Loading...
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.