Miller Printing
05-4300-105-15
Mise
forms
14.75
20 Miller Printing
15-4300-060-60
Misc
forms
14.75
20 Miller Printing
01-4300-110-10
Time
sheets
35.25
240
291-30
Totals Temp Check Number
20
Temp Check Number 21
21 Miller Printing
01-4300-020-20
TIme
sheets
140.75
5
7 Nov 1987
Claims List
ri 3:07 PM
City of Mendota Heights
emp Check Number 21
Tertip.
Check
umber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
21 Miller Printing
01-4300-040-40
Time sheets
21 Miller Printing
01-4 ' 300-050-50
Time sneets
21 Miller Printina
01-4300-070-70
Time sheets
21 Miller Printino
03-4300-105-15
Time sneets
21 Miller Printing
01-4268-650-10
N L
costs
21 Miller Printing
05-4268-650-15
N L
costs
21 Miller Printing
15-4268-650-60
N L
Costs
21 Miller Printing
21-4268-650-00
N L
Costs
21 Miller Printing
16-4268-650-00
N L
Costs
210
Totals Temp Check Number
21
em.o Check Number 22
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-110-10
Dec
prem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
05-4131-105-15
Dec
Orem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-020-20
Dec
prem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
15-4131-060-60
Dec
prem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-070-70
Dec
prem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-4131-050-50
Dec
prem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
23-4131-023-23
Dec
prem
22 Minnesota Benefit Assn
01-2074
Dec
Prem
176
Totals Temp Check Number
22
emD Check Number 23
23 Minn Dept of Revenue
01-4320-050-50
Oct
fuel tax
23
Totals Temp Check Number
23
emp Check Number 24
24 Minn Mining & Mfg
01-4330-490-50
heat
lamp Vacuum
24
Totals Temp Check Number
24
emp Check Number 25
eS Minn Mutual Life Ins
01-2074
Dec
prern
25 Minn Mutual Life Ins
01-4131-110-10
Dec
Orem
25 Minn Mutual Life Ins
01-4131-020-20
Dec
prem
23 Minn Mutual Life Ins
15-4131-060-60
Dec
prem
100
Totals Temp Check Number
25
emp Check Number 26
Pape 3
Amount
2.10
4.20
2. 30
26. 40
211.40
16.75
110.00
126. 75
42.10
682.75
252.85
283.55
388.28
24.00
98.67
125.63
60.00
68.93
1, 301.91
23.46
23.46
167.05
167.05
15.30
5.10
8.50
1.70
30.60
�r Nov 198�7
Claims Liste
6
r� o"wr pm
City or Mendota Heights
-=
emp Check Number ea
-'
Temp.
Check
Iomber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comment
Amount
26 Motorola Inc
01 -*330 -*50-30
radio rprs
137'90
ua Motorola Inc
01-4330-450-30
Radio rors
74'10
26 Motorola Inc
_
01-4Z�30-450-30
radio rprs'
205. 221
78
------
4 17.'2m
Totals Temp Check Number
�s
'emo Check Number e7
^
27 Northern States power
01-421/-300-50
Nov svc
333.70
27 Northern States power
--
15-4211-400-e0
Nov svc
15.36
54
------
o49'ms
Totals Temp Check Number
27
emn Check Number 28
aa Northwestern oezz Telephone
01-4e10-315-30
Nov svc
115.78
ea Northwestern oezz Telephone
0/-4e10-050-50
Nov svc
37'09
28 Northwestern aezz Telephone
01-4210-070-70
Nov svc
37'10
28 Northwestern Bell Telephone
15-4e10-060-60
Nov svc
37'09
ua Northwestern Bell Telephone
---
01-+e/0-070-70
Nov svc
2/'40
14m
------
e+e.4a
Totals Temp Check Number
aa
emp Check Number 2e
e9 oaxcrest Kennels
01-42e1-800-90
Nov svc
170.00
es oaxcrest Kennels
--
01-4e25-800-90
Nov svc
205'00
5m
------
o73'0m
Totals Temp Check Number
es
ewp Check Number om
aw a&T Office Products
05-4300-105-15
Fastener
e2.72
312)
-----
ee'7e
a12.72
Totals Temp Check Number
am
ema Check Number 3/
31 Duane Sezander
01-4415-e00-70
Dec allow
40'1410
3z
-----
*m.mm
Totals Temp Check Number
31
emp Check Number 32
3e Seven Corners Ace ndwe
01-4305-030-30
misc solvs
94'e8
E7 Nov 1987
Claims List
7,- i -
PM
City of Mendota Heichts
Teruo Check Number 32
Temp.
Check. '
Vurnber Vendor Name
Account Code
Comments
32 Seven Corners Ace Hdwe
01-4305-070-70
Tool box
64
Totals Temp Check Number
32
ramp Check Number 33
33 J L Shiely Co
22-4330-000-00
Cl 5 key
33 J L Shiely Co
22-4330-000-00
Cl 5 key
33 J L Shiely Co
22-4330-000-00
Cl 5 key
99
Totals Temp Check Number
33
Temp Check. Number 34
34 Snyder Drug Stores
01-4305-050-50
misc solys
34 Snyder Drug Stores
01-4305-070-70
misc splys
34 Snyder Drug Stores
15-4305-060-60
misc solys
34 Snyder Drug Stores
01-4305-020-20
film processing
34 Snyder Drug Steres
01-4305-020-20
film processing
170
Totals Temp Check Number
34
Femo Check Number 35
35 Southview Chevrolet
01-4330-440-20
Parts 22242
35
Totals Temp Check Number
35
'emp Check Number 36
36 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-110-10
ord .244
36 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
hrg not LU 'plan
36 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
hro not Nelson
36 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
hrg not Centex
36 Sun Newspapers
43-4240-847-00
hrg not 87-2
36 Sun Newspapers
01-4240-080-80
hrg not Centex
216
Totals Temp Check Number
36
'emp Check Number 37
37 Uniforms Unlimited
01-4490-030-30
shirt
37 Uniforms Unlimited
01-4490-030-30
shirts
37 Uniforms Unlimited
01-4410-020-20
mace holder
37 Uniforms Unlimited
01-4305-020-20
S L battery
Pace 7
Amount
61.00
155.98
206.62
215.52
37.47
459.61
19.04
19.04
19.03
13.86
5.79
76.76
8.84
8.84
12.16
11.40
12.54
16. 72
55.12
19.76
127.70
18. 85
36.80
14.50
36.00
:7 Nov 1e87
Claims List
'rj 3:07 Pm
City of Mendota *eiohts
'emp Check Number 37
272. 60
Temp.
Check '
84.00
Jmxuer vendor Name
Account Code
37 uniforms Unlimited
01-4410-020-e0
---
Iss
3a4'4m
Totals Temp Check Number
37
remp Check Number 38
146.20
38 United way et Paul
01_e070
38
110.00
Totals Temp Check Number
oe
remp Check Number 39
715.00
39 wazuor Pump
2e-4330-000-00
39 wazdor Pump
e2-4330-000-00
/e
130.00
------
Totals Temp Check Number
ag
remp Check Number 40
40 Western Life Insurance co
01-413e-031-30
4m
Totals Temp Check Number
*m
remp Check Number 41
*1 aanyton Data Systems
15-4214-060-60
+1 aanyton Data Systems
01-4490-040-40 '
*1 oanvton Data Systems
01-4e20-133-10
1e3
Totals Temp Check Number
41
remp Check Number 4,-,
42 ohwrc»vizze Fire En Corp
01-4305-030-30
42
lotazs remp Check Number
4e
remp Check Number 43
43 Michael z Douglas
01-4335-315-30
43
Totals Temp Check Number
43
remp Check Number 4*
44 xlay*on sczes
05-4415-105-15
`-
oomments
Amount
misc Currie
166'45
272. 60
Dec contr
84. 00
84.00
rprs stm dmo
146'80
rprs stm dmu
217.60
------
3a4'4m
Dec prem
146.20
146.20
U B history
11141.1410
Oct svc
110.00
Oct Svc
*95.00
715.00
Hanger brackets
53.57
5o'57
Oct Svc
130.00
------
1om'mm
Mileaae 9/11 thru 11/17 31.58
27 Nov 1987
7r i 3:07 PM
romo Check Number 44
Temp.
Check.
quisiber Vendor- Name
44
Totals Temp Check Number
Temo Check Number 45
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
45 General Communications
360
Totals Temp Check Number
Temo Check Number 46
46 Dakota County Treas.
46
Totals Temp Check Number
Temo Check Number 47
47 D C Hey Co
47
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 48
48 Instant Testing Co
48
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 49
49 J B Irrigation
49
Totals Temp Check Number
Temp Check Number 50
50 Brotex Inc
50 Brotex Inc
Claims List
Citv of Mendota Heights
Account Code
44
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
01-4330-450-20
45
01-4305-030-30
46
01-4300-030-30
47
85-4236-829-00
48
01-4335-315-30
49
01-4305-050-50
01-4305-070-70
Pace 9
Comment s Amount
31.58
credit
84.90cr
Radio
rprs
40.54
Radio
rprs
8.60
Radio
rprs
5.70
Radio
rors
41.50
Radio
rprs
74.50
Radio
rors
435.32
Radio
rors
325.82
847.08
25% Oxygen unit 73.75
73.75
Toner/developer 110.24
110.24
Oct Svcm 357.0141
357.00
winterize solr sys 60.1410
60. 00
wipers 56.35
Wipers 56.35
:7 Nov 1987
Claims List
rl 3:07 PM
City of Mendota Heights
emo Check Number 50
Temp.
Check
It-tmber Vendor Name
Account Code
50 Brotex Inc
15-4305-060-60
150
Totals Temp Check Number
50
demo Check Number 51
51 Armcon Distr Co
01-4335-310-50
51
Totals Temp Check Number
51
remo Check Number 52
52 B S N Corp
01-4330-322-70
52
Totals Temp Check Number
52
Temp Check Number 53
53 Hale Co Inc
01-4330-490-20
53 Hale Co Inc
01-4330-490-50
53 Hale Co Inc
01-4330-490-70
53 Hale Co Inc
15-4330-490-60
212
Totals Temp Check Number
53
remo Check Number 54
54 M R Sign Co
43-4420-848-00
54 M R Sign Co
31-4420-839-00
54 M R Sign Co
31-4420-839-00
162
Totals Temp Check Number
54
remp Check Number 55
55 Minnesota Glove Inc
01-4305-050-50
5S Minnesota Glove Inc
01-4305-070-70
55 Minnesota Glove Inc
15-4305-060-60
165
Totals Temp Check Number
55
Temp Check Number 56
56 M A M A
01-4480-110-10
56
Totals Temp Check Number
56
Comments
Wipers
Fissure board
Tennis nets
rors
rors
rprs
ro'c's
Street signs
street signs
street signs
gloves
gloves
gloves
Fee assmt Re COMD study
Page 1141
Amount
56.30
1613. LAO
29-28
29.28
599. 40
599.40
62.90
62.90
62.90
62.90
251.60
98.95
197.85
98. 91
395.71
31.30
31.30
31.35
93.95
POO. 00
200.00
^
7 Nov 1987
Claims List
rl 3:07 Pm
City of Mendota Heiohts
eao Check Number
57
`
Temp.
Check
/umoer vendor Name `
' '
Accocin: Code '
57 Midwest Fence
_
u mrn
01-4330-321-70
57
Totals Temp Check
Number
57
'emp Check Number
58
56 John maczxo
_
01-+305-030-30
58
Totals Temp Check
Number
58
'emp Check Number
59
59 xrec»s office
machines
01 -*300-110-10
59 xrechs orrice
machines
01-4300-030-30
59 xrechs office
machines
01 -4300 -040 -*0
59 xrechs Office
machines
01-4300-0e0-80
59 Krechs Office
machines
05-4300-105-15
5e xrechs Office
machines
10-4300-000-00
59 xrechs office
Machines
01-4300-050+50
413
Totals Temp Check
Number
59
'emp Check Number
am
60 Danner Landscaping
--
31-4475-83e-00
am
Totals Temp Check
Number
am
emp Check Number
az
sz worth Star Chapter z C o o
01-4400-040-40
e1
Totals nsmn Check
Number
61
emp Check Number
se
6e Duane Nelson
--
15-4330-400-60
6e
Totals Tamp Check
Number
aa
emn Check Number
ao
63 Northern Hydraulics
--
15-4330-400-60
63
Totals Temp Check
Number
63
Comments
Install chain zinu fence
reimb exp
copy paper
copy 'aper
copy paper
copy paper
copy paper
copy paper
copy paper
Black dirt 86-9
12/4 mtg Berg/Gill
L a rp,s
otr
1,288.07
---- MANUAL CHECKS:
5924 11541 43.07
Brand Total 11544 5,470.66
11545 9,172.80
11546 625.00
11547 3,559.52
11548 28,878.67
47,749.62
G.T. $132,196.60
22 issues
29.97
64 P C May, a
01-4402-110-10
64
29.97
Totals Temp Check
Number
64
10,487.34
remp Check Number-
65
65 Reisinger.Exc
:46.42...
89-4460-814-00
65
Totals Temp Check
Number -
65
Temp Check Number:
_66
66 Reliable
36.05
01-4300-110-10
66
36' 65
Totals-jpmp-Check
Number,
66
108.15
L
Temp Check Number,,_
G. rp7
67 -West,,Weld
27.85
67 West Weld
27.85
01-4305-0-70-70
67 West Weld
15-4305-060-60
201
Totals Temp Check
Number
67
Temp Check Number
68
68 Zee Medical Svcs
01-4305-050-50
68
Totals Temp Check
Number
68
Temp Check Number
69
69 A T & T
01-4210-110-10
69 A T & T
01-4490-040-40
69 A T & T
01-4210-020-20
207
Totals Temp Check
Number
69
---- MANUAL CHECKS:
5924 11541 43.07
Brand Total 11544 5,470.66
11545 9,172.80
11546 625.00
11547 3,559.52
11548 28,878.67
47,749.62
G.T. $132,196.60
22 issues
29.97
29.97
Drainage channel
10,487.34
10,487.34
Misc;splyst,-
:46.42...
Clamps
36.05
Clamps
36' 65
Clamps
36.05
108.15
medical sDlYS
27.85
27.85
L D Calls 5.45
L D Calls 1. 3P
L D Calls 5.98
12.75
Guy Kullander Mileage 84, 446.98
PERA 11/6 Payroll
D C Bank 11/20 FIT, FICA, MEDICARE
11 11/20 Payroll Deductions
SCCU It
City M.H. Payroll Acct 11/20 Net Payroll
1p
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 27, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City �A wi�_or
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Street Lighting Bid Award
Job No. 8624
Improvement No. 86; Project No. 11
DISCUSSION:
The street light bids for the Commerercial District were accepted by Council
on October 20, 1987. The bids were not awarded at that meeting pending approval
by MSA. Since that time, the City has been contacted by an attorney representing
Hitech Lighting, a fixture manufacturer that was not selected as an aprpoved
alternate. Hitech alleges that their product does meet the specifications. I
turned the matter over to Tom Hart, City Attorney, and he has been dealing with
their attorney over the past few weeks concerning their claim. Staff preapred a
letter for Tom explaining in writing to him why Hitech was not selected
(attached).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and Tom Hart now recommend award of the contract to the low bidder
Collins Electric Construction Company for their low bid of $321,198.00 (using the
Sterner light fixture). Tom Hart is preparing a letter of explaination that will
be available Tuesday evening addressing the Hitech claim.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a
motion adopting Resolutuion No. 87- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS TO SERVE THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 11).
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS
TO SERVE THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 11)
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed installation of
street lights to serve the Commercial District (which improvements have hereto-
fore been known and designated as Improvement No. 86, Project No. 11), bids were
received, opened and tabulated according to law and the following bids were
received complying with said advertisement:
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID AMOUNT OF BID
ALTERNATE "A" ALTERNATE "B"
Collins Electrical Const. Co. $321,198.00 $321,096.00
St. Paul, MN
Peoples Electrical Contractors $363,300.00 $363,500.00
St. Paul, MN
Kilmer Electric Company $363,427.00 $363,838.00
Minneapolis, MN
Berg Electric Company $375,735.36 $375,735.36
Burnsville, MN
Electric Service Company $385,662.00 $385,968.00
Minneapolis, MN
Industrial Electrical Company $480,000.00 $480,500.00
Minneapolis, MN
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the low bid submitted by Collins
Electrical Construction Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the bid of Collings Electrical Construction Company of St. Paul,
Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described improve-
ments be and the same is hereby accepted.
2. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to
consummate the awarding of said bids.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this lst day of
December, 1987. CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By.
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
P
October 23,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
1987
Mr. Thomas Hart
Winthrop and Weinstine
1800 Conwed Tower
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Subject: Commercial District Street Lighting
Job No. 8624
Improvement No. 86, Project No. 11
Dear Tom:
As you requested, we have reviewed our notes from the light fixture
approval'process that we conducted early this month. Our specifications for
the lighting contract were drafted to incorporate the features of the "Exe—
cutive" model as manufacturered by Sterner Lighting Systems, however we
invited other manufacturers to submit their light fixtures for approval. We
did not want to be unreasonable in requiring other manufacturers to match
the Sterner model detail for detail, so we tried to structure the evaluation
around sets of criteria that we felt were essential for this project:
photometrics, appearance, and ease 'of maintenance. It was mainly on the
basis of ease of maintenance that we did not approve the Hitek submission as
an equal to the Sterner Executive. Listed below are the three areas of
review and how we judged the Hitek fixture.
P110TOMETRICS
Every manufacturer was asked to submit a computer analysis of the light
distribution for its proposed fixture. This project requires both Type
II and Type III lighting patterns. Hitek offers both, and therefore
meets our photometric requirements.
APPPARANrR
Aesthetics were of paramount concern to United Properties, the primary
landowner in the street lighting district, and requestor of the pro—
ject. Originally, United Properties asked that the City make Sterner
the standard for this project, because they wanted the street lights to
visually approximate the Sterner lights already installed in their
parking lots. Our staff met with two representatives from United
Properties to compare the samples we had received. We agreed that a
fixture with clean, retilinear lines would best match the existing
parking lot lights.
Of the nine luminaires we examined, those submitted by Sterner and Kim
were judged best in appearance. The Hitek although very similar to the
Sterner in size, shape, and proportion, had a formed aluminium housing
750 SoUth PhM'l [give - Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 - 452-1086
r
Mr. Thomas Hart '
Winthrop and Weinstine
October 23, 1987
Page Two
as opposed to the extruded aluminum housings offered by the two best
looking fixtures. The formed aluminium is flimsier and looks so. It
does not offer the sharpness of plane and edge offered by extruded
aluminum. Also the Hitek was generally less cleanly detailed.
EASE OF MAINTENANCE
At least initially, City Public Works personnel will maintain the new
street lights, so we were very concerned about how easily and safely
the lamp and ballast could be accessed. We also want to retain the
option of being able to contract with NSP to maintain the lights at
some time in the future. NSP requires tool -less access to the lamp and
ballast, as a precondition for Group III maintenance contracts. There-
fore, we required tool -less access in our specification. Sterner
offers this feature; Hitek does not.
Not only did the Hitek fail our basic specification requirement for
tool -less access, but also we found access and closure difficult, even
if NSP would allow tooled access.
The Hitek requires a screwdriver to access its lamp, and again separ-
ately to access its ballast. Not only is a screwdriver required to
open both doors on the Hitek, but to close the doors the screws must
seat into sliding clips. Repeatedly, when we tried this ourselves, it
was not a simple or smooth operation. We imagined that if we had
difficulty in our office, someone thirty feet in the air in a cold wind
will have even greater difficulty. Moreover, while the Sterner offers
a safety catch to protect a worker when the door swings down, Hitek's
door swings all the way down as soon as the screws unfasten.
While we carefully reviewed the photometric data and catalog informa-
tion submitted by each manufacturer, the chief determinant in our final
evaluation was the samples themselves. What seemed to be very similar
fixtures in the printed literature proved to be widely varied in quality,
when physically compared side-to-side. Without exception, everyone who,
looked at the samples felt that the Kim and Sterner luminaires were of
superior quality. We felt strongly that if we approved a lower quality
fixture, like the Hitek, a higher quality fixture, like Sterner could not
compete on a price basis. In fact, contractors offered a huge price cut
(almost 20% of the total contract price) if we would allow Hitek instead of
Sterner luminaires. Since independent sources have verified that Sterner's
price was not out of line, the cheapness of the Hitek's bid seems to indi-
cate that our perception of Hitek's lower quality was accurate. _
Sincerely, '
amen E. Danielson, P.E.
Public Works Director
JED:dfw
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
NOVEMBER 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City trator
FROM: Larry E. Shaughnessy, Treasurer
SUBJECT: Equipment Certificate Issue
HISTORY:
During the past two years, some $380,000 of equipment
has been purchased that was to be paid for through Equipment
Certificates.
Offers for purchase of the Certificates will be received
Tuesday afternoon, and a tabulation of the offers will be
available Tuesday evening.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Council should award the sale of the Certificates to the
low bidder, adopting Resolution No. 87- , "RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $380,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF 1987, AND LEVYING A TAX
FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF". (Form pages omitted).
LES:madlr
attachment
569Z
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
HELD: DECEMBER -1, 1987
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights,
Dakota County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in
said City on Tuesday, the 1st day_ of December, 1987, at
o'clock — M., for the purpose in part of
authorizing the issuance of, and awarding the sale of,
$380,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of 1987 of
the City.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption: .
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
$380,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT
CERTIFICATES OF 1987,
AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined and
declared that it is necessary and expedient to issue $380,000
General Obligation Equipment Certificates of 1987 of the City,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 412.301, to finance the acquisition of
various capital equipment for the City (the."Equipment"); and
WHEREAS, the Equipment has an expected useful life
at least as long as the terms of the certificates; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the certificates to be issued
and the outstanding $100,000 General Obligation Certificates
of Indebtedness of 1985, dated December 1, 1985 does not
exceed one percent (1%) of the assessed valuation of the City;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
City of Mendota'Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Acceptance of Offer. The offer of
(the "Purchaser"), to purchase $380,000 General
Obligation Equipment Certificates of 1987 of the City
(hereinafter referred to as the "Certificates", or
individually as a "Certificate"), in accordance with the terms
and at the rates of interest hereinafter set forth, and to pay
therefor the sum of $378,100, plus interest accrued to
settlement, is hereby accepted.
2. Title; Original Issue Date; Denominations;
Maturities. The Certificates shall be titled "General
Obligation Equipment Certificates of 1987", shall be dated
December 1, 1987, as the date of original issue and shall be
issued forthwith on or after such date as fully registered
certificates. The Certificates shall be numbered from R-1
upward in the denomination of $5,000 each or in any integral
multiple thereof of a single maturity. The Certificates shall
mature, without option of'prepayment, on December 1 in the
years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
1989 $60,000 1991 $140,000
1990 80,000 1992 100,000
3. Purpose. The Certificates shall provide funds
for the acquisition of the Equipment. The total cost of the
Equipment, which shall include all costs enumerated in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at
least equal to the amount of the Certificates herein
authorized.
4. Interest. The Certificates shall bear interest
payable semiannually on June 1 and December 1 of each year
(each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing June 1, 1988,
calculated on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day
months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite
the maturity years as follows:
2
Maturity Interest Maturity Interest
Year Rate Year Rate
1989 1991 %
1990 1992
5. No Redemption. The Certificates shall not be
subject to redemption and prepayment prior to their maturity.
6. Certificate Registrar. ,
in , Minnesota, is appointed to act as certificate
registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Certificates
(the "Certificate Registrar"), and shall do so unless and
until a successor Certificate Registrar is duly appointed, all
pursuant to any contract the City and Certificate Registrar
shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Certificate
Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a
successor paying agent is duly appointed. Principal and
interest on the Certificates shall be paid to the registered
holders (or record holders) of the Certificates in the manner
set forth in the form of Certificate and paragraph 12 of this
resolution.
7. Form of Certificate. The Certificates, together
with the Certificate Registrar's Certificate of
Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration
information thereon, shall be in substantially the following
form:
3
15. Fund and Accounts. There is hereby created a
special fund to be designated the "General Obligation
Equipment Certificates of 1987 Fund" (the "Fund") to be
administered and maintained by the Treasurer as a bookkeeping
account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in
the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall be
maintained in the manner herein specified until all of the
Certificates and the interest thereon have been fully paid.
There shall be maintained in the Fund two (2) separate
accounts, to be designated the "Capital Account" and "Debt
Service Account", respectively.
(i) Capital Account. To the Capital Account there
shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the
Certificates, less accrued interest received thereon, and
less capitalized interest in the amount of $
(together with interest earnings thereon and subject to
such other adjustments as are appropriate to provide
sufficient funds to pay interest due on the Certificates
on or before , 19_). From the Capital
Account there shall be paid all costs and expenses of
acquiring the Equipment, including the cost of any
purchase contracts heretofore let and all other costs
incurred and to be incurred of the kind authorized in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65; and the moneys in
said account shall be used for no other purpose except as
otherwise provided by law;. provided that the proceeds'of
the Certificates may also be used to the extent necessary
to pay interest on the Certificates due prior to the
anticipated date of commencement of the collection of
taxes herein levied.
(ii) Debt Service Account. There are hereby
irrevocably appropriated and pledged to, and there shall
be credited to the Debt Service Account: (a) all accrued
interest received upon delivery of the Certificates; (b)
capitalized interest in the amount of $ (together
with interest earnings thereon and subject to such other
adjustments as.ar.e appropriate to provide sufficient
funds to pay interest due on the Certificates on or
before , 19_); (c) any collections of
all taxes herein or hereafter levied for the payment of
the Certificates and.interest thereon; (d) all funds
remaining in the Capital Account after`acquisition of the
Equipment and payment of the costs thereof; (e) all
investment earnings on funds held in the Debt Service
Account; and (f) any and all other moneys which are
14
properly available and are appropriated by the governing
body of the City to the Debt Service Account. The Debt
Service Account shall be used solely to pay the principal
and interest and any premiums for redemption of the
Certificates and any other general obligation
certificates of the City hereafter issued by the City and
made payable from said account as_provided by law.
No portion of the proceeds of the Certificates shall
be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding
investments or to replace funds which were used directly
or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments,
except (1) for a reasonable temporary period until such
proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the
Certificates were issued, and -(2) in addition to the
above in an amount not greater than the lesser of five
percent (5%) of the proceeds of the Certificates or
$100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the
Certificates and any sums from time to time held in the
Capital Account or Debt Service Account (or any.other
City account which will be used to pay principal or
r interest to become due on the certificates payable
therefrom)'in excess of amounts which under
then -applicable federal arbitrage"regulations may be
invested without regard to yield shall not be invested at
a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions.
imposed by said arbitrage regulations on such investments
after taking into account any applicable "temporary
periods" or "minor portion" made available under the.
federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Fund shall
not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by,
guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any
agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent
that such investment would cause the Certificates to be
"federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section
149(b) of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
i amended (the "Code").
t 16. Tax Levy; Coverage Test. To provide moneys for
payment of the principal and interest on the Certificates
there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the
City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon
the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general
property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as
follows:
15
Year of Tax Year of Tax
Levy Collection 'Amount
The tax levies are such that if collected in full
they, together with other revenues herein pledged for the
payment of the Certificates, will produce at least five
percent (5%) in excess of the amount needed to meet when due
the principal and interest payments on the Certificates. The
tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the
Certificates are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the
City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the
manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.61, Subdivision 3.
1.7. General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and
full payment of the principal and interest on the
Certificates, as the same respectively become due, the full
faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are
hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt
Service Account is ever insufficient to pay all principal and
interest then due on the Certificates and any other
Certificates payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be
promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are
available for such purpose, and such other funds may be
reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service
Account when a sufficient balance is available therein.
18. Certificate of Registration. 'The Clerk is
hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the County Auditor of Dakota County, Minnesota, together
with such other information as he or she shall require, and
to obtain the Auditor's certificate that the Certificates have
been entered in the Auditor's Certificate Register, and that
the tax levy required by law has been made.
16
19. Records and Certificates. The officers of the
City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and
furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the
legality of the issuance of the Certificates, certified copies
of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the
Certificates and to the financial condition and affairs of the
City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information
as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and
marketability of the Certificates as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as
otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies,
certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to
the facts recited therein.
20. Negative Covenant as to Use of Equipment. The
City hereby covenants not to use the Equipment or to cause or
permit it to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment
arrangements for the cost bf the Equipment, in such a manner
as to cause the Certificates to be "private activity bonds"
within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the
Code.
21. Tax -Exempt Status of the Certificates; Rebate.
The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the
Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income
under Section 103 of the Code of,the interest on the
Certificates, including without limitation (1) requirements
relating to temporary periods for investments, (2) limitations
on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the
Certificates, and (3) the rebate of excess investment earnings
to the United States if the Certificates (together with other
obligations reasonably expected to be issued and outstanding
at one time in this calendar year) exceed the small -issuer
exception amount of $5,000,000. For purposes of qualifying
for the small issuer exception to the federal arbitrage rebate
requirements, the City hereby finds, determines and declares
that (4) the Certificates are issued by a governmental unit
with general taxing powers, (5) no Certificate is a private
activity bonds, (6) ninety-five percent (95%) or more of the
net proceeds of the Certificates are to be used for local
governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit
the jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction
of the City), and (7) the aggregate face amount of all
tax-exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by
the City (and all entities subordinate to, or treated as one
issuer with, the City) during the calendar year in which the
Certificates are issued and outstanding at one time is not
17
a
reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, all within the
meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code.
22. Designation of Qualified Tax -Exempt
Obligations_. In order to qualify the Certificates as
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of
Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City hereby makes the
following factual statements and representations:.
(a) the Certificates are issued after
August 7, 1986;
(b) the Certificates are not "private activity
bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code;
(c) the City hereby designates the
Certificates as "qualified tax-exempt
obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of
the Code;
(d) the reasonably an amount
of tax-exempt obligations (other than private
activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c)(3)
bonds as not being private activity bonds.) which
will be issued by the City (and all entities
subordinate to, or treated as one issuer with,
the City) during this calendar year 1987 will not*
exceed $10,000,000; and
(e) not more than $10,000,000:of
obligations issued by the City during this
calendar year 1987 have been designated for
purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal
procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate
the designation made by this paragraph.
23. Severability. If any section, paragraph or
provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or
unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall
not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution.
24. Headings. Headings in this resolution are
included for convenience of reference only and are not a part
hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any
provision hereof.
lu
r
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 23, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City�tig)rator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets
Feasibility Hearing
Hillside Creek
Job No. 8704
Improvement No. 87, Project No. 2
nT qr1 Tq R Tnm
In 1986 the City Council approved a preliminary plat for Hillside
Creek, a parcel of land north of 1st Avenue between Laura Lane and Clement
Avenue. After the approval, Mr. Carl Anderson, the applicant petitioned the
City to complete a feasibility study. As a result of that study Mr.
Anderson had to reconfigure his plat (see attached report) to make the
subdivision feasible. At their November 3rd meeting, Council approved Mr.
Anderson's reconfigured preliminary plat and ordered a public hearing to
determine if the new street and utilities installed with Mr. Anderson's
subdivision should be extended easterly to connect to Laura Lane or be
terminated at the end of his property in a temporary cul-de-sac, and be
extended at such time as those abutting owners desired.
School District 197 owns all the land north of the extension of this
proposed street and Lois Rockney, School District Business Manager, reports
that the School District is not opposed to extending the street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Either alternative is feasible; to end Hillside Creek in a temporary
cul-de-sac and serve only the Developer's site or to continue the street
easterly to connect up with Laura Lane.
ACTION REQUIRED
Conduct the public hearing (I will be prepared to give an oral presen-
tation of the project at the meeting) and based on input from the hearing
determine a course of action. If Council desires to implement the project
they should adopt Resolution No. 87- , RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATER,
STORM SEWERS, AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE HILLSIDE CREEK AND ADJACENT
AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 2)
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATER, STORM SEWERS
AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE HILLSIDE CREEK AND ADJACENT AREAS
(IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 2)
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 1st day of December, 1987, at
7:45 o'clock P.M. in the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota pursuant to resolution duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Mendota Heights on the question of the proposed construc-
tion of the following described improvements:
The 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 easements in the area hereinafter more particularly described.
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 acquisi-
tion of easements and the -grading, stabilization, drainage and bitumi-
nous surfacing, and the construction of concrete curbs and gutters on
the streets to be situated in the area hereinafter more particularly
described.
WHEREAS, due publication of the notice of public hearing on said pro-
posed construction has been attended to; and
WHEREAS, mailed notice of said hearing has been mailed'more than 10
days before the date of said hearing to the owners of each parcel
situated within the area proposed to be assessed, all in accordance
with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvement and
construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reported
on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is
situated within the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minnesota
and is more particularly described as follows:
All lots in proposed Hillside Creek Subdivision and Lots 2 through
6, Lots 11 through 16, Block 2, Lots 1 through 6, Block S. Lots 6
through 9, Block 6, and Lot 16, Block 10 of T.T. Smith's Subdivi—
sion No. 3.
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested
in said improvement and all persons were afforded an opportunity to
present their views and objections to the making of said improvements.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows:
1. That it is advisable, feasible, expedient and necessary that
the City of Mendota Heights construct the above described improvements,
and it is hereby ordered that said improvement be made.
2. That the City Engineer be and he is hereby authorized and
directed to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement.
3. That said improvement shall hereafter be known and designated
as Improvement No. 87, Project No. 2.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this lst day
of December, 1987.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council and Cityrfi4`ator
FROM: Klayton Eckles
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets
Feasibility Report
Hillside Creek
Job No. 8704
Improvement No. 87, Project No. 2
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Hillside Creek Subdivision is located North of
First Street, between Clement and Laura Avenue. The property to
be subdivided is approximately seven acres in size. The
preliminary plat that was presented to the Planning Commission and
Council had 14 lots with a cul-de-sac; it was given preliminary
approval, subject to approval by Staff. When Staff investigated
the proposal it became apparent that the plat as submitted was not
feasible for development, due to the extreme soil conditions at
the north end of the plat. Therefore Staff worked with the
developer to come up with an alternate layout that is more
compatible with the soils. The attached drawings show the revised
preliminary plat, note that there are now only ten lots.
DISCUSSION
The discussion will be split into four sections, the first
three sections will be Site Conditions and Constraints, Utilities,
and Assessments (see figure One). The fourth section will outline
an option for developing the Hillside Creek property only, leaving
out the adjoining properties for now (see figure Two).
Site Conditions and Constraints
The site is a very difficult one to develop because the soils
are very poor for construction, there are existing utilities
bisecting the property, the site is heavily wooded, and there are
surrounding properties with existing homes. The new proposed plat
is a good attempt at fitting most of the constraints.
The soil conditions are the single biggest factor that make
development difficult. The soils report recommends the removal of
large amounts of the existing soils and replacement with soils
suitable for buildings and roads. The report also stresses that
it is highly desirable to do soil corrections and site grading in
the fall so that the corrected areas can set over the winter or at
a minimum allow two months for the soils to consolidate after
grading. Therefore it is desirable to proceed as quickly as
possible in order to allow the developer time to grade the site
before spring.
As part of the project, the City had previously decided it
would be advantageous to serve the school property and adjoining
properties to the east by extending the new road to Laura Street.
If this is to be done, it would be wise to complete the grading
for this street well before the construction season also. It will
probably be necessary for the City to complete this grading along
the school property because it does not lie within the developer's
control.
The new proposed preliminary plat takes better advantaVe of
the fact that there is already existing sanitary sewer serving the
property, there is virtually no sanitary sewer main installation
necessary. The plat requires less grading, so now some of the
trees can be left in place, and there will be less impact on the
adjoining properties.
Utilities
It is proposed that utilities be installed to serve not only
the entire development, but also the properties lying to the east
(the school property and the six small lots along the old
Brookside right-of-way). Many of the lots to be served are
already partially served in some way. The particulars of service
for each lot will be covered in the discussion below. In terms of
service, there is one substantial change in the new plat - the two
lots on Clement that were originally to be served via the new
development can no longer be served from it. As an alternate, it
is possible to serve the two lots by way of Clement (thereby
creating flag lots). Although this may not be as desirable, there
is no way to serve those properties without drastically altering
the proposed layout, thus dramatically increasing the cost to the
developer by reducing the number of lots, and increasing the cost
of servicing them. Each utility will be discussed separately in
the following discussion. '
Sanitary Sewers
Sanitary sewer already serves the entire project area (see
figure One). Some construction of sanitary service leads will be
necessary, but this is relatively minor. The total cost of
installing services to serve the entire project area will amount
to $12,650.
Water
Watermain will be necessary for all the new street
construction. There is existing watermain along First Avenue that
can be used to serve the new lot fronting it. By running the
watermain from First to Laura the watermain will be a looped
system. The cost to install the watermain including all overhead,
and contingencies will be roughly $44,300.
Storm Sewers
Storm sewer will require some special attention due to the
poor soils and the presence of a percolating creek. All storm
sewer pipe should be the perforated type so that local groundwater
is captured then carried away from the site. This type of pipe is
somewhat more expensive then normal pipe. The total cost of
installing storm sewer to serve the Hillside Creek plat and the
adjoining areas will be approximately $43,200.
Streets
A new street will be constructed to serve the plat and the
adjoining areas (see the attached drawings for the layout). The
portion of the'new street that runs east and west will be
constructed in the existing right of way called Brookside Avenue.
It is recommended that the developer complete all of the site
grading on the proposed plat, including all grading and clearing
necessary to construct the new street. However, it will be
necessary for the City to complete all clearing and grading in
areas other then the new plat. Thus the City must do the grading
along the School and other adjoining properties. The cost of
completing this grading can be assessed to the adjacent
properties. Easements may be necessary, which contributes to the
project cost. The total cost of the street construction,
including the cost of the grading done by the City amounts to
$99,600.
Staff is somewhat concerned about the condition of existinV
Laura Street; Laura is currently only an 18' curbless bit. driving
surface (compared to the typical 33' street with curb and gutter).
So the connection from the new street to First Avenue, via Laura,
is well below standard. There are several options: Laura could be
left as is, or it could be widened, or it could be widened with
the addition of curb and gutter. There will probably be
opposition to any increase in road design by the home owners that
would receive the benefit; all the properties adjacent to Laura
are corner lots, and have been assessed for some street
construction in the past. The cost of each option is listed
below.
OPTION COST
Do nothing to Laura St. $0
Widen Laura to 24' $11,300
Add C&G and 33' street $18,500
At earlier meetings some residents of the neighborhood asked
if a foot bridge across Ivy Creek could be installed at the north
end of Laura Street. Although the construction of a foot bridge
would not be part of this project, or at least not assessable to
this project, staff includes some observations regarding this
subject in this report. It would be possible to install a small
walking bridge across the creek, but it will also be necessary to
construct walk paths on either side. To do so may require
easements from the school and or other property owners. The cost
of constructing a walk bridge could vary greatly, depending on the
level of safety and the life -span of the bridge. It could range
from $15,000 to $30,000, depending on all the factors. The number
of users for such a bridge will most likely be small and the
maintenance requirements would be high in the winter.
The total cost of utilities to serve the project area is
shown below.
UTILITY
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
Streets
TOTAL
OPTIONAL UTILITIES
Upgrade Laura St Plan A
Upgrade Laura St Plan B
Upgrade Laura St Plan C
Construct Walk bridge
COST
$12,650
$44,300
$67.450
$99,600
$224,000
$0
$11,300
$18,500
$15,000 to $30,000
These "optional" utilities are at the discretion of Council.
The standard utilities are all assessable to the Proposed
development and the adjoining properties, but the upgrading of
Laura would require other properties to be involved, and the
construction of a bridge would most likely require the use of Park
funds. A more detailed discussion of the assessment schedule is
given below.
Assessments
The total project cost would be assessable, but it would be
slit amongst five different owners, the Developer, the School
district, Blum of 669 1st Ave (owner of one 60' lot), Sullwald of
667 1st Ave (owner of one 60' lot), and Licha of 649 1st Ave
(owner of two 60' lots). One issue of importance that must be
resolved involves the acceptability of building homes on the small
601x120' lots. Staff has the opinion that building on these small
e
lots should be restricted; by combining two lots the property
owners can meet all current lot size requirements. Also, there is
an even number of lots, so it shouldn't be a very involve process
to combine the lots. Incidentally, Staff assumed that adjoining
lots would be combined when the utility requirements were
determined. Based on the shapes and sizes of the lots, the
adjusted frontages and the areas of each property owner are as
follows:
DESCRIPTION/ NUMBER
OWNER OF SERVICES ADJUSTED FRONTAGE AREA
Hillside Creek 10 1000' 5.9 Ac
School District 3 300' 2.2 Ac
Blum (601x1251) 1/2 50' .17Ac
Sullwald " " 1/2 50' .17Ac
Licha (120x125) 1 100' .34Ac
Robinson " " 1/2 50* .34Ac
TOTAL 15 1550 9.12Ac
*Indicates already fully served with sewer
Based on these frontages and areas the assessments would be
split as follows:
PROPERTY SAN SWR WTRMN STM SWR STREET GRADING TOTAL
RATE per ft $8.43 $28.59 $7,396ac $39.89 $68.73
Hillside
$8,430
$28,590
$43,636
$39,890
$
0
$120,546
School
$2,533
$
8,577
$16,271
$11,967
$20,619
$59,967
Blum
$ 422
$
1,430
$ 1,257
$ 1,995
$
3,437
$ 8,541
Sullwald
$ 422
$
1,430
$ 1,257
$ 1,995
$
3,437
$ 8,541
Licha
$ 843
2,859
$ 2,515
$ 3,990
$
6,874
$17,081
Robinson
$ 0
$
1,430
$ 2,515
$ 1,995
$
3,437
$ 9,377
TOTAL $12,650 44,316 $67,451 $61,832 $37,804 $224,053
PARTIAL COMPLETION OPTION
There is a great potential for opposition to this project
from many of the property owners to be assessed excluding the
developer. For instance, the parcel owned by Robinson is assessed
only because it was never assessed previously; now it can be
assessed but no additional homes can be served. Thus Robinson
was, in affect, unassessed on a previous project. This (and other
similar cases) is hard to completely justify. Staff is proposing
an alternate method of providing service; rather than extending
the new street all the way to Laura Street, it may be desirable to
extend the street only to the plat line, ending it with a
temporary cul-de-sac (see figure Two). Then in the future, at the
request of the property owners in question, the street could be
extended.
There are several advantages to this alternate, in addition
to avoiding the opposition of some of the property owners. First,
it would not be necessary to acquire any easements for the street.
Second, the difficult and disruptive grading of the extended
street could be put off until there is more support. Also, there
would be more input from the property owners regarding the
placement of utility services. Finally, there,would be no need for
upgrading Laura Street at the present time,•it could be put off
until the connection is made, and a feasibility hearing may not be
necessary at the present time. The disadvantages are the creation
of a 500 to 550 foot cul-de-sac, the potential for higher utility
costs in the future, and problems associated with temporary site
grading at the end of the cul-de-sac.
The cost of the utilities for serving just the Hillside Creek
plat would be as follows:
i
UTILITY COST
Sanitary Sewer $6,000
Watermain $27,500
Storm Sewer $48,500
Street $41,350
TOTAL $123,350
This would change the assessment per lot in the subdivision
from $ 12,055 per lot to $12,335 per lot. The Council should
make the final decision as to which option to implement, based on
the input gained at the public discussions.
Questions to Resolve
To summarize, Council should discuss and make a decision on
the following questions:
0
* Is the subdivision acceptable as a preliminary plat?
* Is the flag lot proposal off of Clement acceptable?
*,_Which street construction option should -be use
*!If the full construction option is used, then
reconstruction of Laura_Street should be complet
* What action should--Staff-takewon_the
4`the creek?'
RECOMMENDATION•
st for a bridge across
Staff recommends that Council accept the revised preliminary
plat, approve the concept of flag lots off of Clement, and approve
the "Partial Completion Option" for construction (construction of
the new street only up to the plat line, with the addition of a
temporary cul-de-sac).
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with Staff's recommendations, Council
should pass a motion approving the revised preliminary plat, pass
a motion approving the concept of flag=lots off of Clement. If
Council concurs with staff's recommendation to proceed with the
"partial completion option", Council should pass a motion adopting
Resolution No. 87- ', RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATER, STORM SEWERS, AND STREETS TO SERVE
HILLSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 2),
subject to receiving a grading plan, final plat, and park
contribution.
If Council wishes to proceed with the entire project, instead
of the "partial completion option", that will serve the plat as
well as surrounding areas, Council should pass a motion adopting
Resolution No. 87- , RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND
CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER
AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE HILLSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION AND
ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 2).
OPTIONAL
EMERSON: YL AYE�E R.O.W. BRIDGE
I 'If, -'k ROP
CHRIsTENSEN
LI/. _ ... __.. fi Q _1L.L A4l,
)IA 0 0
d
KNIESL KALAUS (3�
3t
B BROOKSIDE-'ILANE
S( -,--EXISTING IS' STREET
R.O.W.
T
LICHA ROBINSON
W
KALAUS OPTIONjLL 24'
j. OR 33'.';TREET
WW
KN HE
R OK s1l
R _
San
K,
•
U TAUER PAGNOTTA
SCHOMAKER
I ST AVENUE
Feasibility Report: HILLSIDE CRK.
w 0 SERV[CE TO PLAT & ADJACENT AREAS
0 w
Z IMPROVEMENT No
* HL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
cn 87-2 - j, 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights'. Minnesota
FIGURE I
44-
FIGURE 2
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 27, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City
m' i for
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Learing Tree Conditional Use Permit
Public Hearing
T)T C(:T TC 4 Tnm
Mr. Randy Peterson, applicant for the Learning Tree Day Care Center proposal
located at Victoria Road and Sumit Lane has again requested a continuation of the
public hearing. He reports that the Learning Tree Company has been bought out by
Day Bridge, another day care company. They are still in the process of reorgan—
izing not ready to meet with Council on the proposal. Day Bridge does like the
site and would like the opportunity to meet with the Council on the proposal at a
later date.
Because of the upcoming holidays they do not anticipate being able to move
very fast on their reorganization matters so they request that the hearing be
continued to February 2, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has requested that the public hearing be continued but staff
recommends that the hearing be closed and readvertised when Day Bridge has
completed their reorganization and is ready to present their proposal to Council.
It is not fair to the residents involved to keep them coming back time after
time.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should open
the hearing and close it. They should direct staff to contact Day Bridge and
inform them that they need to reapply when they are ready to proceed.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
November 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City l i" r
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Kensington Approvals
Case No. 87-24
DISCUSSION:
At their November meeting the Planning Commission conducted the re-
quired public hearings to consider: Plan B sketch plan approval for
Kensington with an "active park", a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development for Kensington Phase I, a preliminary plat for Kensington
Phase I and a rezoning from R-1 to HR -PUD for Kensington Phase I. The
audience for the public hearings consisted of only seven people.
RECOMMENDATION:
Plan B Sketch Plan Approval
There was more discussion on this item than the other three items
combined. The Planning Commission felt somewhat left out of the Park plan-
ning and in the dark as to the reasons for Council's direction. Planning
Commission continues to support Plan A but 5 of the 7 voted to recommend
approval of Sketch Plan B so as not to be obstructionists. They wanted to
allow the voters to decide by referendum if the park should be constructed
in the Southeast area. Planning Commission preference continues to be for
Sketch Plan A and they feel that plan needs to be kept active in the event
the referendum fails. Commission members Henning and Anderson voted against
Plan B, as they did not want the park in the Southeast area. They still
prefer Plan A.
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The sidewalk be increased from 4 feet to 5 feet.
2. Proof of parking be added to a minimum standard of 1.5 spaces in
front of garage facilities.
3. Subject to staff approval of final engineering, grading, and land-
scaping plans.
4. That the developer be required to construct a lawn irrigation
system.
5. That the public street loops be completed initially.
Preliminary Plat
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Kensington Phase I plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of right-of-way to a full 60 foot width.
2. Dedication of Mendota Heights right-of-way for Mendota Heights Road
easterly to Huber Drive.
3. Subject to engineering staff review of easements and engineering
details.
4. A 25 foot setback from the front lot lines.
Rezoning
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of
rezoning Kensington Phase I plat area from R-1 to HR -PUD.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Council needs to conduct the required public hearing for the Condi-
tional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development, Rezoning of Kensington
Phase I from R-1 to HR -PUD and preliminary plat for Phase I. Then if
Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation they
need to complete the following actions:
Met Council, EAW Approvals
The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as revised at the
Council meeting of November 19th, was submitted to the Metropolitan Council
on Tuesday, November 24th. As of today's date approvals from Met Council
for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment have not yet been received. Therefore,
Council options are two:- 1) table formal action on the application to
December 15th, by which time it is hoped Metropolitan Council approval will
be received, or 2) make all actions contingent on receipt of the Metropoli-
tan Council letter of approval. Also the EAW process has not been finalized
so approvals need to be contingent on the finding of a negative declaration
for an EIS and reserving the right to incorporate any mitigation measures
that arise as a result of the EAW Review. The EAW review period is over
December 30, 1987.
Formal actions to be taken are:
1. Sketch Plan Approval
Pass a motion approving the sketch plan for the overall Kensington
Development Plan (subject to the above conditions).
2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development - Phase I
Pass a motion adopting the attached Resolution 87- , RESOLUTION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
TYT Tll TfT/ M^%T T TT 1 n" T
3. Preliminary Plat
Pass a motion approving the preliminary plat (subject to the above
conditions).
4. Amendment of Zoning Ordinance
i On May 6, 1986, Council considered revisions (see attached) to the
City's Zoning Ordinance that would be necessary to implement the Southeast
Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The required public hearing was held and
closed. Action was tabled until the Metropolitan'Council had resolved the
model aircraft noise ordiance. issue. With that issue resolved, Council
need to pass I motion adopting Ordinance No. 245, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE.
5. Rezoning for Kensington, Phase I
To effect the rezoning
ezoning for Kensington Phase I, Council should pass a
motion adopting Ordinance No. 246, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401.
(Attached is a sample ordinance, however since this a first go around on a new
ordinance staff is not certain on its format and may have a revision Tuesday
evening)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
KENSINGTON PHASE I
WHEREAS, Centex Homes, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit for
a planned unit development to develop 136 manor homes on 22.3 acres located
at the west end of the comprehesive Kensington plan; and
WHEREAS, said development is located in an R-1 zoning district, which
is being rezoned to HR -PUD; and
Nlu(evh
WHEREAS, the required public hearings were conducted by the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, that a conditional use permit for a planned unit develpment
be granted to Centex Homes to allow the development of 136 manor homes as
shown on drawings dated November 18, 1987, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The sidewalk be increased from 4 feet to 5 feet.
2. Proof of parking be added to a minimum standard of 1.5 spaces in
front of garage facilities.
3. Staff approval of final engineering, grading, and landscaping
plans.
4. That the developer be required to construct a lawn irrigation
system.
5. That the public street loops be completed initially.
6. Dedication of right-of-way to a full 60 foot width.
7. Dedication of Mendota Heights right-of-way for Mendota Heights Road
easterly to Huber Drive.
8. Subject to engineering staff review of easements and engineering
details.
9. A 25 foot setback from the front lot lines.
10. Subject to Met Council approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment
allowing development.
11. Subject to a negative declaration for an Environmental Impact
Study.
12. Subject to reserving the right to incorporate any mitigation mea-
sures that arise as a result of the EAW.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of
December, 1987.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
I
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIG14TS
DAKOTA COUNTY, M94N ESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 245
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains
as follows:
Section
1. Ordinance No. 401 known and referred to as the
"Mendota Heights
Zoning
Ordinance" is hereby
amended as follows:
i
Section
6.1 Is amended to read
as follows:
116.1 Districts
For the purposes of
this Ordinance, the City of Mendota
Heights Is hereby
•
divided into the following Use Districts and groups of Use
Districts:
"R11 Residence Districts
One Family Residential District
$1R -1A11
One Family Residential District
1111-113"
One Family Residential District
"OR -IC"
One Family Residential District
1111-211
Medium Density Residential District
1111-311
'High Density Residential District
"MR -PUD"
Medium Density Residential
Planned Unit
Development District
"HR -PUD"
High Density Residential Planned
Unit Development
District
"B" Business Districts
Limited Business District
"B -IA" Business Park District
"B-211 Neighborhood Business District
General Business District
1113-411 Shopping Center District
"LB -PUD" Limited Business Planned Unit Development District"
2
(R -1A District Minor Amendment) Section 8.1 is amended to read as follows.
"Within the "R -IA", One Family Residential District, no land or structures shall
be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses."
(R -1B District Minor Amendment) Section 8A.1 is amended to read as follows;
"Within the "R-113", One Family Residential District, no land or structures shall
be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses."
A new Section, Section 813 is added, which will read as follows in its entirety:
"SECTION 8B. ."R-10" ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
813.1 Permitted Uses
Within the "R -1C", One Family Residential District, no land or
structures shall be used except for one (1) or more of the
following uses.
88.1(1) Any use permitted and regulated within Section 7.1 of this
Ordinance shall be a permitted use.
8f3.2 Conditional Uses
Within any "R-10", One Family Residential District, no
structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by
conditional use permit.
813.2(1) Any use permitted in Section 7.2 of this Ordinance and as
regulated herein shall be a use by conditional use permit.
813.3 Permitted Accessory Uses
Within any "R -IC", One Family Residential District, the
following uses shall be permitted accessory uses.
813.3(1) Any use permitted In Section 7.3 and as regulated herein shall
be a permitted accessory use.
813.4 Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements
813.4(1) No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or
twenty-five (25) feet in height, whichever is the lesser, except
as provided in Section 20.
813,4(2) A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than thirty (30)
feet in width.
3
1311.4(3)
The following mininwrn requirements shall be
observed subject
to the additional
requirements, exceptions, and
modifications as
J
set forth in this
Section and Section 20.
Height ` Lot Area
Lot Width Front
Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
1 and 2 20,000
100 ft. 30 ft.
10 ft. 30 ft., or 20 % of
story sq. ft.
average lot
depth,
i
whichever Is
greater"
(R-2 District Amendment) In Section 9, the title of the Section is amended to
read as follows:
"SECTION 9. "R-2" MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT"
Section 9.1 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses
Within the "R-2", Medium Density Residential District, no structure or land
shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses."
Section 9.1(2) is amended to read as follows:
"Dwelling structures containing two (2) units to twenty-four (24) units."
Section 9.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Conditional Uses
Within any 1111-2", Medium Density Residential District, no structure or land
' shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit."
Section 9.3 is amended to read as follows:
,"Permitted Accessory Uses
Within any "R-211, Medium Density Residential District, the following uses shall
be permitted accessory uses."
Section 9.4(1) is amended to read as follows:
"No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty-five (25) feet
whichever is the lesser in height except as provided in Section 20."
a
Section 9.4(3) is amended to read as follows:
"The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to the additional
requirements, exceptions and modifications as set forth in this Section and
Section 20.
Lot Area/ Lot Front Side Bear
Dwelling Lot Area Unit Width Yard Yard Yard
1 Family 15,000 of 15,000 of 100 ft 30 ft 10 ft 30 ft*
2 Family 20,000 of 10,000 of 100 ft 30 ft 10 ft 30 ft*
3 Family 301000 of 101000 of 150 ft 30 ft 15 ft 30 ft*
or larger
* Or 206 of average lot depth, whichever is greater"
Section 10.1(1) is amended to read as follows:
"Dwelling structures containing two (2) units to twenty-four (24) units, provided
no more than one hundred fifty units in a given development project or on
contiguous properties are In structures which are identical or substantially
similar architecturally."
Section 10.2 Conditional Uses, is amended to read as follows:
"10.2(1) Single family residences.
10.2(2) Dwelling structures of twenty-five (25) units or more.
10.2(3) Private clubs and lodges which are not operated for profit.
10.2(4) Fraternity and sorority houses.
10.2(5) Private schools, universities and colleges.
10.2(6) Private swimming pools intended for and used solely by the
occupants of the property on which it Is located and their guests,
provided: (a) the water surface is located not less than fifty (50)
feet from any lot line; (b) that the pump and filter installed be
not less than forty (40) feet from any lot line; and (c) that the
pool area be so fenced as to prevent uncontrolled access from the
street or from adjacent property.
10.2(7) Those uses listed and as regulated in Section 7.2."
5
Section 10.4(4) is amended to read as follows:
9 fie following minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements shall be
observed:
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
1 Story- 6,310 sq. ft. 7,5U0 sq. ft. 8,290 sq. ft.
2 Story 5,5U0 sq. ft. 6,530 sq. ft. 71210 sq. It.
3 Story or more 5,100 sq. ft. 6,050 sq. f t. 6,680 sq. ft."
(New Planned Unit Development 'District) A new Section, Section 10A, is added
which establishes a new Zoning District, the Planned Unit Development District,
which will read as follows in its entirety:
"SECTION 10A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
1UA.1 Purpose and Definition
The purpose of the - Planned Unit Development District is to
encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land in
order to promote its appropriate use; to facilitate adequate and
economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural
and scenic qualities for open areas; to encourage a diversity of
housing types within a given development and within the community
as a whole; and to limit development to a scale appropriate to the
existing terrain and surrounding land uses.
10A.1(1) For the purposes of this Section the ten acre minimum requirement
for a PUD (Section 19.1) is waived. Any developer or applicant
for rezoning to a PUD District must prepare a PUD submission
regardless of the size of the parcel of land in question.
IUA.1(2) The Planned Unit Development District will be comprised of three
types of zoning designations:
10A.1(2)a HR -PUD,
High Density
Residential
Planned Unit
Development
District:
This District is
intended to
provide the
opportunity to
develop a
Planned Unit
Development
of a nature
and intensity
equivalent
to the R-3 Zoning District.
The permitted, conditional,
and accessory
uses in this
District are
the same as
those for the
R-3 District.
1UA.1(2)b MR -PUD, Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development
District: This District is intended to provide the opportunity to
develop a Planned Unit Development of a nature and intensity
equivalent to the R-2 Zoning District. The permitted, conditional,
and accessory uses in this District are the same as those for thu
R-2 District.
3
10A.1(2)c LB -PUD, Limited
Business Planned
Unit Development District:
This
District is intended
to provide the
opportunity to develop a Planned
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover,
Unit Development
of a nature and
intensity equivalent to the
B-1
Limited Business
Zoning District.
The permitted, conditional,
and
accessory uses in
this District are
the same as those for the
B-1
District.
Unit Development:
10A.2(2)
In a Planned Unit Development District the number of dwelling
10A.2 Approval and Administration
10A.2(1) A eezoning to the Planned Unit Development District may be
approved only If It satisfies all the following standards:
10A.2(1)a The Planned Unit Development is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan of the community.
10A.2(1)b
The ..Planned Unit Development Is an effective and unified
treatment of the development possibilities on the project site and
the development plan provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover,
rough terrain, and similar areas.
10A.2(1)c
The Planned Unit Development. can be planned and developed to
harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas
surrounding the project site.
10A.2(1)d
Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an
amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the Planned
Unit Development:
10A.2(2)
In a Planned Unit Development District the number of dwelling
units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the total
number permitted under the density control provisions of the
equivalent standard Zoning DIstrict. The HR -PUD District will use
the standards of the R-3 Zoning District as a guide; the MR -PUD
District will use the standards of the R-2 District as a guide. If
the Planned Unit Development is in more than one (1) zoning
district, the number of allowable dwelling' units must be calculated
separately for each portion of the Planned Unit .Development that
is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine
the number of dwelling units allowable In the entire Planned Unit
Development. _
10A.2(3) The Planning `Commission shall determine the number of dwelling
units which may be constructed within the Planned Unit
Development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by
the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required In the
equivalent zoning district for the area In which the Planned Unit
Development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the
project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but
shall include all lands to be conveyed to the City for public parks.
VA
10A.2(4) The specific submission requirements and the approval process to be
followed for projects applied for under this Section shall be the
same as those required for a Planned Unit Development under
Section 19 of this Ordinance."
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
publication according to law.
Enacted and ordained into an Ordinance this 1-st day of December, 1987.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
ATTEST:
Kaithleen Mi .Swanson
City Clerk
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ORDINANCE NO. 246
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows:
Section 1 Ordinance No. 401 known and referred to as the "Mendota Heights
Zoning Ordinance" is hereby amended in the following respects:
A. The following described property situated in the City of Mendota Heights
in Dakota Coutny, Minnesota, is hereby rezoned from R-1, Single Family
Residential, as the case may be to an "HR -PUD", IIigh Density Residential -
Planned Unit Development.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, townAitp 28;,,
Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follow Corth;epci`i9
at the southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thenccd North ` �
00-26'-53" West, assuned bearing, along the east line�of Nid Sov�hxe�t
Quarter, a distance of 386.12 feet to a northerly right -Way ay
line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of`1Walat
No. 19-56; thence North 89°-52'-47" West, along said northerl� •`�'
right-of-way line, a distance of 568.83 feet to the actut
of beginning; thence North 890-52'-47" West, continuing a ong s id',
northerly Right -of -Way line, a distance of 284.00 feet; th e ,
North 860-03'-56" West, a distance of 469.40 feet to the no thwes
corner of said Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-
Plat No. 19-56; thence North 86°-03'-56" West, along a north e iy j
right-of-way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation R%ht-OfkWay
Plat No. 19-55, a distance of 241.14 feet; thence North 0°-00'-q0" i
Fast, a distance of 337.90 feet; thence North 89°-23'-32" East,` i
a distance of 200.00 feet; thence North 12°-21'-32" East, a distance
of 321.70 feet; thence North 30°-56'-20" East, a distance of 2003-
feet to a southerly right-of-way line of Minnesota Department of
Transportation R4ht-of-Way Plat No. 19-56; thence easterly, along \
said right-of-way line, along a non-tangential curve, concave to 1
the northwest, having a central angle of 22°-00'-18' and a radius
of 676.62 feet for a distance of 259.86 feet, the chord of said
curve bears North 720-33'-05" East, to a southeast corner of said
Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -Of -Way Plat No. 19-56;
thence northeasterly, continuing along said curve, having a central
Angle of 11°-21'-59' and a radius of 676.62 feet fora distance
of 135.41 feet; thence North 50°-04'-57" East, a distance of 262.81
feet; thence North 690-31'-24" Fast, a distance of 490.27 feet;
thence South 7°-34'-29" West, a distance of 197.93 feet; thence �1 3
South 18°-51'-12" East, a distance of 210.00 feet; thence South
14°-11'-11" West, a distance of 485.00 feet; thence South 83°-57'-05"
West, a distance of 325.00 feet; thence South 00-07'-13" West,
a distance of 475.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 25.9 acres, more or less. ,
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 28,
Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; theme
North 00-26'-53" West, assumed bearing, along the east line of
said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1775.01 feet to a line drawn ,
40.00 feet southerly of and parallel with the north line of the
South 1815.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 36;
thence South 891-24'-31" West, along the westerly projection of
said parallel line, a distance of 149.39 feet; thence westerly,
along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a central %
angle of 0°-28'-14" and a radius of 701.62 feet for a distance
of 5.76 feet to,the actual point of beginning; thence South 7°-34'-29"
West, a distance of 11,74 feet; thence South 69°-31'-24" Wes,
a distance of 490.27 feet; thence North 500-04'-57" East, a distance I
of 30,81 feet; thence easterly, along a tangential curve, concave f
to the south, having a central angle of 38°-51-21" and a radius
of 701.62 feet for a distance of 475.81 feet to the point of beginninf3'.,
Containing 0.40 acres, more or less.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Mendota Heights referred to and
described in said Ordinance No. 401 as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of
Mendota Heights" shall not be published to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the
City Clerk shall appropropriate make the said Zoning Map on file in the Clerk's
office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in
this Ordinance, and all of the notations, references and other information shown
thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its publication according to law.
Enacted and ordained into an Ordinance this 1st day of December, 1987.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
FREDERICK M. OWENS, M.D.
11/24/87
No 2 -� 1987
v'�U'
To: City Council of Mendota Heights
From: Frederick M. Owens, 2455 Delaware Ave., Mendota Heigts
As a former chairman of the District 197 School Board
I would like to express my interest in your dilemma regarding
the placement of the intended athletic field and recreational
park in Mendota Heights. I believe that the school board
is anxious to join with Mendota Heights for the purpose of
developing a recreational facility adjacent to Sibley High
School. Certainly this could be developed at far less cost
than could be done at the site along highway 494. I have
a concern that a village facility, isolated at the south end
of the village, would be difficult to police. It might
well become a haven for the sale of drugs, whereas if it
were adjacent to Sibley High School surveillance could
be much greater and less expensive. Furthermore, the
Sibley site would be more readily accessible to people
living in the northern and western parts of the community.
It is fully appreciated that a vote was passed in
favor of the southern site, but giving full consideration
to the cost differential, the security and accessibility
advantages of the Sibley site, perhaps some reconsideration
of the decision could be made. A less expensive bond
issue might well be more likely to pass a vote.
Your work in making these decisions is not easy in a
public forum. For your care in these deliberations you
are to be commended.
J00
2455 Delaware Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55118 (612) 454-1800
PLANNING REPORT
NOVEMBER 20, 1987
CASE NUMBER: 87-24
APPLICANT: Centex Homes Corporation
LOCATION: South of Mendota Heights Road, Easterly of Dodd
Road (see sketch)
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Concept PUD Sketch Plan,
Preliminary PUD Development Plan (Stage
1), Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning (For
Stage 1)
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Commission approved an overall concept sketch plan of
the PUD ordinance for the Kensington project consisting
of 540 units on 81 acres. Since that time, the Council
has decided to discontinue pursuing the development of a
community scale park north of the Henry Sibley campus
(in conjunction with the School Board), and proposes now
to develop that community scale park north of I-494, and
within the Centex Homes Corporation Kensington
development. The Kensington folks, as represented by
Dick Putnam and Tom Boyce, have been very cooperative in
meeting with the representatives of the City, the Park
Commission, and community residents to develop an
appropriate location and plan for such facilities.
Working very quickly, a revised plan consisting of 43
acres of park land has been prepared and submitted by
the applicants which includes a neighborhood park and a
community scale park within their project. This park
plan has been reviewed by the City's park consultant and
approved by the City Park Commission.
2. Because of the addition of the community scale park to
the Kensington development, the overall concept plan
has, of course, changed. Therefore it is appropriate
for the Planning Commission to consider the revised plan
which has been submitted for their review. Accompanying
this report is a reduced copy of the total of the
revised plan which we will refer to as Plan B. This
plan consists of 105 acres and 500 units. These units
are accommodated in 14 buildings with 8 units per
structure equalling 112 units, and 6 buildings with 4
units per building equalling 24. Thus, the total number
of units is 136 units. The plan illustrates the
distribution of these units on a pair of connected
looped streets which the City's consultants and
engineers have recommended as the most appropriate
circulation system to adequately serve the units and in
particular, to serve the community scale park to be
located to the south of this looped street. Another
plan utilizing several cul-de-sacs was developed but
abandoned in favor of the more appropriate (in our
opinion) looped street circulation system now proposed.
3. The park system will consist of a total of 43 acres of
which 31 acres will be the community scale park
contiguous to the freeway, 6 acres will be utilized for
the neighborhood park in the north central part of the
site, and another 6 acres will consist of a pond and
all of its shoreline around the pond to the northeast of
the community scale park. You will readily identify
these locations by examining the reduced site plan
submitted showing the entire 105 acres.
4. We suggest that this revised overall concept plan (Plan
B) is an appropriate solution that provides for the
community scale park services so vitally needed to
augment the overall park system in this part of the
City. The number of units proposed result in a
considerable reduction in the number of units that were
originally planned for the area south of Mendota Heights
Road. The following is an analysis of the new
distribution of density as compared to that originally
planned in the comprehensive plan amendment.
5. The original overall land use plan allocated 320 units
at 4 units per acre and 604 units at 8 units per acre
equalling a total of 924 units potentially located south
of Mendota Heights Road. The current plan calls for 500
units in the Kensington concept as proposed and
submitted to the Planning Commission at this time. In
addition to this, there will be 26 single family homes
proposed by the Tandem Corporation just south of the
four single family homes at the far southeast corner of
the City. In addition to that, there are potentially
128 units which could be built on the Patrick property,
the Clark property, and the four acres of land
immediately east of the proposed neighborhood center.
These parcels total 16 acres and at 8 units per acre,
equals 128 units. In addition, there are an existing
three single family homes (in the far southeast corner
of the City), a lot with one residence occupied by Dr.
Owens, and the potential for approximately five more
units on the west end of the existing three single
family lots. Thus, these equal a total of 653 units,
which is 271 units less than the 924 originally planned
for.
6. The Kensington people have also submitted a preliminary
development plan for their first stage of development
consisting of the 136 units. You will note that the
2
largest of these structures consists of 8 units. You
will recall the City's concern with respect to the
previous overall development plans which included
structures up to 75 units per building. At that time it
was suggested that structures of no more than 24 units
per building might be considered. Thus, the current
plans are well below the size of structures previously
contemplated. The Centex people have built units -
similar to this in other parts of the metropolitan area
including projects in Edina and Bloomington. The Edina
project is known as Manor Homes of Edina, at 8-9 units
per acre; Manor Homes of Normandale (in Bloomington) is
also at 8-9 units per acre, and Devonwood Condominiums
(also in Bloomington) at a somewhat higher density.
Some of you may have had an opportunity to look at those
projects and we hope you will have a chance to do so in
the future.
7. The applicants have submitted a series of drawings
(17x24 inch drawings) indicating the floor plans,
elevations, and a perspective of the typical proposed
structures. You will notice that the structures have
sloping roofs in all cases, vary from 1-2 stories in
height, and are developed with unique residential
characteristics. Some of the units have full walkout
basements, and vary in size and price. The applicants
estimate that the price range would run from $68,000 to
$120,000. It is important to note that these will be
condominium sales, and are not designed for rental.
8. A packet of drawings has been prepared and submitted
delineating the first stage development plan, grading,
drainage and utilities, and landscape proposals.
9. Mr. Danielson, Public Works Director, and his staff have
been working with the applicants, and have reviewed the
overall utility concept approach. It appears that the
handling of the drainage, and the water and sewer
facilities will be appropriate though the enineering
details have not been completed as of this time.
Examination of the plans will note that there are some
additional drainage facilities to be provided, including
the connection between two of the major ponds on the
site. Mr. Danielson notes however, that all of these
thins are readily correctable based on the department's
previous analysis of solution methods. He notes that
there is adequate capacity in the system as previously
designed and partially built to handle the drainage
situation in the area. Adequate capacity is at the site
for water and sewage facilities. It has not been
determined as of this time as to what extent the City or
the developer will be doing the actual installation.
These details, however, will be worked out prior to
approval of a final development plan.
10. A preliminary plat is in the process of being prepared
by the applicants engineering consultants, and will be
delivered under separate cover prior to the Planning
Commission meeting. The plat will provide a separate
lot for each of the structures, with the common land
being the private roadway serving some of the
structures. There will, of course, be a condominium
association which will be responsible for the private
roadways, maintenance, and other services as typically
done in a condominium association (similar to others the
applicants have developed in Edina and Bloomington).
With respect to the preliminary plat, it should be noted
that the PUD drawing indicates a right-of-way of 50
feet. We have discussed this with the applicants who
agree to increase that right-of-way to 60 feet as is the
normal standard in this City. We suggest, however, that
the buildings remain in a location as proposed,
resulting in a 25 foot setback from the right-of-way in
some locations. We suggest that the additional land in
the back of the units (in many cases oriented to ponding
areas) is more important than maintaining a 30 foot
setback in the front.
11. The plans you will note, also indicate a four foot wide
sidewalk; we suggest that this be increased to a five
foot width.
12. A preliminary landscape plan for the entire phase 1
project has been submitted. We are pleased to note that
deciduous specie sizes range from 3-4 inches, and
coniferous trees are set at 8-12 feet in height.
Examination of the landscape plan suggests that it is of
adequate scope with appropriate species to enhance the
exterior quality of the development.
13. With respect to parking, you will note that all of the
units have attached interior garages, generally at one
per unit, but with 15 having two garages per unit.
Based on the occupancy of other similar projects
developed by the applicants, they suggest that more
surface parkin may -be appropriate. We are concerned,
however, that in the event that the occupancy may differ
here in Mendota Heights, that there be adequate parking
provided. It appears that there are an additional 28
off street parking spaces provided in addition to the
garages. Counting the 15 extra garages (over 1 per
unit), there would thus be approximately 43 spaces in
addition to the one garage per unit. We suggest that it
may be appropriate to add additional off-street parking
spaces to the extent that there be 1.5 spaces per unit
(including garages). This would be in addition to the
parking spaces that are provided in front of the
garages which, of course, can be readily used for
4
visitors. You will also note that the streets proposed
will be the normal 30 foot street utilized in single
family areas throughout the City. On these streets
parking is allowed on both sides for purposes of guests
and time of extra need. We suggest too, that the
smaller private streets which are proposed to be 28 feet
in width that parking could be allowed on one side of
those streets.
14. Having discussed this with the applicants, they have
indicated they will take a closer look at their results
in their previous projects to ascertain more exactly
what the needs appear to be based on that experience.
Perhaps a discussion of this question at the Planning
Commission hearing will be helpful in determining an
appropriate standard. The Planning Commission and
Council may.wish to consider setting a standard whereby
a "proof of parking" is provided indicating areas in
which additional parking can be added if necessary. It
certainly can, but we do not want to have more asphalt
than is needed. On the other hand, we do not want to
wind up on a permanent basis with inadequate parking.
Thus, after the units are largely occupied, we may be
able to determine whether the spaces provided are
adequate. If not, the applicants can be directed to add
the additional parking spaces where designated on a
previously approved plan.
15. The applicants will be sending, under separate cover, an
addendum sheet indicating the change in the area and
number of units applicable to the revised Plan B as it
relates to the original booklet submitted and approved
by the Planning Commission which described the original
Plan A. They will also be sending a written narrative
of the preliminary development plan proposal for stage
1, describing the project and verifying the numbers
noted in this report. It is appropriate to note the
applicants have been very cooperative and worked very
hard with their consultants to make these major
revisions to the plan so as to accommodate the City's
needs and desire to provide for the community scale park
facility within their project. Thus, in some cases, the
process has resulted in numerous meetings and
preparation of last minute written material.
16. In summary then, the application consists of four parts
as follows:
1. Sketch Plan Concept Approval
Here the Planning Commission may consider approval
of an amended "Plan B" as submitted and titled "Plan
B" dated 11-10-87, the development of which -is
subject to the ultimate purchase of the 31 acre site
5
for community park purposes. A condition to any
action on this proposal could include a condition
that in the event the City does not purchase the
community park land as proposed, that the concept
approval reverts to the originally submitted and
approved Plan A.
2. Preliminary Development Plan (Stage I,
A public hearing has been published for
consideration of this proposal, and thus comments
from interested parties should be heard. This
submission consists of four sheets of plans, dates
11-18-87, to which the following conditions may be
considered:
A. Sidewalk be increased from 4 feet to 5 feet.
B. Proof of parking be added to a minimum standard
of 1.5 spaces per unit, exclusive of parking
spaces in front of garage facilities.
C. Subject to staff approval of final engineering,
grading, and landscape plan.
3. Preliminary Plat
Though the preliminary plat drawing is not before us
as of the time of this writing, if appropriate lots
are provided for each of the structures, it would
appear that the preliminary plat will not be a
significant problem. The approval may include,
however, the following conditions:
A. Dedication of right-of-way to a full 60 foot
width.
B. Dedication of Mendota Heights right-of-way for
Mendota Heights Road easterly to Huber Drive.
C. Subject to engineering staff review of ¢
easements and engineering details.
4. Rezoning
The applicants propose to proceed to acquire all the
land included in the sketch plan concept plan by
January 1, 1988. They are willing to purchase this
land without zoning action, based on the City's
review and approval of the overall concept plan as
noted in Plan B. The appropriate time for rezoning
under this scenario is when the specific development
plans are submitted and reviewed as is the case here
for Stage 1. Thus, assuming the development plan as
HD:madlr
submitted under the PUD ordinance is satisfactory,
it would then be appropriate to rezone the land from
R-1 to HR -PUD. This zoning district (and others)
was extensively reviewed by the Planning Commission
and Council, whose final adoption by the Council was
delayed pending action by the Metropolitan Council
on the comprehensive plan amendment. It is
anticipated that zoning districts will be adopted by
the Council very soon, in as much as the
Metropolitan Council has "signed off" on the land
use amendment for the southeast area. It is
appropriate at this time if the Planning Commission
desires to recommend a rezoning to the proposed HR -
PUD zoning district, for Phase I which of course,
could be.acted upon by the Council pending adoption
of the district itself.
7
Kensington Proposed HR -PUD Plan
Land Use
1. High Density Housing
H D -A
HD -13
HD -C
H D -D
H D -E
HD -F
2. Medium Density Housing
MD -C
Subtotal
3. Park/Open Space
Neighborhood Park, P-3
Trail/Open Space, P-2
areas
Community Recreation, P-1
Subtotal
Total
Acres
% of Total
# Units
Units/Acre
22.3
136
6.1
4.0
25
6.2
7.5
88
11.7
3.5
48
13.7
7.8
92
11.8
3.55
44
12.4
13.6
65
4.8
62.25
61%
500
8.0
6.00
9.44
24.6
40.04
39%
102.25
100
500
4.9
High Density
Medium Density
Park
Total
48.65 Acres
13.60 Acres
62.25 Acres
40.00 Acres
102.25 Acres
N
M W
0�
SITE A
High1366 Units,D122.3 Acres
6.1 "Units/Acne
pp -k*
y P-3 PARK -
`{ 6 Aeries
S��F-.
ensity
s, 7.5 Acres
J\ 21.7 Units/Acre
� Cl✓O
x
577E D
High Density
48 Units, 3.5,
13.7 Units/Ac
.-
527E B goo} P -I PARR
p�.j:•°• Community-Recry
High Densityrx•�{`¢a ` ` 24.6 Acres;
Units, 4 ti t
6.2 Units/Ac cres' %t`i
re.�.. ♦ �
�O �r �A �ll��i�M1I�1l�li "�': ♦ ♦ :..�'
.�.44Y- �. � 2.4'74• .
♦
t
ori
"-S2TEE� t
Nigh Density /
92 Units, 7.8 A'
1 11.8 Units/Acte
�;
M
�4S4'M Ff-'• Ulgh )Density
12.4 Unite SAdes'
P-2 PARK - Laioesttot+e
9.44 Acres Total
(4.4 acre pond)
t
NC.v `SITE G
lh� \ Medium Density
1 65 Units, 13.6 Acres
Y114'„its/Acre
t
I
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 17, 1987
`4
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ua"`� �-tor
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Bernie Karon - Damage Claim
nTRC11qRTnw!
In July the "Super Storm" flooded Marie Park and left a layor of silt on
the tennis courts. Terry Blum, Parks Leadman, was going to clean the courts
by hooking up a fire hose to the hydrant located in the park. When he
turned the hydrant on, it began to malfunction by making strange noises down
in the ground and causing a severe water hammer. He immediately shut the
hydrant off and called St. Paul Water Utility for assistance. They also
operated the hydrant and caused more water hammer. They diagnosed the
hydrant as being broken and replaced it. During this time the water hammer
from the malfunctioning hydrant ruptured 5 water meters in nearby homes.
St. Paul Water was notified, entered the homes and replaced the meters. Of
the five homes with broken meters, one owner, Mr. Bernie Karon, 1781 Summit
Lane, has submitted a claim (see attached). St. Paul Water Utility has
replaced the hydrant and meters at no.charge to the City of Mendota Heights
but has asked us to settle Mr. Karon's claim as our contribution to solving
the problem.
The City's insurance is $250 deductible so if we pay, the City will
have to fund the claim from general revenues. I have spoken with Mr. Karon
over the phone and told him that we would consider paying the costs for
actual damages but not his personal time spent ($213.00 - 136.00 = $77.00).
Mr. Karon insists that the City pay for his and his wife's time. I informed
him that his claim would be considered at the December 1st City Council
meeting and that he could attend to argue his claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Similar claims paid by St. Paul Water Utility have not included money
for personal time, staff feels that Mendota Heights should be consistent.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review the attached claim with Mr. Karon and arrive at a decision on
his claim.
t TIT
.�T CITY OF SAINT PAUL MINNIESOTA"~
. { ' '' BOARD OF WATER COMMIS SIONERM.:4.',
� .. } • gat, ' i i : �' • � "•� ;, ti
THOMAS D. MOGREN BERNIE R. BULLERT
orl Mttrr��pp r qq CHRIS`Nfuam,_PAVOQENTm ,. _ y "` .; • " .Supt.olWatelDiatribution
1111 � ulli�r 1� DEBORA '� A �HRA,,CJH••I,.Vi E�('R�SIDEN
.- F�.. f n{R
VERNE E��JTsf�C �EN' ;,•tet• i' " p ''�` — ► - W t ROGER A. MOHROR
I t 660RAXMAMILA13d �' , VICI'ORTEDESCO 'd
�As,!�1344�'d i ral a age�!�' �• � ����� t1 s ,� ater Production Engineer ,N
f � 'I �-�.'�,'�-�.: -' ��--� �•-<":__ -_ OHN D
," � ` i�►''°"�L'':��GZ-'.�,.'"_-'.i�R;,:._�".] l'!t� `k .y 5i���t p ��4„`'7th.{
411”'
INISSI(PPI RIVER � �"KES`r- iW' 'TREATME T.Rrg PUMPING (DISTRIBUTION
October 28, 1987
Jim Danielson
City Engineer
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minn.
Re: Hydrant operation on September 16, 1987 at Marie Park.
Dear Mr. Danielson,
On September 16, 1987, a maintenance crew from Mendota Heights was using
hydrant No. 559 to clean out a drain in Marie Park. As a result of this
hydrant operation several water meters were damaged in the area.
The Water Utility has repaired or replaced the damaged water meters and
has also received one claim for damage from a Mr. Bernard Karon at 1781
Summit Lane. It is our understanding that additional claims may follow.
While the Utility has made no decision regarding the costs associated
with the water meters at this time, the Utility feels that the damage
caused is a direct result of your operation and are forwarding all claims
to the City of Mendota Heights for processing.
I have enclosed copies of the information available to assist you in
settlement of claims. If the Water Utility can further assist in this
matter, please call me at 298-4166.
Sincerely,
Verne E. Jacobsen 7
VEJ/skn Asst. General Manager
Enclosure
1I1�, cc: Marlon Simonson
'7U v
�R st 4TH FLOOR CITY HALL ANNEX - ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
c • hEMORANDUM
SEP. -.2 9•.1967
To: Board of Water Commissioners
Claims Department7/
From: Bernard Karon
_�
1781 Summit Lane
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118p-----
Re: Water meter explosion and resultant damages
On Wednesday, September 16, my water meter exploded. It was one of many that
exploded in the Mendota Heights area. The water was shut off by the Mendota
Heights police department, and the St. Paul City Water Department was
immediately notified. The Water Department responded within an hour and the
meter was replace. There was however, damage to personal effects resultant to
the water which sprayed in all directions and at considerable force from the
broken meter. Mr. Gerard C. Strauss, water technician from the Saint Paul
Water Utility was called and responded within an hour to take pictures of the
damage. I believe that his pictures and the report from the unit which
replaced the meter are now in your files. The following represents the losses
incurred from the. accident:
Groceries including cereal, jello cake mixes, and other paper
wrapped goods which had to be disposed of. ($25.00 approximate);
Paper goods including napkins, freezer wrap, and other goods (10.00
approximate) v
Cleaning equipment including lysol, mop etc. to mop up water (10.00
approximate)
Wine bottles(3 items damaged when cartons in which they were stored
collapsed under the water (;19.00)
Extra rubbish pickup fee from rubbish hauler to remove damaged
merchandise ($6.00)
Personal files damaged and which had to be recopoied ($7.00)
Time for clean up: B. Karon 5 hrs. @ $14.00/hr = $70.00
J. Karon 6 hrs. @ $11.00/hr = $66.00
Total costs for damages and clean up are $213.00.
Please feel free to contact me if there are questions or if I may provide
further information. Thank you for your prompt response to this memorandum.
Bernard Karon
454-3914 (H)
625-5050 (W)
0
To: Verne Jacobsen
From: Dick Wetzel
Date: Oct. -24, !987
Subject: Sept. 16th claims in Mendota Hts.
Approximately at 8:30 AM, the morning of Wednesday,
Sept. 16, 1987, a crew from Mendota Heights (Public Works)
was attempting to clean out a drain in a ponding area located
east of Lilac Lane, and north of Marie. The area is called
Marie Park, and consists of a small softball field, a. hockey
rink, a small parking area and a warming house. The ponding
area is behind the warming house about 25 yards. There is a
fire hydrant in front of the warming house thats chief reason
for being there is to flood the hockey rink. The fire hydrant
is controlled by the tapping gate in the street and by a
valve in a bilko pit. When the crew tried to use the fire
hydrant they found that it was dry, so the valve in the pit
was turned on. They then used the hydrant and could not shut
it off. The crew then went back to the pit and shut the valve
off, probably way too quickly considering the static pressure
is 95 pounds.
The Meter Operations Unit received its first call about
8:40, and a second about five minutes later concerning leaky
water meters. Pat Ryan was dispatched immediately and I told
him to check other homes in the immediate area because it
sounded like a surge in pressure. Pat knocked on about twenty
homes and gained access to six. He found five meters that
were leaking, all of which the gaskets or the bottom plates
had been blown out. The homes with damaged meters were all in
close proximity to the park. Several of the home owners said
the pipes in their house rattled about '8:30 or so'. Pat was
in the area from 8:55 to 12:05 working on the damaged meters.
Pat talked to a different Mendota Heights crew who
admitted to the fact that the hydrant had been operated and
closed in the pit because the hydrant would not shut down.
The area around the hydrant was quite wet and eroded.
The turn -on crew was sent out after lunch and verified
the hydrant was malfunctioning, a out of service disc was
placed and a work order was made out. The plat boot: shows no
controlling valve other than the tapping gate and the hydrant
is listed as our hydrant # M-559.
C,TY vF MLND.,TA .iEIuHT j
MEMO
November 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City A ei/i �trator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Nelson Preliminary Plat
Case No. 87-36
DISCUSSION:
At their November meeting the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider a subdivision request from Mr. Phil Nelson, 1573
wactitler (now 157o Boardwalx) for Park rlace 2nd AudiLiolt (see aLtacheu
staff reports).
RECOMMENDATION:
There were no public comments at the hearing and the Planning Commis—
sion voted unanimously to approve the plat.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation
they need to pass a motion approving the preliminary plat.
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
24 November 1987
Phillip R. Nelson
Southeast Corner of Park
Place Drive and Boardwalk
(see sketch)
Approval of Preliminary Plat
1. This parcel of land consists of 1.46 acres with a north -south dimension
of 350 feet and an east -west dimension of 198 feet. The parcel is
contiguous to the north and west to public streets dedicated as a part
of the Park Place plat of approximately a year ago. The parcel is
occupied by an existing house near the center of the property.
2. The proposal is to divide the land into three lots ,fronting on Boardwalk.
The lots will be 22,970 square feet, 19,610 square feet, and 21,380
square feet. The minimum lot size is, of course, 15,000 square feet.
3. Lot 1 (the northerly most lot) will have 116feet of frontage an
Boardwalk (100 feet required). A 7 foot right-of-way width is 'dedicated
for Park Place Drive on the north side of this lot making the total
street width 60 feet. *Lot 2 in the center will have a lot width of 100
feet at the building line. The southwest corner* of this lot, however,
will have a bend in, the lot line so as to provide more efficient access
for Lot 3 to the south. The width of Lot 2 (the center lot) will be
87 feet at the right-of-way line. The lot width, however, is measured
at the setback line. Therefore, this lot meets . the 100 foot
requirement, 30 feet back from the street right-of-way.
4. Lot 3 has 40 feet of-
frontage at the
right-of-way line, but 107 feet
of
frontage at the 30 foot setback line.
We suggest that this does
not
represent a problem
since the development of Lot 3 is logical
and
reasonable, with the
frontage having
been fixed by the platting
of
Boardwalk as proposed
and approved in
the initial Park Place plat.
Lot
3 is. in fact a very
fine lot with an
excellent view to the south
and
west.
5. It appears that the platting proposal will provide an excellent site for
the existing home and its proposed expansion and will provide two fine
home sites on Lots 1 and 3.
-j-,
ho
Ir 0 -h
0
D
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH
SCALE 1"= 200'
Sats_
20
< aea .'wee
..... .. ... . . .
04-07
.... ......
33C
C7 1-1,3� 24 X
sS Ac- AL -BERT G.
7s.
Ic
OA
031-07
7-0047-0
STA rz- j.pAymomD Y4
LA
5MAWGt-41NIP-56y JR
L P6. C, m 0 F
D -)-r^ mair--wrs. %
20 AG
CAKRJE A.
7
A AUDITOF�S SUB. NO. 2
Ull
P/O LOT 3
I-r=Roy m.
5"1 Fti- my A..
i4A r4 ;5 co k
CITY OF,MENDOTA HEIGHTS
jl_ol 0 jof; DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
1,114
'N
-!:Kgo;• APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION,
OF 4'
AA
PLANNING,REQUEST r 1:4
I. 4 "iy . .
"RA
13,1 o
f,,Application.
111tDate
Fee'Pai(o
licant-�
amel.
NELSON_ PHTT-T.Tp "NO
R_
Y%l Last Fir Inlfialq e,q
;First :k'
Ij 1573 Wachtlpr Avp- 1 a
Address:
Numb,er
1: .Zip, f,
o�. Streqp�,-j 6,,ifi j El't City"I;, State,.,.,jj�,
Y4k+r;;;'`..,::'Telepholie Number:*
4 57
—15
Owner
v,, Name:
3 1
R Last, First Initial
1A.
i.3,4i"Address
x
j Number & Street City State Zip -1
t
1 1572 Boardwalk
Lot # t X
Lot #2 1576 Boardwalk
Street Location of -Property -in Question:
V(4
Lot #3 1578 Boardwalk
1573 Wgrht-ler A300,
Legal')Degcription'of.'Ptoperty:'*'rI I't"11
Section"23 'Twn."`28'; RA:n2e"`23 W of F 391Z 'nf'S* '*90R{ nf
rs
Govt. L8 Subjr,to,.RDtESMT (see attached)
y- Ni"
.2
of
tRequest: Rezoning
Type,, if t 13 -:.I; "A
-Variance -.:
Conditional Use Permit
Q
Conditional I
Use Permit fort P_ U D..'
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Subdivi0on Approval
r ;µx.7!1
.)dt
Plan Approval
D,
t Wetland s,,Permi t.j 1,; 1 C!no L! 91A
Other
f ut
November 2, 1987
City*of Mendota Heights
City Hall
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Attachedake copies of a preliminary plat for Nelsons'
South Park,P'lac6'subdivision.
have met with the city planner, Mr. Dahlgren, who has
given approval and g;ive'me the attached 'Application for
Consideration of Planning Request'.
A current attorney's'title opinion is presdntly being
pursued-by my attarney.and will be available as soon
as possible.
Also, Included is an Abstr6dt6ig Cetificate—as the
present parcel shall be divided into two lots.
Thank you for,your consideration of this request.
ince
fillip Ne son
1576 Boardwalk
(formerly 1573 Wachtler Ave.)
Mendota Hts., MN 55118
�.
y
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Park Place 2nd Addition
Case No. 87-36
DISCUSSION•
November 17, 1987
Mr. Phil Nelson, 1573 Wachtler Avenue owns a home on a large lot at the
intersection of Park Place Drive and Boardwalk (across from the Park Place
$500K Parade Home). Mr. Nelson has submitted the attached preliminary plat
that divides his land into three new large lots. All these new lots meet or
exceed the City's minimum requirements for lot size and frontages. Public
utilities were stubbed in with the Park Place improvements in anticipation
of this lot configuration.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct the public hearing ordered for 7:30 P.M. and based on input
from the public and the Commission, make a recommendation to the City Coun-
cil.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City �rator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Poore - Variance Request
Case No. 87-37
nT0nT1CQTnM.
At their November meeting the Planning Commission considered an
application from Mr. Richard Poore, 1660 Dodd Road, for a rear yard setback
variance (see attached staff reports). There seemed to be a hardship in
that the homq that was constructed in 1964, was originally allowed to be
constructed within the setback area.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a
variance to allow a garage to be constructed within 25 feet of the rear
lot line.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation
they should pass a motion approving a variance to the 190 foot rear yard
setback and allow construction of an attached garage within 25 feet of the
rear yard at 1660 Dodd Road.
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 24 November 1987
CASE NUMBER: 87-37
APPLICANT: Richard G. Poore
LOCATION: East of Dodd Road, Between
Marie and Wentworth (see
sketch)
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Variance to
Rear Yard Setback
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Poore's have lived in the City of Mendota Heights for many years
on a parcel of land that is approximately 5.4 acres accessible by a
private driveway off of Dodd Road. The lot at its steepest portion is
approximately 950 feet east of Dodd Road. The house is located on a
hillside near the far east end of the property as you will note from
examining the plan submitted by Mr. Poore.
2. He proposes to add to
his existing tuck -under garage on the east side
of the house. Based on the location of the driveway and
the
terrain
and the location of the
existing garage, it would appear that
this
is the
most logical method for adding additional garage space to
the
house.
This addition, however,
projects to within 25 feet of the rear
lot
line.
3. You will note from examination of the attached copy of the City's
zoning map, that a portion of the Poore's land on the east side is
zoned R -1A and a portion of the land to the west is zoned R-1.
Therefore, much of this property and the area where the house is
located is a part of the half square mile area between Marie and
Wentworth and east of Delaware, which is largely occupied. by larger,
old estate lots. .The property to the east of the Poore property is
occupied by Jack McMahon with is a similar type of property. The
minimum lot size for the R -1A District is 40,000 square feet (versus
15,000 square feet for the R-1). The rear yard setback for the' R -;-1A
District is 30 feet or 20 percent of the average lot depth, whichever is
greater. In this case, 20 percent of the average lot depth is
approximately 190 feet. The entire house is located in. a required rear
yard under that criteria.
4. Attached is a copy of the letter from Mr. Poore noting that Mr. Jack
McMahon has approved the expansion of
his home easterly toward his
property. You will note the statement
and signature of Mr. McMahon
on the site plan indicating his approval
of the proposed development.
What is needed in order for a building
permit to be issued for this
expansion, is a variance to the rear yard
setback of 190 feet since that
is greater than the otherwise applicable 30 feet. It would seem that in
the case of these vast lot sizes and in this
case in particular, that the
reduced setback will not harm anyone
or the public interests. The
problem is with the minimum that the
house was built in the first
place sited. as it is on the slope of the
hill with the tuck -under garage
arrangement.
r
2.oa 4c.
6u1r�arc C BrYn,E/?�+�r7 d r► hC-
�L ao6-
HAR.T.Y 14 MAKo..ARET- A.
KLEIat S
% wAuACE (RADA
KaWt4
2bao3- cz..
/ Ac.
YYrrm 1 8 Gi-acer
8 Lo z� ,ahr�son
d6ZO-A'1
�• 8vc-f�`cr.
Do NAc.y E + A L M,4 V4.
DEK iWF
-9 A.C.
TARES T. d --KAT ERiNE V» L i 1XI
z6�.o Wi
G,
jxo#341,-
`/4 y 50A 14 /� I - - -
UA
rs.
j� s••
M
«ir'riry�
Irwin 6
l
jehwaz
e.1
p
�.
V L,,,` 3,7
rC 2
N
ode
L v
bq � ti
y
Ori A. Go!/i/on
DUKART WkSAmp-T-
G-
MA"EK.
�qoar
a A. a r. E► AL.
{�
1
2.oa 4c.
6u1r�arc C BrYn,E/?�+�r7 d r► hC-
�L ao6-
HAR.T.Y 14 MAKo..ARET- A.
KLEIat S
% wAuACE (RADA
KaWt4
2bao3- cz..
/ Ac.
YYrrm 1 8 Gi-acer
8 Lo z� ,ahr�son
d6ZO-A'1
�• 8vc-f�`cr.
Do NAc.y E + A L M,4 V4.
DEK iWF
-9 A.C.
TARES T. d --KAT ERiNE V» L i 1XI
z6�.o Wi
G,
jxo#341,-
`/4 y 50A 14 /� I - - -
UA
`SUBJECT" PROPERTY
NORTH T
SCALE 1%200'
M
y
l
p
rC 2
N
bq � ti
DUKART WkSAmp-T-
r3
MA"EK.
2 -G!
`SUBJECT" PROPERTY
NORTH T
SCALE 1%200'
M
Applicant
Name:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Date of Application
Fee Paid
Last First nitial
Address: �1/s CI �i VL• // 'S� / ��
Number & Street City State Zip
Telephone Number: --JS %
Owner ((-�
Name: )'Y) �.
Last First Initial
A
Case No. �9---3q
Address:
Number
& Street City State Zip
Street Location of
Property in Question:
S
Z. S el � u' ��
—
'� /�AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO 3
Legal Description
of Property:
S' 297`FOF N 943.1 FT
OFt�1.'-5'764`4-2; FT; -OF E 836.42
I FTAOF�tii0T.j.38;,6• .ALL' OF LOT
.s
BEG==N-S=A/4. LINE —
.44"EX.•
,703.4;FT,;S';OF!?CENASEC i24^
'28-X23-•E-�72.41`:FT �S� 179.7 _
W TO; E_.LINE'.DODD• RD NE
ON"••SAID E,LINE',TO• NW. COR
OFTE-�W
N, TO�PTE703.4EFTOS'
11/4 LINE' .FT• T044EG
-E•:170 _
002yE0
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision Approval
Plan Approval
Wetlands Permit
Other
W.A. Lang Co.
375JACKSONST SUITE500
SAINT PAUI MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 227-8851
RICHARD G. POORE, CPCU
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIOENT
November 16, 1987
WV 17 1987
Mr. Howard Dahlgren
City Planner
City of Mendota Heights
750 So. Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Dear Howard:
Herewith the copy of the proposed design for the garage addition
to our house. You will note it has been approved by Jack McMahon,
my neighbor.
As requested, I have enclosed 15 copies of the drawings in
reduction together with the application to the Planning Commission
of the City of Mendota Heights.
I trust you will find the enclosed in order and I shall await
your further advice.
Best personal regards,
W.A.,- G '0.
i I
V
r
chard G. Poore, CPCU
Executive Vice President
RGP/ab
Enclosures
P.S. Also enclosed is one full scale copy
of the diagrams.
I -
it
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and Cit or
From: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
Subject: Building Permit Approval for Cray Research Computer
Room Addn. Phase 3.5
DISCUSSION•
Staff has met with Mark Merrill with the Architectural
Alliance, Eric Lindahl with Cray Research and James Frisell
with McGough Construction Company, Inc. to discuss Cray's
proposed computer room addition. This addition. is proposed
to be constructed on the South West corner of Cray's property
adjacent to Hwy 13. The proposed one story addition will
contain 8,300 sq. ft., 5,200 sq. ft. of the proposed addition
will be used for computer room, 1,100'sq. ft. storage, 1,200
sq. ft. of computer mech. equipment, 600 sq. ft of loading
dock space and the remainder for circulation space.
Cray has indicated that no additional parking will be
required. Their present parking facilities on site are now
at about 80 to 85% capacity. Staff concurs with Cray. A
part of the construction site is wooded with soft wood trees
such as boxelder and some of these trees will need to be
removed. Cray has stated that they will be planting more
trees on this site which is already heavily landscaped.
Mark Merrill has,with a letter to Mayor and City Council,
requested approval for the addition as proposed (see
attached drawings and letter of request).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff can see no technical reasons why this request for
a building permit should not be approved, subject to staff
review of complete documents as they are presented by the
architect.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If City Council wishes to implement the staff
recommendation to approve the building permit, subject to
staff review, it should pass a motion of approval.
Architectural Alliance
400 Clifton Avenue South. Minneapolis. Minnesota 55403
(612) 871-5703
Architecture • Planning • Interior Design
Mayor Charles Mertensotto and City Council
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
November 23, 1987
Re: Computer Room Addition
Cray Research Phase 3.5
Commission No. 8765
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
We are writing on behalf -of Cray Research to request approval by the Mendota heights
City Council for construction of an 8,300 ± square foot addition to the existing 105,000
± square foot office/research facility owned by Cray Research. It is located at 1440
Northland Drive in the southwest corner of Mendota Heights.
Attached are several documents which graphically describe the proposed project. As has
been necessary for the past several construction projects undertaken by Cray on their
site, this project will need to be designed and constructed very quickly. Occupancy is
scheduled for April 1, 1988. Consequently, the "fast-track" method of expediting
construction is being employed.
Design documents have .not yet been completed, however, in order to meet the construction
schedule, excavation and foundation work needs to begin early in December, 1987.
The plan of the existing site and facility are difficult to comprehend. The site
consists basically of an east half and a west half. Initially (1976 ±) Cray Research
purchased the east half (we call it the "upper site") and built Phase I (25,000 S.F.)
and Phase II (40,000 S.F.) on it. The west half ("lower site"), which is approximately
25 feet lower in elevation than the east site, was purchased later (1980 +) to guard
against the possibility of construction by another party between the building and the
Minnesota River.
In 1987, due to their great need for additional space, Cray decided to build on the
"lower site". The 30,000 square foot Phase III facility was the result. Phases I and
II are three stories high. Phase III is four stories high and is situated such that its
First Floor is two stores below that of Phases I and II. It is connected to Phases I
and II by a two-story link.
In 1984, a two-story 10,000 square foot distribution center was added to the east end of
Phase II, and the Main Receiving Dock and Service Drive were modified. It was converted
to use as a Computer Room early in 1987.
A written description of the new project follows:
Minneapolis/Saint Paul • Twin Cities International Airport • Phoenix
Page Two
November 23, 1987
I. The new construction is to consist of an 8,300 square foot one-story addition
located at the southwest end of the four-story Phase III portion of the existing
facility. It will increase the size of the existing 5,000 square foot Phase III
Computer Room, located on the First Floor, to approximately 10,000 square feet.
Besides 5,200 square feet of new computer- room space, it will contain
approximately 1,100 "square feet of storage, 1,200 square feet of computer
mechanical equipment space, 600 square feet of new receiving dock space, and
approximately 200 square feet of circulation space.
2. No additional staff members are expected to be employed to occupy the space. No
addition parking accommodations are expected to be necessary.
3. The new construction will be partially earth sheltered. The Phase III Computer
Room is presently earth covered and only its south wall is exposed. The intent
for this project is to extend the existing computer facility to the southwest
parallel to an existing ridge such that the new facility can also be earth
covered.
4. . The exterior material is to be white stucco to match the finish of the existing
building. The exposed portion of the exterior wall is not expected to contain
windows.
5. The Receiving Dock is being designed to be partially screened from the majority of
the "lower site."
6. Cray Research and its employees are very sensitive to the natural environment.
There are trees bordering the south edge of the facility which screen the building
from I494 and there are trees on the lower site which are not to be affected by
this project. Several small to medium softwood trees will be removed to
accommodate this project and Cray is very reluctant -to lose them.
Cray has planted trees on the lower site in the past and more are contemplated for
this project. Disturbed areas will be sodded and/or seeded.
We look forward to presenting this project to you December 1, 1987. Should there be any
questions needing answers prior to the City Council Meeting, please do not hesitate to
call me or Scott Newland.
Sincerely,
r
MARK MERRILL, AIA
Principal
MM/lah
cc: Lindahl
Lewis
Newland
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
NOVEMBER 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City i�or
FROM: Larry E. Shaughnessy, Treasurer
SUBJECT: City Hall Financing
HISTORY•
The general concept for providing City Hall funds has
been approved and as a part of the program, it is intended to
allocate funds from existing balances to complete the
project. Based on the bids approved, we will need to
transfer $212,000 to the Building Fund.
As previously indicated, these funds can come from the
following sources:
I.R. Fund $25,000
Engineering Fund 25,000
Utility Reserve Fund 25,000
General Fund 137,000
TOTAL $ 212,000
These amounts include the addition of the in -ground
water system as well as the other alternatives.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Approve transfers during 1987 of the amounts necessary
to fund the City Hall construction by adopting the attached
Resolution No. 87-_, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND TRANSFERS
FOR CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION".
LES:madlr
attachment
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND TRANSFERS FOR CITY HALL
CONSTRUCTION
Be it resolved by the City Council that there is hereby
authorized the following fund transfers from various City
Fund balances to the City Hall Fund to pay for construction
and equipping the City Hall:
I.R. Fund $ 25,000
Utility Reserve Fund 25,000
Engineering Fund 25,000
General Fund 137,000
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights this 1st day of December, 1987.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
NOVEMBER 25, 1987
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. a �Fity Administrator
SUBJECT: 1988 Legislative Policies for the Association of
Metropo.'litan Municipalities
Enclosed with Council packets only is a copy of the
AMM's proposed legislative policies for 1988. These policies
were as recommended by the Legislative Policy Study
Committee, and ratified by the Board of Directors (including
me) .
I will be attending the policy adoption dinner next
Thursday evening, December 3, as the -Mendota Heights
representative. The policies are being placed on the agenda
so that Council can express any concerns it might have.
The AMM is also setting up a legislative contact network
for the 1988 session. Each city will be asked to designate a
contact person(s) to phone legislators in support of AMM
policy positions as they come up during the session. If any
of you are interested in being involved with that, either as
a general contact person, or on a particular issue of
interest, please let me know. Legislative contacts will be
asked to attend two or three legislative briefing sessions
with AMM staff during the session.
ACTION REQUIRED
Council should discuss any concerns and advise staff of
them.
KDF:madlr
attached
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 24, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council, Cit�6strator
FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Annual Board of Review
INFORMATION
We have received notification from the County Assessor's Office of
the date and time for the 1988 Board of Review. The Assessor has asked
that Council confirm the recommended date, Wednesday, April 13, 1988,
or select a different date. Regular Council meetings next April will
be scheduled on the 5th and 19th. Tuesday, Aril 12th is an open date
for the Assessors Office, and Council could, if it so desired, set the
12th as the Board of Review date.
RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUIRED
Not knowing Council's preference for date, I have no
recommendation. Council should act to designate either April 12th or
13th, at 7:30 P.M. as the Annual Board of Review date or select an
alternate date for approval by the Assessor's Office.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
NOVEMBER 23, 1987
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. :Fra 1Administrator
SUBJECT: Respons to Council Request Concerning Public Works
Use of Overtime Hours
During.my evaluation session last month, Councilmember
Hartmann raised a question about the effect of the 4 1/2 day
work week for public works employees on payment of overtime
hours. The purpose of this memo is to respond to that
concern.
Prior to 1985, our public works -employees worked five 8 -
hour days. During contract negotiations for 1985, we amended
the contract such that it would be possible for the City to
unilaterally change the work schedule to 4 nine hour days and
a four hour Friday. After the contract was approved by both
the bargaining unit and the Council, I recommended that we
adopt the amended work schedule, and the employees began
working under it in May of 1985.
I recommended the revised work schedule at the request
of the employees, and to increase employee morale. It was
not "marketed" as a way that the City could save any
significant amount of money, and I hope there were no
expectations as such.
The only direct cost impact on the City would be in the
earning of overtime hours at time and one-half rates. Our
payment of overtime is almost exclusively for response to
snow storms. Statistical probability would lead one to
believe that changing the work schedule would have no overall
effect on the payment of overtime hours one way or the other.
The employees are on call at regular rates 40 hours per week,
regardless of which schedule they are operating under. If a
snow storm occurs on Monday through Thursday, we get an
additional regular hour of work out of them without having to
pay overtime. However, if a storm occurs on Friday
afternoon, we certainly would be liable for a greatly
increased amount of overtime, since the employees would go
off regular rates at 11:00 A.M.
I asked accountant Shirley Shannon to take a look at our
experience with overtime compensation during the past four
winter seasons, two prior to the amendment to the schedule,
and two under the revised schedule. The results are:
TOTAL OVERTIME COMPENSATION HOURS FOR WINTER 83Z84 AND 84/85
MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY 316.0
WIXOPIM
55.5
TOTAL 371.5
TOTAL OVERTIME COMPENSATION HOURS FOR WINTER 85/86 AND 86/87
MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY 177
FRIDAY
158
TOTAL 335
I think this demonstrates that the impacts on overtime
compensation were exactly as expected. The City does in fact
pay many more overtime hours on Friday afternoon, but there
is an equivalent reduction in overtime compensation on Monday
through Thursday. When the impact of different levels of
snowfall is factored out, the net results seems to be that
there is little change in the total number of overtime hours
compensated.
I think the revised work schedule has had the intended
benefit of increasing employee morale, and this served us
well during the very difficult labor negotiations last year
when the public works bargaining unit was asked -to take a
lesser cost of living increase than other employees because
of the results of comparable worth.
ACTION REQUIRED•
This memo is being provided for information only, and no
further action is required.
KDF:madlr
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 25, 1987
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Borings; Inc. - Claim for Extra Costs
Job No. 8422
Improvement No. 84, Project No. 4
Within the Yorkton contract there was a casing pipe bored under Trunk
Highway 110 to carry a sanitary sewer line. The specification called for a
12" minimum diameter pipetwhich the Contractor used. During the boring
operation he hit an obstruction 55 feet in and had to abandon that pipe. He
later bored a new, larger diameter pipe next to the 12" to allow for entry
to remove obstructions. The contractor now feels that he is -due compensa-
tion for the pipe left in place and higher unit costs for the new larger
diameter casing pipe (see attached letters). Staff denied his claim and
turned his letters over to the City Attorney. The City Attorney asks to
discuss the matter with Council in a closed meeting.
401LY TPtul
Mr. Thomas Hart
Winthrop and Weinstein
1800 Conwed Tower
S t . Paul, MN 5�18�--�
Yorkton Ctntre Pointe South City of Mendota Heights
Dear Mr.
Thank you for discussing Boring's claim with me on
October 28. I expected the City to take the position that the
claim was meritless, if only for posturing purposes; but, given
the strength of Boring's claim and the substantial discount
offered, I expected a strong interest in negotiation.
Among the statements you made in our conversation was
that Brown & Cris and Boring were free to make whatever further
subsurface exploration they deemed necessary. I would first
note that the law does not require bidders to make their own
independent investigation. See Zontelli & Sons v. City of
Nashwank, 373 N.W.2d 744, 752, 754 Minn. 985 . Regardless of
the right to rely upon the indications in the contract
documents, bidders would not have been able to take their own
borings in any case -and had no choice but to rely upon the
information supplied by the City. I doubt that MnDOT would have
allowed any soil or any drilling rigs parked in the ditches or
the highway, and I know that it would not allow any drilling
through the highway surface. If access within the right-of-way
had indeed been available, as you implied, then I am curious why
the City's soil borings were all outside the right-of-way.
The only other justification you used for denying the
validity of the claim was your contention that a specification
allowing the use of 12" casing was not an "indication" for
purposes of the differing site conditions clause. Apparently,
you are taking the position that the 12" casing would have to be
required before it would be an indication of subsurface
conditions. I direct your attention to Metropolitan Sewerage
FAeYANSKE, SVOSODA, WESTRA, HOLPER & DAMS
4160h
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
M. t. FADYANSKE
GERALD L. S
GARY C. EIDSON
MA
MARK WESTRA
RA
1000 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE CENTER
KtVfN V. ELLIS
R
RICHARD O. HOLDER
400 NORTH ROBERT STREET
VINCENT W. KING
RObCRT I. DAVIS
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
KYLE C. HART
MARK G. PETERSON
TELEPHONE 612-228-0115
GARY F.ALSPECHT
JERCMIAH J. KCARNEY
TELECOPIER 612-228-0734
STEVEN W. MEYER
GORDON I. OENDLCR
JAMES F. CHRISTAMERT./.HRtsTOFFEL t
II5O INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 7S
MARK J. KALLA
SCOTT LLOYD ANDERSON
920 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
JOHN R. MCDONALD
THOMAS L. bind
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
THOMAS R.OLSONJUdITH
CHRISTOPHER A. ELLIOTT
E.KROW
MARY M. 8ICRKAMP
TELEPHONE 612-338-0115
HOLLY A. PATHS
JEFFRtY C. PAULSON
TELtCOPIER 612-338-3857
KAREN M, EDWARDS
PAUL L. RAT CLLC
gyp
October G C7
October 28, 1707
JEFFREY C.APPCLOUIST
DEAN e. THOMSON
401LY TPtul
Mr. Thomas Hart
Winthrop and Weinstein
1800 Conwed Tower
S t . Paul, MN 5�18�--�
Yorkton Ctntre Pointe South City of Mendota Heights
Dear Mr.
Thank you for discussing Boring's claim with me on
October 28. I expected the City to take the position that the
claim was meritless, if only for posturing purposes; but, given
the strength of Boring's claim and the substantial discount
offered, I expected a strong interest in negotiation.
Among the statements you made in our conversation was
that Brown & Cris and Boring were free to make whatever further
subsurface exploration they deemed necessary. I would first
note that the law does not require bidders to make their own
independent investigation. See Zontelli & Sons v. City of
Nashwank, 373 N.W.2d 744, 752, 754 Minn. 985 . Regardless of
the right to rely upon the indications in the contract
documents, bidders would not have been able to take their own
borings in any case -and had no choice but to rely upon the
information supplied by the City. I doubt that MnDOT would have
allowed any soil or any drilling rigs parked in the ditches or
the highway, and I know that it would not allow any drilling
through the highway surface. If access within the right-of-way
had indeed been available, as you implied, then I am curious why
the City's soil borings were all outside the right-of-way.
The only other justification you used for denying the
validity of the claim was your contention that a specification
allowing the use of 12" casing was not an "indication" for
purposes of the differing site conditions clause. Apparently,
you are taking the position that the 12" casing would have to be
required before it would be an indication of subsurface
conditions. I direct your attention to Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission v. R.W. Construction Company, 72 Wis.2d 365, 381, 241
N.W.2d 371, 376-77 (1976), which holds that a contract provision
allowing the use of compressed air to control groundwater
indicated that conditions were such that compressed air could be
successfully used for that purpose. Likewise, the specification
allowing the use of 12" casing indicated •that subsurface
conditions were such that a 12" casing could be successfully
jacked under Highway 110.
I would further note that you failed to address the
explicit representations in the soil boring logs. These logs
showed sand, which is consistent with Boring's experience in the
area and the general soil conditions throughout the area.
I have asked Boring to put together all of the
unexpected costs•.incurred in augering under Highway 110. Unless
the City quickly•expresses its willingness to negotiate, Boring
will be adjusting its claim to reflect those costs and will no
longer offer the substantial discount of its present offer.
Sincerel ,
JRober Huber
RJH:meq
cc: Peter Costa
Donald Page
Jim Danielson
M. T. FABYANSKE
GERALOL.SVOBOOA
MARK W. WESTRA
RICHARD 0. HOLPER
ROBERT L. DAVIS
MARK C. PETERSON
JEREMIAH J. KEARNEY
ROBERT J. HUGER
JAMES F. CHRISTOFFEL
SCOTT LLOYD ANDERSON
THOMAS L. BIRO
CHPtSTOPHER A. ELLIOTT
MARY M. BIERKAMP
FABYANSKE, SVOBODA► WESTRA, HOLPER & DAYIS
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
1000 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE CENTER
400 NORTH ROBERT STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SSIOI
TELEPHONE 812-228-OtiS
TELtCOPIER 612-228-0734
Mr. Donald Page
Brown & Cris, Inc.
19740 Kenrick Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
IISO INTERNATIONAL CENTRE n
920 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS402
TELEPHONE 612-338-0115
TELECOPIER 612-338-3857
September 3, 1987
Re: Yorkton Centre Pointe Southe
Dear Mr. Page:
I am writing on behalf of Boring, Inc., to
legal authority for its claim for extra compensation
unexpected difficulties caused by the differing site
encountered in boring under Highway 110.
DEAN b. THOMSON
GARY C. EIDSON
KEVIN V. ELLIS
VINCENT W. KING
ROBS L.OLSON
KYLE E. HART
GARY F. ALSRECNT
STEVEN W. MEYER
DAVID D. HAMMAROREN
JOHN R. MCDONALD
JUDITH E. KROW
HOLLY A. PATHS
KAREN M.tOWARDS
REPLY TOt 't
St. Paul
provide
for the
conditions
The plans and specifications required an augered
crossing of both road surfaces of Highway 110. Article 31 of
the special conditions of the contract specified that "[t]he
casing pipe used in the jacking operations shall be minimum 12"
diameter and have a minimum 3/8" thickness of 35,000 PSI
steel." As you cannot blast in a 12"casing, the specification?
of 12" casing contra-indicated rocks Boulders are not native to
the soil in the area, and logs of soil boring taken alongside
the highway showed sand. Boring, therefore, bid the job under
the assumption that a 12" casing would be sufficient for the
crossing and that no blasting or other special procedures would
be necessary to remove obstructions.
As you know, Boring encountered a boulder at planned
grade after augering 55' -of 12" casing under the northern lanes
of Highway 110. The highway is a fill area, and the rock wad Wo
tprobably part of the fill imported during the construction ofi,
the highway.k It could not have been discovered in a pre-bid
Brown & Cris, Inc.
Page 2
September 3, 1987
site Investigation because you cannot drill through a highway
surface and because you cannot drill on the shoulder without a
permit from MnDOT.
Unable to blast with a 12" casing, Boring had to
abandon the 55' of casing. It then augered a 24" casing
alongside the abandoned casing and was able to blast through the
undisclosed rock under the highway. Unanticipated costs
incurred by Boring include:
0 $20 per l.f. for the 158' of 24" casing materials;
0 the abandoned 55' of 12" casing;
0 blasting materials;
0 increased labor costs caused by the blasting and
the.extended period of time necessary to complete
the boring; and
0 extra dewatering.
,Article 4.2 of the'general conditions allow a contract
price,increase whenever "any-physir',
, I L_cond I t I on., .uncovered off~
revealed at the*site differs materially from 'that''ir)dicated,/
Areflected or referred to in"the Contract Documents." This
clause is designed to benefit -both the owner and the contractor:
the contractor receives extra compensation if adverse subsurface
conditions are encountered, and the owner benefits because
contractors no longer need to add large contingency sums to
their bids to cover the risk of encountering adverse
conditions. Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. City of Nashwauk, 373
N.W.2d 7441 753 (Minn' 1985). The owner, not the contractor,
thus assumes the risk that subsurface conditions will vary from
those indicated in the contract documents. Foster Construction,
C.A. William Bros. Company v. United States, 1 3 Ct.Cl. 586#
6141 435 F.2d8730 887 (1970).
Contract indications of subsurface conditions are not
-
limited to those which are explicit or specificl, like soil
boring logs, but may be proven by inferences and, implications
which need not meet the test for a "misrepresentation" or
"representation," concepts which have a long common-law history
associated with fraud. Foster Construction, 193 Ct.Cl. at 604,
435 F.2d at $81. They "need only be enough to impress or lull a
reasonable bidder." Stock & Grove Inc. v. United States, 204
Ct.Cl. 103, 133-34, 4M F. 629, W) (19/4). Ts exam s:
Brown & Cris, Inc.
Page 3
September 3, 1987
a note in the plans requiring concrete to be
placed "in the dry" indicated that the contractor
would be able to dewater while excavating and thus
excavate in the dry, Foster Construction, 193
Ct.Cl. at 617-22, 435 F.2d at 889-92;
the designation in the plans of a quarry as a
source for armor stone for rip -rap indicated that
the armor stone in that quarry would meet
specifications, Stock & Grove, 204 Ct.Cl. at 134,
493 F.2d at 645;
° a provision allowing the use of compressed air to
control groundwater indicated that conditions were
such that compressed air could be successfully
used for that purpose, Metropolitan Sewera e
Commission v. R.W. Construction Company, Wis.2d
1, 241 N.W.2d 371, 17§777 (1 ;
°
a specified compaction method indicated that the
soil was capable of being compacted to the
required density utilizing that method, Ray D.
Bolander Company -v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 398,
416-19 (1968); cf. McCree & Company v. State, 53
Minn. 295, 3081 91 N.W.2d 714, 722-25 (1 58) (the
specification of a particular compaction method
impliedly warranted that soil conditions were such.
that the required compaction could be achieved
using the specified method);
a note in the plans requiring foundation material
in piers to be capable of resisitng a footing
pressure of 6 tons per sq. ft. indicated that the
subsurface had at least a 6 -ton bearing capacity,
Foster Construction, 193 Ct.Cl. at 622-23, 435
at ; an
the failure of the plans to disclose underlying
roofing layers contra-indicated their existence,
see Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc., 79-2 BCA 114092 (ASBCA
1919).
Despite general disclaimers and other broad exculpatory
provisions, contractors are entitled to rely upon contractual
indications of subsurface conditions and do not have a duty to
Independently investigate. Zontelli & Sons, 373 N.W.2d at 752,
754.
Brown & Cris, Inc.
Page 4
September 3, 1987
The soil boring logs and the provision allowing the use
of 12" casing mistakenly indicated that subsurface conditions
were such that a 12" diameter casing could be successfully
augered at planned grade under Highway 110. The difference
between contract indications and actual conditions is i
illustrated by the unanticipated boulder at planned grade, the
necessity of abandoning the original alignment, and the need for
24" casing. As the unanticipated and uncompensated costs
incurred by Boring are attributable to this difference, Boring
is contractually entitled to an upward subcontract price
adjustment. See G.en.Cond., Art.
4.2.6.
Boring has to date asserted a claim for only the:
abandoned casing and the increase in materials costs for the
realignment. It has not yet included its increased labor and
dewatering costs as part of its claim, although it will unless
its claim is settled quickly.
Please note that Article 11.4.4 of the general
conditions entitles Boring -to recover any attorney fees related
its claim. As its attorney fees can only go higher if the claim
is not resolved quickly, it is in the best interests of your
company and the City (which bears the ultimate responsibility)
to give immediate attention to this matter. Please call me if
you have any questions.
R
RJH/bhl
cc: Jim Danielson, P.E.
City Engineer
City Hall
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Sherman Winthrop
Winthrop, Weinstine & Sexton
1800 Conwed Tower
St. Paul, MN 55101
Peter Costa
Boring, Inc.
3269 Centerville Road
St. Paul, MN 55127
t
"34"
VT
.. . ..... ..
:77
7%
.... ......
�Pl
— Y4
R. 71
i, t ul
n.
14.1,1
-3 •s�1'ii 1�:;}i•.•!► �3��}i•';'p. �•!''+�"• 1''i •i}. ' 1' .•r t ��, !t , ,
l; -kilt
q;", p
it j"t Zi
H'! .1jo
lu tit -
mu:
'Ir
to
lit
M I'S
Vj
Of
Ail,
Au I
%_,4 v
. 4v,
go,
N!v,.!t
i1j. to• .1. 4.
.'j. fe. V
4
.4 AIN ..i ,
.,j rw 'Xi
TIAj f�
1,
If- -i:
A
ifx;!
, jj;�,
1, .
I P..
IV
17
t fit -0
its
10
-Mon. ""IX
4.
CHITECTS;,,Sr
i'rr I
2141
W
.1a F.
)Ai H 012?1430
jar