2012-05-01 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 1, 2012 — 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Acknowledgement of April 17,2012 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledgement of February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
c. Acknowledgement of April 11, 2012 Airport Relations Commission Minutes
d. Approval of Sign Permit at 2060 Centre Pointe Drive — People Incorporated Mental Health
Services
e. Amendment to the ICMA-RC 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to Add Roth Provisions
f. Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy
g. Approval of Temporary Seasonal Hires
h. Ordering of Feasibility Report for Crown Point and Overlook Neighborhood Rehabilitation
i. Ordering of Feasibility Report for Hunter and Orchard Neighborhood Improvements
j. Approval of Contractors List
k. Approval of Claims List
I. Approval of March 2012 Treasurer's Report
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations
a. Police Reserve Officer Recognition
b. Rogers Lake Association Request for Weed Control
8. Public Hearings
a. 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License Renewals
9. Unfinished and New Business
a. Accept Bids and Award Contract for Marie Avenue Rehabilitation
b. Planning Case 2012-11, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request — Convent of the
Visitation, 2455 Visitation Drive
c. Planning Case 2012-10, Variance to Side Yard Setback — 862 Wagon Wheel Trail
d. Planning Case 2012-07, Variance to Right of Way Width, Foxwood Lane
e. Dakota County Capital Improvements Program — City Solicited Projects
10.Council Comments
11.Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH FOR
FOXWOOD LANE
WHEREAS, Michael and Michelle Bader (collectively, "Bader ") own property ( "Bader
Property ") adjacent to Foxwood Lane in the City of Mendota Heights ( "City ");
WHEREAS, Bader has applied for a variance from the City's 60 -foot right -of -way width
requirement pursuant to Planning Application 2012 -07, to allow Foxwood Lane to be upgraded
within the existing 50 -foot right -of -way;
WHEREAS, Bader has indicated that Bader intends to subdivide the Bader Property at
some point in the future but a formal subdivision application has not yet been provided to the
City;
WHEREAS, any subdivision of the Bader Property would require upgrades to Foxwood
Lane and Bader has asked the City to consider the variance request before incurring the costs and
expenses associated with developing a detailed subdivision plan;
WHEREAS, any subdivision request will need to be separately evaluated by the City for
compliance with other sections of the City's Code and standards;
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
application at their regular meeting February 28, 2012;
WHEREAS, the public hearing on this application was held open until the regular
meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission on April 24, 2012;
WHEREAS, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the
variance as requested in planning case 2012 -07; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning
Conunission, along with all of the other materials provided by the applicant, staff, neighbors and
members of the public at its regular City Council meeting on May 1, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a
variance to maintain an existing 50 -foot wide right -of -way width for Foxwood Lane when it is
upgraded as proposed in planning case 2012 -07 is hereby DENIED based on the following
findings of fact:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH FOR
FOXWOOD LANE
WHEREAS, Michael and Michelle Bader (collectively, "Bader ") own property ( "Bader
Property ") adjacent to Foxwood Lane in the City of Mendota Heights ( "City ");
WHEREAS, Bader has applied for a variance from the City's 60 -foot right -of -way width
requirement pursuant to Planning Application 2012 -07, to allow Foxwood Lane to be upgraded
within the existing 50 -foot right -of -way;
WHEREAS, Bader has indicated that Bader intends to subdivide the Bader Property at
some point in the future but a folinal subdivision application has not yet been provided to the
City;
WHEREAS, any subdivision of the Bader Property would require upgrades to Foxwood
Lane and Bader has asked the City to consider the variance request before incurring the costs and
expenses associated with developing a detailed subdivision plan;
WHEREAS, any subdivision request will need to be separately evaluated by the City for
compliance with other sections of the City's Code and standards;
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Cormmission held a public hearing on this
application at their regular meeting February 28, 2012;
WHEREAS, the public hearing on this application was held open until the regular
meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission on April 24, 2012;
WHEREAS, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the
variance as requested in planning case 2012 -07; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, along with all of the other materials provided by the applicant, staff, neighbors and
members of the public at its regular City Council meeting on May 1, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a
variance to maintain an existing 50 -foot wide right -of -way width for Foxwood Lane when it is
upgraded as proposed in planning case 2012 -07 is hereby APPROVED with the following
findings of fact:
1. The nonconforming size of the existing 50 -foot Foxwood Lane right -of -way was not
created by the applicant.
( )
Mendota Heights City Council
ITEM 5A
April 17, 2012
Page 1 P1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota.
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting
Councilrnembers Povolny and Vitelli.
and Petschel.
CALL TO ORDER
to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present:
The following members were absent: Councihnembers Duggan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Kr ebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councihnember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and
approval. Councilmember Povolny moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and
authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein; pulling items F) Approval of
Public Works Seasonal hires; G) Acceptance of Park Bench Donation; and K) Award of Professional
Services contract for Design of Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Highway 110 and Dodd Road
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Acknowledgement of April 2, 2012 City Council Minutes
Acknowledgement of March 13, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
Acicnowledgement of March 27, 2012 Planning Commission. Minutes
Approval of 2012 Workers' Compensation Insurance Premiums
March 2012 Fire Department Report
Approval of Public Works Seasonal Hires
Acceptance of Park Bench Donation
Approval of RFP for Employee Benefits Agent/Broker of Record
Mendota Heights City Council
i. Special Event Liquor License — St. Peter's Church/Dakota �Guildoobf Children's Hospital Association
_
j. Approval of Quotes to Remove Utility Poles at Historic __o
k. Award of Professional Services Contract for Design of Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Highway
110 and Dodd Road
1. Approval of Sign Permit at 1400 Commerce Drive — Lennox Parks Plus
in. Approve the Contractors List
n. Approve the Claims List
Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F: APPROVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS SEASONAL HIRES
City Administrator Justin Miller explained that one person identified in back to work tot the
Councilmembers before the meeting has indicated that he will not
That erson is Mr. Daniel Husbands. City Administrator Miller requested that council approve the list
p
with his name removed.
Councilmember Vitelli moved Approval of Public Works Seasonal Hires with Mr. Daniel Husbands
name removed.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G: ACCEPTANCE OF PARK BENCH DONATION
Ashas
sistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained that aparlkle danyon onation progr
don ted a
been on the books for quite some time. However, it has been a little
pa
s
rk bench. Ms. Elizabeth Moran is donating a bench in honor of a fri Park dews looking oo place e this th
bench in Ivy Falls Park on the hillside that overlooks the ball field.
location and it works just fine for them. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this request at
their last meeting and approved it.
residents
Ms. Elizabeth Moran, 2231 Bent Tree Lane, expressed her appreciation t the e.c T i for giving
donation is
such an opportunity to give back to the community and honor people tl e Michael Reding, who died three
in memory of a friend, and of many people of Mendota Heiga hts,
the a o. Mr. Reiling lived adjacent to Ivy Hills Parks and it is the perfect location to provide his
mon g
friends a place to remember him. tion of
Mayor Krebsbach expressed her appreciation for this do Bench t on ark bench.
Councilmember Vitelli moved Acceptance of
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
April 17, 2012 p 2
Page 2
Mendota Heights City Council
April 17, 2012 P 3
Page 3
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K: AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT HIGHWAY 110 AND DODD ROAD
City Engineer John Mazzitello explained that this is the next step in a project process that has been
worked on for several years. In 2009, a feasibility study was completed by a consulting firm
recommending different alternatives with cost estimates for pedestrian improvements at this intersection.
At that time, council chose to pursue the at grade intersection safety improvements and pursued a
transportation enhancements grant from the Metropolitan Council. The city was successful in obtaining
the grant in fiscal year 2013 and the contract up for approval is the design of those pedestrian safety
improvements.
A request for proposals was issued in February 2012, five consulting firms were invited and the proposal
was posted for public review to anyone else who would wish to submit a proposal. Three proposals
were received from consulting fines. After the initial review of those documents, the three consultants
came to a virtual dead heat. Additional reviews were completed with other staff members and MnDOT
was asked to review the proposals as well. After those reviews, it was decided to recornrnend to council
that they award the design contract to SRF Consulting Group for the design fee not to exceed $89,546.
This money would be paid for out of the MSA account.
Mayor Krebsbach stated that these funds have been budgeted for the last two years. She also asked for a
list of some of the projects this group has worked with. Mr. Mazzitello replied that in their proposal,
they cite the Dodd Road /Highway 110 feasibility study, County Road 15 Pedestrian Street Crossing in
Hennepin County — near County Road 110; Trunk Highway 41 and the Minnewashta Regional Park
Trail Crossing in Chanhassen; and they cite Trunk Highway 241 and County Road 19 in St. Michael,
MN. All of these intersections are very similar to the one at Dodd and 110.
Councilmember Vitelli, for benefit of the residents listening, asked for a brief schedule because of the
busy nature of the intersection. Mr. Mazzitello replied that the design would be taking place over the
course of this summer, and it is anticipated that the consultant will provide updates with the council
throughout the process, with a final design completed by approximately October 2012. Because the
construction funds are fiscal year 2013, the project cannot be bid for construction until after October 1,
2012 and there would not be enough construction season left in 2012 to get the project done. So the
plan is to bid the project in February or March of 2013 and it would be constructed over the course of
next summer. One of the aspects of the proposal that SRF scored very high on was their construction
scheduling. They are proposing to do all of the traffic disturbing work in off -peak hours. Although
there would be traffic disturbance during the construction, their intent is to not do it during the heaviest
times.
Councilmember Povolny moved to Award of Professional Services Contract for Design of Pedestrian
Safety Improvements at Highway 110 and Dodd Road. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
Mendota Heights City Council
April 17, 2012 P 4
Page 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener stated that recently he reported to the council that all of the
updates to the outdoor warnings sirens had been completed. These sirens were tested a few weeks ago
and all are working properly. The place to find the checklist for at -home preparedness is at
http : / /www.ready.gov /. On Thursday, April 19 at 1:45 p.m. there will be a test of all of the outdoor
warning sirens and all of the schools, as well as City Hall, will be practicing for what happens in the
event of a tornado. Later that evening, at 6:55 p.m., the sirens will sound again. This would be the time
for families to practice their response to severe weather.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) ST. THOMAS ACADEMY FIELD HOUSE PROJECT CONDUIT FINANCING
Mr. Robley Evans, Business Manager at St. Thomas Academy, gave a brief background on the project.
He shared an image of the proposed construction of a Student Activity Center. The academy is also
planning on putting in a new exit/entrance into the parking lot directly across from the exit/entrance to
the ice arena parking lot. The building would include a large activity center with two two -court
facilities, classrooms, and a fine arts suite for band and art classes. This is a phased in project with the
entire exterior being constructed first, along with the lobby and all of the gym area. The remainder of
the inside would be finished in stages as additional funds are raised.
Mayor Krebsbach asked for clarification that the financing the academy is asking for is $6 million this
year, Phase 1, and then another $3 million. Mr. Evans replied that the entire project is an $18 million
project. They have raised 50% in cash and 50% in pledges; the pledge amount is what they are doing
the financing for. They have raised $6,350,000, which is in the bank, and they are doing the financing
through the city and with US Bank for the next $6 million, which will get the first phase done. The
academy is still out fundraising to raise the additional $6 million ($3 million in cash and $3 million in
pledges) to finish off the project.
Mayor Krebsbach asked for clarification that the first phase would cost approximately $12 million; $6
million in cash and $6 million in pledges being financed; and then the remaining phases would cost
approximately $6 million; $3 million in cash and $3 million in pledge financing; for a total of $18
million. And the additional $3 million in pledge financing has already been built into this conduit
financing agreement. Mr. Evans confirmed.
Mr. Evans continued by explaining that construction would begin in June of 2012 and would take
approximately thirteen months, or June of 2013; and would be open in the fall of 2013. In the
meantime, if the academy has raised the funds for some or all of the additional parts, that is something
that they could still start in January or February of 2013 and still get done by June of 2013.
Mayor Krebsbach asked Finance Director Kristen Schabacker to explain what the council would be
approving this evening and the timeline for what would be a full $9 million. Ms. Schabacker stated that
this is to hold a public hearing for the issuance of debt for this project. The city has $10 million of bank -
qualified debt that they can issue each year. For 2012, St. Thomas has requested that they receive $6
million of that. There is an additional amount that is available to the city for its street projects. St.
Thomas is requesting $6 million this year and then an additional $3 million in 2013. The public hearing
Mendota Heights City Council
April 17, 2012 P 5
Page 5
could be held tonight for the issuance of this debt. The city acts as a pass - through for these bonds and is
under no obligation to repay that debt. The public hearing does not need to exceed past tonight. The
city typically charges a fee for doing this conduit debt. The city will be charging eighty cents per one
thousand issued, so the fee to St. Thomas will be $4,800. They will also provide the city with an escrow
for any additional costs that the city would incur.
Councilmember Vitelli moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Povolny seconded the
motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND
SALE OF FACILITY SERIES 1
THE EX EC UTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY
PROJECT). Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
A) ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
REHABILITATION AND DIANE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION
City Engineer John Mazzitello explained that this bid award was for two of the three road rehabilitation
projects to be completed this summer. Those two projects are Mendota Heights Road from Delaware to
Dodd, and then the Diane Road Neighborhood Rehabilitation, consisting of Diane Road, Rae Court,
Adeline Court, Nina Court, Barbara Court, Douglas Road east of Victoria, Celia Drive, and Eagle Ridge
Road. These projects are rehabilitations, essentially pavement replacements. Bids were advertised for
and a bid opening was held on April 11, 2012. Five bids were received and at the bid opening,
McNamara Contracting was the low bidder. McNamara is the same company that has done the
Knollwood Rehabilitation, as well as reconstructing Wagon Wheel. Their bid price was $1,073,851.80
and staff recommends awarding the bid to McNamara Contracting for that amount.
Mayor Krebsbach drew attention to the timeline; awarding the bid tonight, construction to begin in
May /June 2012, complete construction August 3, 2012, and the assessment hearing is October 2012.
Public meetings have been held and residents are aware of their assessments.
Councilmember Vitelli moved Approval TAHEIGHRTS ROAD REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201110) A J
ONTRACT FOR THE MENDOTA
AND DIANE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201106).
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
Mendota Heights City Council April 17, 2012 P 6
Page 6
COUNCIL COMMENTS
At the request of Councilmember Povolny, Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek shared the
details of three upcoming events:
1) Spring Clean Up for 2012 is Saturday, April 28, 2012 at Mendakota Park from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m.
2) On Saturday, May 5, Cinco de Mayo, Mendota Heights Athletic Association will be doing a fund
raiser at Par 3
3) Weekend of June 2, Annual Parks Celebration
Mayor Krebsbach requested an update on the schedule for Par 3. Assistant City Administrator Sedlacek
replied that Par 3 opened on March 24. Up to this point, it has been opening at 12:00 noon on weekdays
and either 10:00 or noon, depending on weather, on the weekends. The hours now are to open at 10:00
a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. on weekends, still dependent on weather conditions. Residents are
encouraged to call 651 -454 -9822 to verify that someone is at the clubhouse if the weather is
questionable before noon. No matter the weather, the clubhouse will be open at 12:00 noon weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. weekends.
Mayor Krebsbach noted the following Athena Award winners:
Rachel Friberg from Henry Sibley. Her sports are volleyball and hockey. Rachel will be going to
University of St. Thomas.
Erin Anderson from Visitation. Her sports are cross - country, Nordic skiing, and track. Erin will be
going to Boston College.
ADJOURN
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Sandra Krebsbach
Mayor
ATTEST:
Justin Miller
Acting City Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, 1V1lrTNESO T .a
ITEM 5B
P7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 28, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Couunissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and
Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Roston. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake
Sedlacek, Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman.
Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of January 24, 2012, Minutes
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012 -05
Sheila and Ab Hilo
2225 Apache Street
Variance to the Front Yard Setback
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sheila and Ab Hilo for approval of a variance to the front yard
setback.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants were proposing an addition to the front of their R -1 single family home. The
proposed addition would extend into the 30 foot front yard setback by four feet. The applicants are seeking a four
foot variance to allow for the dining room addition and feel their request would be to use the property in a
reasonable manner.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended the Commission approve the variance, as a
reasonable accommodation to permit reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and to permit the home to be
improved nearer to contemporary single family housing in the community. The proposed addition would not appear
to be excessive from a square footage standpoint for the use. Without the variance, reasonable expansion for this
type of improvement does not seem feasible.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the neighboring properties with additions were completed through the
variance process due to the small lot size. Mr. Grittman explained he was uncertain if variances were approved but
he knew the lot sizes to be an issue in this neighborhood.
Sheila Hilo, 2225 Apache Street, thanked the Planning Commission for considering her request. She indicated the
dining room addition would add great value to her home as the current eating area was quite small.
1
Planning Connnissi017 Minutes
Februa y 28, 2012
P8
Conunissioner Magnuson asked if the proposed dining room addition could be reduced in size to fit within the front
yard setback. Mrs. Hilo stated the size could be reduced, but that the smaller size would not meet the needs of her
family.
Commissioner Vilcsnins questioned if other alternatives have been considered. Ms. Hilo stated if the addition were
shifted a kitchen window would be covered and the exterior of the home would look awkward. She explained that
she and her husband had reviewed several scenarios before bringing this to the City for a variance.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED
IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Viksnins requested a slight language change to in the Findings of Fact, Item 4.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012 -06
Scott Schifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy
949 Mendota heights Road
Variances to the Number and Total Area for Signs
Chair Norton disclosed that he attended St. Thomas Academy and holds a position on the alumni board; however,
this was not found to be a conflict of interest.
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Scott Schifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy for approval of
a variance to the number and total area for signs.
Mr. Grittman noted that St. Thomas Academy is planning for the construction of a new activities facility at 949
Mendota Heights Road. With construction of the new building, the school will be removing the temporary air -
supported structure on the west side of the existing buildings. As a part of the project, the school is also requesting
approval of a variance for proposed wall signage for the activities building.
Mr. Grittman explained the south face of the existing gymnasium displays existing wall signage visible from
Mendota Heights Road. Since this south face of the building will be the location for the addition, the existing
signage will need to be removed and replaced. The applicants wishes to affix two signs to the activities building,
one 115 square feet in size and the other 132 square feet in size, with an additional sign on the east side of the
building that is 127 square feet in size.
Mr. Grittman indicated that the R zoning district allows for one nameplate sign for a permitted use by conditional
use permit and shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area. The applicants have requested a variance to exceed
the number and area requirements of wall signs allowed for non - residential uses located in the residential zoning
district. The proposed St. Thomas wall signs are comparable in size to those approved at Hem-3f Sibley. Staff
2
Planning C0171171iSSiOn Minutes
February 28, 2012
P9
discussed the size differences between the signs requested between the two schools. While there is no doubt that the
larger sign is more visible, variances are typically considered to accommodate the least amount necessary to make a
reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance with the
modification that the logo sign is resized to less than 60 square feet, comparable to that granted to Sibley High
School.
Commissioner Magnuson requested further information regarding the logo sign requested by Sibley High School.
Mr. Grittman explained the 52 square foot logo sign was submitted by Sibley High School and was not resized in
any way by the City.
Commissioner Viksnins asked if two variance requests were being made. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case as
the City was allowing for two lettered signs and one logo sign and each exceeded the zoning districts sign
requirements.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the City should consider amending the zoning code to address signage for
non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. Mr. Grittman indicated there were very few non-residential uses
in the residential zoning district, beyond the schools, golf courses and churches.
Chair Norton indicated the Sibley High School sign was facing north or northeast and would be facing residential
properties. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case and that the St. Thomas Academy signs would be facing south to
the ice arena and freeway.
Commissioner Noonan commented the sign exposure was different between the two schools but staff was
recommending the logo signs be similar in size. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case.
Commissioner Hennes asked if St. Thomas Academy had come forward with any other options besides the 132
square foot logo sign. Mr. Grittman was not aware of any other proposed logo signs.
Corrunissioner Magnuson questioned if there was a size difference between the two school parcels. Mr. Grittman
indicated the school parcels were similar in size as Sibley High School was located on 80 acres.
Scott Schifflett, Opus Group representing St. Thomas Academy thanked the Commission for their time this evening.
He presented the Commission with smaller signage for consideration stating the recommending size would be
difficult to see from Mendota Heights Road. He indicated the proposed size would fit with the massing of the
building and be visible from Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Schifflett presented a site plan with the 60 square foot sign and felt it did not fit with the integrity of the
building. He stated St. Thomas Academy he would be willing to reduce the logo to a 10 foot by 10 foot sign.
Commissioner Hennes questioned the background color of the sign. Mr. Schifflett discussed the proposed wall and
sign colors in detail.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Frank Hickey, 1611 Delaware Avenue, noted he worked in signage for universities and hospitals. He felt the
proposed signage from St. Thomas Academy was appropriate in both size and scale. He requested further
information on the colors of the signs and asked if each would be illuminated. Mr. Schifflett explained the signs
were made of aluminum and would not be lit.
Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
P10
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Commissioner Magnuson stated she would be in favor of the sign requests as presented by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT BASED ON
THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Noonan did not feel it was necessary to hold St. Thomas Academy to the same sign standards as
Sibley High School. He indicated the locations of the schools varied along with their proximity to residential homes
and roadways. He supported the recomrnendation.
Commissioner Viksnins expressed concern that the City would be receiving additional sign requests for non-
residential properties located in the residential zoning district. He commented that perhaps a standard sign size
should be set for these properties.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012 -07
Michael and Michelle Bader
Variance to Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael and Michelle Bader for approval of a variance to street
right of way width for Foxwood Lane.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow an existing platted street to be used
as access to a future subdivision, when the existing street is less than the required 60 feet in right of way width.
Foxwood was developed with the expectation that it would terminate in the existing cul -de -sac, serving only the
three lots. However, the applicant owns the parcel to the south of the Foxwood plat, extending to Delaware Avenue
on the east and a platted lot which abuts the end of Foxwood. The applicant is seeking to subdivide that parcel and
would like to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to serve between one to four parcels, depending on the eventual
subdivision plan.
Mr. Grittuian indicated the site could be served by Delaware Avenue, although the grade and tree loss would be
much more extensive with that design. The sketch plan submitted as a part of the application shows that as many as
four new buildable lots would be proposed with that design. If the variance is not approved, it is expected the
applicant will seek the Delaware Avenue access proposal in a plat request later this year. If the variance is
approved, the applicant has indicated his preference to submit a plat that extends the Foxwood Lane cul -de -sac to
the south boundary of his property.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and indicated the conditions to approve a variance were in
place if the Commission chose to proceed. He reviewed the conditions for approval in detail indicating the City
Attorney had made several recommendations and language changes. The city attorney suggested adding language to
the conditions of approval, Item C as follows: "The applicant, upon proposing a plat shall provide the city with
evidence that the applicant has obtained all easements which will be necessary for the extension of Foxwood and the
completion of all necessary improvements." Item D would be amended as follows: "Any proposed plat that utilizes
the existing Foxwood Lane shall extend the public right of way to the boundary of the applicant's property."
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was evidence from the neighbors on Delaware Avenue that it was less
acceptable to access the plat from this location. Mr. Grittman stated this was the contention of the applicant.
4
Planning Commission Miraules
February 28, 2012
P11
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission was being asked to approve a variance along with an extension
of the roadway. Mr. Grittman explained the request before the Commission was to approve the use of a right of
way, which was below the City's 60 right -of -way standards. The subdivision was a future request.
Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the request should be reviewed once a plat was before the Commission for
approval. She felt the request was premature. Mr. Grittman commented the applicant choose to bring the request
before the Commission to see how the issue was dealt with before creating the plat. If the variance was approved,
the plat would be accessed from Foxwood and if denied the plat would be redesigned and accessed from Delaware
Avenue.
Commissioner Hennes commented Foxwood Lane was currently a 20 foot wide roadway and was servicing two
homes. He questioned if the roadway could remain 20 feet wide to service the new plat and additional homes, or if
the size of the road had to increase due to the increase in homes serviced. Mr. Grittman stated there was no rule
within the City stating a street had to be a certain width to serve X number of lots. He indicated the City's right of
way requirements were not being met with the current roadway and the Commission was being asked to evaluate if
the right of way extension was acceptable through a variance.
Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the City's policy in building roadways was to build streets to a nine ton
capacity with curb and gutter at a minimum of 28 feet in width.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if there was flexibility to reduce the width. Mr. Mazzitello indicated there were
circumstances in which roadways have been reduced.
Commissioner Magnuson clarified that the current configuration of Foxwood had 50 feet of right of way, versus the
required 60 feet of right of way. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case.
Commissioner Magnuson asked why the City was requiring a variance to a condition that was preexisting, as the
current roadway did not meet the City's right of way standards. Mr. Grittman explained the variance was necessary
as the 50 foot right of way was approved specific to the Foxwood plat and adequately met the needs of the homes on
the cul -de -sac. The applicant was proposing to extend the right of way to serve additional properties. This was not
considered by the Council with the original request.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned what legal interest the applicant had in the right of way. Mr. Grittman
commented the applicant's property does come in contact with the right of way along with the parcel proposed for
subdivision.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the applicant had the right to seek this request. Mr. Grittman indicated the
applicant had the right due to the fact he owned the adjacent parcel.
Commissioner Viksnins understood there to be restrictive covenants in place for the Foxwood development. He
asked if these had any impact on the request before the Commission this evening. Mr. Grittman explained he spoke
with the City Attorney regarding this issue. The City was aware that neighbors are suggesting that there are
covenants in place that would restrict the subdivision. He indicated that these are private property agreements and
that the city does not enforce or interpret private covenants. He encouraged the neighbors to pursue this further with
the applicant.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the reasonable use of this property was an objective standard and that private
agreements do not affect that standard. Mr. Grittman stated this was the position of staff.
Commissioner Noonan questioned if the variance request was getting ahead of the subdivision and asked if the
subdivision should come before the City as one request. Mr. Grittman stated this could have been completed
through a PUD, which would address the issues in a more simple manner. However, the applicant wanted an answer
on this issue first.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
P12
Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated he has lived in Mendota Heights in since 1988 and purchased 1673
Delaware in 1998. He indicated he purchased Lot 3 of Foxwood and brought a subdivision application to the City in
1993 and was subsequently denied. After raising four children in the City, his home was too Large and they wanted
to downsize. Mr. Bader explained that the request before the Commission had been altered from the previous
request to address the concerns of the City. He questioned why the variance was needed when the existing roadway
did not meet the City's standards. Mr. Bader requested the Comrnission consider the request based on the historical
use of properties and subdivisions in Mendota Heights.
Paul McGinley, Loucks & Associates, indicated he has been working in the region for the past 40 years. He
presented the Commission with a handout and discussed the material in detail. Mr. McGinley discussed his work
history stating he has been working in the area since the 1970's. Most recently, he worked with the Hidden Creek
division in the Mendota Heights.
Mr. McGinley indicated that the Foxwood addition was developed in a cul -de -sac which precluded any access to the
35 acres to the south and denied those property owners reasonable use of their property. He indicated there was a
demand in this application to gain access to this property. The applicant has not drafted plans for this property to
date as the plans would be determined greatly by the form of access. He reiterated that the Foxwood Addition was
platted with a 50 foot right of way without a variance. He clarified that the current request was not for a
subdivision, but only a variance, as the applicant was simply requesting to continue this 50 foot right of way into the
proposed subdivision.
Mr. McGinley reviewed the requirements for a variance noting the applicant was proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner. He commented the applicant was willing to increase the size of the roadway to 26, 28 or 30 feet
in width if necessary, similar to Deertrail Court which as a 50' right of way at it's opening. Due to the fact the City
platted the Foxwood Lane right of way at 50 feet created unique circumstances for the property and were not caused
by the applicant. He noted the approval of the variance request would not alter the character of the neighborhood in
which the property is located.
Mr. McGinley discussed several developments within the City and their current roadway right of ways. He
indicated the Somerset View Development had 117 lots with 50 foot right of way and 26 foot wide roadways.
Friendly Hills has 64 lots with 50 foot right of way and 34 foot wide roadways. He concluded that a 30 foot
roadway could be completed in a 50 foot right of way with adequate utilities to serve the new lots. Kensington
includes 155 lots of 55' right of ways with 34' wide streets.
Mr. McGinley commented on the location of the existing utilities within the roadway noting that the only utility that
would ever be required to be extended down Foxwood Lane could be a water main, No sanitary sewer would need to
be extended, as the access to that utility is down on Ridgewood. Mr. McGinley did not feel it would be necessary to
include storm sewer pipe because drainage would be directed to the south. Small utilities gas, electricity and cable
were present in the current cul -de -sac and could be easily extended into the proposed subdivision. He felt it was
reasonable to assume a roadway less than 30 feet in width would serve the proposed lots while reducing water runoff
and impervious surface. He indicated this was the tendency of cities and watersheds at this time.
Mr. McGinley explained Foxwood Lane was 25 feet in width. The Bader's have agreed to upgrade the roadway to
meet the City's safety requirements to allow for the proposed extension. He noted access from Delaware Avenue
would be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the loss of trees and needed grade change. Mr. McGinley
discussed a potential alignment for the roadway stating a 30 foot buffer would be provided for the Gray property.
He reviewed the considerations that were made to the developer of the Foxwood Addition and requested the
Commission make the same consideration for the Bader's with their variance request.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Chair Norton stated the Commission received a brief statement from neighbor Alma Derauf at 600 Wentworth
Avenue who did not agree with any of Mr. Bader's proposed plans.
6
Planning Conunission. Minutes
Februawy 28, 2012
P13
Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, presented the Commission with several picture boards. She appreciated the
Commission's time and then discussed her concerns with the proposed variance. She noted she purchased her home
in the summer of 2011 and loved the natural setting. Ms. Gray did not feel it was necessary for the Bader's to
downsize their lot in order to create this subdivision. She felt Foxwood Lane should not be turned into a City street
at the expense of the neighborhood. The addition of four small lots could also create a risk to the adjacent wetlands.
For this reason, she did not support the application.
Ms. Gray commented the Bader's were asking for a variance on land that they did not fully own or control. A
portion of this land directly affected her property. Second, if the variance were granted it would conflict with the
Council's prior approval of the Foxwood Addition with a 20 foot roadway and two and one -half acre lots. She felt
the variance request would override the original Council approval of the Foxwood subdivision.
Ms. Gray then questioned if the subdivision was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She discussed the
issue in further detail reviewing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan development policies. It was noted the
new development would not meet all zoning and subdivision regulations. The proposed roadway extension would
also reduce property width and would remove trees, which unduly burdens her property along with the Lutz's.
Ms. Gray reviewed the Bader's have the reasonable use of their property at this time. She reiterated that a previous
request was denied in 2003 to subdivide this property. Several meeting minute comments were presented to the
Commission from both staff and the City Attorney. She explained that economic matters are not considered to be
practical difficulties. She indicated the subdivision could be accessed from Delaware Avenue by the applicant and
perhaps should be considered.
Ms. Gray commented the Bader's purchased the Foxwood property to gain access to their Delaware property
knowing full well that Foxwood Lane was a private roadway servicing the three lots within the addition. The
property has restrictive covenants against any type of development, which he was now seeking to do. She
understood it was not the City's place to enforce covenant documents, however, she felt they were relevant as it
directly discussed the roadway extension.
Ms. Gray stated the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered by extending Foxwood Lane and by
subdividing the property. This was not what the neighbors want or what the Council had in mind with the original
Foxwood Addition. She provided the Planning Commission with her formal written comments. Ms. Gray
respectfully submitted that the request has not been found to meet the variance request elements and should
therefore be denied.
Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted she submitted a letter to the Commission with her concerns. She indicated
she was confused by the request and felt it was premature given the fact a plat was not completed. The history of
the Foxwood Addition was then discussed. At the time the area was developed, it was consistent with the City's
requirements. She indicated the 100 foot setback to the wetlands was required by the city and agreed upon by the
developer. In addition, the roadway was originally planned to be private serving only the three lots, which made the
50 foot width reasonable.
Ms. Lutz did not want to see her front yard setback changed due to roadway changes, as it would significantly affect
the value of her property. She requested the Commission allow the roadway to remain at 20 feet as this was the
original intention of the subdivision. The property owners were relying on the covenants to maintain the character
of the neighborhood. If the variance request were approved, the integrity of the neighborhood would be lost.
Ms. Lutz felt the addition of four lots was greatly inconsistent with the original intent of the Foxwood Addition and
the private roadway. She bought into the subdivision relying on the covenants and conditions set by the City
Council and developer. She also felt the proposed subdivision by the Bader's violated the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan as several properties would be unduly burdened. She did not object to the vacant property being developed, but
stated the Bader's should bear the burden of the new development on their property on Delaware Avenue rather than
the property owners on Foxwood Lane. Ms. Lutz requested the Commission deny the variance request.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
P14
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the orange cones on her property were depicting the red line on the map.
Ms. Lutz stated this was the case.
Commissioner Noonan clarified that the front yard setback to the right of way would not be changed however the
distance of the pavement from the house could be decreased. Mr. Sedlacelc stated the home has a 30 foot variance
from the 40 foot front yard setback. He indicated the home was built 15 feet from the right of way. Ms. Lutz sought
clarification to the approved setback, and had understood the setback to be from the pavement. Chair Norton
explained that the setback is measured from the right of way, and not from the pavement.
Commissioner Hennes asked when the home was built. Ms. Lutz explained her husband built the home in 1995 and
that she has lived at the property since 2002.
Commissioner Henries questioned if the roadway were to remain 20 feet in width if Ms. Lutz would still object to
the potential subdivision. Ms. Lutz stated this was the case as she and her husband objected to additional traffic on
the private roadway.
Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, recommended the Commission deny the variance application submitted by the
Bader's. He thanked his neighbors for bringing about their concerns. He encouraged the Commission to review the
minutes and original documents for the platting of the Foxwood Addition due to the contentious nature of the
development. Mr. Aune stated the minutes provided context as to why the narrow roadway was made. He bought
into the compromise understanding there were three lots in the subdivision with limited traffic on the roadway with
no future subdivision.
Mr. Aune explained Bader's purchased Lot 3 understanding Foxwood Lane was created to service the three homes
and would not service the adjacent land. He stated Foxwood Lane has become a quaint neighborhood and did not
appreciate the proposed subdivision as it would alter the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if the original addition called for three Lots. Mr. Aune stated the original
documents called for two lots with an outlot in the wetlands. This idea was pushed aside for the final plat of three
lots. He understood it was the City's desire was to conform to City requirements with all new approved plats.
Commissioner Hermes asked if the roadway remained 20 feet in width if he would be in favor of the potential
subdivision. Mr. Aune stated he would still object as this put an undue burden on himself and the Lutz's property
with the additional traffic on the private roadway.
Ms. Lutz read for the record minutes from October 27, 1992 planning commission noting that three lots were
planned for the Foxwood Addition.
Ms. Gray indicated the development could not be more than three lots based on the two and one -half acre lot
minimum. Mr. Mazzitello stated this lot size was the minimum for septic systems.
Jun Kohler, 1695 Delaware Avenue, indicated he has lived in Mendota Heights for a number of years and purchased
the property at 1695 Delaware in 2008. He commented he did not have a deep history of the Foxwood Addition but
noted he had spoken to the Bader's regarding the proposed subdivision. He pointed out the location of his home on
a plat snap for the Commission. He explained this was an emotional issue and stated the Foxwood Addition did
have several exceptions already in place. He encouraged City staff and the Commission to decide what the Bader
parcel should look like when developed. He felt the character of the homes along Delaware Avenue would be
greatly affected if access were granted from Delaware Avenue versus Foxwood Lane. He requested that the
proposed subdivision not adversely affect his property and the future use of his property.
Commissioner Noonan commented the options provided by the Bader's do allow for future access of Mr. Kohler's
property. He questioned if Mr. Kohler supported any of these options. Mr. Kohler did not support the 30 foot
access off of Delaware Avenue. He stated it was his intention to keep his property as is. However, he did need to
protect his future rights. He understood that his neighbors to the south were also looking to keep their properties as
is, but did not want to rule anything out in the future.
8
Planing Conrmission Minutes
February 28, 2012
P15
Commissioner Field asked if the 20 foot roadway from Foxwood Lane would properly service his property if
subdivided in the future. Mr. Kohler stated if the Planning Commission was considering the 20 foot roadway was
sufficient to only service the Bader property this was not accommodate any further development of his property or
the property to the south.
Commissioner Field questioned if the utility easement for the roadway off of Delaware Avenue was on his line. Mr.
Mazzitello commented he was not privy to any design plans for a roadway. However, he understood that a 60 foot
right of way easement would be necessary. Mr. Sedlacek indicated this would be a private matter between property
owners and not a matter of the City.
Frank Hickey, 1611 Delaware Avenue, stated the Bader's sent a concept plan to all of the neighbors. He expressed
concern with homes being developed too closely to Delaware Avenue and how this would change the character of
the roadway.
Mr. McGinley offered several clear responses to concerns raised by neighboring property owners. He commented
the variance request was being made by the Bader's as a property owner with land that abutted Foxwood Lane. He
indicated the variance request would not affect Ms. Gray's side yard setback as the roadway would be located away
from the 30 foot setback and buffer near her property.
Mr. McGinley understood the concerns of the neighbors and how the increased density would affect the traffic to the
Foxwood Addition. He reiterated that the Bader's request was a reasonable use of their property to allow for ingress
and egress to their lot. He felt there was a difficulty in accessing or servicing the properties at the back of the Super
Block. The future extension of Ridgewood was not obtained through easements to service the internal properties.
Mr. Bader referred to Minnesota State Statute 462.361 regarding variance denials. He reiterated the fact that he had
a personal interest in the Foxwood Lane lot and he paid to have the roadway paved and snow removed. He
indicated he has spoken with several other politicians regarding his potential subdivision and did not feel a condition
was in place to not allow for the roadway to be extended.
Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Commissioner Field expressed concern with the timeliness of the variance request. He felt the "horse was before the
cart" in this manner and would like to see the entire concept plan before approving anything.
Commission Noonan agreed stating a planned unit development (PUD) would eliminate the need for a variance. He
stated the PUD would then address the entire concept while providing the necessary conditions for approval.
Commissioner Hennes was confused due to the fact the variance was necessary to allow for proper access into the
potential development. Without the variance there would be no sense moving forward with the plan.
Commissioner Viksnins indicated the applicant was requesting an advisory opinion. He agreed this was a complex
application and proposal. He thanked those present this evening for providing arguments on both sides of the issue.
He stated he was not prepared to vote on the issue this evening. He suggested a more complete picture of the
situation be created through a PUD.
Mr. Sedlacek explained staff encouraged the full package to be provided to the Planning Commission. However, the
applicant was not interested in spending the funds to create a platted subdivision if the variance was not approved by
the City. He stated it was uncommon for the City to have a variance for one small portion of a plat.
9
Plcn717ing Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
P16
Commissioner Magnuson appreciated the Bader's not wanting to commit funds to the subdivision design process
when the variance was not approved. However, she still questioned if a variance was even necessary for this
request. She was not convinced the variance was necessary. She did not feel the Commission could make a
decision this evening without further information from the applicant.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the Commission had to make a decision this evening. Mr. Grittman indicated the
City had time to hold this item over. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City had 60 days to review a case and this could be
held over for an additional 60 days. The application date was February 6th
Mr. Grittman indicated if the Commission decided to table action on the variance that the Commissioners provide
comment on the additional information needed to make a decision at the next meeting.
Commissioner Noonan suggested the City Attorney be asked if a subdivision could be brought forward on the Bader
property as a PUD without requiring a variance. Mr. Grittman stated the City's Attorney validates the process the
City is going through and has not been asked this question.
Commissioner Field stated potential plans for the Bader property would have to be considered in conjunction with
access to the properties to the south. He requested the City Attorney advise the Commission on this in greater detail
as to how the City could be affected in the future.
Mr. Mazzitello offered conunent on the need for a variance speaking to City Code Subdivision Standards Title 11,
Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, B2 outlines the right of way width requirements. He explained that all public right of ways
shall have a minimum right of way width, for any subdivision, of not be less than 60 feet. Due to the fact Foxwood
Lane had an existing 50 foot right of way, the applicant needed to apply for a variance from the City's Zoning Code.
Commissioner Magnuson stated Foxwood Lane was developed to be 20 feet in width with a 50 foot right of way.
She questioned why the City would allow for a 50 foot right of way in the first place and now how the 60 foot right
of way would affect the roadway. Mr. Mazzitello stated the current roadway was an existing non - conformity and
because it would need to be unproved, it would need to be brought up to the City's cun•ent zoning standards or a
variance would need to be granted.
Mr. Grittman stated it was staff's position that the development would intensify the use of the right of way. A future
extension was not previously conternplated and the roadway does not meet the current standards. For that reason,
the applicant required a variance from the current zoning standards.
Commissioner Noonan asked if a PUD would better allow for this item to be considered. Mr. Grittman commented
a PUD would be one approach to consider the proposed plat. He indicated this would need to be further discussed
with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Field stated a PUD was not before the Commission this evening. He indicated the Commission was
being asked to consider a variance request and he felt he did not have enough information to take action this
evening. Commissioner Field questioned if the Commission could approve a variance based on a concept with
conditions.
Commissioner Magnuson stated eventually a plat will come before the Commission. She stated the fact remains
many years ago a roadway was not extended properly to provide access to these properties. She recommended the
City look at these properties more broadly. Mr. Grittman stated this would be an option if this was the information
the Commission needed to proceed with the request.
Commissioner Magnus suggested staff speak further with the Bader's to have the application withdrawn and brought
back for further consideration as a PUD or plat.
Corrunissioner Viksnins indicated the Commission could also deny the request based on the fact it lacked the
necessary information for approval.
10
Planning Comunission. Minutes
Februa,y 28, 2012
P17
Commissioner Field was not in favor of this option as it would place time restrictions and limitations on the
applicant. He suggested the public hearing be reopened to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission's
discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO REOPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Mr. McGinley stated he understood the Commission's concern. He stated a plan related to this property was not
going to be completed until the variance issue was resolved. He commented that he and Mr. Bader agreed to table
the issue to allow for additional discussions with staff and the City Attorney.
Commissioner Field indicated he would like further infonnation as to what the variance would service.
Commissioner Magnuson agreed and understood the applicant did not want to complete a full plan. She felt this
was a complicated plan and without the proper information a reasonable decision could not be made.
Mr. Bader stated his preference was Option B, which required a variance. However, if the site were accessed from
Delaware Avenue, he would not require a variance. He indicated he could not control when his neighbors decided
to subdivide, but this should be considered by the Conunission. He noted he would continue to work with the
neighbors to bring about a resolution to this situation.
Commissioner Field appreciated these comments as it did provide a more clear picture of how the extended roadway
would be used.
Ms. Lutz commented her home was only 15 feet from the private road, which was approved with the understanding
that Foxwood Lane would remain a private 20 foot roadway. She questioned if there were any other homes in the
City with this reduced setback.
Ms. Gray indicated there was confusion with the variance request. She stated there was no need for a variance
request without a subdivision request. She recommended a more concrete plan be submitted to the City prior to
approving the variance. This would greatly assist the neighbors, City staff and the Planning Commission before a
final decision was made.
Commissioner Field was in favor of continuing the discussion on this item to the March 27th Planning Commission
meeting. He suggested the City Attorney be present or provide comment on the necessity of the variance.
Chair Norton suggested the applicant provide further information as to the plans for the subdivision to assist the
Commission in making an informed decision.
Commissioner Field indicated he was unclear if Foxwood Lane was a public street or a private road. Mr. Mazzitello
stated Foxwood Lane was a private road constructed in a public right of way. The residents are responsible for
maintaining the roadway.
Commissioner Field questioned if the roadway could even be extended given the fact it was private. He asked if the
variance were to proceed to the Council if the road extension would be a public street. Mr. Mazzitello stated the
roadway would have to be built to City standards to be considered a public roadway. Staff recommends that the
road be built to City standards and maintained by the public works department.
Commissioner Field requested further information from the City Attorney on the private covenants that exist among
the Foxwood Lane residents.
11
Planning Co,nnzission Minutes
February 28, 2012
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the variance were granted if it would violate any City Code or the City's
2030 Comprehensive Plan. She suggested staff provide comment on this issue as well.
Chair Norton questioned if the applicant and his representative were clear of the expectations of the Commission.
Mr. McGinley addressed the Commission stating he would speak with staff and be ready to provide additional
information at the March 27th meeting.
Chair Norton encouraged Mr. Bader and Mr. McGinley to also speak with the neighboring property owners prior to
the March 27th meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO TABLE ACTION
ON PLANNING CASE NO. 2012 -07 HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO THE MARCH 27,
2012, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012 -04 Henry Sibley High School Variance Request
o Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012 -01 City of Mendota Heights Wetland Zoning Amendment
o Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012 -02 City of Mendota Heights Critical Area Permitting Process
o Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012 -03 City of Mendota Heights Accessory Structures
• This item has not yet been heard by the City Council.
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPOINT
STEVE NORTON AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
ABSTAIN 1 (NORTON)
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPOINT
LITTON FIELD AS THE VICE -CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
ABSTAIN 1 (FIELD)
Adjourn
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING AT 10:39 P.M.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Respectfully submitted,
12
P18
Planning Commission Minutes
Febzuazy28, 2012
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
13
P19
ri
ITEM 5C
P20
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
April 11, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday,
April 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN.
The following commissioners were pr Gina Norling Sloan,
William Dunn, Sally Lorberbaum, Kevin
Byrnes, Paul Portz, Jim Neuharth, Gm g
Absent: None
Also present: City Administrator Justin Miller, Metropolitan Airports Commission Executive Director
Jeff Hamiel
The agenda was amended to allow MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel to make his presentation before
the rest of the commission business was addressed.
Guest Speaker — MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel
Harniel discussed his background in the air eoe deregulation and other factors on the aviahon Indust y, and
MAC carne into existence, the impacts ofd g
then an explanation of the MAC'S operations. He also provided his thoughts on the future of the industry
and an update on the long term capital plan for airport improvements. He stated that there are not
currently plans for an additional runway at the airport. The commission asked several questions
throughout the presentation and then thanked e ARC lo as taking � t time out of his
ion at the schedule
ai airport to
are
stated that the City of Mendota Heights and 1
happy to work with the city anytime there are concerns.
Approval of Minutes
Lorberbaum asked that in the future amendments She minutes be reflecte
nmended d a wi minut slrelatinglto er the than
just a note saying that they had been amended
redistricting impacts discussion be changed to state "These districts, if the current officials are re-
elected, would be represented by Rick Hansen minutes and Joe Atkins."
." Commissioner Lorberbaum
motion, seconded
by Portz to approve the March 14, 2012 min
(unanimously approved).
Joint ARC Meetin I with Ea • an and Inver Grove Hei ' hts U date at
each city had
Sloan indicated that agenda topics were included tated that 1 e report ould provide an updat d version of the
similar thoughts regarding agenda topics. Sloan
presentation he gave to the city council in December. There was a question about carpooling to the
meeting from Mendota Heights, and Miller indicated that he would send out an email before the meeting
to find out who would like to ride together.
De artures North of Hiahwa 110 U date
Sloan stated that he had received a higher tliime norrnal
tscl el, brought this sto regarding
the attention lof FAA staff
north of the corridor. He, along with Coun
P21
at the last NOC meeting and they agreed that an incorrect heading was being used. Miller also shared
information with MAC staff and they stated that they would investigate what was happening.
this _n�orriia.tion w««
Commission Items of Interest
Sloan stated that at the March NOC meeting they agreed to evaluate nighttime operations off of Runway
12L. He also spoke about the MAC meeting held in south Minneapolis and informed the commission
about the next public input meeting to be held on April 24th at 7:00 pm.
Neuharth explained some changes that he has discussed with staff about the format of the charts that the
commission reviews. These changes will be incorporated into the next reports.
Norling reviewed the noise reports at Sensor 23 and noted that number of noise events over 90 dB has
doubled since the same period last year. In comparison to Sensor 4 in Minneapolis, the Mendota Heights
sensor has fewer high -noise events, but the total time associated with those events is higher in our city.
She suggested staff contact MAC to see what can be done about this.
Portz indicated that is interested in attending the airport's crash exercise as a volunteer.
Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports /Correspondence
The monthly reports for February 2012 were acknowledged.
Adjourn
Dunn made a motion, seconded by Neuharth, that the meeting be adjourned. All voted in favor. Meeting
adjourned at 8:55 prn.
2
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ITEM 5D
P22
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota: Heights, MN 55118
651,452,1850 phone 1 651,452.8040 fax
www.rnendota-heights.com
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administra.-.7,A S
Sign Permit - 2060 Centerpointe Drive
BACKGROUND
The code enforcement official has reviewed the attached sign permit for People Incorporated,
located at 2060 Centerpointe Drive, and found it to meet all relevant code. The property is zoned
as B-1 and used as an office park. Wall signs in the B-1 zoning district may be up to 50 square
feet in area; the proposed sign has a total area of 32 square feet.
BUDGET IMPACT
The sign permit application includes the permit fee. Fees are reviewed and approved annually by
city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the sign as requested. If city council wishes to implement this
recommendation, approve a motion authorizing staff to execute the sign permit. This action
requires a simple majority vote.
Page 1 of 1
APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT
City of
Mendota Heights
18 (651) 452 -1850 (651) 452 -8940
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55
SITE ADDRESS
2060 Centerpointe Dr.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
OWNER (Name) (Address)
People Incorporated 317 York Ave. St. Paul, MN 55130
CONTRACTOR (Name) (Address)
1230 Eagan Industrial Road #117 Eagan, MN 55121
Archetype
Type of Building
Estimated Cost
$1196
TYPE OF SIGN
❑ GROUND
MAX. DIMENSION
SIGN AREA 32_5__ — SQ. FT.
HEIGHT OF SIGN _ 1.79 —FT. 30 FT.
SETBACK OF SIGN FROM PROPERTY LINE ALLOWABLE SIGN ARE ON PROMISES
ILLUMINATED ❑YES 0 NO
Used As
Building
Contractor's City License Building Permit No.
No.
® WALL
0 MARQUEE
(Tel. No., Including Area Code)
( 651) 774 -0011
(Tel. No., Including Area Code)
(651 ) 994 -9363
❑ ROOF ❑ PROJECTING
❑ TEMPORARY ❑ OTHER
VERTICAL 1.79____ FT. HORIZONTAL 1_2 -12 FT.
NO. OF SIDES 1 DISTANCE FROM GROUND TO SIGN BASE 1__3'6 FT.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE:
Thee ed, ersigned t a hereby represents is rei upon all and the penalties orkf herein omentioned t owill be done in a accordance with the HOrd Ordinances of the City of Mendota
reque ed, that all statements herein are true and i
Heigr the S - e of Minnesota, and rulings of the Building Department.
SIGNATURE
APPROVED
P23
I
.., 8 z
"2 2 !;
8,1 .=
o
0. 0..cq rn "
ti Ifi 1) oi
E. g ..,,,..
0 LC' u 7; o b E°
UJ
LLJ >
er. LLJ
tf)
Cj
‹.
W
7 a:
Lu
LLL
w
P24
ITEM 5E
P25
1101 Victoria Curve i Mendota Heights, MN 55113
551.452.1850 phone 1 651452.8940 fx
www.menclota-heights.com
"',4siTh`
DATE:
TO:
Clrf OF
MENDDTA HEIGHTS
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator
SUBJECT: Amendment to the ICMA-RC 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to add
Roth Provisions
BACKGROUND
City of Mendota Heights employees have the option of making voluntary employee contributions
to ICMA-RC 457 (b), a tax-defen-ed retirement plan. Beginning in 2011, the Internal Revenue
Code (Section 457), allows for governmental employers to allow for Roth, or post-tax deferrals
to existing plans. Roth deferrals and associated earnings can be withdrawn tax-free if certain
criteria are met. This agreement will also allow for an "in-plan Roth conversion" allowing the
participant to rollover funds from their current 457(b) as a Roth contribution.
Adding the Roth provisions to the plan provides participants with additional options for
retirement savings. Benefits of these provisions include: higher after-tax contribution limits than
the traditional Roth IRA's; eligibility at all income levels, and future tax planning by having both
pre-tax assets and Roth (post-tax) assets available at retirement.
The Council's approval expands employees' options for investing voluntary contributions. The
City is not required to make employer contribution is to the plan. Administrative fees are charged
to the participant's account.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the city council approve Resolution 2012-XX amending provisions of the
ICMA-RC 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to add Roth provisions. Approval of this item
requires a simple majority vote of the city council.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AMENDING PROVISIONS OF THE ICMA-RC 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLAN TO ADD ROTH PROVISIONS
PLAN NO. 301617
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has employees rendering valuable services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has established a deferred compensation plan for
such employees that serves the interest of the City by enabling it to provide reasonable retirement
security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system,
and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has determined that the continuance of the
deferred compensation plan will serve these objectives; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights (Employer) hereby amends and restates the deferred compensation plan (the Plan) in the
form of: The IC1V1A Retirement Corporation 457 Governmental Deferred Compensation Plan &
Trust, to include the associated Roth Amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the
City of Mendota Heights serving as trustee (Trustee), for the exclusive benefit of the Plan
participants and their beneficiaries, and the assets shall not be diverted to any other purpose. The
Trustee's beneficial ownership of the Plan assets held in VantageTrust shall be held for the further
exclusive benefit of the Plan participants and their beneficiaries;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights hereby agrees to serve as
Trustee under the Plan.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May 2012.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk
P26
VE7
-.4 CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 5511a
651:1521850 phone 1 651.4525940 fax
www,mendota-haights.com
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director
Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy
ITEM 5F
P27
BACKGROUND
The city has certain responsibilities in regards to the issuance of debt. The Internal Revenue
Service recommends that issuers adopt and implement a post-issuance debt compliance policy
and procedures. I have consulted with Ehlers & Associates on the attached policy to ensure that
the city is in compliance with the federal regulations in regards to debt issuance.
The policy states the requirements that are needed for each bond issue. The city will also have
procedures regarding the post-issuance debt conipliance. These procedures will provide the
steps necessary to ensure that the requirements will be met. The finance director will be
responsible for these requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council pass a motion adopting the Post Issuance Debt Compliance
Policy.
P28
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Post- Issuance Debt Compliance Policy
The City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City ")
has chosen, by policy, to take steps to help ensure that all obligations will be in compliance
with all applicable federal regulations. This policy may be amended, as necessary, in the
future.
Background
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for enforcing compliance with the
Internal Revenue Code (the "Code ") and regulations promulgated thereunder ( "Treasury
Regulations ") governing certain obligations (for example: tax - exempt obligations, Build
America Bonds, Recovery Zone Development Bonds and various "Tax Credit" Bonds).
The IRS encourages issuers and beneficiaries of these obligations to adopt and implement a
post - issuance debt compliance policy and procedures to safeguard against post - issuance
violations.
Post - Issuance Debt Compliance Policy Objective
The City desires to monitor these obligations to ensure compliance with the Code and
Treasury Regulations. To help ensure compliance, the City has developed the following
policy (the "Post- Issuance Debt Compliance Policy "). The Post - Issuance Debt Compliance
Policy shall apply to the obligations mentioned above, including bonds, notes, loans, lease
purchase contracts, lines of credit, commercial paper or any other form of debt that is
subject to compliance.
Post - Issuance Debt Compliance Policy
The Finance Director of the City is designated as the City's agent who is responsible for
post - issuance compliance of these obligations.
The Finance Director shall assemble all relevant documentation, records and activities
required to ensure post- issuance debt compliance as further detailed in corresponding
procedures (the "Post- Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures "). At a minimum, the Post -
Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures for each qualifying obligation will address the
following:
1. General post - issuance compliance;
2. Proper and timely use of obligation proceeds and obligation- financed property;
3. Arbitrage yield restriction and rebate;
4. Timely filings and other general requirements;
5. Additional undertakings or activities that support points 1 through 4 above;
6. Maintenance of proper records related to the obligations and the investment of
proceeds of obligations;
7. Other requirements that become necessary in the future.
P29
The Finance Director shall apply the Post - Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures to each
qualifying obligation and maintain a record of the results. Further, the Finance Director
will ensure that the Post - Issuance Debt Compliance Policy and Procedures are updated on a
regular and as needed basis.
The Finance Director or any other individuals responsible for assisting the Finance Director
in maintaining records needed to ensure post - issuance debt compliance, are authorized to
expend funds as needed to attend training or secure use of other educational resources for
ensuring compliance such as consulting, publications, and compliance assistance.
Most of the provisions of this Post - Issuance Debt Compliance Policy are not applicable to
taxable governmental obligations unless there is a reasonable possibility that the City may
refund their taxable governmental obligation, in whole or in part, with the proceeds of a
tax - exempt governmental obligation. If this refunding possibility exists, then the Finance
Director shall treat the taxable govennmental obligation as if such issue were an issue of
tax- exempt governmental obligations and comply with the requirements of this Post -
Issuance Debt Compliance Policy.
Private Activity Bonds
The City may issue tax - exempt obligations that are "private activity" bonds because either
(1) the bonds fmance a facility that is owned by the City but used by one or more qualified
501(c)(3) organizations, or (2) the bonds are so- called "conduit bonds ", where the proceeds
are loaned to a qualified 501(c)(3) organization or another private entity that finances
activities eligible for tax- exempt financing under federal law (such as certain
manufacturing projects and certain affordable housing projects). Prior to the issuance of
either of these types of bonds, the Finance Director shall take steps necessary to ensure that
such obligations will remain in compliance with the requirements of this Post - Issuance
Debt Compliance Policy.
In a case where compliance activities are reasonably within the control of a private party
(i.e., a 501(c)(3) organization or conduit borrower), the Finance Director may determine
that all or some portion of compliance responsibilities described in this Post - Issuance Debt
Compliance Policy shall be assigned to the relevant party. In the case of conduit bonds, the
conduit bon-ower will be assigned all compliance responsibilities other than those required
to be undertaken by the City under federal law. In a case where the Finance Director is
concerned about the compliance ability of a private party, the Finance Director may require
that a trustee or other independent third party be retained to assist with record keeping for
the obligation and /or that the trustee or such third party be responsible for all or some
portion of the compliance responsibilities.
The Finance Director is additionally authorized to seek the advice, as necessary, of bond
counsel and /or its financial advisor to ensure the City is in compliance with this Post -
Issuance Debt Compliance Policy.
Adopted this 1st day of May, 2012 by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota
ITEM 5G
P30
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
551.4521850 phone 1 651,452.8940 faX
www.mandota- heights.com
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COTV or=
MENDDTA HEIGHTS
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator
Temporary Seasonal Hires 2012
BACKGROUND
At a recent meeting, City Council gave approval for staff to begin the hiring and recruitment
process for the 2012 Parks and Recreational season. Several employees from the 2011 season
have re- applied for positions. Applications were also accepting for the vacant Tennis Instructor
position and interviews were conducted. The following applicants were offered their position
contingent upon a successful completion of a criminal background check and council approval.
Staff is recommending the following individuals for employment for the 2012 summer season:
Position
Tennis Instructor
Tennis Lead
Tennis Assistant /Playground Asst.
Temiis Assistant
Tennis Assistant
Playground Lead
Recreation Assistant
Playgound Assistant /Tennis Asst.
Playground Assistant
Playground Assistant
Name
Bryan Yanagita
Meredith Lawrence
Amanda Bellomo
Tony Bretzman
John Conway
Kathryn Sanders
Barb Kasal
John Bretzman
Becky Deeb
Debra Kulhanek
Rate of Pay:
$22.00
$12.25
$10.00
$10.25
$10.25
$15.00*
$10.00
$10.25
$10.50
$10.50
Ms. Katie Sanders has been the Playground Lead for the City of Mendota Heights since 2010
and has expressed an interest in return for a third year as the Playground Lead. This position is
the site leader for recreation programs, participates in program planning and serves as a first
point of contact for parents and staff Ms. Sanders is a licensed teacher specializing in physical
education and her knowledge, skills and experience lends itself to the quality programs offered
through the City of Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation programs.
In 2010, Ms. Sanders' hourly rate was $15.00. In 2011, the part -time seasonal staff pay matrix
was updated and Ms. Sanders' hourly rate was $12.25. City staff is reconunending the city re-
hire Ms. Sanders as the Playground Lead at an hourly rate of $15.00.
In addition, the following re-hire applications have been processed for the Par 3 golf course.
These recommended hires do not increase staff hours worked, but provide us a greater pool of
staff to fill schedules.
Position Name Rate of Pay:
Clubhouse Worker/Starter John David $9.00
Golf Instructor Eric Meurer $22.75
BUDGET IMPACT
As noted above.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that city council approve the above mentioned part-time seasonal position
candidates for employment for the 2012 surruner season.
If council concurs in the recommendation, a motion should be made to approve the above listed
seasonal hires. A simple majority vote is all that is needed on this issue.
P31
CITY OF
IVIENIQOTA. HEIGHTS
DATE: May 1, 2012
TO:
Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Michael Albers, PE, Civil Engineer /11/
SUBJECT: Ordering of Feasibility Report for Crown Point & Overlook Neighborhood
Rehabilitation
ITEM 5H
P32
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota HeioW, ssna
EtSIA52.1850 phone { 651.452.8940 fax
wv.v.rnendota-heiohls.com
(7,
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memo is to request the council to order a feasibility report for the proposed
2013 street rehabilitation projects (see attached map). Staff identified the Crown Point Drive
Neighborhood Rehabilitation as a 2013 street rehabilitation project in the 2012-2016 Street
Improvement Plan (SIP). The Overlook Road Neighborhood Rehabilitation was also identified
as a 2013 street rehabilitation project in the 2012-2016 SIP.
Staff anticipates that the proposed improvements for these two neighborhoods will be similar in
nature and that combining the two neighborhoods into one project would reduce staff time and
could produce lower unit prices during construction due to the project size. The combined
project will be called the Crown Point & Overlook Neighborhood Rehabilitation.
The proposed streets to be rehabilitated, as identified in the 2012-2016 SIP, are Carmen Lane,
Crown Circle, Crown Court, Crown Point Drive, Lilac Road between Marie Avenue and
Douglas Road, Overlook Lane, Overlook Road, and Summit Lane between Marie Avenue and
Overlook Road.
Based on our observations as well as our pavement management system, these streets have
deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost effective to patch the street and rehabilitation
is necessary. Residents on these streets were not surveyed although staff has received several
telephone inquiries as to when resurfacing will take place. The streets have concrete curb and
gutters so a street rehabilitation is proposed. Street rehabilitation typically includes removing
and replacing the existing bituminous surface with a new bituminous surface, curb and gutter
repair, and catch basin repair. Before staff presents the feasibility report to the city council, a
neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the proposed project.
This item is being presented slightly earlier in the year than normal as staff would like to utilize
our seasonal intern to assist in production of the feasibility report.
P33
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2012 -2016 SIP estimated the total project costs for the Crown Point & Overlook
Neighborhood Rehabilitation to be approximately $739,000_ The project costs in the SIP are
rough estimates using 2011 dollar amounts, which will be refined during the budget, feasibility
report and bidding process. The Crown Point & Overlook Neighborhood Rehabilitation project
is anticipated to be financed by special assessments and municipal bond sales.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council formalize and start the public improvement process by ordering
the preparation of a feasibility report for Carmen Lane, Crown Circle, Crown Court, Crown
Point Drive, Lilac Road between Marie Avenue and Douglas Road, Overlook Lane, Overlook
Road, and Summit Lane between Marie Avenue and Overlook Road.
If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE CROWN
POINT & OVERLOOK NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201207). This
action requires a simple majority vote.
SCALE IN FEET
2013 Street Rehabilitation
0
a)
-0
0
0
(1)
0
0
0
-0
ctS
*-J
'6
2
0
April 26, 2012
as "—"WiTirg.1 ,
)0".
4,:rt
co
CI) '33;3
C\J
/AA
k
iA A
1.1s
a;F 1c11;:if
0),
tit 6."^1
•••••,,
"1,0••,,
/ 4
,
‘04,4'cr;
.n4
q'Y
\f'd
op) LJIX
IL
DJ,
OL4
•
ti 1
ecta
k (30 1
--.• im:4 ;;M:1;;•=i7.4,e-nl'7.,:cM.;17AtZtq.1..%
'''''''•\ ,, . (11
A -,...., .2 12Ci '
.": ''' .....t.:-.4 -
.•';'i P 41
.0 ,4,-;, ii,.:
,,,..?.,:•,?...R,„r ..;,.\,..
71
UJ
[1,1
7—A :Pc:1
e111.'4:17-7'
.04
4,4
"?". •4",, rh v
^h:•••
Fl trC".■ •
...
°"R
AVNOLE1MXfl ,—
e, A w:
-
d 4
>3, r
",,' A
AP,
"1:7,e'
, 1.11"411,6jtEiL'q. Vj
°}c:43m.89"1.K.111
3 Ct3 13
••'-',4 43
.p•tee..0
"13 P
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
CROWN POINT & OVERLOOK NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION
(PROJECT #201207)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Carmen Lane, Crown Circle,
Crown Court, Crown Point Drive, Lilac Road between Marie Avenue and Douglas Road,
Overlook Lane, Overlook Road, and Summit Lane between Marie Avenue and Overlook Road,
including the removing the existing bituminous surface, construction of bituminous surfacing,
concrete curb and gutter repair and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City's 2012 -2016 Street Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to
report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a preliminary way
as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost - effective and feasible and as to
whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other improvements, and
the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May, 2012.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Kresbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk
P35
om}
y�!•h��rv��:
CITY. OF
MENLJD T A HEIGHTS
DATE: May 1, 2012
TO:
Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
1101 victuria Curve I Ilendola Heights, 1411 55115
cat 4521E150 phone 1 651.4800 fax
V!:iw.rnendota-beitghts.corn
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer K
aciff
Michael Albers, PE, Civil Engineer t1/4-
SUBJECT: Ordering of Feasibility Report for Hunter & Orchard Neighborhood
Improvements
ITEM 5I
P36
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memo is to request the council to order a feasibility report for the proposed
2013 street reconstruction project (see attached map). Staff identified the Hunter Lane
Neighborhood Improvements as a 2013 street reconstruction project in the 2012 -2016 Street
Improvement Plan (SIP). The Glenhill Road Neighborhood Rehabilitation was identified as a
2013 street rehabilitation project in the 2012-2016
Due to the close proximity of these projects to each other, staff proposes to combine these two
neighborhood improvements into one project to reduce i re h danci S and in i Sf time. The
combined project will be called the Hunter & Orchard
As identified in the 2012 -2016 SIP, the proposed streets to be reconstructed are the rural section
of Culligan Lane from Glenhill Road to Hunter Lane,
to Lexington Avenue.
at,l Victoria Curve to have
Orchard Place, and Orchard Place from Hunter
to the point where it is no longer cost effective to patch the streets. Under the
circumstances, the questions that need to be resolved are related to the design details of the street
as opposed to whether or not the street should be reconstructed. Before staff presents the
design
feasibility report to the city council, a neigl1boai1March (will
2009; held
1 owevedisc �yscouncil
issues. Reconstructing these streets was proposed i
denied ordering an improvement project and directed the Public Works Department to put this
1,
proposal on the shelf until 2014 due to opposition from m Vleethelprobject up a year
20141to
residents on these streets requested the city co
2013 when the 2012 -2016 SIP was approved.
The proposed streets to be rehabilitated, as identified in the 2012 -2016 SIP, are Cul.ligan Lane
from 200 feet east of Glenhill Road to the cul-de-sac,
elldassour Glenhill Orchard
th and
Veronica Lane. Based on our observations as 1
streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost effective to patch the street and
rehabilitation is necessary. Residents on these streets were not surveyed although staff has
received several telephone inquiries as to when resurfacing will take place. The streets have
concrete curb and gutters so a street rehabilitation is proposed. Street rehabilitation typically
includes removing and replacing the existing bituminous surface with a new bituminous surface,
curb and gutter repair, and catch basin repair.
This item is being presented slightly earlier in the year than normal as staff would like to utilize
our seasonal intern to assist in production of the feasibility report.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2012 -2016 SIP estimated the total project costs for the Hunter & Orchard Neighborhood
Irnprovernents to be approximately $1,999,000. The project costs in the SIP are rough estimates
using 2011 dollar amounts, which will be refined during the budget, feasibility report and
bidding process. The Hunter & Orchard Neighborhood Irnprovernents project is anticipated to
be financed by special assessments, municipal bond sales, and utility funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconunends that council formalize and start the public improvement process by ordering
the preparation of a feasibility report for reconstructing the rural section of Culligan Lane from
Glenhill Road to Hunter Lane, Hunter Lane from Victoria Curve to Orchard Place, and Orchard
Place from Hunter Lane to Lexington Avenue; and rehabilitating Culligan Lane from 200' east
of Glenhill Road to the cul -de -sac, Glenhill Road, Orchard Circle, and Veronica Lane.
If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
HUNTER & ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD IMROVEMENTS (PROJECT #200902). This
action requires a simple majority vote.
P37
2013 Street Reconstruction
Hunter & Orchard
Neighborhood Improvements
April 26, 2012
400
SCALE IN FEET
Limmair:
P 3 8
City of
Mendota
,-;
1 10
Legend
CEEEFEND 2013, Rehabilitation
OPIRms0 2013, Reconstruction
t vl \\))
171
• 4=^774::-.";',7,'-;.•-.4,.-....==
mousetzs ,
RCHARDIPW. g 13.
171k 177,U.
1.1
t(i
,17
•
,71
77b•
h77777.1 77.
frr
trr.
(.)9
V-67.74 s
7.;111.)NIE T e
3,71..07'41 117:7,ft -713-
'q 7'147.
1 .
•,1•:,-,e'r
,., ,..., .., --,••,v i -1
0.:.-. . . i 1 •.,
a,,,,,,,,g,-,..„ffilffigtii-1.1„mu-Tats5 -51-,11-•
, a T— i 71m1! glit i i
i7...N.7•:,, i IA ..,5'.a.t
4 .....j '--tr- -- .,-. — .VER,ONI • LN.. , 1
7
--
fit 1. 1,..,-I •, ----,,17.1
, .....1'
---:',iii ,r•-,
7_••7,i...0 A
0 ri
\ ' ..143 .!,
'777(.7.1-1, j07
777:, 11 h777''' $. - ,•4
noo.... r
Ka t.„,.., --•,. . , 1
,3•11-0:
.7: oar
0 •
t3 k
4
(-It
1 !'...,•-.••,•:=7,:c::::•-•-•,...7.-.
•••,,,„,)„.,,,, .7:..7.,..... iiill /...
i 4 I
, ;
....1 ■,-'1 7: I.'
..t• nr,..7.1.77771#17q 4....
vro,F,„„,,,
./0 . „---....-D,60-b.
,,/,.,;.,,,,,
•...i, .// -4.es.,,,
-7,
.1.^,77,'"7.g.r.%.,,,,7,77,7..17.7-,...7,77.77...-.....,,,,,,,t77/72;:..M17:37:74;ZM/75■77:M7.77:/:17.---1.G:5N.T135.0.71NIPMa=F"V/7"."'EF74.'n*Xg'77'''''''''''''''''''''"'"'''''''''"77''
6 . 477., /
,
3
[J1
EP ••.•,-••-•1
#77:7777."77,1
r
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
HUNTER & ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #200902)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Hunter Lane, Orchard Place,
and the rural section of Culligan Lane including the construction of storm sewer, aggregate base,
concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Culligan Lane, Glenhill Road,
Orchard Circle, and Veronica Lane including the removing the existing bituminous surface,
construction of bituminous surfacing, concrete curb and gutter repair and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City's 2012 -2016 Street Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to
report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a preliminary way
as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost - effective and feasible and as to
whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other improvements, and
the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May, 2012.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Kresbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Justin. Miller, Acting City Clerk
P39
2012 Licensing List for City Council
Type
General
HVAC
Landscape
Masonry
Sign
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Contractor Name
Family Leisure
JPS Designs & Landscaping, Inc
Binder Heating & Air Conditioning
Royal Mechanical
Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc
W.V. Nelson Construction Corp.
Archetype Sign Makers, Inc
ITEM 5J
P40
Pagel of 1
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651,452.8940 faX
www.mendote-heights.corn
ITEM 5K
P41
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ctn. OF
MENDOTA HEIGHT5
BACKGROUND
May 1, 2012
Mayor and City Council
Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director \ortA)
Claims List Summary
Significant Claims
Allegra Print & Imaging — Business Cards/Newsletter Costs
Niebur Tractor & Equipment — Parks Tractor/Mower
Pipe Services — Lift Station/Sump Cleaning
Manual Checks Total
System Checks Total
Total for the list of claims for the May 1, 2012 city council meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the list of claims for May 1, 2012.
$ 5,712.42
$26,437.54
$ 6,195.00
$ 46,996.76
$ 94,138.13
5141,134.89
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
Manual Checks
04/25/12MAN
Account Comments DEPT Descr
Search Name AFFINITY PLUS
G 01 -2073
Search Name AFFINITY PLUS
Search Name B C A - BTS
E 01- 4490-070 -70
E 45- 4490 - 045 -45
Search Name B C A - BTS
04/27/2012 PAYROLL
BACKGROUND CHECKS - SEAS Parks & Recreation
BACKGROUND CHECKS - SEAS Golf Course
Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457
G 01 -2072 04/13/2012 PAYROLL
Search Name I C M A RE I IREMENT 457
Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN
G 01 -2073
G 01 -2071
E 01- 4131- 050 -50
Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN
APR 2012 PREMIUM
APR 2012 PREMIUM
APR 2012 PREMIUM
Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
G 01 -2072 04/13/2012 PAYROLL
Search Name NATIONWIDE RE I IREMENT SOLUTION
Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT
E 01-4131-110 -10
G 01 -2071
E 01- 4131 - 020 -20
E 05- 4131 - 105 -15
Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT
Road & Bridges
APR 2012 H 5 A CONTRIBUTIO Administration
APR 2012 H S A CONTRIBUTIO
APR 2012 H 5 A CONTRIBUTIO Police
APR 2012 H S A CONTRIBUTIO Engineering Enterprise
Search Name SW /WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES
E 05- 4131 - 105 -15
E 01- 4131 - 110 -10
E 01 -4131- 020 -20
E 01 -4131- 040 -40
E 01- 4131- 050 -50
E 01- 4131 - 070 -70
E 15- 4131- 060 -60
G 01 -2071
G 01 -2074
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
E 01- 4131 - 050 -50 MAY 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
Search Name SW /WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES
Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL
G 01 -2070 04/13/2012 PAYROLL
Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL
Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE
G 01 -1210 REPLENISH POSTAGE METER
Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE
Search Name XCEL ENERGY
E 45- 4211 - 046 -45
E 45- 4212 - 046 -45
MAR 2012 UTILITIES
MAR 2012 UTILITIES
Engineering Enterprise
Administration
Police
Code Enforcement /Inspe
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Golf Course
Golf Course
Amount
$1,040.00
$1,040.00
$120.00
$15.00
$135.00
$463.29
$463.29
$14.95
$46.34
$11.82
$73.11
$650.00
$650.00
$238.46
$2,291.52
$715.38
$238.46
$3,483.82
$3,835.00
$3,465.79
$16,010.50
$1,320.00
$683.50
$1,367.00
$1,320.00
$5,684.71
$683.50
$5,374.00
$39,744.00
$53.00
04/26/12 10:14 RI4 2
Page 1
$53.00
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$18.17
$47.23
Account
E 45-4211-047-45
E 01-4212-320-70
E 01-4211-320-70
Search Name XCEL ENERGY
)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
Manual Checks
04/25/12MAN
Comments
MAR 2012 UTILITIES
MAR 2012 UTILITIES
MAR 2012 UTILITIES
DEPT Descr
Golf Course
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation
Amount
$62.44
$9.69
$17.01
$154.54
$46,996.76
04/26/12 10:14N3
Page 2
Account
Search Name A P W A
E 15- 4404 - 060 -60
E 01 -4404- 070 -70
E 01- 4404 - 050 -50
E 05 -4404- 105 -15
Search Name A P W A
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05/01 /12PAY
Comments DEPT Descr
04/26/12 10:25 RA 4
Page 1
Amount
2012 MEMBERSHIP
2012 MEMBERSHIP
2012 MEMBERSHIP
2012 MEMBERSHIP
Search Name ADVANCED FIRST AID, INC.
E 01- 4335 - 310 -70 AED FOR PW
E 15- 4335 - 310 -60 AED FOR PW
E 01- 4335-310 -50 AED FOR PW
Search Name ADVANCED FIRST AID, INC.
Search Name ALEX AIR APPARATUS
E 01- 4305-030 -30
Search Name ALEX AIR APPARATUS
Search Name ALL SAFE INC
E 01- 4330 - 490 -50
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00
E 01- 4330 - 490 -70
E 15- 4330 - 490 -60
Search Name ALL SAFE INC
Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT &
E 15- 4268 - 650 -60
E 01- 4268 - 650 -70
E 45- 4268 - 650 -45
E 01- 4268 - 650 -85
E 21- 4268 - 650 -00
E 01- 4300 - 030-30
E 01 -4268- 650 -10
OPERATING SUPPLIES - FIRE D
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS MAINTE
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS MAINTE
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS MAINTE
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS MAINTE
IMAGING
MAY -JUNE 2012 NEWSLLI I ER
MAY -JUNE 2012 NEWSLLI IER
MAY -JUNE 2012 NEWSLLI IER
MAY -JUNE 2012 NEWSLLI IER
MAY -JUNE 2012 NEWSLLI IER
BUSINESS CARDS - J. LEE
MAY -JUNE 2012 NEWSLLI I ER
Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING
Search Name ALLINA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS
E 01- 4220 - 050 -50 CPR CLASS - PW
E 01- 4220- 070 -70 CPR CLASS - PW
E 15- 4220 - 060 -60 CPR CLASS - PW
Search Name ALLINA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS
Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50
E 01- 4490 - 110 -10
E 15- 4305 - 060 -60
UNIFORMS - PW
LOGO SET-UP
UNIFORMS - PW
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 UNIFORMS - PW
Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE
Search Name BERTELSON TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTNS
E 01- 4300 - 110 -10 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Search Name BERTELSON TOTAL OFFICE SOLUTNS
Search Name BOLAND, JOHN
E 01- 4400 - 030 -30
Search Name BOLAND, JOHN
Utility Enterprise
Parks & Recreation
Road & Bridges
Engineering Enterprise
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Fire
Road & Bridges
Spec Fds
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Utility Enterprise
Parks & Recreation
Golf Course
Recycling
Spec Fds
Fire
Administration
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Administration
Utility Enterprise
Parks & Recreation
Administration
TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSE Fire
$76.87
$76.87
$76.88
$76.88
$307.50
$529.46
$529.45
$529.46
$1,588.37
$43.91
$43.91
$62.98
$318.88
$62.97
$62.97
$507.80
$330.58
$1,487.88
$198.46
$231.35
$545.48
$42.13
$2,876.54
$5,712.42
$133.34
$133.33
$133.33
$400.00
$65.50
$35.00
$65.50
$65.50
$231.50
$40.55
$40.55
$635.60
$635.60
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05/01/12PAY
Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount
Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP
E 01 -4220- 110 -10 4/17/2012 CITY COUNCIL MEE Administration
Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP
Search Name CAMELOT CLEANERS
E 01- 4410 - 020-20 UNIFORMS CLEANING - PD Police
Search Name CAMELOT CLEANERS
Search Name CENTURY LINK
E 45 -4210- 045 -45 APR -MAY 2012 SERVICE Golf Course $52.44
Search Name CENTURY LINK
Search Name CHADER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC
E 01- 4331- 020 -20 RECORDING EQUIPMENT - PD Police $810.11
Search Name CHADER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC $810.11
Search Name CMI INC.
E 01- 4305 - 020 -20 OPERATNG SUPPLIES - PD Police $162.30
Search Name CMI INC. $162.30
Search Name COAST TO COAST SOLUTIONS
G 01 -2035 PROMO SUPPLIES - PD - USE T - $34.75
E 01- 4305-020 -20 PROMO SUPPLIES - PD Police $540.15
Search Name COAST TO COAST SOLUTIONS $505.40
Search Name CONSTRULI ION BULLETIN
E 27- 4240 - 784 -00 MARIE AVENUE REHAB PUBLIC Spec Fds $189.00
Search Name CONSTRU(.I UON BULLETIN $189.00
Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50 SAFETY EQUIPMENT - PW Road & Bridges $198.04
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50 SAFETY EQUIPMENT - PW Road & Bridges $35.27
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 SAFETY EQUIPMENT - PARKS Parks & Recreation $124.30
Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ $357.61
Search Name CRAWFORD DOOR
E 01- 4335 - 315 -30 DOOR REPAIR - FIRE HALL Fire $239.50
Search Name CRAWFORD DOOR $239.50
Search Name CROWN TROPHY
E 01-4490- 020 -20 PLATES - PD Police $9.03
Search Name CROWN TROPHY $9.03
Search Name DAHLBERG SERVICES INC
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW Road & Bridges $106.88
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW Parks & Recreation $106.88
E 15- 4305 - 060 -60 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW Utility Enterprise $106.87
Search Name DAHLBERG SERVICES INC $320.63
Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
E 01- 4275 - 030 -30 MAY 2012 DCC FEE Fire $764.25
E 01- 4275 - 020 -20 MAY 2012 DCC FEE Police $14,520.75
Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER $15,285.00
Search Name DELL MARKETING L.P.
$66.60
04/26/12 10:25 AMT 5
Page 2
$66.60
$106.55
$106.55
$52.44
Account
E 01- 4330 - 490 -10
E 05- 4331 - 105 -15
Search Name DELL MARKETING L.P.
Search Name DELTA DENTAL
G 01 -2074
E 01- 4131- 110 -10
E 01 -4131- 020 -20
E 01 -4131- 050 -50
E 01- 4131- 070 -70
E 05 -4131- 105 -15
E 08- 4131 - 000 -00
E 15 -4131- 060 -60
G 01 -2071
Search Name DELTA DENTAL
Search Name DIGITAL -ALLY
E 01- 4330 - 440 -20
G 01 -2035
Search Name DIGITAL -ALLY
Search Name DONOVAN, SUSAN
E 01 -4400- 020 -20
Search Name DONOVAN, SUSAN
Search Name EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
E 14- 4490 - 000 -00 POST- ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE
Search Name EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN
E 01 -4335- 310 -50
E 01- 4335 - 310 -70
E 15- 4335 - 310 -60
Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN
Search Name ELROY S ELECTRIC SERVICE
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 EL. REPAIRS - CITY HALL
Search Name ELROY S ELECTRIC SERVICE
Search Name ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
E 15- 4330 - 490 -60 SEWER REPAIR PARTS
Search Name ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05/01/12PAY
Comments
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER - ENGINEERING
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
MAY 2012 DENTAL PREMIUM
SQUAD CAMERA
SQUAD CAMERA
DEPT Descr
Administration
Engineering Enterprise
Administration
Police
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Engineering Enterprise
Spec Fds
Utility Enterprise
Police
TRAINING EXPENSE REIMBURS Police
BUILDING REPAIRS
BUILDING REPAIRS
BUILDING REPAIRS
Search Name FERRELLGAS
E 01- 4422 - 050 -50
Search Name FERRELLGAS
Spec Fds
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Spec Fds
Utility Enterprise
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLI Road & Bridges
Search Name FLEET SERVICES
E 01- 4200 - 610 -20 MAR 2012 SQUAD LEASES
Search Name FLEET SERVICES
Search Name FORMS & SYSTEMS OF MN
E 01- 4305 - 020 -20 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PD
Search Name FORMS & SYSTEMS OF MN
Police
Police
Amount
$32.33
$1,323.89
$1,356.22
$77.70
$140.30
$522.35
$218.00
$280.60
$77.70
$38.85
$101.45
$1,474.25
$2,931.20
$651.94
- $41.94
$610.00
$200.00
$200.00
$500.00
$500.00
$49.09
$49.09
$49.08
$147.26
$160.00
$160.00
$137.87
$137.87
$361.31
$361.31
$4,713.24
$4,713.24
$130.33
$130.33
04/26/12 10:25 KI 4 6
Page 3
Account
Search Name FRONTIER AG & TURF
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS
Search Name FRONTIER AG & TURF
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05/01/12PAY
Comments DEPT Descr
Search Name G &K SERVICES
E 01 -4335- 310 -50
E 01- 4335 - 310 -70
E 15- 4335 - 310 -60
Search Name G &K SERVICES
MAT SERVICE - PW
MAT SERVICE - PW
MAT SERVICE - PW
Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE
E 45- 4334 - 045 -45 PAR3 MAINTENANCE
E 01- 4500 - 050 -50 TREES
Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE
Search Name GM MANAGEMENT
E 45- 4268 - 045 -45
Search Name GM MANAGEMENT
Search Name GOLDCOM
E 01- 4305 - 030 -30
Search Name GOLDCOM
Search Name GOODIN COMPANY
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00
Search Name GOODIN COMPANY
Search Name HANCO CORPORATION
E 01- 4330 - 490 -70
Search Name HANCO CORPORATION
Parks & Recreation
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Golf Course
Road & Bridges
4/9- 4/23/12 MAINTENANCE LA Golf Course
FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES - SHIPPIN Fire
BLDG REPAIR PARTS - CITY HA Spec Fds
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
Search Name HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
E 01- 4400 - 070 -70 TRAINING - T. BLUM
Search Name HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
Search Name HUEBSCH
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00
Search Name HUEBSCH
Search Name HUEBSCHER, KIM
E 45- 4330 - 490 -45
Search Name HUEBSCHER, KIM
Search Name INTEGRA TELECOM
E 01 -4210- 110 -10
E 01- 4210-020 -20
E 01- 4210 - 040 -40
E 05-4210 - 105 -15
E 01 -4210- 020 -20
E 01- 4210 - 050 -50
E 01- 4210 - 070 -70
E 15- 4210- 060 -60
Search Name INTEGRA TELECOM
MAT SERVICE - CITY HALL
MOWERS MAINTENANCE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
APR -MAY 2012 TELEPHONE SE
Search Name INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation
Spec Fds
Golf Course
Administration
Police
Code Enforcement/Inspe
Engineering Enterprise
Police
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Amount
$269.05
$269.05
$33.64
$33.64
$33.63
$100.91
$57.69
$196.04
$253.73
$1,226.36
$1,226.36
$8.00
$8.00
$69.29
$6929
$125.77
$125.77
$49.00
$49.00
$184.50
$184.50
$1,202.50
$1,202.50
$373.16
$298.53
$74.63
$186.58
$142.85
$46.47
$46.46
$267.31
$1,435.99
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05/01/12PAY
Account Comments
E 01- 4330 - 460 -30 FIRE EQUIPMENT REPAIR Fire
Search Name INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS
DEPT Descr
Search Name KAISER, STACY
E 01- 4402 - 114 -14 BOOKS - IT Info Tech
Search Name KAISER, STACY
Search Name KAT KEYS
E 01- 4335 - 315 -30 DOOR REPAIR - FIRE HALL Fire
Search Name KAT KEYS
Search Name KIRCHNER CONTRACTING
E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PARK EQUIPMENT INSTALLATI Parks & Recreation
Search Name KIRCHNER CONTRACTING
Search Name KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
E 01 -4330- 440 -20 RADAR EQUIPMENT - FREIGHT Police
Search Name KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
Search Name L E L S
G 01 -2075 MAY 2012 UNION DUES
Search Name L E L S
Search Name LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES INC
E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REP Parks & Recreation
Search Name LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES INC
Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC
E 15 -4305- 060 -60
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70
E 15-4305- 060 -60
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70
Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
Search Name LEAGUE MN CITIES
E 01- 4400 - 020 -20
E 01- 4400 - 109 -09
Search Name LEAGUE MN C1I1ES
Search Name LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS
E 01- 4240 - 080 -80
E 01- 4240 - 080 -80
E 27- 4240-783 -00
E 27- 4240 - 785 -00
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
LOSS CONTROL WORKSHOP - P Police
2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE City Council
NOTICE - AMEND TITLE II
NOTICE - WETLANDS PERMIT
NOTICE - ENG. PROJECT 2012 -
NOTICE - ENG. PROJECT 2012 -
Search Name LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS
Search Name LOGIS
E 01- 4223-020 -20
E 01- 4301- 030 -30
Search Name LOGIS
Search Name MENARDS
E 01 -4335- 310 -70
Planning
Planning
Spec Fds
Spec Fds
APPLICATION SUPPORT - PD Police
APPLICATION SUPPORT - FIRE Fire
BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW Parks & Recreation
Amount
$809.11
$809.11
$102.62
$102.62
$100.00
$100.00
$1,050.00
$1,050.00
$14.00
$14.00
$546.00
$546.00
$24.10
$24.10
-$6.59
$18.68
$18.68
$18.67
-$6.59
-$6.59
$36.26
$20.00
$295.00
$315.00
$21.88
$21.88
$32.82
$32.81
$109.39
$1,989.00
$53.00
$2,042.00
$10.35
04/26/12 10:25 Aft' 8
Page 5
Account
E 01- 4335 - 310 -70
E 15- 4305 - 060 -60
E 15- 4335 - 310 -60
E 15- 4335 - 310 -60
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00
E 01- 4335 - 310 -50
E 01- 4335 - 310 -50
Search Name MENARDS
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05101112PAY
Comments
BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW
OPERATING SUPPLIES - SEWE
BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW
BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW
CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY HA
BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW
BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - PW
Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS, CITY OF
E 45- 4427 - 045 -45 1ST QTR SEWER - PAR3
Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS, CITY OF
Search Name METRO SALES
E 01- 4330 - 490 -50
E 01- 4330 - 490 -70
E 15- 4330 - 490 -60
Search Name METRO SALES
COPIER MAINTENANCE - PW
COPIER MAINTENANCE - PW
COPIER MAINTENANCE - PW
Search Name MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION
E 01 -4403- 030 -30 FIRE CERTIFICATION
Search Name MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION
Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE
E 01- 4210 - 030 -30 FEB 2012 SERVICE
Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE
Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC
E 01- 4200 - 610 -70
E 45- 4200 - 610 -45
Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC
APR 2012 RENTALS
APR 2012 RENTALS
Search Name NIEBUR TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT INC
E 01- 4620 - 070 -70 TRACTOR MOWER - KUBOTA F
Search Name NIEBUR TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT INC
Search Name N1111 SANITATION INC
E 45-4280 - 045 -45 ON CALL SERVICE
Search Name NI 1 11 SANITATION INC
Search Name NORTHLAND CHEMICAL
E 01- 4330 - 215 -70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS
Search Name NORTHLAND CHEMICAL
Search Name OFFICE DEPOT
E 05- 4300 - 105 -15
E 05- 4300 - 105 -15
E 05 -4300- 105 -15
Search Name OFFICE DEPOT
Search Name OPUS DESIGN BUILD, LLC
R 01 -3365 REFUND FEE - CUP 2012 -06
Search Name OPUS DESIGN BUILD, LLC
Search Name OREILLY AUTO /FIRST CALL
DEPT Descr
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Utility Enterprise
Utility Enterprise
Spec Fds
Road & Bridges
Road & Bridges
Golf Course
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Fire
Fire
Parks & Recreation
Golf Course
Parks & Recreation
Golf Course
Parks & Recreation
OFFICE SUPPLIES - ENGINEERI Engineering Enterprise
OFFICE SUPPLIES - ENGINEERI Engineering Enterprise
OFFICE SUPPLIES - ENGINEERI Engineering Enterprise
Amount
$5.14
$10.52
$1035
$5.14
$8.97
$5.14
$10.36
$65.97
$218.00
$218.00
$20.51
$20.51
$20.50
$61.52
$260.00
$260.00
$88.35
$88.35
$658.94
$50.69
$709.63
$26,437.54
$26,437.54
$52.32
$52.32
$375.57
$37537
$14.10
$16.98
$7.58
$38.66
$350.00
$350.00
04/26/12 10:25 ANA 9
Page 6
Account
E 01- 4330 - 490 -50
E 01 -4330- 490 -70
E 45- 4330 - 490 -45
E 45- 4330 - 490 -45
E 15- 4330 - 490 -60
E 01- 4330 - 490 -50
Search Name OREILLY
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05 /01 /12PAY
Comments
DEPT Descr
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
AUTO /FIRST CALL
Search Name PIPE SERVICES
E 01- 4335 - 310 -70
E 29- 4337 - 000 -00
E 15- 4335 - 310 -60
E 01- 4335 - 310 -50
E 01- 4335 - 315 -30
G 01 -1145
E 15- 4330 - 490 -60
Search Name PIPE SERVICES
Search Name ROSEMOUNT, CITY OF
E 01 -4400- 020 -20
Search Name ROSEMOUNT, CITY OF
SUMPS - PW
SUMPS - STORM SEWER
SUMPS - PW
SUMPS - PW
SUMPS - FIRE HALL
SEWER CLEANING - LLOYD'S
SUMPS - LIFT STATIONS
MAAG TRAINING
Search Name RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQ CO
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50 OPERATING SUPPLIES
Search Name RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQ CO
Search Name SAM S CLUB
E 15- 4305 - 060 -60
E 45 -4310- 210 -45
E 45- 4310 - 210 -45
E 01- 4305 - 070 -70
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00
E 01- 4305 - 050 -50
Search Name SAM S CLUB
Search Name SPRWS
E 01- 4425- 070 -70
E 01 -4425- 310 -50
E 01- 4425 - 310 -70
E 15 -4425- 310 -60
Search Name SPRWS
Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE
E 08- 4131 - 000 -00
E 01- 4131 - 110 -10
E 15- 4131- 060 -60
G 01 -2071
E 01- 4131 - 070 -70
E 01- 4131- 020 -20
E 05- 4131 - 105 -15
E 01- 4131 - 050 -50
Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE
Search Name T MOBILE
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
CONCESSIONS - PAR3
CONCESSIONS - PAR3
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
CHAIR MATS - CITY HALL
OPERATING SUPPLIES - PW
METER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE - PW
WATER SERVICE - PW
WATER SERVICE - PW
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
MAY 2012 TERM LIFE & ST DIS
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Golf Course
Golf Course
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Spec Fds
Utility Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Fire
Utility Enterprise
Police
Road & Bridges
Utility Enterprise
Golf Course
Golf Course
Parks & Recreation
Spec Fds
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
Spec Fds
Administration
Utility Enterprise
Parks & Recreation
Police
Engineering Enterprise
Road & Bridges
Amount
$24.97
$24.97
$6.65
$40.56
$24.96
$14.51
$136.62
$35.00
$3,045.00
$35.00
$35.00
$105.00
$1,365.00
$1,575.00
$6,195.00
$282.32
$282.32
$201.99
$201.99
$37.47
$73.57
$180.50
$37.47
$91.44
$37.48
$457.93
$150.00
$7.96
$7.96
$7.95
$173.87
$49.87
$190.12
$36.04
$1,432.33
$110.39
$418.49
$95.17
$143.94
$2,476.35
04/26/12 10:25 Al5 0
Page 7
Account
E 01- 4210 - 070 -70
Search Name T MOBILE
Search Name TRI STATE BOBCAT
E 01- 4330 - 490 -50
E 01- 4330 - 490 -70
E 15- 4330 - 490 -60
Search Name TRI STATE BOBCAT
Search Name TURFWERKS
E 01- 4330 - 490 -70
Search Name TURFWERKS
Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE
E 01- 4335 - 315 -30
Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE
Search Name U. S. BANK
E 01- 4330 - 440 -20
E 01 -4400- 020 -20
E 01- 4400 - 110 -10
E 01- 4400 - 110 -10
E 01- 4400 - 110 -10
Search Name U. S. BANK
Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Claims List
System Checks
05101/12PAY
Comments
CELL SERVICE - PARKS
DEPT Descr
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
Parks & Recreation
Road & Bridges
Parks & Recreation
Utility Enterprise
EQUIPMENT REPAIR Parks & Recreation
FIRE HALL CONNECTION REPAI Fire
OFFICE FURNITURE - PD
CONFERENCE LODGING - M. R
CONFERENCE LODGING - J. MI
2012 MEMBERSHIP - J. MILLER
CONFERENCE LODGING - S. TH
Police
Police
Administration
Administration
Administration
E 01- 4410- 020 -20 EQUIPMENT - PD Police
Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
Search Name VERSATILE VEHICLES
E 45- 4200 - 610 -45
E 45- 4330 - 490 -45
Search Name VERSATILE VEHICLES
2012 GOLF CART LEASE Golf Course
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PA Golf Course
Search Name VIKING INDUSTRIAL CNTR
E 01- 4305-050 -50 SAFETY SUPPLIES
Search Name VIKING INDUSTRIAL CNTR
Road & Bridges
Search Name VITO MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS
E 08- 4335 - 000 -00 PLUMBING SERVICES - CITY H Spec Fds
Search Name VITO MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS
Search Name WEST ST. PAUL, CITY OF
G 15 -2010 2011 DELAWARE AVE NUE SEW
Search Name WEST ST. PAUL, CITY OF
Search Name WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
E 45- 4310 - 205 -45 BEVERAGES - PAR3
Search Name WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
Golf Course
Amount
$192.18
$192.18
$17.82
$17.81
$17.81
$53.44
$100.94
$100.94
$347.25
$347.25
$522.30
$259.41
$388.42
$225.00
$477.45
$1,872.58
$150.76
$150.76
$550.00
$227.27
$777.27
$143.27
$143.27
$110.00
$110.00
$2,748.77
$2,748.77
$167.20
$167.20
$94,138.13
CITY OFK0ENDOTAHEIGHTS
TREASURER'S REPORT MARCH 2012
) American Bank
Checking Account .02%
Savings Account .02%
Co|latens| - Bondn
Gov't. Guar.
Investments
Saving Cert 2/10/04 @0.65% Cherokee
FHLMC 0.5% 10/19/16
FHLMC 0.5% 10/19/16
FHLMC 1.50% 10/05/18
FHLMC 1.50% 10/05/18
FNMA 1.50% 11/23/18
FHLB 1.25% 11/23/18
FNMA 2.00% 9/30/21
FHLMC 2.375% 12/1/21
FHLMC 1.5% 12/29/21
Sovereign Bank 0.4% 2/7/13
Bank of India .35% 7/25/12
Bank of Baroda 046% 12/12/12
Barclays Bank 0.45% 12/14/12
) Wright Exp Financial Svcs 0.50%
'' Sallie Mae Bank 0J6% 06/14/13
Ally Bank 0.80% 06/14/13
Goldman Sachs Bank 1.50% 12/08/14
GE Capital Financial Inc 2.O5%1i/4/ 6
American Express Cent Bank 2.05% 12/1/16
Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper)
Gov�. Securities Fund 28% Sold S/4
W1MktFd(NF)
12/21/12
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 3/31/12
Funds Available 1/1/2012
Rates
MAR
MAR
Money Market
Bank 0.02Y6
Piper 0.10%
Bt Tr. 1.04%
BALANCE
$126.803.11
$640.09
$120.44320
Cost
$13,952.59
$700.000.00
$500.000.00
$1.000.000.00
$200.000.00
$200.000.00
$500.000.00
$200.000.00
$450.000.00
$200.000.00
$245.000.00
$100.000.00
$100.000.00
$100.000.00
$100.000.00
$100.000.00
$100.000.00
$245.000.00
$245.000.00
$245.000.00
$2.131.602.48
$433.187.00
$528.958.25
$8.764.143.52
$12.489.847.87
COLLATERAL
$873,432.00
$250.000.00
PV
$13,952.59
$689.713.00
$499.795.00
$1.000.030.00
$200.006.00
$200.066.00
$499.985.00
$200.362.00
$450.832.50
$200.112.00
$245,487.55
$100.030.00
$100'181.00
$100.183.00
$100.226.00
$100.530.00
$100.590.00
$245,791.35
$247.601.90
$247,565.15
$2.131.60248
$1.031.000.00
ITEM 5L
P52
1101 Victoria Curve ( Mendota Heights, MN 55113
651,452.1850 phone 1 651,452.8940 fax
vmarnendota- heights.corn
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
May 1, 2012
Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police
Sergeant Brian Convery 'V51-
Reserve Officer Recognition
ITEM 7A
P53
In 2011 the Reserve Unit volunteered a total of 3361 hours in support of the Police Department.
This impressive donation of time was accomplished by Volunteer Reserve Captain Jerry
Murphy, Reserve Officers Randy Pentel, Jesse Mettner, George Castillo, Jim Knox, Jeffrey
Parker, Jenod Spicer and Volunteer Coordinator Becky Pentel. In the 3rd quarter of 2011
Reserve Officer Jerrod Spicer took a leave of absence to focus his efforts on a new full time job
he accepted. We hope he will be rejoining us as an active Reserve later this year.
All Mendota Heights Reserve Officers are unlicensed and unpaid members of the Police
Department. They preform non - precarious police functions in support of the full time staff. They
primarily assist at city events, with crime prevention efforts and in support of the patrol division
as extra eyes and ears on the street. The unit has performed dozens of transports to jail and detox
allowing full time officers to remain in the city available to respond to emergencies. They
participate in ongoing training within the department as well as jointly with other reserve units
from northern Dakota County. Reserve Officers are not trained or authorized to do the majority
of the functions of a full time officer, however they are invaluable because they allow the full
tilne Officers more time to focus on protecting the lives and property of the citizens of the
communities we patrol.
In reviewing the great accomplishments of the unit and its dedicated members we wanted to
recognize their efforts formally in front of the Mayor, Council and the citizens who benefit from
the services they provide. Again this year we would like to honor our members who donated a
substantial amount of their personal time to the city by presenting them with the Presidents
Volunteer Service Award. The President's Volunteer Service Award recognizes individuals and
groups that have achieved a certain standard — measured by the number of hours of service over
a 12 -month period. The Bronze award is presented to a volunteer who donates between 100 and
249 hours. The silver award is presented to volunteers who donate between 250 and 499 hours
and the gold award is given to those who donate 500 or more hours in a calendar year.
1
The Presidential Volunteer Service Award consists of
1. An official President's Volunteer Service award lapel pin
2. A personalized certificate of achievement
3. A congratulatory letter from President Obarna
BUDGET IMPACT
The Police Reserve program has an operational budget; recognition is part of the budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the hours volunteered during 2011 the Police Department will be presenting the
following Reserve Officers with the following awards;
1. Jerrod Spicer — Presidential Bronze (139 Hours)
2. George Castillo — Presidential Bronze (171 Hours)
3. Jesse Mettner — Presidential Bronze (192 Hours)
4. Jerry Murphy — Presidential Bronze (219 Hours)
5. Jeff Parker — Presidential Silver (287 Hours)
6. Becky Pentel — Presidential Silver (332 Hours)
7. Jim Knox — Presidential Silver (431 Hours)
8. Randy Pentel — Presidential Gold (1537 Hours)
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ITEM 7B
P55
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights. MN 55115
551.452.1650 phone 551.452.8940 fax
•-
mminendota-heights.com
• .---4•041-251.Li,,.4,4-,
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R Mazzitello, PE, PMP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Annual Weed Control at Rogers Lake
BACKGROUND
In 2009 Council first heard from a group of Rogers Lake residents concerned about weed growth
in Rogers Lake, and they asked the City to look into removing some of the weeds from the lake
to better facilitate recreational opportunities. Council directed city staff to put together a
proposed plan for Council approval and to research the permitting requirements for weed
removal. Council subsequently approved up to $15,000 for expenditure on Rogers Lake weed
control. Along with the funding approval, Council asked the residents to work together and, as a
group, come up with an alternative funding program that would provide a sense of "ownership"
for the benefiting property owners.
The City's contractor, Midwest AquaCare, applied the chemical treatment to the permitted area
(a 50-foot wide loop around South Rogers Lake, a 50-foot wide single swath down the middle of
North Rogers Lake, and the area immediately in front of the City's fishing pier) in June 2009
followed by a supplemental treatment in August 2009. Total City expenditure for 2009 was
$4,755.32 not including staff/administrative time.
In 2010, Rogers Lake residents requested weed control activities be completed again. Council
approved funding up to $5,000 of Storm Water Utility Funds for weed control. Midwest
AquaCare completed the treatment in the same pattern as in 2009, but reported that weed growth
was not as prolific as was in 2009. It was determined that a second treatment was not necessary
due to relatively low weed growth.
In 2011, Rogers Lake residents carne to Council to ask for weed removal at Rogers Lake.
Council approved a one year treatment not-to-exceed $3,000.00 for the weed control treatment.
Council further gave the residents instructions that they are going to need to be a part of the
program in future years, and suggested the shore land owners form an association. Chemical
treatment was applied following the same pattern as in previous years, but treatment was
completed later in the year because weed growth was not taking place as quickly, or as dense, as
in past years.
P56
A year ago, staff surveyed several other municipalities that conduct weed control programs,
including the cities of Sunfish Lake, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Oakdale, and Maplewood. All
of these municipalities have lakes where they chemically treat for weeds, but rarely do they
apply chemicals in consecutive years to the same water body. This is mostly due to budgetary
reasons, with the cities having more water bodies to treat than they have funds to cover, but it
also has to do with minimizing impact to water quality. Vegetative growth in a lake helps to
clean the water, and continued removal of vegetation can have an adverse impact on chemical
nutrient levels and the overall water quality of a lake.
The residents of Rogers Lake are asking for the annual weed control treatment to be completed
in 2012. The homeowners have formed the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association, and the
association members are prepared to snatch any City contribution toward the weed control
efforts. The attached letter outlines the associati.on's proposal.
According to data generated from the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and Saint
Thomas Academy (STA), phosphorus levels in Rogers Lake have increased since the chemical
weed control program began. The first set of 2011 data we will receive will be from STA on
May 15th.
BUDGET IMPACT
A single weed control treatment has traditionally cost $3,000.00. Midwest AcquaCare (the
company the City has hired in the past to perform the treatment) has provided a price quote for
the 2012 treatment. Their cost for a single treatment this year would be $3,035.00. This price
also includes the Department of Natural Resources permit fee.
The 2012 City Budget does not have a planned expense for weed control at Rogers Lake, so if
Council wishes to implement weed control again for 2012, staff would need to be informed as to
what funds are to be used to pay the bill.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council listen to the proposal from the Roger Lake Property Owners
Association, but defer their decision on annual weed control for Rogers Lake until the City has
received the 2011 -2012 water quality sample data from STA on May 15th. Based on the results
of the STA data staff will be able to make a recommendation base on Rogers Lake's water
quality.
April 24,ZO12
John R. Mazzitello, PE PMP
Public Works Dinectnr/Cib/Engineer
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: Lefter of Request
Dear John,
On behalf of the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association, please let this letter serve as our official
request to the City to confirm how much money the City is willing to contribute toward weed control on
Rogers Lake in 2012. We have collected money and spoken to many of the Rogers Lake property owners,
and are confident we have the funds necessary to match the amount the City is willing to contribute
toward weed control in 2012. Myself and some others on behalf of the association will plan on attending
the council meeting next Tuesday, May 1, to address any concerns, questions, or comments the mayor,
council or staff may have at that time. Thanks for your assistance throughout this process and I look
forward to working with you and the City to keep Rogers Lake heafthy.
Sincerely,
i>
'-- ^/
'^.~-~
�»`^"\
Tim W. Carlson
President
P57
'1 .....-*,.,.................,.........,,,,,„=._
1101 `11,-..terla Curve I Men: lora I, tolghte, MN 551W
e 651.452:195:, uhene 1 6.51.452.a940 fa.:
, * % ... www.menciete-heights.com
*vAritEV.,,Turr",`" -
csi V 0 F'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council
Justin Miller, City Administrator
Sharon Hinze, Administrative Assistant
3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License Renewals
ITEM 8A
P58
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code Section 3, Chapter 1, no person except wholesalers and
manufacturers to the extent authorized by law, shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, or dispose
of by gift, sale or otherwise, or keep or offer for sale, any intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 percent
malt liquor within the city without first having received a license to do so under this chapter.
Public hearings have been scheduled for Tuesday evening, May 1, 2012 for renewal of the city's
existing 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. Public hearing notices were published in the city's
legal newspaper. City Council may conduct a single hearing and act on all licenses concurrently
at this meeting provided there are no negative public comments or council concerns about the
licenses.
DISCUSSION
Renewal license applications have been received from the following businesses for on-sale 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses: Mendota Heights Par 3 located at 1695 Dodd Road, Mendo
Restaurant Group, Inc., dba Mendoberri located at 730 Main Street, Windy City Pizza LLC dba
Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria located at 730 Main Street, and CEC Food and Beverage LLC, dba
LeCordon Bleu of Culinary Arts located at 1315 Mendota Heights Road. Renewal license
applications have been received from the following businesses for 3.2 off-sale malt liquor
licenses: Northern Tier Retail LLC dba SuperArnerica located at 1080 Highway 110 and Northern
Tier Retail LLC dba SuperAmerica located at 1200 Mendota Heights Road. The applications
were complete and in order and contain all required documentation, all applicable fees and
signatures. Background investigations have been conducted resulting in no negative findings on
the above applicants. Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria did have a liquor license violation stemming
from the December 5, 2011 underage sale of alcohol by one of their employees. The employee was
charged with the crime of selling alcohol to an underage person. Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria has
been very cooperative and has complied with the civil penalty req-uirements and has since
participated in best practices, paid the penalty of si,000.00 and had their license suspended for
three days in February of this year.
1
P59
1101 Victoria Curv,g HlhlS, MN 51511E/
651.45:%.16.50 ollvno 1 651452.8940 fax.
" VWW.Illeildeti1-11(31911t5.COrel
On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License for Mendota Heights Par 3 located at 1695 Dodd Road;
Mendo Restaurant Group dba Mendoberri located at 730 Main Street; Windy City Pizza LLC
dba Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria located at 730 Main Street, CEC Food and Beverage LLC dba
LeCordon Bleu of Culinary Arts; Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License for Northern Tier
Retail LLC dba SuperAmerica located at 1080 Highway 110; and Northern Tier Retail LLC dba
SuperAmerica located at 1200 Mendota Heights Road.
ACTION REQUIRED
If city council agrees with the recommendation, council should conduct the public hearing and,
if it concurs in the recommendation, should approve the issuance of the following:
On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License: Mendota Heights Par 3 located at 1695 Dodd Road;
On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License: Mendo Restaurant Group Inc. dba Mendoberri located
at 730 Main Street;
On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License: Windy City Pizza LLC dba Tommy Chicago's Pizzeria
located at 730 Main Street;
On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License: CEC Food and Beverage LLC dba LeCordon Bleu of
Culinary Arts;
Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License: Northern Tier Retail LLC dba SuperAmerica located
at 1080 Highway 110; and
Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License: Northern Tier Retail LLC dba SuperAmerica located at
1200 Mendota Heights Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the renewal of the following licenses:
MENDDTA HEIGHTS
ITEM 9A
P60
1101 Victoria Curve ( Mendota Heights, MN 55116
651,452.1850 pone 1 651 452,8640 *ax
n www.iriQiitiota-heichts.com
DATE: May 1, 2012
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzelc, PE, Assistant City Engineer OkSiP
SUBJECT: Accept Bids and Award Contract for Marie Avenue Rehabilitation
BACKGROUND
Staff identified the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation as a 2012 street rehabilitation project in the
2011 -2015 Street Improvement Plan (SIP).
Council ordered the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements at their October 18, 2011
meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street rehabilitation
project.
Four bids (see below) were received and opened on Wednesday, April 25, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
for the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation.
NAME OF BIDDER
Arnt Construction Co., Inc.
Hardrives, Inc.
McNamara Contracting, Inc.
Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
AMOUNT OF BID
$1,018,047.56
$1,039,735.18
$1,047,500.50
$1,146,598.40
Two of the four bidders, Arnt Construction Co., Inc. and Bituminous Roadways, Inc., did not meet
the requirements in the project specification for mobilization which states that the lump sum bid
price for mobilization shall not exceed 3% of the total base bid. Arnt Construction Co., Inc_
mobilization bid price was 4.3% of the total base bid and Bituminous Roadways, Inc. mobilization
bid price was 5.2% of the total base bid. Staff recommends summarily rejecting the bids from
Amt Construction Co., Inc. and Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Hardrives, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid of $1,039,735.18. Their bid was less than
the Engineer's Estimate of $1,124,743.15. Hardrives, Inc. is a contractor with many years of
experience with an office in Rogers, Minnesota. Staff has not worked with Hardrives, Inc. in the
past. Staff has contacted references for Hardrives, Inc. and all references came back with very
positive comments about their work. Staff recommends them for this contract.
The substantial completion date for the project is August 24, 2012. I expect that Hardrives, Inc.,
serving in the capacity of General Contractor, is capable of meeting the completion dates and
installing the proposed improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications given their
experience and the amount of equipment and manpower they have at their disposal.
Staff will mail out a general notice to the residents about the project after council awards the
contract, including information regarding the construction schedule.
Marie Avenue Rehabilitation Project Summary
Street rehabilitation includes reclaiming the existing bituminous roadway and the placing of a 3"
bituminous base course and a 2" bituminous wear course over the reclaimed pavement material.
St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPWRS) requires the existing water main on Marie Avenue to
be replaced per the 1995 Contract for Water Service with SPRWS. The existing water main is 8"
cast iron pipe and has had a break frequency exceeding limits established by SPRWS. Water
main improvements include installing new 8" ductile iron pipe along Marie Avenue and
replacing the hydrants to meet SPRWS standards.
Storm sewer improvements will consist of constructing a detention pond at the Northeast corner
of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road. In 2003, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization prepared a water quality modeling study which identified the
Northeast corner of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road as a potential location for water quality
improvements.
Proposed improvements to the Marie Avenue trail include removing the exiting bituminous
surface and placing a 2.5" bituminous pavement constructed over the existing aggregate base and
installing pedestrian curb ramps.
Damaged concrete curb and gutter will also be replaced as part of the roadway restoration.
Disturbed boulevard areas will be restored with topsoil and sod.
Street striping will be improved as a traffic calming measure.
Project Schedule
A proposed schedule for the remainder of this project is shown below:
Item: Date:
Award Contract May 1, 2012
Begin Construction May /June 2012
Complete Construction August 24, 2012
Assessment Hearing October 2012
BUDGET IMPACT
The total construction cost for the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation improvements is $1,039,735.18,
not including indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. The Marie
Avenue Rehabilitation project is proposed to be financed by special assessments, municipal bond
sales, MSA funds, and the utility funds.
P61
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends summarily rejecting the bids from Arnt Construction Co., Inc. and Bituminous
Roadways, Inc. due to their mobilization unit bid price exceeding 3% of the total base bid. Staff
recommends that the council accept the bids and award the construction contract to Hardrives,
Inc. for their bid in the amount of $1,039,735.13. If city council wishes to implement the staff
recommendations, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION (PROJECT
#201107). This action requires a simple majority vote.
P62
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA. COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE MARIE AVENUE
REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201107)
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed construction of water main, storm
sewer, street paving and related appurtenant work for Marie Avenue from Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue
referred to as the Marie Avenue Rehabilitation, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law and
the following bids were received complying with said advertisement:
NAME OF BIDDER
Arnt Construction Co., Inc.
Hardrives, Inc.
McNamara Contracting, Inc.
Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
and
AMOUNT OF BID
$1,018,047.56
$1,039,735.18
$1,047,500.50
$1,146,598.40
WHEREAS, the bids submitted by Amt Construction Co., Inc. and Bituminous Roadways, Inc. did
not meet the requirements in the project specification for mobilization which states that the lump sum bid price
for mobilization shall. not exceed 3% of the total base bid; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the bids submitted by Arnt Construction Co., inc.
and Bituminous Roadways, Inc., be summarily rejected; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the lowest responsible bid submitted by Hardrives,
Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows:
1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted.
2. That the bid of Hardrives, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above
described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Hardrives, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, and 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 first day of May, 2012.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk
P63
1
ITEM 9B
P64
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651452.1850 phone 1 651,452.8940 fax
www,mendota-heights.com
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrat<Ac\c)
Planning Case 2012-11, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
BACKGROUND
A planning application was presented to the planning commission on April 24, 2012 for a
conditional use permit for accessory structures and a variance for the total area of accessory
structures at the Convent of the Visitation located at 2455 Visitation Drive. The school is
seeking to construct dugouts on a softball field. The affected parcel is zoned residential, guided
for institutional use and is used as a school.
The planning application was deemed complete April 13, 2012. The 60 day review period is set
to expire on June 13, 2012. Public notice was published in the city's legal newspaper and mailed
to property owners within 350 feet of the parcel.
Planner Grittman reviewed his report on the request. The commission asked if this request was
in conformance with the ordinance amendment regarding accessory structures which the
commission recommended for approval. Mr. Grittman confirmed that-the proposed structures
would be well within the new standard.
Dawn Nichols, Representing the Convent of the Visitation informed the commission that the
dugouts would be red and white to match school colors and would provide added safety for
players.
There were no comments at the public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
At their April 24, 2012 meeting, the planning corxunission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of
the conditional use permit and variance as requested, with the findings provided by the city
planner If city council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting the
attached resolution, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND A VARIANCE FOR TOTAL AREA OF ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE AT 2455 VISITATION DRIVE, making any changes the city council deems
necessary. This action requires a simple majority vote.
P65
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND EAT VARIANCE 5 VISITATION DRIVE
OF
ACCESSORY
WHEREAS, Dick Davern, on behalf of the Convent of the Visitation School has
applied for a conditional use permit for accessory structures and a variance for the total
area of accessory structures to construct two softball dugouts at 2455 Visitation Drive
(PID 27- 03500 -75 -010, N 198 FT OF SE 1/4 LYING W OF JEFFERSON HGWY EX W
200 FT & N 6 FT OF S 330 FT OF N 528 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LYING W OF
HGWY, Section 35, Township 28, Range 23) as shown in planning case 2012 -11; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing
on April 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the commission recommended that the city council approve the
conditional use permit and the variance.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City
Council that a conditional use pennit and variance as proposed in planning case 2012 -11
are hereby approved with the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed accessory buildings (softball dugouts) will be located in an
area that is not visible from surrounding property.
2. The site on which the proposed building is to be constructed is unique and
distinguished from other residential properties, consisting of more than 50
acres.
3. The proposed accessory buildings will have little or no impact on
surrounding residential property with a separation from the closest
residential building of approximately 300 feet.
4. The proposed building will support an activity that is clearly incidental
and accessory to the principal use of the property and is not expected to
increase traffic or have other impacts on public services.
5. The proposed building meets all other zoning requirements.
6. The proposed building is not expected to create any drainage or stoiur
water issues, and such drainage will be handled by on -site storm water
management.
P66
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May 2012.
ATTEST CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
P67
Of.p.pn " ptilcitlot Hi.01-ivkiasr; Sart :Pcfcl-ri,• ,NA'N.
iIih're 623i255 FchiiIe 16:.201:261::*.,PlarTriet0@ila4411.174.6g,641-1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT(S):
LOCATION:
ZONING:
GUIDE PLAN:
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Stephen Grittman
April 19, 2012
April 24, 2012
Variance for Accessory Building Size and Number
Case No. 2012-11; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.08
Visitation School and Convent
2455 Visitation Drive
R-1, Single Family Residential
Institutional
Background and Description of Request:
Visitation School is seeking permission to construct two dugouts for the softball field in
the northwest corner of their property. Because these structures are enclosed with a
roof, they qualify as accessory buildings, and as such, require zoning approvals. The
current ordinance retains the accessory building requirements for such uses under the
residential regulations. Under this code, additional accessory building space (and the
number of such buildings) will require a variance.
A proposed ordinance amendment (spurred by a previous Visitation request for a
detached classroom building) that would allow non-residential uses in the R-1 district to
exceed the normal residential limits has not yet been adopted.
P68
When considering variances1 the City is required to find that:
(1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and
(2) The app|iC8n�Sproposal faces practical d��CUlti8SiDusing the pFOpedviDthis
` ' manner due to circumstaflCeS that:
a. Are unique to the property,
b. Are not caused by the applicant,
C. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's pans and
ordinances, of character 0[ neighborhood, inVVhiohthe
d. Are DOtDUlO ','
propertY is located.
In this case, the addition of dugouts for an existing outdoor recreation field would easily
" h� Us�" hSSt V�it� regard to the conditions for
Gpp8@[tVDlS8tth� r�8S0D8 8 ' restrictions oDVV�3tiS
"practical difficulties" test, the regulations impose extensive FBS F ODS� in the City t�SmViS�a�G[[Di�edUSeiDth8ZDDiOg district. There are three sCkOOS D � '' parcels
otherwise to use their in this way (out nf residentially zODe ��[CO
could be expected
i D the thousands). With regard to C h [aCte[ . the proposed structures will She
ltC[@
D
existing use that is permitted, and is not introducing any new activity to the property.
Moreover, the proposed dugouts are more than 200 feet to the nearest residential
property, and @t least 3OO feet [othe nearest residential structure. It would
that
the terms for variance Oce aPe easily met in this case.
The pending ordinance amendment would regulate accessory building space as a
percentage of the total parcel area. For the Visitation property of approximately O much 49
total With the
acres,
addition ofthe dugouts at 120 square feet each, total accessOrY building floor a [e
@
On
the site »i�� h8 approximately 0.575 square feet. As such, if the amendment is
eventually adopt d as written, the applicants will easily be conforming to that code.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
1. Approval of the proposed variance for two dugout structures as proposed, based
on findings attached to this report.
2. Denial of the proposed variance, based on findings to be generated from
testimony at the public hearing.
2
P69
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variances. As noted, the structures are consistent
with the current use of the site, will have little or no visual impact on adjacent property,
and would be consistent with the terms of the proposed code amendment for accessory
building construction. With these conditions, the request meets the required tests for
variance approval, including reasonableness, and practical difficulties.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application materials dated April 2 and April 13, 2012
3
P70
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Visitation Convent and School
Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Building
2455 Visitation Drive
1 The proposed accessory buildings (softball dugouts) will be located in an area
that does not affect surrounding property.
2. The site on which the proposed buildings are to be constructed is unique and
distinguished from other residential properties, consisting of more than 50 acres.
3. The proposed accessory buildings will have little or no impact on surrounding
residential property with a separation from the closest residential building of
approximately 300 feet.
4. The proposed buildings will support an activity that is clearly incidental and
accessory to the principal use of the property, and is not expected to increase
traffic or have other impacts on public services.
5. The proposed accessory buildings will not change the use of the property, either
in type or intensity.
6. The proposed building meets all other zoning requirements.
7. The proposed building is not expected to create and drainage or stormwater
issues, and such drainage will be handled by on-site stormwater management.
4
/ \
of the 2 --
MI 1011/ dee
April 13 2012
City of Mendota Heights
Mr. Jake sedlacek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Planning Case File #2O1]-l1
Dear Mr. Secllacek, The Conveflt and Academy of the Visitation wisheStO apply for an acceSSO accessory structure variance ce
to
construct two softball dugouts on the varsity softball field on the far western portion our camp
us
'
The dugouts are o normal and usual addition too softball field because it gets the players and
equipment out of the mud and weather el ments and they provide a resting place for the players.
Since the softball dugoUtS or erelatively small structures (home - 12O sq ' ft an d
isit
ors-8Ssq.
ft.) and
the fact that they are located on our campus's far western perimeter, the impact on the neighborhood
is s
ve small. There are a number oftreesmrou»dthusou thsidenfthefio|dandthehomeduK»u tisbui|t
into the side of a hill whi h conceals it even further. There are also a number of trees 5rrounding the
We have submitted a set of building plans completed b Opus an
d plan
to use quality products. The
shake design is consistent with other school accessory structures.
h kedesi0n\sconsistontxithotharschnoiaccessorYo ructures .
We are 50bmittiflg an additiOflal $100 to offset city plannifl8 expeflSes. If there 15 an\hing else needed
398-9980 and
please contact noeatG51-6O3-17Olor6S1-
Sincerely,
Richard J. DaVerfl
Director, Finance &Operations
Non Scholue, Sedyitau
School, but 2455 Visitation Drive Mendota Heights, Not �~ ~~~`-` ' '
MN 55120 Phone: (651) 683-l70N~ Fax: (651)454-7l44^ Web site: vwmv Katiouoc
P71
Convent of the
March 29, 2012
City of Mendota Heights
k8r Jake Sed|ecek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Sedacek,
Conditional \�/e�oesubnod1i»�o � Application
dugouts on our varsity fieW, or the one closest to the lake. have enclosed the ap
P|icat|on'
cjrawingS, and check for your revieW. Ii nc ethe dugouts are o fairly straight forward structure
we hope these items will suffice.
|f you need anything else before the planning review please ca
|| me at 651683-1701 5D]-17O1 or my cell
at 651-398-9980. understand the planning commission will review the plans soon. This wou
|d
c1i��theduQoUtsi�thene�rfutUre'
be a great help since we are very interested in con st ru
Many and efforts reviewing the documents. �nyth�n�sforeverynne's tinne�n e vv
�N0�N�
Richard J. Davern
Director, Finance 8f. Operations
Non Scholae, Sed Vitae.
Notfor butfor 4p. P72
2455 Visitation Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 - Phone: (651) 683-1700 - Fax: (651) 454-7144 Web site: www,visitation.net
•,a4
MCITY OF •
IVIE-NDOTA. HEIGHTS
Case No.
Date of Application '112-iI2-
2_01 —
1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, HIV 55118
G51.4523850 phone I 851.452.8040 fax
%vvrimmenciota-heights.cora
APPLICATION Fi CONSIDERATION
OF PL NNING REQUEST
Applicant Name:
E-Mail Address:
Address:
Owner Name:
Address: 5-
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (C
Fee Paid S'S'S-Mko4
Staff Initials
PH: tfl
4.41 ,m 1 -
mpliete Legal from Title or
0
-3 el V--q1 9'O
eed must he pr vided)
Type of Request:
Rezoning •
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional User Permit for P.U.D.
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
• I: i riqri
i,11-111,111i111hVitti.(r'
rope
Variance
• Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Critical Area Permit
Other (attach explanation)
OP, -.010
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours.
1rIlk
.1 •
'ature of Applicant)
6;51-e-r klAr
(Signature of Owner)
Date Received
ila u 144,p
P73
0
AVE
I X
etosauuttry 's}y51aH e{opuaW
EOEOEiagwnt
looyoS uoP4isin
HAProjectI4umber \Design \ Arch\ SheetTitle.thvg
L—r----7-,:---,-.
----- ///'
li,1711,11
LAKE DRY
— slow
uNL.
•
ROGERS
AVENUE
c(72)
. JO,
\\.‘
' I I
\ ,
P 7 4
SEAT CUT DIM.
PREFINISHED METAL FASCIA T
iii 97
IJJ >- ,t,
—,
m ><0
cc 0 = ,- 1:0
0 0_ •,5
0 tu i.,_
O 0 U)
'..d- CD --1
CJ D'
41 0
V Z
, -J CC .,
0
0 0 .....) 0 • L-1 ° ... I—,
< 1,-
z- u)
_J
„.., ci
u _,
• oU(Dal 4 0
La z In ca • 0 ca .-, en
r- o 4 ID Z 0 "."
0
x
a a
in iru =
a o 0
1:,, ■.J., cL w -- -4- . - . 1-J O( 0
0 a. 0
- =
Ec- t5 f a x ,r,
-= ,. nX c.±. )
< • -4- ›. -- - m •-• la -,
.----4
Fri x =
EXISTING CONCRETE SLABS
OnicralaivogsVialy\U6jsao\JaquJnNpar.Jd\:
Visitation School
Jab Number 30303
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
op
P75
CO
0
CONCRETE PAD (FIRST BASE SIDE)
0
P
0)
0 0
Emp•anupaysVpayV6!sadvaquInNionfomV.1
Visitation School
Job Number 30303
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
P76
0
N
30VdS VOV
0
o
-
I-
N
0
" 8
-
5
6 a
>
0
w
cc
0
0
LO
CC ta
I— 2
La
2: 19
0 0
x
10
04 0.
1x8 CEDAR 545 TRIM
o
La
0_
0
0
28'x9'x4" CONCRETE PAD (FIRST BASE SIDE)
1x8 CEDAR S45 TRIM BOARD
o c‘
ca
a
% 0
La
019 0
10 2:
5 1/7
>. — •cr VI
0 v) 190
0
N Cla
33VdS VOV
„tiASE
LU
0
.60
Emp•anupays Vio)y\u6isaaVaqumwpafo)d \
Visitation School
Job Number 30303
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL
USER PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DUGOUTS AT 2455 VISITATION DRIVE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will
meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider an application from Dick Davern on behalf the Convent of the Visitation.
The applicant is seeking to construct two dugouts on the softball field at Convent
of the Visitation School. This request requires a conditional use permit for two dugouts,
as well as a variance for the total number of accessory structures and a variance for the
total area of accessory structures.
This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City
Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard
at this meeting.
Sandie Thane
City Clerk
Dakota County, MN
=4 •
-
4)..j.'41,241.ailF014".41.1'4).11.,4
-ka
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
inch = 569 feet
P79
ITEM 9C
P80
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, 1-111 55118
651.4521850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
w;w,v,mendota-heights.com
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY of
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Adtninistratoj \
Planning Case 2012 -10, Variance to Side Yard Setback
BACKGROUND
A planning application was presented to the planning commission on April 24, 2012 for a two
foot variance to the side yard setback to create an additional parking space at 862 Wagon Wheel
Trail. The affected parcel is zoned residential, guided for low density residential and is used as a
single family home.
The planning application was deemed complete by shed ino`>.e The 60 day review
legal newspaper period is set d mailed
to expire on June 13, 2012. Public notice was published
property owners within 100 feet of the parcel.
Planner Grittman reviewed his report on the request. The commission had no questions for the
planner.
Mr. Igo commented that the current driveway is two cars wide and that his family is seeking
approval to create a place for a third vehicle to park. Mr. Igo described the area to the east of the
existing driveway as unsuitable for the space for two reasons. Expanding to the east would
require removal of a large tree; this alternative would also require paving over the gas service
line into the home. A conforming parking space on the west side of the home would be just wide
enough for a vehicle, but does not leave enough room to enter and exit vehicles from the
driveway.
There were no comments at the public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
At their April 24, 2012 meeting, the planning commission voted 6:0 to recommend denial of the
variance with the findings provided by the city planner. If city council wishes to implement this
reconunendation, pass a motion adopting the attached resolution, A RESOLUTION DENYING
A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 862 WAGON WHEL TRAIL, making
any changes the city council deems necessary. This action requires a simple majority vote.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT
862 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL
WHEREAS, Joeseph and Anne Igo have applied for a two foot variance to the
side yard setback for the addition of one parking stall at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail. (PID
27- 45300 -00 -100, L 10, Linden Addition) as shown in planning case 2012 -10; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing
on April 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the commission reconunended that the city council deny the
variance.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City
Council that a variance as proposed in planning case 2012 -10 his hereby denied with the
following findings of fact:
1. The proposed driveway expansion is inconsistent with the intent of the
ordinance to promote green space, preserve drainage and utility easement
corridors, and minimize crowding between residential properties.
2. The proposed parking space can be accommodated by an expansion of the
driveway meeting the setbacks without variance, including the potential
for expanding a portion of the driveway to the east.
3. While alternatives to the variance may be less convenient, the proposed
encroachment into the required setback area constitutes an unreasonable
use of the setback area.
4. There are no practical difficulties in putting the property to use.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May, 2012.
ATTEST CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
P81
P82
N 0 gi't
ST CI
004' cn Mefl�iaI Hijiwi. .GoId v4-00,, MN :0$42.1
Ihe: 763i231..25 Fa0airii I e: 763.2 1 i256T :;0,1.6.6 0'00 ii.:b;01.4 in0..66. en
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: April 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: April 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Variance for Driveway Setback
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-10; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.09
APPLICANT(S): Joseph Igo
LOCATION: 862 Wagon Wheel Trail
ZONING: , Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant wishes to expand the width of his driveway toward the side property line
to create an additional parking space on the paved surface. The applicant currently has
a two car garage with a setback from the side property line consistent with the minimum
requirement of 10 feet. The current driveway edge lies approximately 11 feet from the
side property line. The setback regulation for driveway surfaces is 5 feet from side
property lines.
Analysis:
When considering variances, the City is required to find that:
(1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and
(2) The applicant's proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this
manner due to circumstances that:
a. Are unique to the property,
P83
b. Are by City's /\F8consistent VViththe purpose and i D teOtOfth8C�y/Spl@nSGDU
ordinances,
d. Are not out Of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the
property is Iocated
The applicant contends that the additional parking space is necessary to accommodate
vehices owned by residents ofthe prOp8rtv.@Dd t08CC0n0[UOd8f8 circulation given the
'
twO-C@[g8[@ge, existing tree plantings, lack OfOO@DeUVC[8 maneuverability for vehicles within the
existing driveway.
Side setbacks for driveways are intended to ensure that green space exists between
residential properties, and to accommodate the common drainage and utility easements
along property lines. 'The zoning ordinance does not permit parking of vehicles on
grass or other unsurfaced areas.
Under the existing conditions, the applicant can expand his driveway width by about six
feet toward the side p[0p3dv!iD8@DdOl8RtthSsetb@Ck[eqUiF8n08Dt. [�iXfeet isOG[[oVV.
' l | for smaller The average width of most
�UtUsG��8fOr�2[kin� particularly [S vehicles.
vehicles, including small �� t[UC| and SUVS is just under 72 inches. The applicant
' ~ trucks the other, interior, side of the driveway would raise
indicates that while the area on 8 O ' � ,
-� - � � by foot 0r two VVithVUtiUtn�e[iOg with i3SU8S@S8�@[�iD�G[C@,it Ol8V�88X�3O � VG
existing trees and other improvements.
Action Re
After a public hearing, the Planning Commissiofl may consider one ofthe following
alternative actions:
1. Approval Of the variance for d ' setback as requested, based
on draft
findings attached to this Fepor- IfG recommendation for approval iSconsidered,
it ay be appropriate to request that the area of encroachment into the setback
includes some measures t o reduce
such as pervious paver
s rather
than
solid pavement), and that some form of tandscape/screefliflg is CO OSid8r8d
adjoining the parking area adjacent to the neighboring property.
2. Denial of the variance for driveway setback, based on draft findings attached to
this report.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff does not recommend the variance. As noted in the analysis, it would
appear that the available six feet is adequate to park a typicat passenger vehicle. While
it is understood that a wider surface would be more desirable, the requirements for
variance do not appear to be present, including conditions of uniqueness, or character
of the locality, in that the five foot setback standard has been routinely applied to new
driveways throughout the community.
2
As suggested in the alternatives above, if the Planning Commission believes that the
variance request is reasonable in this context, the City may consider a requirement for
alternative paving materials that permit drainage to flow into the soil, and a potential
landscape screen in the remaining three feet to mitigate the impact of the reduced
parking setback.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 3/28/12
3
P84
P85
[]raft Findings of Fact for Approval
Igo Driveway Setback
Variance for Setback Encroachment
862 Wagon Wheel Trail
1 The proposed driveway expansion is a reasonable use 0f the SUN -, 8CtpPDpe property.
2. The proposed driveway expansion will reduce traffic in the public street by
accommodating vehicle parking and easier maneuveriflg on private property.
3. The proposed driveway expansion can not be accommodated within the required
setbacks without interfering with existing driveway use, given the Iocation of the
garage.
4. Expansion of the driveway on the other (east) side can not be accomplished due
to existing site improvements and existing trees.
5. The site conditions create practical difficulties in complying with the intent of the
ordinance.
4
P86
Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
lgo Driveway Setback
Variance for Setback Encroachment
862 Wagon Wheel Trail
1 The proposed driveway expansion is inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance
to promote green space, preserve drainage and utility easement corridors, and
minimize crowding between residential properties.
2. The proposed parking space can be accommodated by an expansion of the
driveway meeting the setbacks without variance, including the potential for
expanding a portion of the driveway to the east.
3. While alternatives to the variance may be less convenient, the proposed
encroachment into the required setback area constitutes an unreasonable use of
the setback area.
1!
5
P87
)
City mf Mendota Hpight‹:
1 wish to add an addition onto my driveway so that it can accommodate another car. We currently have
three drivers in our family, with another on the way
The current city code alows me to add an additional six feet, as 1 need to stay 5 feet away from the
near lot line.
|tis not feasible to add onto the left (easU side as that would locate the dhvewayon top ofnnyhont
'
entry steps. The only alternative is to add to the right (west). |currently have 11 feet from the edge of
my driveway to the lot line.
I have a narrow driveway to begin with, and six feet of addition space is barely enough room for one car.
1 am requesting a variance to the ordinance so that I can make the drivewaY 7 or 8 feet in width. The
�#eet
accompanying photos and dmm/ingohovxthe proposed d�vewaywidth. The red stake representS
ondthegreenoneDfeet.Theadditionvxou|dbedoneincemnentsothatitmnoned the
e
existing driveway.
This driveway expansion will not have a structure on it and will only be used to park a car.
Thank you for your consideratiofl,
Joseph
. .� �^�^�//
��q ��y%( \wn�_
0u'�` vv,v,'. ,_'
Case No. 21 v
Date of Application
P88
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.4521E150 phone 651.452.6940 fax
vy",,,Av.mndot.a-heights.cfLe,
CITY OF
MENDOTA. HEIGHTS
Applicant Name: 2)6542-
E-Mail Address:
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF PLANNING REQUEST
•
(0
Address:
Owner Name:
Address:
Fee Paid
Do ,;13 2_
Staff Initials
PH: 6 i1656
VA-6-O tx
0 h
kiv A /V kee L-
1119140A1 Whee
!Li
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
— /1153eo —oo OD
4
I L
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional User Permit for P.U.D.
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
__Variance
Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Critical Area Permit
Other (attach explanation)
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspe t the abov property during daylight hours.
ature of Ap ant)
Date Received
(Sig
(Sign
Own
1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heighti, MN 55118
651.452,1850 phone 1 551452.8940 fez
vp.qw.mendote-heights.corn
,„.
To:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
SIGNATURES OF CONSENT FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
The Planning Commission, City of Mendota Heights
From: Property Owners of /)) 0461til W
1A/4-IL
DAW tA/4-Y1 (pAN5la Al 7 k iver
i 14,j
-7 ,ddeci 0,tif
We the undersigned have reviewed the plans for 2 14046A/ lf(1, , and
understand the terms and conditions of the requested variance for
WIVE e'reaVive '1)) Th< iVe51—
■ ) We have no objections to this request and do hereby give our written consent and consent to
waiver of public hearing.
Sincerely,
RE:
NAME (Please Print)
Z.f/
cfp
SIGNATURE ADDRESS (INCL. LOT)
(7' 76 6(../ LkJ
P89
;„.
862 Wago Wheel Trail
r===cetamagicalswea.c.00=waxraseeseamowomvaeowamo=aravaseceamzeoaccoossasP
March 16, 2012
WAViW4
•111•111•IMVW,4
City of
Mendota
Heights
SCALE IN FEET
-239-1332
— 1 inch
One Small Square = One Foot
SCALE: 1" = 0'
P93
P94
CITY nF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK FOR A DRIVEWAY EXPANSTION AT 862 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will
meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider an application from Joseph Igo.
The applicant is seeking a two foot variance to the side yard setback in order to
expand their driveway.
This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City
Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard
at this meeting.
Sandie Thane
City Clerk
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 112 feet
P95
1101 Victoria Curie 1 Mendota Heights, 1,1N 55118.
651,452.1850 phone 1 651,452.8940 fax
,,vrantendota-heights.com
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
---'11.71.•ak •
May 1,2012
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator_TAS
Planning Case 2012-07, Variance to the Right of Way Width
ITEM 9D
P96
BACKGROUND
A planning application was presented to the planning commission on February 28, 2012 for a
variance to width of the right of way for Foxwood Lane. Michael and Michelle Bader have
requested a variance as they seek to extend Foxwood Lane to access the undeveloped polion of
their property located at 1673 Delaware Avenue. The applicants also own Lot 3 of the Foxwood
Plat, which is on the southern end of the Foxwood Lane cul-de-sac.
The applicant intends to submit a request for a subdivision at a future date, this application
pertains only to the ability to extend Foxwood Lane without a code-compliant right of way width
for the existing portion of the road.
The public hearing was held open as the planning case was tabled by the planning commission
for one month. The applicant then requested the matter be tabled one additional month. The
public hearing was resumed by the planning commission on April 24, 2012. Foxwood Lane is an
existing, nonconforming street and right of way — with 50 feet of right of way, with a private
driveway in lieu of a public road. The area surrounding Foxwood Lane is zoned low-density
residential and guided as rural residential. The area includes single family homes.
The planning application was deemed complete February 6, 2012. The 60 day review period
was set to expire on April 6, 2012 and was extended by the city an additional 60 days. The
review period will now expire June 5, 2012. Public notice was published in the city's legal
newspaper and mailed to property owners within 100 feet of the Foxwood Lane right of way.
At the public hearing on February 28, 2012, several residents raised concerns including, but not
limited to: the character of the area, existing setbacks, the planning approval process for the
Foxwood Plat and private covenants. The applicant provided further detail on their intent to
subdivide the undeveloped property at 1673 Delaware Avenue, utilizing Foxwood Lane for
access. Staff confirmed for the commission that any activity which extends the existing right of
way would trigger the need for any non-conformity to be corrected. Mr. Bader's application is
seeking relief from the strict application of code, as expanding the existing right of way from 50
feet to 60 feet in width is not feasible. Mr. Bader's representative confirmed that any extension
of the right of way would meet current city code.
Staff provided further detail on the existing conditions, clarifying for neighbors that the setback
for the property located at 548 Foxwood Lane is measured from the right of way, rather than the
edge of the road. There was lengthy discussion regarding whether or not the proposed variance
would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There was also considerable discussion P 97
of the impact of private property agreements on the public decision making process for the
variance. The public hearing was tabled to the March meeting, to provide staff and the applicant
an opportunity to address issues voiced at the public hearing.
At the April 24, 2012 meeting, Planner Grittman reviewed his amended report. Mr. Grittman
concluded that the information gathered since the previous meeting did not impact the staff
reconunendation. The Corrunission questioned if there were additional conditions which might
be added to an approval that would further protect residents. Mr. Grittman felt that any
additional conditions would be better suited for consideration with any subdivision request which
may follow this planning application.
Commissioner Magnusson asked if it is possible that a variance could be approved, but that the
actual construction of a public road might not be possible. Mr. Grittman affirmed that the
variance only allows the applicant to move forward with planning, the applicant will need to
design and get approval for a public road that meets city standards.
Corn nissioner Roston requested clarification on city standards for public roads and rights of
way. Public Works Director /City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that the city policy defines a
public road as being 33 feet in width, measured curb -to -curb. This standard may be adjusted
depending upon site conditions. The right of way typically extends an additional thirteen feet
beyond the curb to allow for snow storage and for the location of smaller utilities. These smaller
utilities such as telephone and cable are subject to vigorous maintenance, and standard right of
way provides ample access for those providers.
Paul McGinley of Loucks and Associates spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McGinley
provided extensive detail on the request in response to comments at the February 28, 2012 public
hearing as well as the staff report for the April 24, 2012 meeting.
Mr. McGinley responded to the drafting findings of fact for denial in the staff report
individually. This included providing further detail on the two alternatives to access the
undeveloped portion of 1673 Delaware Avenue. Access from Delaware is not feasible due to the
significant grades on the site. Mr. McGinley provided detail on the difficulty of grading a road
which would meet city standards and cited large retaining walls and significant tree loss which
would be necessary in this alternative. Mr. McGinley then discussed challenges to creating
access from Ridgewood Lane to the south. This alternative would require acquiring land from
two private property owners, and would require the creation of 1,200 lineal feet of additional
pavement.
Mr. McGinley addressed the concern over the variance for 548 Foxwood by stating that the
existing home was granted a variance to a right of way, and the use of Foxwood as a right of way
was a reasonable request, regardless of previous planning considerations.
Similarly, Mr. McGinley felt that the purchase of Lot 3 Foxwood under the current plat did not
preclude the applicant from seeking to utilize the Foxwood Lane right of way for future
expansion. Mr. McGinley cited examples from Mendota Heights and other communities in
which a 50 foot wide right of way have been utilized.
Mr. McGinley stated that the 50 foot right of way is limited to the first 300 feet of corning off of
Wentworth Avenue — as such, Mr. McGinley's opinion is that a street may be constructed, with
utilities entirely within the right of way. Further extension of Foxwood Lane would have a 60
foot wide right of way.
Mr. McGinley noted that the cul -de -sac does exceed the city's recommended length, but that the P 98
potential for future development to the south would classify the Foxwood Lane cul -de -sac as a
"temporary cul -de- sac."
Additionally, Mr. McGinley provided analysis of lot sizes which were shown on a concept plan,
and related those to the requirements of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Mr.
McGinley concluded by encouraging the commission to approve the variance request with the
findings of fact for approval included in the planner's report.
Mr. Bill Griffith spoke on behalf of several neighbors at the public hearing. Mr. Griffith
represents the Lutz, Aune /Miller and Grey families. Prior to Mr. Griffith's comrnents, Acting
Chair Field reminded Mr. Griffith that the only matter before the city at this time is the variance.
City Attorney Dielnn reiterated that point, and informed the commission that as a public hearing,
a speaker may bring up a variety of issues and concerns, and that legal counsel would be happy
to clarify what information is suitable to the current variance request.
Mr. Griffith stated that the proposal, a variance to be considered outside of an anticipated request
for subdivision did not provide enough detail to make a decision. He provided his opinion that
the planning decisions in 1993 and 1 O�Oa ter of he an argument that area. He cited tlaegack of and
of way
development were essential to the
extension or a ghost plat as further evidence to this argument.
Mr. Griffith felt that the burden of proof for the variance is upon the applicant, that they must
prove that the proposed variance will not create an undue burden to the neighbors living on or
near Foxwood Lane.
Mr. Griffith provided his opinion that the road could not be brought to city standards without
procuring construction easements from the private property owners, which was not likely to
occur.
Staff provided clarification that all utilities must be installed if /when Foxwood Lane is improved,
and voiced their opinion that the city was not at all likely to condemn property on behalf of an
applicant seeking subdivision in this or any other plat.
The public hearing was closed and Commissioner Noonan moved approval of the request for a
variance with the findings included in the planners report. Commissioner Viksnins seconded the
motion. The commission discussed the inclusion of conditions on the approval. The consensus
was that the conditions were better suited to an application for subdivision. Two friendly
amendments were made to the findings of fact, which have been attached as recommended for
approval by the planning commission.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
At their April 24, 2012 meeting, the planning corrunission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of
the variance as requested. If city council wishes to implement this reconunendation, pass a
motion adopting the attached resolution, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH FOR FOXWOOD LANE, making any changes the city council
deems necessary. This action requires a simple majority vote.
P99
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH FOR
FOXWOOD LANE
WHEREAS, Michael and Michelle Bader have applied for a variance to maintain an
existing 50 foot wide right of way width for Foxwood Lane for a potential extension of the road
as proposed in planning case 2012 -07; and
WHEREAS, consideration of this request for variance does not confer any guarantee of
approval for any future subdivision request; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
application at their regular meeting February 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on this application was held open until the regular
meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission on April 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the
variance as requested in planning case 2012 -07; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a
variance to maintain an existing 50 foot wide right of way width for Foxwood Lane for a
potential extension of the road as proposed in planning case 2012 -07 is hereby approved with the
following findings of fact:
1 The width of the existing Foxwood Lane for access to a future subdivision is not the
result of actions by the applicant.
2. The alternate access points potentially available to the applicant for access to the future
subdivision raise practical difficulties related to:
a. Excessive grading.
b. Steep grade slopes.
c. Excessive tree loss resulting from development.
d. Additional hard surface and street construction.
e. Additional street construction and maintenance serving no additional lots.
3. Lots resulting from the use of Foxwood Lane right of way would be consistent with
others found in the area and in similar zoning districts in the City.
4. Lots would be able to meet all required zoning standards of the applicable R -1A zoning
district.
5. Using Foxwood Lane as proposed in the variance application would constitute a
reasonable use of the subject land, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of May 2012.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST
Justin Miller, Acting City Clerk
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
P100
N .0 R. T
Asa,
400e 0 fs<;fri MernorF HihVYaY, S Vite 2024 ',lir- rci e6: V6- r\t 042,2
TO:ePhOtIOt 7E'38:201':206 ;251
haqiiaribihg4tgn
P101
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT(S):
LOCATION:
ZONING:
GUIDE PLAN:
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Stephen W. Grittman
March 22, 2012
April 24, 2012
Variance to Street Right of Way Width
Report Addendum
Case No. 2012-07; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.03
Mike and Michelle Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood Addition
R-1A, Single Family Residential
Low Density Residential
This report is intended to supplement the original staff report prepared for the February
28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. A number of questions were raised by the
Planning Commission and those in attendance at the public hearing. In this report, staff
would like to clarify some of those issues as the Planning Commission considers the
continued request.
1. Discussion occurred around the impact of approving a variance without the
benefit of a subdivision plan from the applicant. The Planning Commission
expressed concern that approval of the variance would result in a de facto
approval of a subdivision plan which was not before them, and whose impacts
could not be predicted.
Staff agrees that the lack of a subdivision application in concert with the right of
way variance complicates the decision on the variance. However, approval of
P102
the variance does not confer any guarantee of subdivision approval. The
GpplxgOtsn��—�ON�/V���8 B[�—N0U��O88[/tOOh3nL/ODtS0wV. The yiV
r- ~ /� ���yB������rNhBh0'he Q�
/]U/pOOe Of/hOKaranCe cOOGder8 8 ` �0 �[�y�fO' �r
/}8rDt bh8CODnectODtDFOXYY00C/LGne @s th83O/8GCceGs B3U //'u
whether the applicant will be required to seck an alternative access point
(presumably, Delaware Avenue). If desired, the Planning Comm
is8/0n could
specify this as a part 0fitOfin ' g8 .' 8ppy0$3//8[eC0nO8ndef
2. It was suggested that a better approach to this application might have been
through Planned Unit Developmeflt rather than variance. /\PL][) approach could
allow use OfFOxwOOd and incorporate the ability 0f the <�ifvtO evaluate the
entire proposal aSG unit, rather than dealing with the right of way width @S@
separate, single component.
Again, staif would agree with this suggestion, however, the applicant has chosen
�&h �@OC�tD���ft��8CC�pt8b8�v0fU3�7gFOXN/ODd prior to
to request the ��-'f/� / ��/f���CC���8�/8�U�/��
investing significant engineering � might *'' = �C �OO which the City accept, even
/�Raccess /s8U8 T�is/�8Y@0�G�� @ �� ,
issue. ' � would helpful in
—c /gh,���/n/he/s8Ue8bOVe,a/8rgercOn���tfhr/he p��8c N0 ,
evaluating options.
3 /\D�i���0F[�iS��t��iSSU8Of the (�OrDp[8hen3iVePlan, and the concern that ' would inconsistent VVithfh8(�DD1p[eheDaiVePlOD.
8p�pOV@�Oft��V@[i@nC� VVOU ���8iDCOOSiSt�Otit�t�8C�8r8Ct�rOf
based OO the contention that approval would with
the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan includes @ Focus Area discussion
on the SO[Uer39t("SUpB[hlOck") neighborhood as follows:
Somerset Area:
The Somerset area (often referred to as the "Superbiock" area)
consists of approximately 150acres|ncateddirect|ysouthofSonneoet
Country Club and Goif Course. The area is deveioped with singie family
constructed on large lots with private septic systems. The
neighborhood is bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north
by Wentworth Avenue, and the south by Marie Avenue and smailer
singie family deveiopment to the west. The neighborhood contains
significant wetlands and woodlands making it very rural in quality. The
ComprehensiVe Pian iand use designation of the site is Rural
Residentiai (RR), and the corresponding zoning ciassification 15 One
Family Residential (R-lA).
Due to the existing iarge lot configuration, parts of the area have the
potentiai to be further subdivided provided pubiic sewer, water and
road systems wouid be extended to the area. it appears that the
possibiiity may exist to either extend the cul-de-sacs or provide a
connection between Ridgewood Drive and the cui-de-sac located in
P103
the northeast quarter of this section. There may also be the possibility
to further divide parcets on the west and northern portions of the
neighborhood although this may require the acquisition and upgrade
of existing private roads. Further site specific analysis would be
required in order to provide concept designs for the resubdivisiofl of
this area. It 15 important to note that infihl and further subdivision
within established neighborhoods is often controversial and rarely
supported by 100% of the Iandowners. Issues concerning assessmentS
for public infrastructUre and possible condemnation proceedings are
Iikey to arise with redevelopmeflt efforts of the type contemplated in
this section.
Future Land Use DesignatiOfl RR, Rural Residential
From this description, the P�D appears to contemplate the possibility both of
well the extension of existing in the
future as as �� roadways ' '' - OD@[�
'-'-�- --- guide, the D/�n0f���9/�D�8�K8OfG��particular
neighborhood. As � �---
'=�� '~-' --- - �Ch character, subdivision design, alignment Neighborhood 8[G '*'',
����� -
on the existing topography and tree cover, all will be
at issue with any
development proposal. But it would not appear that the CompreheflSiVe Plan can
be rea
as pre uding the use of Foxwood.
4 C)t�8[�SSU�S �D[9Vi�VViO�thRCOOStrUCti000f�OXVVO0�.St@ffhG5 discussed the
' '
difficulty of making the required improvements within the existing right of way.
It is
not uncommon th t
street and Ut ilitv construction occurs outside of the existing right Of way limits through temporary construction easements. In the proposed conditions
tO the G�pn]V@l8lte[OatiV8 3f8ff�&SSU�g8Stedthatthe@ppliC8Dfhe@bl8tO
alternative, be VVit�iOt�8 ri�htOfvV8V
dBDlOO't/�t�t��tt�8St[G�tGDdUtilitieSC8D �
o' easements ItiSiDlpo[f@DtfOrO@keC�e8[that
@O�t�Gt8DyD�C�33G[V�G obtained.
the acquisition of such easements will be a private party requirement, not a
municipal responsibility.
5 The applicant has submitted additional material related to the impact of the ' and detailed The
COD3trUCtiODof�0Xm/O0�L�D9'8D a .
Foxwood Lane survey detail shows that the existing Lutz home is approximately
2OOf�BtfroO0t��[i��t0fYV@V@titnclOSoStpOiDt'aOdopp[OXi[08te|y3Ofe8t�O[Othe
' � The reconstructed under the current edge Of�8V�rD�D ' 8 [�CO street, line. These result in a setback of 31 feet from the Lutz garage to the new curb Da. eSe
dimensions are valid directly in front of the garage — because the existing pavement
is not centered in the right ofway, and meanders through its Iength, the dimensions
vary somewhat along the Lutz frontage.
With regard to the subdivision layout, the applicants have submitted a drawing
suggesting that the extension of Foxwood Lane could be shifted to the west,
providing for an additional separation between the Gray house and the new street. It
appears that the intent of this drawing is to suggest that the street could be placed
P104
far enough away from the corner of the Gray home to provide a 30 foot "setback" or
separation from the edge of the extended Foxwood right of way.
The material above, as noted, is intended to supplement the original staff report. The
material below is repeated from that report with only a few amendments to reflect the
updated issues.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
motions:
1. Recommend approval of the street right of way width variance from 60 feet to
50 feet for the existing portion of Foxwood Lane, with the intent of allowing a
plat which would rely on the existing Foxwood for access to newly subdivided
parcels. This recommendation should be based on the attached draft findings
of fact, and conditioned on the following requirements:
a. All portions of Foxwood, when extended to serve any additional land, shall
be reconstructed at the applicant's expense to City standards, including
street, curb and gutter, and all utilities.
The proposed extension should serve no more than 4 new buildable lots
on the applicant's property.
c. The applicant, upon proposing a plat, shall provide evidence that all
easements necessary to construct a 30' wide road and all utilities have
been procured.
d. Any plat subsequently proposed utilizing the existing Foxwood Lane shall
extend public street and utilities to the boundary of the applicant's property
to facilitate future extension by neighboring property owners.
2. Recommend denial of the variance, based on the attached draft findings of
fact.
b.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that the requirements for variance consideration are present. Because
the language for variance approval is open and permissive, the City mav consider a
variance when the required conditions are present. In this case, it appears that the
applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new lots with a number of
configurations. While the option necessitating the variance results in an overly long cut-
P105
de-sac, it alsc,, appears to have the !east impact on the land, in relation to grading and
tree loss.
Because the conditions resulting in the narrower right of way for the existing Foxwood
Lane are not the result of any actions by the applicant, staff believes that the variance
request can be found to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 2-6-2012
Draft FinAings of Fact for Approval
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
1. The width of the existing Foxwood Lane for access to the future subdivision is
not the result of actions by the applicant.
2. The alternative access points potentially available to the applicant for access
to the future subdivision raise concerns related to:
a. Excessive grading.
b. Steep street grades.
c. Excessive tree loss resulting from development.
d. Additional hard surface and street construction.
e. Additional street construction and maintenance serving no additional
lots.
3. Lots resulting from the use of the Foxwood Lane right of way would be
consistent with others found in the area and in similar zoning districts in the
City.
4. Lots would be able to meet all required zoning standards of the applicable R-
1A zoning district.
5. Using Foxwood Lane for the proposed subdivision would constitute a
reasonable use of the subject land, consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
P107
Draft FincBrigs of Fact for Denlal
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood.Lafle
1673 Delaware Avenue arid Lot 3, Foxwood
of alternative
1
The applicant has not @d8qU@fSk/��nlODEt[atBdtheir consideration
' Of1O73D8��VV8[��V8nV8
accesses undeveloped portion .
2. The variance request is in conflict with the findings for a variance granted in
olution 93-45, VVh8[eG�ODt setback V@�@OD8VV8Sgranted based ODthe
F8o
expectation that Foxwood Lane would only service three total properties.
3. The applicant purchased the Foxvvood property with full knowledge of the
existing conditions.
4. The GKfeDsioDOfFOXVVOOdLaD8VVillneqUi[eCOnStrUCtiODOf@StPBetiD3D8[rOVV
� �
right of way in the existing portion, raising concerns over installation of utilities
and maintenance operations.
5. The extension of Foxwood Lane results in a cul-de-sac of approximately 900 feet
' which is greater than the City's preferred cul-de-sac street Iength.
Applicant Name: Ad
(Last)
City of Pi "
ta Nei hts
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No.
Date of Application
Fee Paid g/0
10'0.- -61
1,1e irin,Lhar PH: 69C
E-Mail Address: eggd-eiaP R r6 zispi f Am
(First) (M)
2_0-Zoog
Address: &73X-e( AMR /0e.
(Number & Street)
(City)
Owner Name: 131)-W-ril ,t14 f(P
(Last)
(First)
Address: 1 73 /PT' Is, a, pc id e U )07. 117s
(Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
Street Location of Property in Ouestion: Fa Awed 673 liP/1.14) efeE 1/1`le
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
4 41
XA.
(State)
c7"/S
(Zip)
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional User Permit for P.U.D.
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applicable City Ordinance Number
Present Zoning of Property
Proposed Zoning of Property
I hereby declare that all statements
I further authorize City Officials and
Date Received
Present Use
Proposed Use
made in this request and on the additional material are true.
agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours.
Variance
Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Critical Area Permit
Other (attach explanation)
Section
77/4(4d/e
(Signature of Applicant)
(Signature of Owner)
1T101 Inclonia Cunnre o Mendota Hvights, MN 5511 (651) 452-1 50 o Ffia (651) 452-8940
,manimmendotra-OneOght5-comm
P 1 0 9
Michael M. Bader
Michelle K. Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
(651) 287-2028
February 6, 2012
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: 1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PIN No: 27-02400-010-76
Lot 3, Foxwood
PIN No.: 27-27620-030-01
Dear Mr. Sedlacek:
1 enclose herewith the following originals, all in 8 1/2 X 11 or smaller:
1) Application;
2) Check for $100.00;
3) Legal descriptions and PIN numbers for Lot 3, Foxwood
and 1673 Delaware Avenue;
4) Three concept plans: A, B and 3;
5) Topographic map of the area;
6) List of neighbors within 350'.
The legal description for 1673 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, is as
follows:
The North one-half of the South one-half of the North-east quarter
of the South-east quarter (N. 1/2 of S. 1/2 of N.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4) of
Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twentyeight (28), Range
Twenty-three (23), containing Ten (10 acres), more or less,
according to the Government Survey thereof.
P110
- • .
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Page Two
February 6, 2012
The legal description for Lot 3, Foxwood, is as follows:
Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood, Dakota County, Minnesota, according to
the recorded plat thereof
It is our intent to create an upscale development of 4 new lots, 6 total, on our existing
12.5 acres. As our children begin leaving the horne, Michelle and I have considered selling our
home and building on our back property. Access to our western property, however, is a
challenge. We attempted development in 2003 but the application was denied due to a unique
requirement at that time (since changed) that a cul-de-sac in excess of 500 required a variance.
We
are advised by our planners, Loucks & Associates, and City staff that the attached plans A and 3
do not require variances.
However, as more fully explained below, there are significant challenges associated with these
proposals, and therefore believe the attached plan B is preferable which we are told requires a
variance. The reason is there is only a 50' right of way at the intersection of Foxwood and
Wentworth. There isn't suffient room west as the Lutz home was given a setback variance of 30'
when Foxwood was platted. Therefore, there is only 50' from the existing Foxwood Lane to the
Gray property line.
The attached plan B is our preference. We are advised that because Foxwood was platted
with a 50' right of way, it does not conform to the City's design standard of a 60' right of way.
Currently, Foxwood is a 20' private road on a public right of way. Our proposal envisions a 30'
public road with curb, gutter, water and fire hydrants, constructed at our expense. In our
previous application, an extension of the 20' road width was considered, also without the
requirement of a variance. If a 9 ton, 30' road is required, the economics require the maximum
number of lots authorized under the existing zoning requirements.
We have called some and written all of our neighbors advising them of our intentions.
We invite, and welcome, their input.
We have also submitted our plans to Dakota County and a meeting before the Plat
Commission is scheduled for 1:00, February 13, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 1920, 14955
Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley.
Minn. Stat. 427.357 (2011), subd. 6, generally defines the city's consideration for
granting a variance, as "practical difficulties." This is further defined as:
P111
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Page Three
February 6, 2012
"...that the property owner proposed to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight
of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality."
Historical Perspective
The Baders propose to use the property consistent with all subdivision ordinances and
historical precedent. When the Foxwood plat was approved, it was done so without a variance
for a 60' right of way. When the Baders submitted plans in 2003 to extend the Foxwood right of
way, no variance was required for the existing 50' right of way. To our knowledge, the right of
way widths in the "super block" are, with the exception of Hidden Creek, all less than 60'.
IL
The proposed subdivision is a reasonable use of the property consistent with zoning
requirements and the essential character of the neighborhood.
The lot sizes all meet the requirements of the existing zoning ordinance and are similar in
size to what has been approved in the super block. Thus, the proposals are in keeping with the
existing homes surrounding the Bader property. Except for the Foxwood development, the most
recent three subdivided lots range in lot size from 1 acre (524 Wentworth and 1651 Delaware to
2 acres (540 Wentworth). The Foxwood lots are larger because approximately 18% of the 10
acre development are wetland. In contrast, the Bader properties total approximately 12.5 acres
and are less than 8% wetland.
IIL
The need for the variance was not created by the Baders.
The Baders did not create the 50' right of way on Foxwood. At the time the Foxwood plat
was approved, the previous owner, Alice Bradford and her son, John, were on the record before
the Planning Commission and City Council requesting that the right of way (road access) from
Foxwood be extended to their (now Baders') property. The Baders purchased 1673 Delaware 14
years ago and Lot 3 Foxwood 7 years ago, The attached plan B envisions an extension of the road
across the Baders' Lot 3, to access the western acreage. consistent with the prior owner's request.
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Page Four
February 6, 2012
Delaware access is impossible or impracticable, due to steep grade and the County's
preference.
First, the county historically would not allow a cul-de-sac from Delaware west along the
Baders' south property line (similar to Concept 3 attached).
Second, 79 mature trees on the Baders' south property would have to be removed. Some,
perhaps 10, may be small enough to be transplanted.
Third, topography is a challenge from Delaware. There is more than a 30' drop from the
crest of Baders' hill to the proposed cul-de-sac. This would require a retaining wall more than
300' in length and.up.to 10' high. Signific.ant engineering issues must be considered.
As noted, the Baders have been advised by city staff that a variance is not required to
connect Wentworth with Delaware as was set forth in Option A. However, the Baders believe this
option will not be well received by their neighbors.
The January 25, 2012 Highland Villager notes the Mendota Heights City Administrator,
Justin Miller, has as a priority an increased tax base. Mr. Miller also notes in the same article, that
because Mendota Heights is nearly fully developed, there remains room for infihl. We feel this
proposal meets the City's priorities.
We believe that Plan B represents a reasonable use of our land that will benefit the
neighbors with a wider, safer street, better hydrant access and ultimately a safer, more aesthetic
neighborhood. Similarly, the city and county will benefit with an expanded tax base. In sum, we
believe this proposed subdivision represents thoughtful planning and advantages to all concerned.
Resp
bmitted,
Mike and Jichelle Bader
P112
• 0
2.0
Z
.. • Z
c" rn Z
> x
Z *1 •
4-, • 2 D.
-'•• 0 P
•
7)14
legobeaqita§1,4f:E504:153.Weivai.,0!
P113
, t _ • ....-
ajrioilary 2012 1,,
:
z
;01. n.4,•
1.s4se—•'
tiOr;
cn.
$.0
tn. a arar4Chiptcr
. .
•
•
• • • • • '
Irn •
-7!
• • '
•
• .
o -
n
• • .1e2
• tf...ff q1 • w.`"`-='
z '
!A4,
t •• .
GIEL.EWARCAVENUE(CO. ROAI?63)
.........
P114
1
.. •
lf
8
MI
MI
04
1)v-Lmil\-M
0-
•
ma&
cb. c. 63)
P115
XHU1\11lffdliS NV' Id
AIL AL ■•■~'-
:1111111.04•60/4
0 y
^-_
~
~
�
�
-- ~-
._ - � �- _/
��.� >_-
__
_
- � -/
^ ,
^
'v � ,� ^,- -``~ �
\
\ / /
/ /4 -
--/ ^ ,
^ / ' -/
' / / , .','. -` `\ \ � . {
y/ - - `` ' `` `. /
^ -=```~ --' ' ' • ~^ ``� �\ \
'1 OmOAX(�|~^_ --�^ �"~' ' , ` /
/
` - .-- - / .
. . ,
- - ~,� ~~ — _�~ _ �� -(^ _ ` \ \ � - --`'- `~ . ^_ ~- __-
, ~ \ \ \` \^�����
' \ � ` - --
_ --- ~--~~ _� ^
.
. ' ` '
/ .
, -'__/, �- -,\�- �` ` - - - - - - -
/ / /
\ �- �
. /// |' _.--- ` `^``^ ~/ / ' /. `_
� 1 � ~`` ^
` | 1 / / /
/ / / _/ /�~ �```
/ /,__ � �_� _
,--. ~ __ � ` \' -`� ` ^�—�~ ` / / . '` /
j\\ / J z /
�.-
K ' / ) - '~ ~ �~.``` �~-`c--.�
._~����1�` - -�__��`~~�����-��-�'~
T. I | | \�'/�/ / ' / /
` ' - .
____
/ ( / °' `
/ /� \~
`
/ ^ -` ~ `
� `~�/ ' -
. ,~'/ ~ ^
/ \ ' ~
. _/��T,
} I, ' ' ^= '
, _/}/
' ' '
, , ,
~ . ,'//
`' ' ~
''
.''
^/,
_~'',^
' ' /
"�^\,\„
P116
-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
P117
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
wminendota-heights.com
April 24, 2012
Planning Commission
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
New materials for Case 2012-07
5.0*
Since the initial public hearing on February 28, 2012, staff has received several new documents
for the 2012-07 planning file. Included you will find the supplemental report from Steve
Grittman, along with the following attachments:
A. Steve Grittman's planning report from February 28, 2012
B. Email correspondence received April 11, 2012 from Paul McGinley with supplemental
site plans
C. Correspondence received April 19, 2012 from Tim Aune
D. Correspondence received March 27, 2012 from Lisa Gray
E. Correspondence received March 26, 2012 from Michael Bader
F. Email correspondence received March 21, 2012 from Jennifer Lutz
G. Correspondence received March 19, 2012 from Lisa Gray
H. Correspondence received February 28, 2012 from Lisa Gray
Page 1 of 1
NORTHWEST ASSoCIATED CONSULTANTS,
41300 Olson Memorial 'High Way, Suite 202, Golden Valle, MN 55422
Telephane: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763:231.2561 pl6nnee6@nacrilanning.cotri
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: February 23, 2012
MEETING DATE: February 28, 2012
SUBJECT: Variance to Street Right of Way Width
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-07; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.03
APPLICANT(S): Mike and Michelle Bader
LOCATION: 1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood Addition
ZONING: R-1A, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow an existing platted street to be
used as access to a future subdivision, when the existing street is less than the required
60 feet in right of way width. The existing Foxwood Lane extends from Wentworth Ave
south into the Foxwood subdivision, serving three single family parcels, two of which are
currently developed with houses, and one of which (the parcel owned by the applicant)
is undeveloped.
Foxwood was developed with the expectation that it would terminate in the existing cul-
de-sac, serving only the three lots. However, the applicant also owns the parcel to the
south of the Foxwood plat, extending to Delaware Avenue on the east. In seeking to
subdivide that parcel, the applicant is hoping to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to
serve between one an four additional parcels, depending on the eventual subdivision
plan.
Because Foxwood does not meet the City's requirements for right of way width, a
variance is necessary to consider the proposed extension.
P118
When considering a variance, the City is required to find that:
(1) The applicant is proposing to use the propertY in a reasonable manner and
(2) The appIicants proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this
manrier due to circumstaflCes that:
a. Are unique to the property,
b. Are not caused by the applicant, �iDt8Dtoft��<�itv's�|�nS�Od
c. /\rGconsistent m/iththe purpose and ~
ordinances,
d. Are not out of character character with the Iocality, or neighborhOOd in which the
property is Iocated
The applicant's materials suggest that these conditions are met due to the following
factors:
• Proposed lOts� DO
�niDt�g�VeOtUR�p|@tV��|eetO[exCeedtheZoD|Og
requirements, an d will be larger than many lots recently subdivided inthe same
area and zoning district.
* Extension OSiOD Of FO}0VnVd Lane from from its current terminus to gain access from
OelaVaPn, is technically feasible but, while meeting the code, would be
detrimental to land, tree cover, and be Jess acceptable to the neighborhood.
• The difficulties in meeting the required street wldth relate tO topography changes
and tree loss by constructing an outlet to Delaware, and the inability to expand
width, itisfl@DkedbVoth8[pnope�yoVVOenS.
the existing way '
• The extended portion of Foxwood in the newly subdivided area would meet all
City street requirements
w [�eG��{iC�DtaV0U|dVpA[adeth0existiOgpOd|OOOfFnxY0odtOCih/stne8t
standards, even though th8[ightOfvYayC@DnOtb8VYidened'
• The new Iots served by the extended Foxwood will match the character of the
area.
The applicant is seeking this variance prior to design of the plat for the new subdivision.
The applicant has opined that Dakota County will likely grant approval to construct a
new street and intersection ODDelaware enue, along the south boundary line of 167
3
Delaware. As such, development of th 8 area is possible from Delaware Ave., although
the grade and tree loss would bg much more extensive «Dh that design The sketch
plan submitted as a pari of the applicatiofl shows that as many as four neW bulldable
lots would be proposed with that design.
2
P119
P120
If the variance is not approved, it is expected that the applicant will seek the Delaware
Avenue access proposal in a plat request later this year. If the variance 15 approved,
the applicant has indicated his preference to submit a plat that extends the Foxwood
Lane cul-d e-sac to the south boundary of his property. This sketch plan
(labeled
"Option B" in the materials) also shows four new building sites, although the total street et
construction would he less than aCVnDeCti oD to Delaware would require.
The proposed cul-de-sac in the applicant'S preferred option is approximatelY 900 feet
long fn]nlVVGDt0V[th For reference (although this is data is relevant to tU8iUtUF8�t�
` ` \ the City's Subdivision Ordinance states
platting, not current street VVidth variance), � ` 500 feet. As such, the
~^-
- t tS shall not . .
that cul-de-sac streets � _-'
''~^''-- "normally" ooapprovedothornu�-de-eooS
language is directive, but not mandatory. City has
at discretion of City, but
greater than 5OU feet in length, and this design VVVUg be �''.
would not require a formal variance
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning CommissiOfl may consider one of the foll�wing
motions:
1. Recommend approval of the street right of way wiclth variance from 60 feetto
50 feet for the existing portion of Foxwood Lane, with the intent 0fallowing a plat which would [8( V on the existing Foxwood for access to newly subdivided
parcels. This recommendation should be based on the attached draft findings
offact, and conditioned on the following requirementS
a. Alt portions of Foxwood, when extended to serve any addition
al land, sh
8ll
be reconstructed at the applicant's expense to City standards, including
street, curb and gutter, and all public utilities.
b. The proposed extension should serve no more than 4 new buildable lots
on the applicant's property.
C ' The applicant, upon proposing a plat, shall provide the City with a listing ( alt easements necessary to extend Fnxvvood, to construct a standard city
street and to install all necessary public improvements.
d. Any plat subsequently proposed utilizing the existing Foxwood Lane shall
extend the publi street and utilities to the boundary of the applicant'S
property to facilitate
future extension by neighboring property owners.
2. Recommend denlal of the variance, based on the attached draft findings Df
fact.
3. Table action on the variance request, pending additional information from
staif or the applicant as directed.
3
Staff Reconlation:
Staif believes that the requiremeflts for variance consideratiofl are r.... B
eooua
e
the Ianguage for variance approval is open and permiSSiVe1 the City City consider a
variance when the required conditionS are present. In this case, it it appearS that the
applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new Iots with a number of
configurations. While the option necessitating the variance results in an overly long c
U|_
de-eoc.ite|sVappearoto have have the Ieast impact on land in relation to grading and
tree loss.
���VSlV�ed under the [)DtiVn/\d�S' D, the applicant VV0U|d connect t0 the 8XhaUD0O(Bk/
' i that access point m/uv/u//"`"e~ .'
^~~'--`|UtVyOU��ODt[��Uipeth�V8hGnC�SOc�F�SU|�ngipth�D�[[0VV8[r��ht
'"^—~~~ --[GCo�astOth��l8t. Because the conditions byth8Gpp|iC�nt
necessary for d Lane are not the result of any actions '
OƒVy@V��[t��8�iatinQFOXVVO0 8 be found Ob8�0Dsiyt ntw/'htheiDtQDtof
stuffbelieves that the variance request can � "~ .^
the zoning ordinance
Su
1. Application Materials dated 2-0-2012
4
P121
P122
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
1 The width of the existing Foxwood Lane for access to the future subdivision is
not the result of actions by the applicant.
2. The alternative access points potentially available to the applicant for access
to the future subdivision raise concerns related to:
a. Excessive grading.
b. Steep street grades.
c. Excessive tree loss resulting from development.
d. Additional hard surface and street construction.
e. Additional street construction and maintenance serving no additional
lots.
3. Lots resulting from the use of the Foxwood right of way would be consistent
with others found in the area and in similar zoning districts in the City.
4. Lots would be able to meet all required zoning standards of the applicable R-
IA zoning district.
5. Using Foxwood Lane for the proposed subdivision would constitute a
reasonable use of the subject land, consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
5
Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
1 Access from Delaware provides a technically feasible opportunity to access
the undeveloped land in questions.
2. The variance request is in conflict with the findings for a variance granted in
resolution 93-45, where a front setback variance was granted based on the
expectation that Foxwood Lane would only service three total properties.
3. The variance request may result in the creation of a non-conformity with the
property located at 540 Wentworth Ave as a conforming side yard setback of
15 feet becomes a front yard setback requirement of 40'.
4. The Applicant purchased the Foxwood property with full knowledge of the
existing conditions.
5. The extension of Foxwood Lane will require construction of a street in a
narrow right of way in the existing portion, raising concerns over installation of
utilities and maintenance operations.
6. The extension of Foxwood Lane results in a cul-de-sac of approximately 900
feet which is greater than the City's preferred cul-de-sac street length.
6
P123
40K
Jake Sediacek
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
P124
Paul McGinley <pmcghdey@| o ^
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:46 PM
Jake Sedlacek Mike Bader (snoeyuyx^uu""...`^~..)
Paul Kangas
Bader Variance Request
� 2O41Ip Exh|b�'FoxLaneVa�anceRequest2O12
Exhib- Lutz Home ' . "',
04-11.pdf
Jake: m
You had ind�at dthotyouneededanyadddonsd�aneDnmtheBaderetoday �xthe meebnyon the 24
Attached are two plans. One shows the layout preferred by the Baders showing the possible lots, new street surface and
certain dimensiOflat informatiOfl to houses, etc.
The other is a detail of the existing and proposed street surfaces relative to the Lutz house based upon our on-site,
surveyed locations.
If you need these in any other format or size tet me knoW.
Paul
Paul IVIcGinley, PLS 1Vice President/Principal Surveyor 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 3001 Minneapolis, MN 55369
Direct 7S349G.G75QI Main 7O3.4Z4.55uo| Fax 'n^.42_~~^^
pmoqin|eYa|ouoknaaeooiateo.coml
/
/1112C17 211,1 1 .
• \
co,
••‘..‘c,r-
• , 11-,4
PROPOSED RIGMT OF WAY,
„ — -
.. - . .. _
_______ ___.................____.............. _..,.._ .._ ._._ _ _
.._......
—
-
• ,,,-,...,:ow
;:71(fi ' j
„
I
7
-) )
I
I '
t
A
5 _
—
il[iii;'
slita •■,1 I
111111111i 1
5111 •111 i
r 1,111411111
'111111411
n J,•1 11'
If
4"..4 q
it,4, II
q '
i'i. li
" I
, _
."'
,,, .1;., .' E'
r? —
g ge.:.; ..-
IA ''k:
— N.?: ,r,
0, ''''-:-. 11 ,71
g'''i* .2.
<
0
c > z 0
A r"
P125
041111701; 1.11/
(f)
CD
0
6
003
....seesscr=4.
JSZO
NORM
Wentworth
(Co. Rd. 8)
Avenue
1
0
a
A
(.4
a
10
10
V3, 66:
=
2 °
P126 -
Timothy J. Aurae & Anne K. Miller
554 Foxwood Lane
Mendota Heights, MN. 55118
RECEIVED APR 1 9 2012
April 19, 2012
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mike and Michelle Bader's Variance Application
Dear Mr Sedlacek.
I am writing in regards to the updated variance application #2012-07 submitted by
Michelle and Mike Bader. My wife Anne and I are still opposed to this application.
We respectfully ask that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council
vote to confirm a resolution denying the variance.
I would like to put forth two questions and offer one solution. My questions are as
follows: Has there been any attempt to solicit from the City Administrator a clear
indication of how vital the back fill of the three parcels on Delaware are to the future
of our community? I had a conversation with the Administrator in February but am
so disgusted by the hearsay that has been put forth in previous hearings I will
refrain comment and ask that his views be put on the record by himself via letter or
live presentation. My second question is if it is of such crucial importance to have
Foxwood Lane eventually become a through street, has there been any effort to
engage the people who reside on Ridgewood Drive?
I understand and appreciate the goal of commission members to find solutions
consistent with City Code, Long Term Planning, and the desires of applicants and
neighbors. This situation is challenging to all parties involved. This issue of
extension has been hanging over our heads since before we moved into our home. I
have spent more time than I would care to admit seeking out a win/win, but have
come to the conclusion there is only one way the Baders can monetize their back
acreage while not affecting the character and property values of their neighbors:
Append their back 5 acres to Lot #3. Doing this would not trigger a nonconformity,
would not impact the expected volume of traffic and construction activity for Lot #1
and Lot #2, nor affect the buffer area of the Grey parcel. The Baders would not face
the expense of constructing a road, installing sewer, which I assume would require a
lift station and a line across the Bader parcel up to Delaware, and most importantly
the certainty of litigation regarding the covenants and the uncertainty of their
outcome. The gross income may not be as high, but the net income could well be
comparable so I would posit this seems like a reasonable course to consider. I
P 1 27
-T)
)
��ev3ee�Uo1�@�/etobe dmr�ed�oToacoDGerv�iODeaseoIeot
v�0r��8l�os they Please fuo}freotoCootactDuoat651-295-
[07��ee�o�aro�or�000f�bei[ac�ea�e
26O7ortiro.aune@conmcoSt.natifyou have any questiOfls.
Sincerely,
T.2�oue
Timothy
' Commission i0uD�eDmberS
Cc: B�amu »�
P128
P129
Lisa Gray
540 Wentworth AvenUe
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
March 21, 2012
Mendota Heights Planning Commissiofl
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
11O1VictoraCurve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
ocrtnirn MAD ��
rgru,
Re: Bader Variance Application
Dear Planning CommisSiOfl Members
27th |thouo�t�vvou�d be helpful, in advance of the Planning Commissions March 27 rneetin��to
�� ' i Commission at its last
to questions posed by Planning �onnno
provide my view of the responses qu �
) meeting.
1. lsn't the request for the variance prematUre?
Answer: YES
0 The Baders' have acknowledged that the variance is only necessary for
their future development plans and not for an immediate need. They
have not yet submitted a request for either a plat approval or a
subdivision. Instead, they are asking the Planning Commission to
approve a variance based upon a hypothetiCal situation.
� The Planning Commission appropriatelY questioned how it could reach a
decision on the variance without a plan for how the variance will be
used. Without knowing precisely how the variance will be put to use
(e.g. a 30Y foot paved city street versus a 20' private road, where the
utilities will be placed, whether the road will violate provisions of the
back visions how the prior plat condition
City Code, such as set ac provisions,
requiring a scenic easement will be maintained) the Planning
Commission cannot determine whether the applicants have met their
burden of establishing that there are practical difficulties in complying
(
with the zoning ordinance. More specifically because the Baders have
not set forth exactly how they wi "u.se" the variance, it is impossibie for
the Commission to determine that the "owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner." Equally important is the fact that
without knowing the parameters of the use, there is no yardstick upon
which to measure whether the variance will alter the essential character
uf the neighborhood.
Similarly the absence of a full application on the proposed subdivision
plat prevents the Planning Commission from determining whether the
subdivision could be created without the need for a variance. A
premature variance request should not serve as a back door way to
avoid the requirement that if the landowner has a way to proceed
without a variance, the variance shouid not be granted.
The Baders are well aware of the appropriate procedures to obtain
approval for their desire to subdivide their land and that is to submit a
request for a subdivision, with all the required documentation, to the
Planning Commission. Then and only then will the Planning CommissiOn
have sufflcient information upon which to base its decision on whether
the variance is required.
2. Does the applicant have sufficient legal interest in the right of way width of Foxwood
Lane to have "standing" to bring the variance application?
Answer: NO
� As noted at the last Planning Commission Meeting, the Minnesota
statute addressing the standards for the granting of variances refers
solely to landowners and property owners, not neighboring property
owners. (Minn. Stat. Section 462.357) Here the Baders, by their own
admission, do not own the property for which they seek a variance. To
the contrary the City owns the right of way. The Baders are merely one
set of four abutting landowners. The other abutting property owners aU
oppose the variance.
*
Nothing in Minnesota statutes or case law gives abutting property
owners the right to initiate a request for a variance. The statute that Mr.
Bader cited at the last Planning Commission Hearing — Minnesota
Statute 462.361 — speaks solely to the right to appeal a decision by a
P130
|
[
P131
municipal governing body. Its purpose is to allovv an "aggrieved party" a
means of appeal if he believes that a decision by the municipal body has
"injuriously or adversely affected the rights of his property or bears
directly upon his personal interest." Even this right is limited to
situations where the abutting property owner has "particularized
injuries," not some future or inchoate harm. (See Virginia Stansell et.al
vs. City of Northfield et.al. State of Minnesota In Court of Appeals C3 -00-
708 (November 7, 2000)(unpublished opinion)).
The statute does not change the long settled rules about who can
initiate a claim. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that
in order to have standing to bring a claim a person must show that (1)
they have a legally protectable interest in the property which is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical;" and (2) it must be likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the interest will be redressed by a favorable decision.
(See Lu•an v. De enders o Wildli e 504 U.S. Supreme Court 555 (1992);
see also In re Trust in Estate of Everett, 266 Minn. 398.401, 116 N. W. 2d
601, 603 (1962)(to initiate a claim the person must have a right that is
immediate and not a "possible, remote consequence, or mere possibility
arising from some unknown or future contingency)).
Even the Baders admit that they do not have an immediate need for a
variance. The current road provides them the access they need for their
current use of their property (bare land). The current road also provides
them the necessary access for a home, if they desire to build one. The
only reason there would ever be a need for a variance to the right
l o
way width of Foxwood Lane is if the Baders obtained app rrito
subdivide their property using Foxwood Lane as the access point.
Without a specific request for a subdivision or plat approval their need
for a variance is merely hypothetical — a mere possibility arising from a
future contingency. Furthermore, even if the Commission were to grant
a variance it would still be speculative as to whether their subdivision
request would be granted
3. Are the restrictive covenants between the Foxwood nei hbors relevant to the
Plannin Commissions' consideration of and decision on the Baders' variance
application?
Answer: YES
In a variance application the CommissiOfl and the CIty Council can
consider whatever factors they deem reasonable and relevant, lncluding
the existence ofthe covenants. Here the covenants are unquestionably
relevant as they have a direct bearing on whether the road extension is
legally feasible. It is without question that the covenantS restrict the
expansion of Foxwood Lane. Ifthe CommissiOn were to approve the
variance they would be approving "a road to nowhere."
The covenants also have a bearing on whether the City woutd have to
compensate the neighboring landownerS if it were to allow or require
that Foxwood Lane be extendecl and/or converted from a private road to
a city street. The restrictive covenants provide valuable property rights
to the abutting and neighboring property landowners. As such, any
action by the City which infringed, impaired or destroyed these rights
would require the City to compensate the property owners whose ,
affected. (See 3O0S City [ound|K�inutesp.39, "the
property vvasa . `==� 1,
[ih/A�onneytendedb7ognz/�thot/ftheCib/weretunequ�eFoxw/ood
' b/� street, the have to compensate
Lonetobe�urned/ntoupu a '"
csfbrthed�sboc�onnfthe/rproperty�ghtsw//th
&heproper�yowme ' -,
respect to the protectiVe c�venants.")
in closing, |respectfu|k` /submit that for the reasons set forth above and the reasons |previously
provided to the Planning Commission, the Baders' variance application should be denied
Sincerely Yours,
61i
Lisa Gray
P132
Michael M. Bader
Michelle K. Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
(651) 287-2028
March 26, 2012
E-MAIL ONLY
jakes@mendotabeights.coin
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria C-urve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE:
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PIN No: 27-02400-010-76
Lot 3, Foxwood
PIN No.: 27-27620-030-01
Dear Mr_ Sedlacek:
Thank you for your letter of March 23, 2012.
Yes. We need more time to respond to Lisa Gray's concerns as well as the County's.
Therefore, 1 request a continuance of the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission hearing to April
24, 2012. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Michael M. Bader
MMB:shh
P133 1"
cc: By E-Mail Only:
Paul McGinley and Paul Kangas
Dr. Lon Lutz and Jennifer Drill
Jim and Nancy Joyce
Timothy Aune
Anne Miller
Lisa Ann Gray and Gary Caufield
Jim and Michele Kolar
Jake Sedlacek
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer Lutz <jdIrnjd@comcast.net>
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:41 AM
Mike Bader
Lisaanngray@MAC.com; Mike Bader; jdIrnicl@comcast.net Lutz; Jake Sediacek; Tim
Aune; Lon Jay Lutz
Foxwood Lane
P135
Dear Mr. Bader,
I am writing in response to the letter we received from you and Michelle last week regarding your
• proposed development. As I believe it has become painfully obvious, any alteration to the current
Foxwood Lane would require its conversion into a public street. Lon and I maintain that there is not
enough room between our home and the property line to safely accommodate a public street and the
associated increase in traffic. Again, we appreciate the fact that you would like to develop your
property, but Lon and I are unwilling to consider options where we would be required to shoulder the
lion's share of the burden of the disruption due to construction and property devaluation, without any
consideration.
Lisa Gray was kind enough to share with me the letter she sent to you last week. I concur with Lisa's
position and would echo her requests for further information regarding viable development options.
Sincerely,
Jennifer & Lon Lutz
1
(
(
)
Lisa Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mendota Heights Planning Commissbfl
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 56118
9 MAR RECEIVED , &�A� / Y w 2012
Re: Mike and MicheIIe Bader's Variance Application
Dear Planning CommisSiOn Members and Mr. Sedelek:
| am writing to provide you with an update on your request that the Baders reach out to the
neighbors to further discuss their development plans.
On March 8th, the Baders sent a letter to me, Lon and Jennifer Lutz, Tim Aune and Anne Miller,
stating their desire to work with us to solve the access issues. In this letter they indicated their
surprise that the Lutz home was in the area of 15 feet from the right of way and expressed their
belief that the solution was to "give me more land by my house in exchange for moving
Foxwood to the area of my driveway." Unfortunately as with their other concepts, insufficient
detai|vvnsprovidedtoenob|ernetofuUyundaotanditsirnpnctonthequiete joyment of my
property. In response to their Ietter, I wrote to the Baders to ask them to provide me with
additional information and to suggest that they look to alternatives that exist that do not
require a variance. The information I requested encompasses many of the same questions that
the Planning Commission asked the Baders to provide to the Commission at or before the next
Planning Commission Meeting on March 27m. | informed the Baders that once | have this
information I would be willing to sit down with them to discuss reasonable proposals that retain
the essential characteristics of the neighborhood and maintain the value of the surrounding
properties
1 hae enclosed both ofthe etters for your review and consideration.
Sincerely Yours,
Lisa Gray
Enclosures
P136
P137
Michael M. Bader
Michelle K. Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights,Minnesota 55118
651-905-1673
March 8, 2012
BY E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Dr. Lon Lutz and Jennifer Drill
548 Foxwood Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mr. Timothy Anne
Ms. Anne Miller
554 Foxwood Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Lisa Ann Gray and Gary Caufield
540 Wentworth Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55118-2830
Dear Lon, Jennifer, Tim, Anne, Lisa and Gary:
We write in followup to the Planning Commission meeting. As indicated at that meeting
and in prior correspondence, Michelle and I would like to work with you on solving the access
issues.
To that end, I have asked Loucks to survey the right of way. Again, it would help to have
Lon and Jennifer's permission for the surveyor to go on your property to get accurate readings.
We were as surprised to hear Paul's calculation that Lon and Jennifer's home was in the
area of 15 feet from the right of way. Obviously, this came as a shock to Jennifer as well.
As we discussed with the Garretts some years ago (before Lisa and Gary moved in), I
sincerely believe the solution is to give Lisa and Gary more land by their house in exchange for
moving Foxwood to the area of their driveway. Lisa and Gary would gain more acreage,
everyone would have a shorter walk to get the mail and garbage and we would all have a wider,
safer street. How wide, is, again an issue we would like to have your input on.
Dr. Lon Lutz and Jennifer Drill
Mr. Timothy Anne
Ms. Anne Miller
Lisa Ann Gray and Gary Canfield
Page Two
March 8, 2012
P138
If you don't want monuments, we are fine with that but 1 seem to recall someone bringing
that issue up when we paved the road. So, your thoughts on that issue would also be welcome.
Finally, we would suggest that creating a landscaped buffer in the area of Lisa and Gary's house
would be preferable to the overgrown buckthorn that is choking out the existing trees on Lot 3
and the rest of our western lot.
Lisa also mentioned in one of her e-mails that she had some alternative thoughts on
access. We would like to hear those ideas and any ideas our Foxwood neighbors may have.
If some or all of you think a meeting might help, you are all welcome at our house. Call
or e-mail Mike at 612-865-1845, or e-mail at baderP,kkblawfirm.com.
Best regards,
Mike and Michelle Bader
P139
(
■
Mike and Michelle Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MW 55118
Lisa Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MW 55118
/ �mx�
��&�
Dear Mike and Michelle
| am in receipt of your March 8m letter and appreciate your outreach to me. As a backdrop, )
continue to be concerned about the effect of your development plans and variance request on
the essential character and safety of our neighborhood. My concern is heightened by the fact
that neither the plans you submitted with your variance request, nor your proposal regarding a
"land swap" involving nnyprope�� provide enough detail tofuU �
yundatandtheirimpact on
'
the quiet enjoyment of my property. It seemed that the Planning Commission had a similar
i|ar
concern regarding their inability to assess the impact of the variance without a detailed plan..
With this back drop in mind, if you could prepare a plan or plans that include significantly more
detail | would be willing to sit down and talk with you about them. The detail that ) would
)
need to see is as foliows:
1. A detailed drawing of the land swap you are proposing, showing the location and
dimension in square feet. If your plan adversely impacts my septic system please
include the detail as to how you will address this issue.
2. The exact path of your proposed expansion of Foxwood, including the widening of
the current |aneasvve)|asyourproposedextension. |vvnuld like to see the exact
distance between the road and property shown in lineal feet as a measurement
on the preliminary plat drawing, as well as the same measurement from the other
properties acUoinin' the plat. ( would like to see this for whatever plans you are
still considering (e.g. PIan B and the use ofmy property).
3. The number of lots and their configuration (i.e. where do they sit relative to my
property, the 3 Foxwood lots and the wetlands). You should be aware that |
believe that having a total of 6 lots is way too dense for this quiet and secluded
neighborhood.
4. What you will do to conserve the current scenic easement and landscape buffers.
5. What you will do to provide additional landscape/scenic buffers to ensure that
the current houses view and country-like settings are retained.
P140
|
�
6. Detail regarding the provision of utitities to the new lots (i.a will they be served
by private sewer systems or will they have city sewer; if the latter, what is the
exact Iocation for installation ofthe city sewer).
7. What procedures will you put in place to help mitigate the impact of construction
on Foxwood Lane and our neighbors?
Q. Specific engineering detail for handling stormwater drainage as referenced in
your February 21, 2012, letter to me.
9. Whether you expect to have protective covenants that attach to the new
properties and the provisions that they would contain.
These matters are very important to me and to my neighbors and we need additional
information to respond to you and to provide inp't into the City review process. As you
apparently agree, it is important that you devise a plan that will not result in the road coming
having the pavement come closer to their home will result in a
anyc|osertotheLut�propedy� avn� epa
cornp|ete/y untenable situation for them. | also think it is important to find a way to buffer all
three properties from additional road traffic. One of the main reasons / bought my home was
its secluded setting and | do not want to lose that valuable feature.
As | am sure you are aware, there are a number of obstacles that you will need to address in
order to proceed using Foxwood Lane, including but not limited to, the 1993 preliminary plat
conditions that run with Foxwood, the protective covenants and the need for a variance. As a
consequence I encourage you to further consider your other options for access.
In particular, ! believe you should give consideration to the options that do not require a
variance. For instance, have you thought about approaching your back property from the
south? From the comments made at the Planning Commission meeting on February 28, it
would appear that this is a possibility, particularly because Mr. Kohler indicated that he and his
neighbor wanted the right to develop their properties at some time in the future. Coming from
the south seems to be a more feasible plan as (i\ it would affect only the properties owned by
the people who have indicated they want the right to develop their property; and (11) would
not, to my knowledge, require a variance. Although the timing may not be ideal for you, it
would at least give you a plan that could provide you with more confidence that it could be
achieved. It may also address the City's desire to see a more comprehensive plan for the
Sommerset area.
It would also seem that you would benefit from further exploration of access from Delaware as
would avoid need vvou avn the variance. 1 appreciate that you
believe this approach is more expensive for you, but with all due respect the burden of the
development is more appropriately placed on you, rather than on your neighbors. Of course
with any of these plans it would be vital that the essential character of the neighborhood be
P141
c.)
(
preserved by maintaining similar sized lots, protecting the woodlands and wetlands and
ensuring appropriate Iandscape barriers between properties.
As | indicated from the start, / am willing to discuss reasonable proposats that retain what |
believe are the essential characteristics of the neighborhood and maintain the value of the
surrounding properties. Please let me know when you have the information | requested
prepared and we can arrange a mutual(y convenient time to get together.
Respectfully Yours,
Lisa 8 saGray «
Ccs: Tim Aune and Anne Miller
Lon and Jennifer Lutz
P142
P143
usa A. Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
February 24, 2012
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Assistant to City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mike and Michelle Baders' Variance Application
Dear Mr. Sedlacek:
RECEIVED ff_g 3§
1 am now in receipt of a copy of Mr. Grittman's memorandum pertaining to the Baders' variance
request. Upon reviewing his report, 1 was struck by the fact that it appeared to assume that the
information contained in the Baders' application was accurate, without an independent review of the
fuJi record before the Planning Commission. For instance, the report at page 2 states: "The applicant's
materials suggest that these conditions are met due to the following factors...."
P)enseknow|amnotinanyvvoyoo|UnAintuquestinnthaverocityoftheBoders.|dovvdnttopuintout,
however, that their application is based simpiy on their view. As the applicants, the Baders have the
burden of establishing that they have met the conditions required for a granting of the variance, I would
urge that the Planning Commission consider the entire record, rather than merely relying on information
contained in the Baders' application. In order to assist the Pianning Commission in viewing Mr.
Grittman's report in light of a fuller record, I have prepared the chart below. Obviously, this is only a
snapshot of certain of the issues, and will not obviate the need for consideration of the entire record.
Grittman Report Statements
Facts From the Record
"Foxwood was developed with the expectation
that it would termnate in the existing cul-de-sac,
serving only the three Iots." (Report, p. 1)
That there would be only three Iots was more than
an "expectation" it was a condition to the
approval of the plat. The City specifically required
that the minimum acreage of the Iots be 2 1/2 acres.
(Gray Exhibit B). It was also a contractually agreed
upon limitation set forth in the restrictive
covenants each Iaridowner became subject to at
the time of purchase. (Gray Exhibit A)
"Iri seeking to subdivide that parcel, the applicant
is hoping to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to
serve between one and four additional parcels,
depending on the eventual subdivision." (Report,
PA)
Each ofthe plans submitted by the Badersshowed
at/eostfouraddidnna|parce|s.(8aJerVariance
Application) Ifthere are other plans, they were not
included in the information sent to the neighbors
"Proposed lot sizes in the eventual plat will meet
All of the neighboring properties that abut the
P144
or exceecl the zoning requirements and wiH be
Iarger than many lots recently subdivided in the
same area and zoning district" (Report p.2)
proposed division are !arger than 2 acres; the
proposed plans show certain of the iots to be
significantly smaller than 2acres. (See Plat and
Bader Application)
"Extension of Foxwood Lane from its current
The proposed variance and extension of Foxwood
terrninus to gain access from Delaware, is
DOES NOT MEET CODE; would be detrimental to
technicaHy feasible but, while meeting the code,
woutd be detrimentat to tand, tree cover, and be
the tand and to tree cover and woutd be equaily if
not more unacceptable to the neighborhood.
Iess acceptabte to the neighborhood" (Report p.
° Bader sketch drawings show the proposed
2)
expansion of Foxwood Larie as breaching
the scenic access easement that the City
required as a condition to the approval of
the Foxwood development (Gray Exhibit
8)
m The expansion of Foxwood Lane woutd
resutt in yard setback non-conformity for
.
540 Wentworth. (City Code 12-1E-4: R-1A:
One Family Residentiat District subsection
D) This code section requires that a side
yard abutting a street shati not be tess
than 30 feet in width. Currently the side
yard setback is only 15 feet
° The expansion of Foxwood woutd result in
avio|atinn of City Code 12-1D-4, which
directs that "no yard or other open space
shaH be reduced in area dimension 50 as to
make such yard or other open space !ess
than the minimum required bythis
chapter and if the existing yard or other
open space as existing is tess than the
minimum required it shalt not be further
reduced." (City Code 12-ID-4).The Lutz
home, based on a prior grant of a variance
is already tess than minimum required, .
.
and thus according to the City Code,
cannot be further reduced.
° tt is entirely unacceptabte to the
neighborhood directty affected by the
variance as evidenced by the letters in
opposition. (Aune, Lutz, Gray and
Weyerhauser letters). Not one Detaware
neighbor has indicated on the record
their opposition to the Baders'
alternatives to use Delaware
, The Fnxm/ooJ expansion would result ina
breach of the restrictive covenants that
protect the Foxwood Lane lots and
"The new lots served bythe extended Foxwood
will match the character of the area." (Report p.2)
The new lots wifl not match the character ofthe
area. A!though within the size required by the
zoning ordinance, the proposed lot are
significantly smaller than the current adjoining
lots. (See Bader Variance Application and Plat of
affected properties)
"The app$icant has opined that Dakota County wil)
likely grant approva to construct a new street and
intersection on Delaware Avenue, along the south
boundary line of 1673 Delaware. As, development
of the area is possible from Delaware Ave.,
although the grade and tree )oss wou)d be rnuch
more extensive with that design. The sketch plan
submitted as a part of the application shows that
as may as four new buildable lots would be
proposed with that design."
In the Foxwood alternative the Jand that would be
adversely affected by loss of tree cover includes in
sigriificant part Jand not owned by the Baders arid
land which is subject to a City imposed 30' scenic
easement; in the Delaware option the loss oftree
cover is on land owried by the Baders. (Gray
Exhibit B)
Each ofthe sketch plans submitted by the Baders
show four new buildable lots. (Bader Variance
Application)
While the option necessitating the variarice results
in an over)y long cul-de-sac, it also appears to have
the least impact on the Jand in relation to grading
and tree loss. (Report p.4)
The record does not reflectthat any independent
analysis was macle with respect to this issue, rior
have any design or engineer plans been presented
which would substantiate this conclusion. As
noteci above, the impactto which Mr. Grittman
refers is to land a!ready owned by the Baders who
are seeking to benefit from their planned
development.
Because the conditions resulting in the narrower
right of way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not
the result of action by the applicant staif believes
that the variance request can be founcl to be
consistentwith the interit of the zoning ordinance.
(Reportp.4)
The Baders' purchased their Foxwood property
knowing that:
°
Foxwood Lane was a private road that was
bulit and approved by the City to serve as
egress for the three plotted Foxwood lots.
°
The Foxwood property was subject to
protective covenants that prohibited
further sub-division.
°
The protective covenants identified a
"Restricted Area" and a "No Cut Zone"
which contained significant restrictions on
P145
PC)
neighboring propertes, putting the
neighbors in direc conflict
"The difficufties n meeting the requfred street
width relate to topography changes and tree Ioss
by construcUng an outtet to Delaware, and the
inability to expand the existing right of way width,
since it is flanked by other property owners."
(Report p.2)
1 am urisure ifthis comment relates to the
Delaware options or the Foxwood extension. To
the extent it was intended to applyto egress off of
Delaware, these same issues exist for the Foxwood
expansion.
"The new lots served bythe extended Foxwood
will match the character of the area." (Report p.2)
The new lots wifl not match the character ofthe
area. A!though within the size required by the
zoning ordinance, the proposed lot are
significantly smaller than the current adjoining
lots. (See Bader Variance Application and Plat of
affected properties)
"The app$icant has opined that Dakota County wil)
likely grant approva to construct a new street and
intersection on Delaware Avenue, along the south
boundary line of 1673 Delaware. As, development
of the area is possible from Delaware Ave.,
although the grade and tree )oss wou)d be rnuch
more extensive with that design. The sketch plan
submitted as a part of the application shows that
as may as four new buildable lots would be
proposed with that design."
In the Foxwood alternative the Jand that would be
adversely affected by loss of tree cover includes in
sigriificant part Jand not owned by the Baders arid
land which is subject to a City imposed 30' scenic
easement; in the Delaware option the loss oftree
cover is on land owried by the Baders. (Gray
Exhibit B)
Each ofthe sketch plans submitted by the Baders
show four new buildable lots. (Bader Variance
Application)
While the option necessitating the variarice results
in an over)y long cul-de-sac, it also appears to have
the least impact on the Jand in relation to grading
and tree loss. (Report p.4)
The record does not reflectthat any independent
analysis was macle with respect to this issue, rior
have any design or engineer plans been presented
which would substantiate this conclusion. As
noteci above, the impactto which Mr. Grittman
refers is to land a!ready owned by the Baders who
are seeking to benefit from their planned
development.
Because the conditions resulting in the narrower
right of way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not
the result of action by the applicant staif believes
that the variance request can be founcl to be
consistentwith the interit of the zoning ordinance.
(Reportp.4)
The Baders' purchased their Foxwood property
knowing that:
°
Foxwood Lane was a private road that was
bulit and approved by the City to serve as
egress for the three plotted Foxwood lots.
°
The Foxwood property was subject to
protective covenants that prohibited
further sub-division.
°
The protective covenants identified a
"Restricted Area" and a "No Cut Zone"
which contained significant restrictions on
P145
PC)
P146
changing the character ofthe natural
setting of the Foxwood Lane development.
The protective covenants specificaUy
prohibited grading, removal ofsoil,
placement of soll or fill and construction of
any improvements (other than
Iandscaping) in the "No Cut Zones," whch
they knew or reasonably should have
known would prohibit the construcflon of
or an expansion ofa road through this
area.
(Gray Exhibits A and B)
As a final matter 1 also want to emphasize that 1 am not asking, nor do)expect the Planning Commission
to enforce the restricUve covenants agreement. |du believe, however, that their existence and the
Bader's knowledge of them at the time of their purchase are facts that can and should be taken into
consideration in determining whether the Baders' have met their burden of proving the legal elements
necessary for obtaining a variance.
I appreciate that this submission is being made shortly before the February 28, 2012 Planning
Commission Hearing, and 1 apologize. 1 did my best to get this prepared and submitted as soon as
possible after receiving the Grittman report.
Again, thank you for consiclering my views.
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF
MENDDT A HEIGHTS
May 1, 2012
Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
ITEM 9E
P147
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
€151.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.89 0 fax
tlnendot« heights or1 .
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP,yi'
Public Works Director /City Engineer -
SUBJECT: Dakota County Capital Improvements Program (CIP) — Discussion Item
BACKGROUND
Each year Dakota County solicits input from cities r rand nclude
forecasti �g,s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP prepared each year
planning, and budgeting for the next 5 years. The CIP Dakota County is currently putting
together is for funding years 2013 -2017. Staff b.as identified 3 potential projects
1. At their April 10th meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission passed a motion that
Council request Dakota County construct a trail connection along Lexington Avenue in the
between Wagon Wheel Trail and Tom Thumb Boulevard. This i.s an existing gap
area trail system, and the proposed connection would allow for complete north -south
pedestrian access between Highway 110 and Mendota Heights Road. The County has
indicated that if this trail were to be constructed, it would have to be located on the east by
side of Lexington to connect the two existing Bible for all expe expenses ssocdiated withpl e project
Dakota County, the City would be responsible
55% of the construction cost.
As an alternative to the Lexington Avenue trail, Council could choose to complete the
pedestrian trail on the north side of Wagon ieCurley' Lexington
s AdditionAvenue and
I -35E. 1 his would make a north-south con m ecton tl� ough the
Subdivision that could negate the need for a trail along Lexington. This portion of the
trail is already included in the Wagon Wheel Trail reconstruction project, and could be
installed this summer.
2. Over the past few years, a number of Mendota Heights' residents from the Copperfield
neighborhood and adjoining neighborhoods have asked staff about a north -south
pedestrian access from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 110 in the vicinity of their
neighborhoods, specifically from. the Copperfield area to Henry Sibley High School.
Currently, pedestrians (if they choose not to walk on Delaware Avenue) have connection
between these two areas with pedestrian trails, but they have to go west to Dodd Road in
order to access trails that can take them back to Henry Sibley.
P148
Adding a separated pedestrian trail to Delaware Avenue presents a number of challenging
issues. There are substantial grade issues, potential right - of-way acquisition or
construction easements necessary, and the public's concern over traffic expansion along
Delaware in this area. If requested, and accepted by Dakota County, the City would be
responsible for all expenses associated with the project less 55% of the construction cost.
3. The City of Mendota Heights has been identified as a financial contributor to the
stonnwater drainage portion of MnDOT's Highway 13 reconstruction project scheduled
for 2015. The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization
(LMRWMO) regulates stormwater drainage that crosses municipal boundaries, and has
identified a portion of the stormwater drainage being addressed with this project as
coming from Mendota Heights. A portion of the Mendota Heights stormwater
contribution is the Lexington Avenue right -of -way, which is owned by Dakota County.
The Dakota County CIP has a set -aside fund for stormwater management projects. This
project may be eligible for funds based on the percent of the drainage area owned by the
County as right -of -way. This could potentially be up to 50% of the amount owed by
Mendota Heights.
BUDGET IMPACT
If either of the two trail projects mentioned are requested and accepted by Dakota County, in
addition to 45% of the construction cost, the City would be responsible for all design, right-of-
way acquisition, and construction administration costs.
If the stonnwater project is requested and accepted by Dakota County it could result in a net
savings to the City of up to 50% of the City contribution to the stonnwater improvements
MnDOT is planning in conjunction with the Highway 13 reconstruction project in 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council discus the above listed projects and determine if they are worthy
of inclusion in the Dakota County CIP. No official action is necessary at this time. A formal
resolution will be brought forward with the projects desired at a later date. Dakota County
requires project requests to be submitted by June 25th. With respect to the three potential
projects listed above, staff offers the following recommendations:
1. Staff recommends completing the Wagon Wheel Trail bituminous trail as a logical
alternative to a County CIP project.
2. Staff recommends waiting for a County sponsored reconstruction project of Delaware
Avenue to request trail installation.
3. Staff recommends requesting 2015 stormwater management set -aside funds for the
Mendota Heights cost portion of stromwater drainage improvement associated with the
Highway 13 reconstruction.