Loading...
2012-07-03 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 3, 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 June 19, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of the June 19, 2012 Council Workshop Minutes c. Approval of Sign Permit at 2360 Pilot Knob Road d. Approval of Revised Travel Policy for Elected Officials and City Staff e. Approval of Task Force 1 Joint Powers Agreement f. Planning Case 2012-19, Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit, 1151 Orchard Circle g. Planning Case 2012-21, Critical Area Permit, 1144 Kingsley Court h. Approval of Construction Staking Contract i. Approval of Street Striping Contract j. Approval of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Parks Restroom Accessibility Improvements k. Approval of Contractors List l. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. Presentation of 2011 Audit – Kern, DeWenter, Viere. Ltd. 8. Unfinished and New Business a. Approval of Storm Debris Disposal Contract b. Approval of Fifth Amendment to Planned Unit Development, Mendota Plaza/White Pines Senior Living c. Planning Case 2012-18, Subdivision, 953 Wagon Wheel Trail d. Planning Case 2012-20, Critical Area Permit, 1128 Sibley Memorial Highway e. Ordinance Amendment Request to Allow Electric Motors on Rogers Lake 9. Council Comments 10. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 19, 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. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein; pulling items E) Resolution Accepting Donations to Mendota Heights 5K Race and F) Receipt of Par 3 Update a. Acknowledgement of June 5, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of May 8 and June 4, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes c. Acknowledgement of June 13, 2012 Airport Relations Commission Minutes d. Approval to Enter Purchase Agreement for 2454 Lemay Lake Road e. Resolution Accepting Donations to Mendota Heights 5K Race f. Receipt of Par 3 Update g. Authorize Selection of Employee Insurance/Benefits Agent of Record h. Resolution Designating Data Practices Officials i. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Quotes for Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising j. Receipt of May Fire Synopsis Report k. Approval of Massage Therapy and Enterprise Licenses l. Approval of Sign Permits at 1408 Northland Drive m. Approval of May 2012 Treasurer’s Report n. Approve the Contractors List o. Approve the Claims List Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC E) RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5K RACE Councilmember Duggan noted that those that had attended know that the 25th Parks Celebration was a great success for the City and was a community builder. He expressed congratulations and his appreciation to all those who planned and participated in the events. Councilmember Povolny also expressed his appreciation for all of the contributions and participation. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the Resolution Accepting Donations to Mendota Heights 5K Race. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC F) RECEIPT OF PAR 3 UPDATE Councilmember Petschel asked Councilmember Vitelli to cover some of the high points in the Par 3 Update. Councilmember Vitelli, the Council Liaison to Par 3, noted the following: • The walk up revenues are over last year’s • The recreation programs are under last year’s but they are hoping they will catch up • Completed necessary maintenance on all equipment • They are slightly over in revenue as opposed to cost with the goal to break even or slightly better on the operations of the golf course Councilmember Petschel asked if the city is having any success in terms of removing the chemical sediment stain left over from the water on the front of the clubhouse. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek replied in the affirmative but they still have some work to complete in that effort. Councilmember Petschel moved to accept the Par 3 Update. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Krebsbach requested that City Administrator Justin Miller and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello give an update on the storm damage and recovery in Mendota Heights. Administrator Miller explained that the city and surrounding communities experienced severe storms the previous evening and while the damage was widespread, it was concentrated in the area north of Marie Avenue. It was estimated that a couple hundred trees were down throughout the city. Police, Fire, and Public Works crews all responded very early in the morning and worked throughout the day. Their main purpose was to clear the streets, making sure the rights of way were safe for passage, as well as clearing any downed power lines, working with Xcel and the various utilities, and they all did a very good job. Residents expressed their appreciation for the speedy responses. Administrator Miller also informed the Council that the city would be establishing a brush pick-up program and residents would be asked that if they have tree and brush debris from the storm, to put that at their curb by Tuesday, June 26, 2012. The pick up of this debris could take ten to fourteen days to complete and residents were asked to be patient. Residents were encouraged to visit the city’s website at www.mendota-heights.com for updates. A hot line specifically for this issue was set up at 651-255-1361. Administrator Miller also stated that Mendota Heights water is safe to drink. The water issues that West Saint Paul was dealing with did not impact Mendota Heights. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello stated that the National Weather Service, on their website, reported that the damage in the area was caused by eighty mile per hour straight line winds. AWARD OF BIDS A) AWARD OF BID FOR LEMAY LAKE ROAD PROJECT Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello explained this was a bid award for the Lemay Lake Road reconstruction project, which is anticipated to begin in mid-July. A bid opening was held last week, seven bids were submitted, and those bids were outlined in the resolution. The successful low bidder, Valley Paving Incorporated, submitted a bid of $1,331,170.60. Valley Paving has done work in the City of Mendota Heights in the past and they are the current prime contractor with MnDOT on the Highway 13 resurfacing project. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE LEMAY LAKE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201105). Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Mayor Krebsbach asked if this bid was as anticipated in the budget. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the bid was quite below the anticipated budget amount of $1.8M Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) APPROVAL OF PILOT KNOB USE PERMIT Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated that staff brought back a draft use permit for the Pilot Knob Open Space site. At the last Council meeting this item was discussed, specifically on the topic of fires on this site. The document addressed fire as was suggested at the Council meeting. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek noted that the term ‘recreation fire’ was the right term to use and was verified through the State Fire Marshal. The fire in the permit referenced a recreational fire; which is a fire that is two feet maximum in height and three feet in diameter. The standard Minnesota Open Burning Permit was included in the documentation and would be carried over to this site as well. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek received feedback from Great River Greening and from Pilot Knob Preservation Association on the contents of the permit, made a couple of tweaks, added the initial paragraph that basically puts a timeline on the permit request, and a minimum group size of ten was added. Mayor Krebsbach asked if there is a designated area to have a fire. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied there is not a designated area for a fire. Whoever makes the request will need to describe to staff where they would like to have the fire and that would be evaluated by the fire marshal for safety and also by Great River Greening, who is overseeing the site for the City. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek also indicated that the location language is in the permit but staff could add more specific language. Mayor Krebsbach requested that this permit process be reviewed in October 2012, after it has been used a couple of times. Councilmember Povolny asked if ‘any tent or membrane structure’ should have a maximum square footage of size and location of ten structures. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek answered that there is not a set number in the document but it does give discretion to staff to evaluate what the request is and what the site can accommodate. In this case, “staff” is City Administrator Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, and Great River Greening because they oversee the site. If it involves a fire then they would include the Fire Marshal and most likely the Police Chief. Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the Pilot Knob Use Permit. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan asked if this permit would be available on the City’s website for residents to be able to review and get an idea of what they need to do. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that it would be available on the city’s website. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) APPROVAL OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated that for many years, the City of Mendota Heights has allocated $10,000 in its annual budget, which may be requested by the Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA) to help them off-set the costs of offering youth athletic activities to Mendota Heights youth. The City of Mendota Heights provides recreation programs, golf programs, and tennis programs. The athletic association provides the baseball, softball, soccer, football, lacrosse, etc. MHAA has made their request for the $10,000 this year and also asked that this request be included again in next year’s budget. This year a report form will be included requesting accountability back to staff on what exactly the money is going towards, what are the programs being offered, and what are the assurances that youth are being protected – essentially to bring the reporting requirements from MHAA up to what the city expects from its own recreation programs. Mayor Krebsbach explained that the request not only includes the $10,000 but also the use of the Mendota Heights parks system. She also requested Assistant Administrator Sedlacek explain the reservation process and if there are any charges for the fields. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that there are a number of softball, soccer, and multi-purpose fields in the parks system, which the city maintains at no charge to MHAA. They pay a $25 permit fee for each field requested, which covers the use of that field for the particular season. They are not charged fees for in-house tournaments; however, if they are doing an invitational tournament they are charged the regular field reservation fees. Councilmember Petschel commented that the background checks on coaches only indicates traveling baseball and in-house baseball and asked how the city would know the status of background checks on the other sports coaches. MHAA Program Director Amelia Olson explained that background checks are completed on all coaches. However, since most are repeat coaches throughout the year, only one background check is necessary every three years. Councilmember Petschel asked what is the current state on concussion training. Ms. Olson replied that this is a new law required by the state and every coach has to take it, which is why it is on the front page of their website. Mayor Krebsbach expressed her wish to make sure that Mendota Heights kids are participating, at least seventy-five percent in the lower levels, and she asked how MHAA gets kids in the programs early on. Ms. Olson replied that she has never turned a Mendota Heights kid away, even if they ask beyond the registration deadline. She also mentioned that MHAA is the only association in their district that offers T-ball, in-house softball, and traveling softball, which is why the percentage of kids playing from other areas is so high. To get young kids involved MHAA sends flyers out to all of the schools and they have a large e-mail list. Mayor Krebsbach asked what the by-laws state in terms of who can play on an MHAA team. Ms. Olson replied that anyone who lives or attends school in District 197 can play on an MHAA team. MHAA does not look at the kids as coming from a particular community; they look at them as kids who wish to participate in a sport. Discussions were had and questions asked in regards to the City of Mendota Heights contributing funds, parks, and fields for MHAA to use and the Council’s desire to make sure that Mendota Heights children are playing. Councilmember Vitelli expressed his appreciation for the good spirit of cooperation between the City of Mendota Heights and the work that MHAA does. However, since the City has some liabilities they will ask MHAA for an annual report on how things are going so the Council is not surprised. Councilmember Povolny mentioned that in the Code of Ethics of the MHAA By-Laws, they should add an anti-bullying policy. Councilmember Vitelli moved for Approval of Annual Contribution to Mendota Heights Athletic Association Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) APPROVAL OF CONSENT TO TRANSFER, MENDOTA PLAZA/WHITE PINES SENIOR LIVING Mayor Krebsbach explained that the White Pines Senior Living Development is coming into the Mendota Plaza area and one of the things that was needed was this consent to transfer, based on the financial liability of the developer. Assistant to City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated that this item is a consent to transfer, which is part of the fourth amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Mendota Mall Associates. There was language in the original agreement allowing for a consent to transfer the development rights and/or property to another organization, under certain conditions being met. As part of the process, this fourth amendment spelled out how this consent was to take place. Attached is a letter from Minnwest Bank which describes the creditworthiness of Charles Rothstein, who is the principal owner of White Pines Senior Living and White Pine Holdings, LLC, to complete the development of Lot 6, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek read from the fourth amendment, item number eleven, to make sure there were no questions as to why this was brought up. Mayor Krebsbach asked why the documentation refers to the financial worthiness of White Pines Holdings, LLC but the letter refers to Mr. Rothstein, not White Pines Holdings, LLC. City Attorney Tami Diehm answered that the language in the agreement states that the lender needs to either commit to loan White Pines funds or to make a statement as to the general credit worthiness of White Pines. The revised form of letter that was received did add a reference to White Pine Holdings, LLC but perhaps more importantly it added a sentence that indicated that Minnwest Bank has agreed to finance the construction of this project. Based on that very last sentence, where the lender is saying that they have agreed to finance the construction of the project, staff felt that it met the standard included in the language that said they would commit to loan White Pine funds. Mayor Krebsbach asked if that meant they are loaning funds to White Pines or to Mr. Rothstein. City Attorney Diehm replied that without seeing the details of the loan agreement she is unsure; however, typically in this situation a bank would make a loan to the actual LLC and require a guarantee by the principal. Mayor Krebsbach expressed her desire to hold off on approval until staff and council are absolutely crystal clear on this item because the Development Agreement refers to White Pines Holdings, LLC and the Minnwest letter refers to Mr. Rothstein. She also expressed her desire to know Mr. Rothstein’s position in the White Pines Holdings, LLC. Rob Majeski, representing Cottagewood Group Development, explained they have been working with Mr. Rothstein for the last four years and this would be their third project working together. Typically, Cottagewood handles the development and the design of the building and Mr. Rothstein’s role is typically choosing sites and finishing up the acquisition process. When Cottagewood originally had the letter put together, he did work with Minnwest Bank and Mr. Rothstein to get this piece of the Development Agreement and the amendments taken care of. Mr. Sedlacek mentioned to them that he wanted information regarding White Pines Holdings, LLC, of which Mr. Rothstein is the sole owner. When they updated the letter, they had Minnwest Bank add Mr. Rothstein, who is the principal owner of White Pines Senior Living and White Pines Holdings, LLC. Mayor Krebsbach asked if the representative understood what the Council was asking for. He replied in the affirmative but stated that he cannot help influence and say that this is adequate based off of a similar structure to what Paster Enterprises had done for their financial qualifications to do this project. However, he can go back and work with it. City Attorney Diehm said that she could send the language that staff and council is specifically looking for to Minnwest. This could be brought back to the Council at the July 3, 2012 meeting, along with the fifth amendment to the PUD and assuming that all gets approved that evening they would then be able to proceed with their closing. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Povolny commented that he was amazed at the Fire Department, Police Department, and city staff for their response to the storm event, and admired the people of Mendota Heights for their participation in the clean up efforts. Councilmember Petschel echoed Councilmember Povolny’s comments. Councilmember Duggan hoped everyone has a safe summer. Mayor Krebsbach commented on the New Ulm invitational golf tournament. Last year Mendota Heights resident Brian Regan was club champ and he came within one shot of making it as club champ this year. ADJOURN Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. ____________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Workshop Held Tuesday, June 19, 2012 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel and Vitelli. Also in attendance were City Administrator Justin Miller, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, and City Engineer/Public Works Director John Mazzitello. 2013 BUDGET PROCESS Miller presented the item and stated that staff was preparing the 2013 budget. Staff was interested in knowing if the council had any issues that they would specifically like addressed in the draft budget. Councilmember Petschel indicated that she would like to review the amount of debt being issued for street projects. The council reviewed projected debt service levies provided by staff and asked that it continue to be monitored through the budget process. The council also discussed potential budget workshop dates and indicated their preference for it to be held on August 21st before the regularly scheduled council meeting that evening. INFRASTRUCURE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW Miller indicated that this was being discussed at a workshop as directed by the council during their annual goal setting. Mazzitello briefly went through the basis for how projects were selected and prioritized and explained the various funding mechanisms. The council had questions about specific projects as well as questioned what the impact would be on pushing some projects back to future years. Also discussed was the future ownership of the water system and the ongoing debt/bonding needs to meet the project demands. While no formal action was taken, council directed staff to continue with the plan but to be conscious of budget issues as each year’s plan is approached. ASSESSMENT POLICY REVIEW Miller stated that this item was also brought forward in response to a council request during the council goal setting workshop. After discussing the policy and asking questions about specific sections of the assessment program, the council directed staff to continue the policy as presented. ADJOURN Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ____________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Out-of-State Travel Policy BACKGROUND Minnesota cities are required to annually review their elected officials out-of-state travel policy. In reviewing our files, the city council approved a policy by adopting resolution 98-04 on January 6, 1998. Staff began to look at this policy earlier this year as we were trying to tighten up the travel policy for city employees. Staff has attached a policy for the City of Mendota Heights that will cover not only elected officials but all city employees as well. It is modeled after a League of Minnesota Cities sample policy. The highlights of the proposed policy include: • Out-of-state travel must be approved in advance by the city council • Itemized receipts for reimbursement must be provided • Meal reimbursement will be based on the General Services Administration guidelines • Entertainment, personal expenses, and alcoholic beverages will not be reimbursed or paid for by the city BUDGET IMPACT Travel expenses are included annually in the budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached resolution approving an out-of-state travel policy for all elected officials and city employees. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- RESOLUTION GOVERNING TRAVEL FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights annually budgets for conferences, schools, and other professional development events, some of which occur outside the seven county metropolitan area and the State of Minnesota, for city employees and elected officials; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have a written policy governing the approval for attendance at conferences, schools, and other professional development events at the city’s expense. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the attached “City of Mendota Heights Travel Authorization and Expense Reimbursement Policy” be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution supersedes and replaces resolution 98-04 approved on January 6, 1998. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of July, 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk City of Mendota Heights Travel Authorization and Expense Reimbursement Policy Purpose: The City of Mendota Heights recognizes that its employees and elected official may at times receive value from traveling outside the seven-county metropolitan area for workshops, conferences, events and other assignments. This policy sets forth the conditions under which for in state overnight travel and out-of-state travel will be reimbursed by the City. General Guidelines: 1. All travel by Mendota Heights employees requires either the approval of the City Council, the City Administrator and/or the Department Head of the employee. 2. All in state conferences, seminars, workshops, training or other educational related expenses in excess of $1,000.00 (to include estimated travel related expenses), shall require the approval of the City Council. All in state training, seminars, etc., in excess of $500.00 or requiring an overnight stay, shall require the approval of the City Administrator. 3. All out of state conferences, seminars, workshops, training or other educational related expense must be approved in advance by the City Council at an open meeting and must include an estimate of the cost of the travel. In evaluating the out-of-state travel request, the Council will consider the following: • Whether the elected official or employee will be receiving training on issues relevant to the city or to his or her role; • Whether the elected official or employee will be meeting and networking with other officials from around the country to exchange ideas on topics of relevance to the City or on the official roles city officials. • Whether the elected official or employee has been specifically assigned to testify on behalf of the city or to otherwise meet with officials on behalf of the city. • Whether the city has sufficient funding available in the budget to pay the cost of the trip. 4. No reimbursements will be made for attendance at events sponsored by or affiliated with political parties. 5. The city may make payments in advance for airfare, lodging and registration if specifically approved by the council. Otherwise all payments will be made as reimbursements to the elected official or employee. 6. Conference Registration Fees – if the conference fee was not prepaid, City of Mendota Heights will reimburse these fees, including business related banquets or meals that are part of the conference registration. Original receipts to support the payment are required. If the conference does not provide a receipt, a canceled check, credit card slip/statement, or documentation that the amount was paid is required for reimbursement. Entertainment activities such as golf outings and sightseeing tours will not be reimbursed. 7. Airfare – if the airfare was not prepaid, an original itemized airline receipt, an e-ticket receipt/statements, or an internet receipt/statement is required for reimbursement. Airfare will be reimbursed at the coach rate. 8. Automobile (Personally owned) - Mileage will be reimbursed at the IRS rate. If two or more people travel together by car, only the driver will receive reimbursement. The city will reimburse for the cost of renting an automobile if necessary to conduct city business. Commercial rental vehicle will be reimbursed for entry-level or the most economic vehicle available. Original receipts are required for reimbursement. 9. Lodging costs will be reimbursed at reasonable, single occupancy or standard business room rates. When the hotel or motel is the conference or convention site, reimbursement will be limited to the conference rate. 10. Meals costs reimbursement will be based on the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) guidelines that vary by city location. Meals will be reimbursed up to the amount based on current GSA rates (i.e. if the GSA per diem amount for breakfast is $7.00, the reimbursement will be up to $7.00 for breakfast). Meal per diem includes all taxes and tips. Original itemized receipts are required for reimbursement. 11. Receipts are required for lodging, airfare, meals, and vehicle rental (if applicable) should accompany an expense report form. The expense report form shall be submitted to the Finance Department for payment within two weeks after the trip was completed. 12. The city will not reimburse for alcoholic beverages, personal telephone calls, costs associated with the attendance of a family member, rental of luxury vehicles, meal expenses included in the cost of registration, or recreational expenses such as golf or tennis. DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Police Chief SUBJECT: A Resolution to Execute the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization Joint Powers Agreement BACKGROUND The Dakota County Special Operations Team (DCSOT) is one of five regional teams partially funded by the State to support structural collapse and technical rescue capabilities within Minnesota under the umbrella of Minnesota Task Force 1 (Task Force). The DCSOT is one of the primary first responder activities coordinated under the joint powers entity of the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee (DCDPC). The DCSOT (36 people) is comprised of members from the County and 11 cities with members from fire, law enforcement and emergency medical services agencies. The team has responded to incidents involving hazardous materials, technical rescues and collapsed structures at locations throughout the County. The jurisdictions from the five regional teams (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Dakota County and Rochester) that are identified and sponsored by the State have discussed the potential for forming a joint powers entity for several years to coordinate planning, training and funding for the Task Force. In addition, the formation of the Task Force also provides for liability and workers’ compensation coverage if members of the Task Force are activated as a Specialized Emergency Response Team under MN Stat. Sec. 12.351 during an emergency. Staff reviewed various options for including the members of the DCSOT on the Task Force with the County Attorney’s Office. It was determined that the best approach was to have the County enter into the Task Force joint powers agreement as a member of the governing board and to have each of the member cities of the DCDPC become signatories to the Task Force as participating government units. This approach avoids legal issues of one joint powers entity entering into an agreement to form a new joint powers entity. Each city that is a member of the DCDPC is being encouraged to join the Task Force joint powers agreement to provide for their current and future eligible members to participate in the planning, training and funding that will be available through the Task Force. Staff is recommending that the Mendota Heights City Council appoint the Fire Chief Designee or Emergency Manager as the potential at large member of the board of directors as specified in the JPA. BUDGET IMPACT The Task Force is wholly funded through grant funds available to one or more of the participants. Participants are not obligated under the agreement to fund the Task Force in any other fashion without an amendment to the agreement. The Task Force has historically received funding through the US Department of Homeland Security Grant Program through the State of Minnesota. Any city expenses are budgeted as a line item within the Fire Department budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution authorizing staff and the mayor to sign the JPA with Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization Joint Powers Agreement. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE/TECHNICAL RESCUE TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to improve preparedness efforts and to assist other local agencies to be better prepared for any potential disasters and emergencies in the Dakota County; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is a member of the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee joint powers entity that supports the Dakota County Special Operations Team that provides response capabilities in the event of structural collapses and other technical rescues in Dakota County and through an approval process to other neighboring communities: and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Special Operations Team is one of five teams identified by the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) to host a structural collapse team to respond to structural collapses and other technical rescues along with the Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina and Rochester and partially supported by HSEM to develop an equipment cache and roster trained personnel able to respond in the event of structural collapses and other technical rescues; and WHEREAS, HSEM would like to formalize the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization (Task Force) in order to streamline funding, ensure better coordination of training and equipment purchases and to enable the State to designate the members of the Task Force as a Specialized Emergency Response Team under MN Stat. Sec. 12.351 to provide liability and workers’ compensation coverage during a State activation; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is eligible to join the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization (Task Force) as a participating governmental unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City of Mendota Heights hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization Joint Powers Agreement by and among the metropolitan cities of Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Edina and Rochester, the County of Dakota and other participating governmental units, substantially as presented to the Mendota Heights City Council, subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Mendota Heights Council hereby appoints the Fire Chief or Emergency Manager to represent the interests of the City of Mendota Heights as a participating governmental unit of the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization for the term of June 19, 2012 through January 31, 2013. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization MN Task Force 1 Minneapolis St. Paul Dakota County Rochester Edina Participating Govt. Units 70 Staff 40 Staff 36 DCSOT 20 Staff 30 Staff 35 Combined Program Manager: John Jim Mike Craig Tim Ulie Fruetel Smith Pott Essig Bangert Seal + 11 DCDPC Cities (Future) Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization MN Task Force 1 Board Minneapolis St. Paul Dakota County Rochester Edina Participating Agency • Two Directors Each • One of Directors must be a MN Task Force 1 Member and Structural Collapse Technician Trained Participating Govt. Units •Metropolitan Airport Commission Fire •Richfield Fire •Bloomington Fire •Coon Rapids Fire •Fridley Fire •St. Louis Park Fire •Minnetonka Fire •Anoka/Champlin Fire •Hopkins Fire •Mankato Fire •North Memorial •Hennepin County Medical Center •Dakota County Cities (Future) Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization (Minnesota Task Force One) This agreement is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the participants by Minnesota Statute 471.59. The participants to this agreement are all “governmental units” as defined by Minnesota Statute 471.59, Subdivision 1. 1.0 General Purpose. The purpose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to establish the Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization, which shall be governed by a Board of Directors, for the purpose of establishing, training, equipping, maintaining and deploying Minnesota Task Force One to incidents inside and outside the State of Minnesota as may be requested by a local agency or other unit of government. 2.0 Definitions. In addition to the standard definitions found in the National Incident Management System (2008), the following definitions apply to this document. 2.1 “Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force Organization” – The group of all Team Members, governed by the Board, who may be available to be rostered or activated to provide response to incident activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.2 “Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force ” (MN TF-1) – A group of Team Members, designated by the Board, who are rostered for deployment or are deployed to support incident activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.3 “Team Member” – A trained and qualified person, as designated and approved by the Board, who is employed by, contracted to, or volunteering with a Participant, who is or may be available to be activated to support incident response activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.4 “Board” – The Board of Directors established by this Agreement 2.5 “Director” – A member of the Board of Directors, qualified as defined under this Agreement, who is employed by, contracted to, or volunteering with Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Dakota County, Rochester, and one at large member from another participating governmental unit, who may be available to be activated to support incident activities pursuant to this Agreement. 2.6 “Participant” – Any governmental unit as defined by Minnesota Statute 471.59, Subdivision 1 which is a signatory to this Agreement. 3.0 Participants. 3.1 Participants: Subject to additional Participants added hereunder, the Participants shall be: (Attached Roster) 3.2 Status: No change in governmental boundaries, structure, organizational status or character shall affect the eligibility of any Participant listed above to be represented on the Board as long as such Participant continues to exist as a separate political subdivision. 3.3 Responsibility for Employees: All persons engaged in the work to be performed by a participant under this Agreement may not be considered employees of any other participant for any purpose, including worker’s compensation and other claims that may or might arise out of the employment context on behalf of the employees. All claims made by a participant as a result of any act or omission of a participant’s employees while engaged on any of the work performed under this Agreement are not the obligation or responsibility of any other participant. Each participant is responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. Each participant will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing services under this Agreement. Each participant waives the right to sue any other participant for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other participant or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 3.4 Emergency Management Assistance Compact EMAC: Any participant engaged as a member of MN TF-1 and deployed as part of an EMAC request are afforded all the protections and coverage as stated in Minn. Stat. 192.89, and retains all stated protections and coverage while engaged as part of an EMAC request. 4.0 Board of Directors. 4.1 Directors. The Organization shall be governed by a Board of Directors which shall consist of two (2) qualified Directors appointed by the governing body of each Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Dakota County, Rochester, and two at large director(s) elected from and by other signatory participants. 4.2 Qualifications. At least one (1) of the Directors from each governing body and at large, must be a Team Member and must have taken the FEMA equivalent Structural Collapse Technician Training, and all applicable pre-requisite training. 4.3 Compensation. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Organization or Board. This shall not prevent a Participant from providing compensation to a Director for serving on the Board. 5.0 Quorum/Voting. 5.1 Quorum. A majority of all of the Directors shall constitute a quorum. A simple majority vote of the Directors present at a meeting with a valid quorum shall be required for the Board to take action, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law. 5.2 Voting. There shall be no voting by proxy. All votes must be cast by the Director or designated alternate at a Board Meeting. Each Director shall have one (1) vote. 6.0 Officers. 6.1 Officers. The officers of the Board shall be a Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary/Treasurer. 6.2 Elections. At its first meeting, the Board shall elect a Chair, a Vice- Chair, and a Secretary/Treasurer who shall serve two year terms ending on December 31. Officers elected to partial or unexpired terms (including the initial term of office which ends on December 31, 2008) shall serve out the partial term but must then stand for election with the other Officers for the following term. 6.3 Vacancies. A Director shall be elected in the same manner as above to fill out an unexpired term of any office which becomes vacant. 6.4 Other Officers. The Board may elect or appoint such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. 7.0 Meetings 7.1 Annual Meeting. The Board shall meet at least annually on a schedule determined by the Board. 7.2 Call. Meetings of the Board may be called by the Chair or upon written request of a majority of the Directors. 7.3 Open Meeting/Data Practices. The Organization shall comply with data practices and open meeting laws which are applicable to the Participants. 7.4 Meeting by Teleconference. The Board, in an emergency, may meet by teleconference. A quorum of the Board is required to be present on the call to conduct business. 8.0 Powers and Duties of the Board. 8.1 The powers and duties of the Board include, but are not limited to, those enumerated in this section. 8.2 The Board shall prepare, adopt, and implement a plan to provide MN TF-1 response according to the terms and conditions herein. 8.3 The Board shall establish, train, equip, maintain, and govern the Organization, MN TF-1 and Team Members in their capacity as Team Members. 8.4 The Board shall provide for the deployment and recovery of one or more MN TF-1 teams to incidents as may be requested by another government unit under circumstances approved by the Board. 8.5 The Board shall prepare and approve an annual budget for MN TF-1. 8.6 The Board may purchase and maintain equipment necessary for the performance of its duties and the duties of MN TF-1. 8.7 The Board may enter into contractual delegations of authority with local, state, or Federal, government units for the purposes of conducting incident management/technical rescue operations within the jurisdiction of such units and such power may be delegated to designated incident commanders/task force leaders. 8.8 The Board may research and make recommendations to the Participants regarding other matters related to the Task Force purposes. 8.9 The Board may consult with persons knowledgeable in technical rescue management and response, such as research organizations, educational institutions, other political subdivisions, regulatory organizations, technical experts, and any other persons who can provide pertinent information. 8.10 The Board may cooperate or contract with the State of Minnesota, any political subdivision, federal agencies or private or public organizations to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized. 8.11 The Board may contract with other governmental units to provide the services of MN TF-1. The Board may enter into a mutual aid agreement with other similar Task Forces. 8.12 The Board may contract for or purchase such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the Board, the Participants, the Response Team, and its property. 8.13 The Board may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the Organization not currently needed for its operations. 8.14 The Board may collect money from participants, subject to section 10.2, and from any other source(s) authorized by law. 8.15 The Board may make contracts, employ consultants, incur expenses and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and powers, in conformance with the requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of all the Participants. 8.16 The Board shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the Board and shall make and file a report to the Participants at least once each year. Strict accountability of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements shall be made. 8.17 The Board’s books, reports and records shall be available for and open to inspection by its Participants at all reasonable times. The Board’s records shall be available for inspection by the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. 8.18 The Board may appoint such committees as it deems necessary to exercise the powers of the Board in accordance with by-laws adopted by the Board and as allowed by law. 8.19 The Board may exercise all other lawful powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein, including, without limitation, the adoption of by-laws to govern the functioning of the Board, provided that no by-law or action of the Board shall be contrary to the terms of this Agreement. 9.0 Additional Participants 9.1 Vote of Board. Other governmental units may become a participant to this Agreement upon approval of a 2/3 majority of the Board. The new Participant shall sign a copy of this Agreement. Existing Participants shall not be required to sign the agreement again. 9.2 Non-Governmental Entities. With the approval of the Board, Non- Governmental entities may appoint qualified Directors to become advisory (non-voting) members of the Board and may contribute personnel to Task Force operations upon entering into a sponsorship agreement with any one Participant in a form accepted and approved by the Board. 10.0 Finance 10.1 No Joint Powers Board. A “joint powers board” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59, Subd. 11 is not established by this agreement. Neither the Board nor the Organization has authority to issue bonds or obligations. 10.2 Revenue. The Organization is wholly funded through grant funds available to one or more of the Participants. Participants are not obligated under this agreement to fund the Organization in any other fashion without an amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. 10.3 Disbursements. The Organization may make disbursements from public funds to carry out the purposes of this agreement. 10.4 Fiscal Agent. The Board shall designate one Participant, with that Participant’s consent, to serve as the fiscal agent for the Organization and funds may be paid to or disbursed by that Participant provided that the method of disbursement shall agree as far as practicable with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by the parties to the agreement. 10.5 Purchasing. Contracts let and purchases made under the agreement shall conform to the requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of the Fiscal Agent. 10.6 Accountability. The fiscal agent shall maintain accountability of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements. 10.7 Distribution of Property. In the event that the Agreement is terminated as provided herein, any property acquired as the result of such joint or cooperative exercise of powers or surplus money shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of any applicable grants or other contractual obligations, or, in none, pursuant to the procedures of the Fiscal Agent and the proceeds from such disposal shall be distributed pro rata to the Participants. Property acquired by participants prior to entering into this agreement shall remain in possession of the participants. 11.0 Indemnification 11.1 The Board shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Participants and any employees, officials, volunteers, or agents of the Participants against all claims, losses, liability, suits, judgments, costs and expenses by reason of the action or inaction of the Board or employees or agents of the Board. This agreement to indemnify and hold harmless does not constitute a waiver by any participant of the limitations on liability provided under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or Section 3.736 or a waiver of any available immunities or defenses. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the Participants pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative activity,” and it is the intent of the Participants that they shall be deemed a “single governmental unit” for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subd. 1a(a); provided further that for purposes of that statute, each Participant to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of any other Participant. Any excess or uninsured liability shall be borne equally by each Participant. 12.0 Duration. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until it is terminated in the manner provided herein. 13.0 Default. Upton the failure of any Participant to fulfill any of its other material obligations under this Agreement the Board may expel a Participant upon 2/3 vote. 14.0 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the approval of any two Participants herein and shall become binding upon the remaining Participants on the dates of the approval of each of them. All Participants need not sign the same copy. The signed Agreement along with a certified copy of the resolution authorizing the Agreement, shall be filed with the Fire Chief of the City of Bloomington, who shall notify all Participants in writing of its effective date and set a date and place for the Board’s first meeting. 15.0 Amendments. This agreement may be amended only by the unanimous agreement of all Participants acting by and through their governing bodies. 16.0 Withdrawal and Termination. 16.1 Withdrawal. Any participant shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement and Organization hereby created in the following manner: 16.1.1 Notice of intent to withdraw shall be given in writing to all Participants. 16.1.2 The governing body of the withdrawing participant shall pass a resolution declaring its intent to withdraw effective on a specified date, which date shall not be less than ninety (90) days from the day of the resolution and shall send a certified copy of such resolution to the Chair of the Board not less than ninety (90) days before the effective date with withdrawal. The certified copy of such resolution shall be provided to the Chair of the Board by hand delivery. 16.1.3 Upon receipt of the resolution of a withdrawal, the Chair of the Board shall mail copies of the resolution to all Directors. 16.2 Continuing Organization. Notwithstanding the parties’ authority to withdraw, this Agreement and the Organization created hereby shall continue in force until all remaining Participants mutually agree to terminate or revise this Agreement. 16.3 Termination. After the effective date of termination, the Board shall continue to exist for the limited purpose of discharging the Board’s debts and liabilities, settling its affairs, and disposing of its property and surplus monies, if any. 17.0 Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement. 18.0 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Agreement is held to be contrary to law, rule, or regulation having the force and effect of law, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Agreement. 19.0 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one agreement. The Fiscal Agent shall act as administrator of the Agreement for the purpose of maintaining the document and insuring its availability to all Participants. The Fiscal Agent shall provide notice to all parties in the event of the addition or withdrawal of a Participant. 20.0 Construction. Each provision of this Agreement has been reviewed and negotiated, and represents the combined work product of all Participant hereto. NO presumption or other rules of construction that would interpret the provisions of this Agreement in favor of or against the Participant preparing the same shall be applicable in connection with the construction or interpretation of any of the provision of this Agreement. 21.0 Governing Law. This Agreement, and the rights of the parties hereto, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 22.0 Entire Agreement. The entire agreement between the Participants hereto is contained in this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all of their previous understanding and agreements, written and oral, with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF - the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statute 471.59. May 2011 Final MN TF-1 JPA 10 Execution Page for the Joint & Cooperative Agreement For Minnesota Structural Collapse/Technical Rescue Task Force The party listed below has read, agreed to and executed this Agreement on the date indicated. Date ____________________ Entity _____________________________ By _________________________________ Title ______________________________ And ________________________________ Title ______________________________ DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-19, Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit BACKGROUND A planning application was presented to the planning commission on June 26, 2012 for a critical area permit and a wetlands permit to construct a screen porch attached to the principal structure at 1151 Orchard Circle. 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 May 31, 2012. The 60 day review period is set to expire on July 30, 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. Pointing out that the proposal creates no additional impervious surface, and makes no changes to the vegetation between the water body and the project. The commission had no questions for the planner. There were no comments at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION At their June 26, 2012 meeting, the planning commission voted 5:0 to recommend approval of the critical area permit and wetlands permit 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 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH AT 1151 ORCHARD CIRCLE. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH AT 1151 ORCHARD CIRCLE. WHEREAS, Scott and Jean Cottington have applied for a critical area permit and wetlands permit to construct a screen porch attached to the principle structure at 1151 Orchard Circle (PID 27- 81275-030-01, Lot 3, Block 1 VALS ADDITION) as proposed in planning case 2012-19; and WHEREAS, the planning commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting June 26, 2012; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a critical area permit and wetlands permit as proposed in planning case 2012-19 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project results in only nominal increases in impervious surface, with an existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetland edge. 3. The wetland itself will be untouched. 4. No other soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of this work. 5. The property does not have a view of, and cannot be viewed from the Mississippi River. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of July 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: June 22, 2012 MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit and Critical Area Permit for Screened Porch CASE NO: Case No. 2012-19; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.11 APPLICANT(S): Jean and Scott Cottington LOCATION: 1151 Orchard Circle ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR – Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking to construct a 16’ x 20’ screened porch on the northwest side of their garage. The subject site is located at 1151 Orchard Circle and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The site currently contains a single family home and attached garage. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. The property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area Permit. Analysis: The existing home at 1151 Orchard Circle is bordered by a small wetland to the northeast. It stands approximately 55 feet from the standing wetland, including a short extent of lawn nearest the home, and an existing buffer of mixed trees (approximately 40 feet in length) adjacent to the wetland. The proposed 320 square foot screened porch will be placed over an existing at-grade paved porch, and will require no additional site grading or change to vegetation. As a result the wetland should not be impacted by any dredge or fill activities, and runoff from the property should not significantly increase in quantity or decrease in quality. The minimal excavation required to position post anchors for the screened porch structure should include careful management of any resulting loose soil, sediment or debris, and construction materials and substances should be carefully managed as well to otherwise protect water quality of the nearby wetland (as required by Ordinance Section 12-2-7, #8-10, 19, 21). As noted, an existing tree buffer exists at the edge of the wetland. The City’s practice has been to ensure that at least 25 feet of natural planting buffer is in place around the wetland to filter runoff from lawns and hard surfaces. That natural planting buffer often consists of shrub and perennial materials that catch storm water prior to entering the water body. The applicants should verify the plantings in the existing buffer to show compliance with this practice. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands Permit. The purpose of the Wetlands Ordinance is to ensure that alterations within the buffer area adjacent to wetlands do not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland area. With the plan as proposed, little impact is foreseen. The property does not have a view of, and cannot be viewed from the Mississippi River. The proposed building materials are consistent with the requirements of Title 12, Chapter 3 of city code, and are in keeping with the finish of the existing home. Engineer Review. The City’s engineering staff should review the permit application to verify that all construction activities will follow the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Approval of the wetlands permit and critical area permit to construct a screened porch, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to a requirement that all construction activities follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document. -OR- 1) Denial of the wetlands permit and critical area permit, based on a finding that the projected work will have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and/or the Critical Area Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit and critical area permit. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, and will have no impact on the aesthetics or natural resources of the Mississippi River. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials Dated May 30, 2012 2. Site Location Map Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 1151 Orchard Circle The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit and Critical Area Permit: 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project results in only nominal increases in impervious surface, with an existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetland edge. 3. The wetland itself will be untouched. 4. No other soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of this work. 5. The proposed project creates no new visual impact on the river. DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-21, Critical Area Permit BACKGROUND Nancy Osmon has hired Bruce Nelson Repairs to replace the existing deck at 1144 Kingsley Court. Mr. Nelson has confirmed to staff that the project is a simple replacement, due to the poor condition of the existing deck. The deck will not be expanded in any way. City Code allows for an expedited process for minor projects. A recent amendment to code, Ordinance 442, provided further detail to which cases can be brought directly to city council. This request has no discernible impact upon the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. This matter requires a simple majority vote by the council. If the city council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO REPLACE A DECK AT 1144 KINGSLEY COURT, making any revisions the council deems necessary. If council feels that the application requires full public hearing, pass a motion directing staff to add this item to the July 2012 planning commission meeting. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO REPLACE A DECK AT 1144 KINGSLEY COURT. WHEREAS, Bruce Nelson, on behalf of Nancy Osmon has applied for a critical area permit to replace the existing deck at 1144 Kingsley Court (PID 27-41900-01-140, LOT 14 BLK 1 & INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON AREA BEING LOT 1 BLK 1 SUBJ TO CIC #602) as proposed in planning case 2012-21; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Code Title 12, Chapter 3 allows minor developments for single-family dwellings to be forwarded to city council without planning commission review; and WHEREAS, the city staff recognizes the planning application to be a minor development and/or change to a single family dwelling; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the critical area permit as outlined in the planning application. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a critical area permit as proposed in planning case 2012-21 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project creates no new no visual impact on the river. 2. The project includes no changes site grading and erosion control. 3. The property does not have a view of, and cannot be viewed from the Mississippi River. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of July 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization to Provide Construction Services for Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements BACKGROUND The plans and specifications for the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements were approved by the Mendota Heights City Council at the May 15, 2012, city council meeting. Valley Paving, Inc. of Shakopee, Minnesota submitted the low bid and was awarded the project at the June 19, 2012, city council meeting. The proposed project includes reconstructing Lemay Lake Road from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 13, Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Lane, Furlong Avenue, and Victory Avenue. Street reconstruction includes construction of storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, a bituminous trail along Mendota Heights Road from Highway 55 to Lemay Lake Road, and hydrant replacement. The Engineering Department is currently busy with the completion of the Wagon Wheel Trail Neighborhood Improvements, completion of the Diane Road Neighborhood Rehabilitation and the Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation, construction of the improvements to Marie Avenue from Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue which include water main replacement and street rehabilitation, completing feasibility reports for the 2013 street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, coordinating plans and specifications for the pedestrian improvements at Dodd Road and Highway 110, obtaining CAMP samples on Lake Lemay, and NPDES Phase II Requirements. Staff requested proposals from two surveying companies and received proposals from both of the companies. Pioneer Engineering provided the attached proposal with an estimated cost of $12,8803.00 to complete the construction staking for Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements. The other proposal received had a price of $14,800.00. Pioneer Engineering is a local company in Mendota Heights that staff has worked with in the past and staff feels that they will complete the construction staking work to our satisfaction. BUDGET IMPACT The total construction cost for the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements is $1,331,170.60, not including indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. In the feasibility report, construction services are includes as indirect costs for the project. The total project cost is summarized below: PROJECT COSTS ITEM COST Street Reconstruction and Storm Sewer (Street Contract) $1,331,170.60 Hydrant Replacement by SPRWS (Estimated) $94,000.00 Signage by Others (Estimated) $5,000.00 Easement Acquisition (Estimated) $12,500.00 Total Construction Cost $1,442,670.60 Indirect Costs $360,667.65 Geotechnical Services (Soil Borings) $2,850.00 Geotechnical Services (Materials Testing) $6,000.00 Total Project Cost $1,812,188.25 The Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvements project is proposed to be financed by special assessments, municipal bond sales, and the utility funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council authorize staff to sign the proposal from Pioneer Engineering for construction services. If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorize staff to sign the proposal from Pioneer Engineering for construction services with a not to exceed amount of $12,880.00. DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization to Execute a Purchase Order for 2012 Street Striping BACKGROUND Funding for street paint striping is included in the Public Works Street Cleaning and Striping Budget. Following completion of the street sweeping operations, any remaining budget is allocated to paint striping or markings on city streets. The remaining budget after the spring street sweeping for 2012 is approximately $23,366.37. Staff estimates that a fall sweeping will cost approximately $4,000. The following streets are proposed to receive paint striping this year. 1. Copperfield Drive 2. Marie Avenue (Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road) 3. Mendota Heights Road (Highway 13 to Dodd Road) City Council approved the use of epoxy enamel marking paint, which lasts two to four times longer than the paints previously used. This product is extensively used by Dakota County and MnDOT. Five quotes were solicited for the work and three quotes were received for the project: NAME AMOUNT AAA Striping Service $18,507.90 Century Fence Company $21,041.60 Highway Technologies, Inc. $24,030.00 BUDGET IMPACT The project costs will be funded through the Public Works Street Cleaning and Striping Budget which has sufficient funds to cover the project costs. The total cost for the 2012 Street Striping is $18,507.90. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council accept the quotes and authorize staff to execute a Purchase Order. If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to execute a Purchase Order to AAA Striping Service for street striping and markings with a not to exceed amount of $18,507.90. This action requires a simple majority vote. Page 1 of 2 DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: CDBG Grant Expenditure BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights was awarded Community Development Block Grant Dollars in 2006 to improve accessibility in parks facilities. The original project was intended to place concrete pads for viewing ball games at several athletic fields. In project planning, it was found that the city’s share, including design costs, and construction costs for bituminous trails to the viewing pads were cost prohibitive. City staff have worked with CDA staff to identify projects to utilize these grant funds, which has become increasingly difficult with changing eligibility requirements for grant expenditures. One project which is eligible for federal funding is the retrofit of public restrooms at Kensington Park and Mendakota Park. CDA has been overseeing plan development and the bidding process. The following information on the process to date is provided by Lisa Henning, with the CDA: The CDA contracted with CNH Architects in March 2012 for the development of the restroom accessibility upgrades to the Mendakota and Kensington Parks bid specifications and plans. Requests for Proposals were published on June 1, 2012, with a mandatory walk-thru of both the Mendakota Park and Kensington Park on June 12, 2012. Despite advertising the project on the CDA website and communicating with two potential bidders, only one potential bidder attended the mandatory walk-thru of the buildings. Bids were due June 19, 2012, and the sole bidder that attended the mandatory walk-thru, CPMI Construction, was able to bid on the project. The base bid of the project from CPMI Construction is $27,862.00. When requesting bids for a project, the CDA procurement policy states three bids must be solicited and if three bids are not received, the CDA shall demonstrate cost reasonableness. The CDA recommends awarding this bid with only one bid received as three bidders were solicited (two directly and the third – CPMI Construction – through the website). The difficulty in obtaining bids for the restroom accessibility upgrades at Mendakota Park and Kensington Park is the Davis Bacon prevailing wage requirement attached to all CDBG-funded projects over $2,000 and the small size of this project. Page 2 of 2 The CDA recommends awarding this contract to CPMI Construction, L.C. at the base bid of $27,862.00. BUDGET IMPACT Our grant fund balance for parks accessibility projects currently stands at $26,266.96. Our current allocation for housing rehabilitation funds stands at $7,929, with our 2012-2013 allocation (just over $20,000) becoming available July 1, 2012. Because there are no current homeowners working with CDA to access these funds, and no outstanding applications, CDA recommends utilizing $1,593.04 from housing rehabilitation. There is no impact on the City of Mendota Heights budget for this project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends passing a motion authorizing Staff to continue working with CDA to complete this project on our behalf. This action requires a simple majority vote. DATE: July 3 , 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2011 Audit Presentation BACKGROUND Kern DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. has completed the audit for 2011. The reports for 2011 are the Annual Report & Basic Financial Statements and the Management Letter. These reports are included in your packet. Please bring both reports to the meeting for reference during the presentation. Matt Mayer from KDV will be at tonight’s meeting to review the Annual Audit Report for 2011. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATION Accept the review and ask any questions you may have. DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tom Olund, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Rental of Tub Grinder and Disposal of Wood Chips Background: Severe storms on June 19, 2012, came through Mendota Heights leaving behind a lot of downed trees and limbs. Public Works Crews have been out collecting these downed trees and limbs from resident’s curbs. We are storing this storm debris at Mendakota Park. Bids have been solicited from two contractors to rent a tub grinder to grind the pile of debris at Mendakota Park and dispose of the woods chips. The bids are as follows: Rumpca Contracting $2.00 a yard for grinding trees, logs, stumps and the hauling away of the wood chips S & S Tree Service $2.00 a yard for grinding and hauling away the wood chips) (this does not include grinding tree stumps – which would need to be hauled away at an additional cost) Budget Impact: It is estimated to cost $20,000 or more to do the grinding and hauling away of the storm debris. We are still collecting storm debris. This expenditure may be reimbursable by FEMA and the state of Minnesota. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council enter into a contract with Rumpca Contracting to grind and haul away the storm debris. Page 1 of 2 DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Mendota Plaza Redevelopment: Consent to Transfer/Fifth Amendment BACKGROUND The city council discussed a consent to transfer request for the Mendota Plaza Redevelopment at their regular meeting June 19, 2012. The request was in accordance with Section Six of the Planned Unit Development Agreement By and Between The City of Mendota Heights and Mendota Mall Associates, LLP, (Agreement), as amended. The Fourth Amendment to the Agreement states that White Pine Holdings, LLC must provide evidence of financial qualification to complete the request for consent to transfer. City council sought clarification on the legal name of the business to which the property would be transferred, and tabled the matter to the July 3, 2012 meeting. Following the June 19, 2012 meeting, our City Attorney had further discussions with counsel for both Mendota Mall Associates and White Pine Senior Living. White Pine clarified the inter- relationship between it's ownership and development entities with respect to this site. As a result of these conversations, and considering that ultimate ownership plans, staff felt it would be appropriate to re-visit the issue of consent to transfer and evaluate the requested consent in light of the qualifications and financial strength of the limited liability company that will actually take title. To this end, staff requested that White Pine and Mendota Mall Associates not only provide an updated letter from the bank but also provide a letter to the council, explaining the development and ownership structure. White Pine has provided this information and it is included here for your review: 1. Proposed Fifth Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement By and Between The City of Mendota Heights and Mendota Mall Associates, LLP. 2. Letter from Mark E. Hamel of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, describing the request to transfer Lot 6. 3. Letter from Minnwest Bank, M.V., affirming the creditworthiness of Charles Rothstein, CG Mendota Heights WPSL, LLC and Mendota Heights WP, LLC. Additionally, staff has included copies of the fourth amendment, and section six of the Agreement as background materials. Page 2 of 2 The proposed Fifth Amendment to PUD addresses several things. First, it acknowledges the City's consent to the transfer of Lot 6 to the new White Pine entity. Second, it clarifies that White Pine is only assuming the developer's obligations with respect to Lot 6, not the rest of the development property. Finally, the amendment provides a statement acknowledging that a prior resolution (resolution No.04-30) does not affect Lot 6. Resolution 04-30 addressed signage on the original Mendota Plaza Building, signage for Lot 6 is described in detail in the fourth and fifth amendments to the Agreement. These documents have been reviewed by staff and legal counsel, and have been found to be in keeping with the development agreement and subsequent amendments. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the consent to transfer. If city council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting the attached resolution, A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSENT TO TRANSFER LOT 6, MENDOTA PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT. City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 12-49 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSENT TO TRANSFER LOT 6, MENDOTA PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights (City) and Mendota Mall Associates LLP (Developer) entered into Planned Unit Development Agreement (Agreement) for the Mendota Plaza Redevelopment in May 2009; and WHEREAS, Article Six of the Agreement defines conditions to allow the transfer or conveyance of a portion of the planned unit development; and WHEREAS, the Developer has entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of Lot 6, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment to White Pine Holdings, LLC (White Pine); and WHEREAS, the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement (Fourth Amendment) approved in November, 2011 acknowledges that the City is in receipt of items 6.3 (a) Evidence of Developer Experience; 6.3 (c) Agreement to be Bound; and 6.3 (d) Form of Transfer Documents of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Amendment to the Agreement (Fifth Amendment) presented to The City of Mendota Heights defines CG Mendota Heights WPSL, LLC. as the recipient of Lot 6, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Minnwest Bank, M.V. has provided a letter attesting to the credit-worthiness of CG Mendota Heights, WPSL, LLC. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that consent to transfer Lot 6, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment is hereby approved pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Agreement and Section 11 of the Fourth Amendment and Section 4 of the Fifth Amendment. Res. 12-49 page 2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of July, 2012. City Council City of Mendota Heights BY:___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk This document drafted by: Siegel Brill, PA 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-337-6100 (AJG) FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Fifth Amendment”) is made as of the _____ day of __________, 2012 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota statutory city, having its principal office at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55150-0688 (“City”) and Mendota Mall Associates, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, having its principal office at 2227 University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55114, its successors and assigns as permitted herein (“Developer”) W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the City and the Developer entered into that certain Planned Unit Development Agreement dated April 30, 2009, recorded August 19, 2010, as Doc. No. 2747291 (“Original Agreement”), as amended by that certain First Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated January 16, 2010, recorded August 19, 2010, as Doc. No. 2747292 (“First Amendment”), as amended by that certain Second Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated June 9, 2010, recorded August 19, 2010, as Doc. No. 2747293 (“Second Amendment”), as amended by that certain Third Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated October 22, 2010, recorded December 8, 2010, as Doc. No. 2771092 (“Third Amendment”), and as amended by that certain Fourth Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement dated November 28, 2011, recorded April 10, 2012, as Doc. No. 2860812 (“Fourth Amendment”) (collectively referred to as “Agreement”); WHEREAS, the Developer and City desire to enter into this Fifth Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement, except for terms with new definitions as set forth in this Fifth Amendment. 2. Revised Site Plan for Lot 6. Exhibit A is hereby amended to include the Revised Site Plan for Lot 6, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1, in lieu of the depiction of Lot 6 in Exhibit A. 3. Resolution Not Affecting Lot 6. The City agrees that Resolution 04-30 recorded in the office of the Dakota County Recorder as Document No. 2441626 does not affect Lot 6. 4. Assumption of Developer Obligations. The following language is added to the end of Section 6.3(c): “Pursuant to the provisions of this Section 6.3(c), upon the transfer of Lot 6 to CG Mendota Heights WPSL, LLC (“CG WPSL”) (which transfer is hereby consented to by the City for purposes of Section 6.2), the parties hereto acknowledge that CG WPSL’s obligations as Developer under this Agreement shall only apply to the development of Lot 6 and that CG WPSL shall have no obligations with respect to any property covered by the Agreement other than Lot 6.” 5. Certificate of Completion. The City agrees that, following the completion of the residential assisted-living facility project on Lot 6, CG Mendota Heights WPSL, LLC, or its successor in interest, may apply to the City for and be issued a certificate of completion certifying the completion of the project on Lot 6 and noting any ongoing obligations of the Developer. Following completion of the improvements (and fulfillment of any other developer obligations) pursuant to the Agreement, no City approval shall be required in connection with any subsequent transfer of Lot 6. 6. Ratification. Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and will continue in full force and effect. 7. Authority. The individuals executing this Fifth Amendment hereby represent and warrant that they are empowered and duly authorized to so execute this Fifth Amendment on behalf of the parties they represent. 8. Counterparts. This Fifth Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Signatures Appear On Next Page] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Fifth Amendment to be duly executed in its name and behalf and the Developer has caused this Fifth Amendment to be duly executed in its name and behalf on or as of the date first above written. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________, 2012, by Sandra Krebsbach and Lorri Smith, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota statutory city, on behalf of such city. Notary Public MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES, LLP By: Its: Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________, 2012, by Howard A. Paster, the Manager of Mendota Mall Associates, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, on behalf of such limited liability partnership. Notary Public EXHIBIT A-1 REVISED SITE PLAN FOR LOT 6 7031482v2 DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-18, Subdivision BACKGROUND A planning application was presented to the planning commission on June 26, 2012 for a subdivision to adjust a lot line between two parcels of land. The affected parcels are zoned residential, guided for low density residential and have been used for a single family home. The planning application was deemed complete June 4, 2012. The 60 day review period is set to expire on August 3, 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 subject parcel includes two large parcels; the request will not create new lots. The resulting lots exceed minimum subdivision standards. Noting that there were no new lots being created, the commission sought clarification as to why it was necessary to review this type of request. Mr. Grittman replied that code requires full public review of any request to change a lot line. Mr. Quehl is also seeking a wetlands permit to construct a home on the parcel. Staff recommended tabling the request for the wetlands permit to further develop the grading plan. Mr. Grittman felt that a request for a wetlands permit is appropriate, but would require further detail. The commission approved a motion to table the request for a wetlands permit to the July 24, 2012 planning commission meeting. The applicant stated that he has a signed purchase agreement for the property, which is contingent upon city approval of the subdivision and wetlands permit being approved. Mr. Quehl intends to remove the existing home at 953 Wagon Wheel Trail, and market the lot proposed as lot B1 for sale. Mr. Quehl shared that he has discussed his plans for the parcel and to share a curb-cut for a driveway with the neighbors. He noted that Cortney and Helyne Pince, 945 Wagon Wheel Trail, were in attendance at the meeting, in support of the request. There were no comments at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION At their June 26, 2012 meeting, the planning commission voted 5:0 to recommend approval of the subdivision with the conditions and 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 SUBDIVISION AT 953 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AT 953 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL. WHEREAS, Greg Quehl has applied for a subdivision to adjustment the lot line between two parcels of land located at 953 Wagon Wheel Trail (PID 27-16400-00-140, Lot 14 CAROLINE’S LAKE VIEW and PID 27-16400-00-151, Lot 15 CAROLINE’S LAKE VIEW) as proposed in planning case 2012-18; and WHEREAS, the planning commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting June 26, 2012; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a subdivision as proposed in planning case 2012-18 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The subdivision results in a net increase of no new parcels. 2. The subdivision provides lots that meet and/or exceed all of the applicable zoning criteria for lots in the R-1 zoning district. 3. The subdivision can be accommodated with existing public services. 4. The access and services to the parcels are acceptable, provided the required agreements are executed governing construction and maintenance as noted in the staff report. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a subdivision as proposed in planning case 2012-18 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant enter into a maintenance agreement for use of the public right of way with the City and adjoining property owner, to be approved by the City Attorney. 2. The need for drainage and utility easements is reviewed and addressed by the City Engineer. 3. The applicant obtain a certificate of survey with final legal descriptions for recording with Dakota County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of July 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: June 22, 2012 MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Subdivision and Wetlands Permit CASE NO: Case No. ; NAC Case 254.04 - APPLICANT(S): Gregory Quehl LOCATION: 953 Wagon Wheel Trail ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking to re-subdivide two existing parcels along Wagon Wheel Trail to create two buildable parcels. The current two lots both have their frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail. The easterly parcel contains a single family home to be removed if the subdivision is approved. The westerly parcel is covered by wetland and is currently unbuildable, although it is a separate legal parcel. The proposed re-subdivision would combine the two lots, then carve out a new 20,000 square foot lot in the southeast corner of the parcel, with 100 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel, and 200 feet of depth from north to south. The applicant’s materials refer to this parcel as Lot B1. The remaining lot (labeled “A1”) would have approximately 312 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel, and extend behind the other parcel to the depth of the original lot. This lot would have more than 4 acres of land, although much of that would be covered by the wetland as noted. About half of that 4 acres would appear to be upland. The applicant proposes then to construct a new home on the northeast portion of Lot A1, and gain access to the new home over a private driveway to be constructed on the unimproved right of way that forms the east boundary of the subject property. This right of way would be shared by the adjoining property owner to the east, who utilizes a portion for his own private driveway. Construction of a new home in the proposed location would require a wetlands permit. Analysis: Subdivision. The proposed subdivision of the two parcels would result in no additional lots overall, however, the currently lot line arrangement precludes development of the westerly parcel due to the wetland. Although the total area of the subdivision is more than 4.7 acres, there is just over 2 acres of upland, and usable frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail is also limited due to the extend of the wetland coverage. The rearrangement as proposed appears to be reasonable, and meets the City’s lot size requirements of at least 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of lot area. Both lots would meet or exceed these dimensions. The applicant has made two other requests in relation to the subdivision. First, he has noted a request to remove a street easement that exists in the southwest corner of the subject property. The process to consider vacation of an easement is separate from any planning action. As such, staff has directed the applicant to make this request independently of the planning application. The second request relates to the construction of the new home and the provision of public services. The applicant proposes to locate the home to the north along the unimproved right of way. Access to the home would then be via a private drive within that right of way, eventually joining with an existing private drive serving the adjoining property. The City Engineer has expressed a willingness to consider this arrangement. To accomplish this, the applicant must negotiate a maintenance agreement with the current driveway user – this agreement should address shared costs of ongoing maintenance as well as long-term reconstruction. The City Attorney should review the agreement to ensure that it does not bind the City in any way, including the City’s right to improve the right of way to City street standards and assess those costs to the property owners, or to abandon or vacate the right of way in the future. In addition, the agreement should specify that the property owners hold the City harmless for any liability relating to the private improvements The private use of the right of way is accompanied by a request to provide sewer and water service via private service lines from Wagon Wheel Trail, rather than extend any new City trunk or main lines. The City Engineer has likewise indicated the acceptability of this service arrangement, so long as the private utilities are not located in any right of way. Wetlands Permit. For any construction or land alteration within 100 feet of a wetland, the City requires a wetlands permit to ensure that the activity is completed in a manner that has no negative impact on the water body. In this case, the applicant would construct a new home within about 35 feet of the wetland edge, indicating also that the 25 feet along the wetland would be retained and treated as buffer to minimize direct runoff. Along with the construction, the applicant indicates that he would alter the existing grade with a substantial amount of fill to create a walk-out basement above what is a relatively shallow water table. Because details of the grading, construction, and subsequent landscape cover are not available, it would appear that the wetland permit should be withheld until those plans can be prepared and reviewed by City staff, and a recommendation can be made to the Planning Commission. Based on the staff’s preliminary discussions with the applicant, it is presumed that an acceptable plan can be worked out, however, a more complete application package would be necessary to make any formal comments. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following recommendations: Subdivision. A. Recommendation for approval, based on findings of fact attached to this report, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant enter into a maintenance agreement for use of the public right of way with the City and adjoining property owner, to be approved by the City Attorney. 2. The need for drainage and utility easements is reviewed and addressed by the City Engineer. 3. The applicant obtain a certificate of survey with final legal descriptions for recording with Dakota County. B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the proposed subdivision would be premature without more detailed development plans for the two parcels. Wetlands Permit. A. Recommendation for approval, with the condition that the applicant submit fina l design and construction drawings for City Staff review and approval. B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the applicant has not submitted adequate information for review ensuring protection of the wetland. C. Recommendation to table the Wetlands Permit, providing time for the applicant to submit design and construction drawings for staff review, and Planning Commission consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, with the conditions noted. The subdivision meets the technical dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and will provide two parcels with appropriate buildable areas. Access and utility service can be accommodated, provided the applicant address the maintenance issues noted in this report. With regard to the Wetlands Permit, staff recommends tabling action until the appropriate plan detail can be completed and submitted for review. It appears that there will be appropriate opportunities for construction and land alteration as describe d by the applicant in his materials, however, detailed plans need to be submitted to verify the conditions of any permit to be issued, particularly in this case where a new home, combined with significant amounts of fill and grading are expected. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 5-23-12 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Subdivision 953 Wagon Wheel Trail 1. The subdivision results in a net increase of no new parcels. 2. The subdivision provides lots that meet and/or exceed all of the applicable zoning criteria for lots in the R-1 zoning district. 3. The subdivision can be accommodated with existing public services. 4. The access and services to the parcels are acceptable, provided the required agreements are executed governing construction and maintenance as noted in the staff report. Aerial Photo with Existing Lot Lines and Dimensions Lot Layout – Proposed Lot Lines DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-20, Critical Area Permit BACKGROUND A planning application was presented to the planning commission on June 26, 2012 for a critical area permit to install landscaping and to construct a driveway at 1128 Sibley Memorial Highway. The affected parcel is zoned residential, guided for low density residential and is used as a single family home. This work was started without a permit and issued a stop work order, a copy of which can be found in your materials. The planning application was deemed complete June 4, 2012. The 60 day review period is set to expire on August 3, 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. Mr. Grittman emphasized that the request is intended to address the need for additional parking – current conditions, including an easement pertaining to the driveway and limitations to parking along the Sibley Memorial Highway, which severely limit parking. The commission inquired as to how conditions of approval may be enforced. Planner Grittman explained that Mr. Ponce would also need to apply for a driveway permit, providing an opportunity for staff to enforce the conditions of approval included in the critical area permit. The commission also inquired whether or not the project would be recommended for approval, if grading and landscape work had not already occurred. Mr. Grittman responded that staff would likely have approved the request, as the request for off-street parking was reasonable. Staff would have recommended natural stone or wood for the retaining walls, but Mr. Grittman felt that adequate landscaping would screen the retaining walls effectively. Mr. Ponce provided further detail on the parking restrictions in the area, describing the easement, which bisects the current driveway. Mr. Ponce also noted the narrow shoulder and poor sight- lines along Sibley Memorial Highway as limitations to parking. The significant grade of the existing driveway can make parking in the winter months extremely difficult. The proposed driveway would provide a level parking area for guests and family. Mr. Ponce was asked if the conditions of the approval were acceptable. Mr. Ponce replied that he would prefer to utilize concrete for the driveway as opposed to pervious pavers. The commission opened the public hearing; Mr. Sedlacek read into the record an email from Michael and Peggy Corbett, 1132 Sibley Memorial Highway. The Corbetts are in support of the permit as requested. There were no other public comments. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION At their June 26, 2012 meeting, the planning commission voted 5:0 to recommend approval of the critical area permit with the conditions and 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 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING AND TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY AT 1128 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING AND TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY AT 1128 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, Orlando Ponce has applied for a critical area permit to complete landscaping and to construct a driveway at 1128 Sibley Memorial Highway (PID 27-13500-00-111, Lot and Block 11 BEAUDETS ADDITION, W 35 FT OF LOT 10 E 25 FT OF LOT 11 & VAC O ST ADJ) as proposed in planning case 2012-20; and WHEREAS, the planning commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting June 26, 2012; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a critical area permit as proposed in planning case 2012-20 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The driveway can be constructed so as to minimize stormwater through the use of management techniques including permeable paver systems. 2. Landscaping can be added to the project that both screens construction and controls erosion issues on the site. 3. With proper construction, the proposed driveway will have little or no visual impact on the critical area or surrounding property. 4. The driveway will create no issues for grading or erosion, based on review and any comments from the City’s engineering department and proper landscaping as noted in the staff report. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of July 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: June 21, 2012 MEETING DATE: June 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit for Driveway Construction CASE NO: Case No. 12-20; NAC Case 254.04 -12.12 APPLICANT(S): Orlando Ponce LOCATION: 1128 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking approval to construct and pave a new driveway parking pad on his property at 1128 Sibley Highway. The property is unique, in that the slopes severely limit access to the site, and parking is difficult to accommodate. Complicating the parking issue is the existence of an easement granted to the neighbor to the west at 1132 Sibley Highway who utilizes the Ponce driveway for access to Sibley Highway. The parking pad area would be located to the east of the existing driveway, in front of the home. The project has been started, including grading and installation of retaining walls at this time. Proposed concrete pavement has not yet been installed. The subject site is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and is located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to Section 12-3-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River Corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. 2 Analysis: Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is guided as LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The request to construct a parking pad for single family use is not inconsistent with this land use category, which provides for single family development, including accessory structures and uses. Critical Area Permit. This subject property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. According to the applicant, the lack of parking on the property is caused by steep grades and complicated by the neighbor’s driveway easement, as well as by the difficulty of parking along Sibley Highway where the shoulder is not of adequate width. The applicant notes in the application that parking in the side yard area would block the neighbor’s driveway easement. Setbacks. The parking area is shown on the applicant’s submission to be approximately 22 feet in width. The front (north) edge of the parking area must be no closer than 5 feet from the right of way. The east edge of the parking area must be no closer than 5 feet from the property line. Landscaping is allowed up to the property line. The plans do not dimension these setbacks, and the retaining wall supporting the parking area is in place. The applicant should verify that the parking area is set back at least 5 feet from all lot lines prior to continuing the project. Vegetation. Grading has already been done as a part of the initial construction of the project. Below the front retaining wall of modular concrete retaining wall block is a graded slope that is not currently landscaped. The Critical Area Ordinance encourages the use of natural materials in those areas facing the river, such as wood or natural stone. The applicant should provide a landscaping plan that will cover this slope, prevent erosion, and buffer the view of the driveway and retaining wall from the roadway. Other erosion control measures may be required by the City Engineer. Impervious Surface Coverage. As a result of the driveway/parking pad construction, an additional 575 square feet of impervious area will exist upon the site. Because of the location of the parking area, and the subsequent loss of landscaped area in the front yard, runoff from this site toward the street, and subsequently the river, is more than would commonly be expected from a single family home. The applicant has provided a simple storm water plan, showing that runoff from new impervious surface would be directed into drain tile, which outlets into the existing storm water catch basin in the Highway 13 right of way. One alternative to minimize this impact would be to require permeable pavers for the new driveway surface, rather than the proposed concrete. These pavers are designed 3 to permit storm water to be absorbed into the ground, minimizing surface runoff. However, they require special installation and sub-grade preparation. Planning staff would encourage this material, but this issue should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Critical Area Permit to allow the parking pad construction. This recommendation should be based on findings such as those attached to this report, and accompanied by the following conditions: a) The applicant verifies that the parking area will be constructed no closer than 5 feet to the front lot and side lot lines. b) A landscaping plan showing cover for all exposed areas of the site in order to control erosion and buffer the view of the parking area and concrete retaining wall from the street. c) The applicant paves the additional parking area with permeable pavers designed to minimize surface runoff from the site. d) The applicant complies with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document, and any other requirements of the City Engineer. - OR - 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit to construct a parking area, based on the draft findings attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: Construction of the driveway and parking pad have had a significant impact on the site and on the impervious surface coverage of the improvements on the river side of the property. Although the improvements are substantially in place, there are additional improvements that should be incorporated into the project to comply with the Critical Area Ordinance. As a result, Planning Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct the proposed patio subject to the conditions identified above. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft Findings for Approval 2. Draft Findings for Denial 3. Application materials 4 Draft Findings for Approval Driveway Construction in the Critical Area 1028 Highway 13 1. The driveway can be constructed so as to minimize storm water through the use of management techniques including permeable paver systems. 2. Landscaping can be added to the project that both screens construction and controls erosion issues on the site. 3. With proper construction, the proposed driveway will have little or no visual impact on the critical area or surrounding property. 4. The driveway will create no issues for grading or erosion, based on review and any comments from the City’s engineering department and proper landscaping as noted in the staff report. 5 Draft Findings for Denial Driveway Construction in the Critical Area 1028 Highway 13 1. The proposed driveway will have a negative visual impact on the critical area and neighboring property due to materials inconsistent with the Critical Area Ordinance. 2. The addition of a large paved surface in the front yard facing the direction of the river is inconsistent with the intent of the Critical Area regulations. 3. Construction of the driveway has the potential to create grading and erosion issues due to the existing slopes. 4. Construction of the driveway eliminates the bulk of the green space in the front yard, and is inconsistent with both the Critical Area Ordinance and the general zoning regulations. 5. Construction of the driveway has the potential to have a substantial impact on the land as it may cause grade changes, soil loss, or the altering of slopes. DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Request to Allow Electric Motors on Rogers Lake BACKGROUND The City has received a request from the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association (RLPOA) to allow electric motors on the south portion of Rogers Lake. Attached to this report is their request, along with research provided by them about other policies on other Dakota County lakes, and a petition showing support for their request. At the end of this report is an analysis of lake ordinances found by staff. The current ordinance language reads as follows: 6-6-1: Watercraft: D. Prohibited Acts and Conditions 1. Motorboats: No person shall operate or cause to be operated a motorboat upon any body of water within the corporate limits of the city. In consultation with the city attorney, the RLPOA request would best be worded as follows to be consistent with the rest of our city code: 6-6-1: Watercraft: D. Prohibited Acts and Conditions 1. Motorboats: No person shall operate or cause to be operated a motorboat upon any body of water within the corporate limits of the city except as provided herein. 2. Electric Motorboats shall be permitted on that part of Rogers Lake that is south of Wagon Wheel Trail. If the city council wishes to accept the RLPOA’s request, staff would recommend that the following factors also be considered: 1. What factors (size, location, etc.) will be used to determine where electric motorboats will be allowed? 2. Will there be a maximum power of motor allowed? 3. Will there be restrictions as to time of day (i.e. not after sunset)? Current code prohibits boats between midnight and “daylight”). 4. Will this impact future request for weed control on Rogers Lake? 5. Are there other restrictions we should include? BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION If the City Council agrees, staff recommends that the city council direct staff to develop a formal ordinance amendment, with any clarifying conditions, to a future city council meeting for approval. Staff Survey of Dakota County Ordinances Relating to Motorized Boats City Allows Motors Allows Electric Motors No Motors Apple Valley Yes Yes No Burnsville Yes (5 hp or less) Yes No Eagan No Yes No Inver Grove Heights No No Yes Rosemount No No Yes South St. Paul (no lakes) West St. Paul No No Yes Lakeville Yes Yes No Mendota Heights No No Yes Hastings (Lake Rebecca) No Yes No Hastings (Lake Isabel) Yes Yes No June 11, 2012 John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Letter 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 that ordinance 6-6-1: Watercraft: D. Prohibited Acts and Conditions be amended as follows (added language in red): "1. Motorboats: No person shall operate or cause to be operated a motorboat upon any body of water within the corporate limits of the city, except on the South side of Rogers Lake (all areas of Rogers Lake that are South of Wagon Wheel Trail), in which case boats powered by electric motors are permissible.” Currently a majority of property owners are in favor of this change and believe that this will promote the use of Rogers Lake as a true DNR designated “Recreational Lake.” Attached is a petition of support. Also attached, for reference purposes, is a survey detailing the current status for motorboats in other Dakota County lakes of similar size. On behalf of the Rogers Lake Property Owners Association, I will attend the Mendota Heights City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 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 continue working with you and the City to keep Rogers Lake healthy. Sincerely, Tim W. Carlson President