The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-10-30 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 30, 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 October 16, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of October 23, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes c. Setting Date of Meeting to Canvass Election Results d. Accept Resignation of Police Support Specialist Sandra Ristine e. Authorize Recruitment Process for Police Department Support Specialist f. Approval of Assessment Deferral Request – 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive, Unit #8 g. Authorize Purchase of Sewer Utility Department Portable Generator h. Authorize Purchase of Public Works Garage Backup Generator i. Award of Contract for Storm Sewer Improvements j. Receipt of October 2012 Building Activity Report k. Approval of Contractors List l. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. Proposed Performance Based Navigation Procedures at MSP International Airport – Chad Leqve (Metropolitan Airports Commission) and Carl Rydeen (Federal Aviation Administration) 8. Unfinished and New Business a. Planning Case 2012-29, Request for a Variance for More than Three Garage Doors, Daniel Fleischhaker, 1018 Overlook Road b. Planning Case 2012-28, Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Trampoline Park, Curt Skallerup, 2250 Pilot Knob Road c. Planning Case 2012-31, Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a Garage, David and Kim Williams, 755 Wentworth Avenue 9. Council Comments 10. Adjourn October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 16, 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 A) Acknowledgement of October 2, 2012 City Council Minutes and C) Approval of Resolution Supporting 2013-17 Dakota County Capital Improvements Plan. a. Acknowledgement of October 2, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of October 9, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes c. Approval of Resolution Supporting 2013-17 Dakota County Capital Improvements Plan d. Approval of 2013 LMCIT Insurance Renewal e. Receipt of September Fire Synopsis Report f. Receipt of September Par 3 Report g. Approval of Change Order #1 for Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Street Improvement Project h. Approval of Final Payment for Public Works Garage Roof Repair i. Approval of Contractors List j. Approval of Claims List page 2 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC A) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OCTOBER 2, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilmember Duggan made note of an error in the October 2, 2012 City Council Minutes, under Planning Case 2012-29, which was rectified. City Administrator Justin Miller also clarified a comment made by a resident that meant to say barrier curb. Councilmember Petschel moved to Approve the Acknowledgement of October 2, 2012 City Council Minutes as corrected. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING 2013-17 DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Mayor Krebsbach asked how much of the approximately seven million dollar expenditure is related to Mendota Heights projects. City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that under the 2013 Transportation Capital Improvement Program the City of Mendota Heights is receiving some trail overlays, the median crosswalk project on Lexington Avenue, and the traffic signal replacement on Lexington and Highway 110. The City has also received the requested funds for 2015 for the County to cover that portion of stormwater payment from Lexington Avenue right-of-way for the Highway 13 reconstruction project. City Engineer Mazzitello stated that he would get the dollar figures requested and update the Councilmembers. Mayor Krebsbach asked for confirmation that City Engineer Mazzitello is part of the process and has input on what gets approved. City Engineer Mazzitello confirmed that the City is involved in the process. Councilmember Duggan commented that the total expenditures in this program of Capital Improvements in Dakota County for the five years stated are approximately $173M. The City is approximately .01% of that. Councilmember Duggan believes that the City of Mendota Heights should be better represented as there are other county roads in the city that need a lot of work. Dakota County needs to be made aware that the City would be coming forward with programs that hopefully would be accepted for this program. Councilmember Duggan moved to Approve Resolution Supporting 2013-17 Dakota County Capital Improvements Plan with the actions taken that he proposed. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. page 3 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING A) LEMAY LAKE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ASSESSMENT HEARING Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained that this is a public hearing for consideration of the special assessments for the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Improvement Project. The project was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2012 and consisted of reconstructing the Lemay Lake Road from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 13, Lakeview Avenue, Kendon Lane, Furlong Avenue, and Victory Avenue. The street reconstruction included construction of a storm sewer system, grading for a proposed stormwater pond, concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, and a bituminous trail on Mendota Heights Road from Highway 55 to Lemay Lake Road, hydrant replacement, and adjustments. The commercial properties along Lemay Lake Road were given a linear foot assessment of $54.11 per foot. The residential properties were assessed at a per unit assessment cost of $6,953.35. The total construction costs for the project was $1,331,170.60. Assistant City Engineer Ruzek explained that the pond was constructed only for the drainage along Lemay Lake Road. It was built such that if the city does develop the city-owned land in this area that this pond could be expanded to service that parcel as well. Councilmember Duggan asked why there were different assessment dollars. Assistant City Engineer Ruzek replied that there was an assessment reduction to several properties. Three properties constructed their driveways independently from the project and two properties were given credits for stormwater easements they granted to the city. Councilmember Duggan expressed concern about damage to the new road in relation to the new construction in the development. Assistant City Engineer Ruzek stated the road is designed to a nine ton standard and should be able to handle all of the vehicle and construction traffic. Councilmember Duggan asked if the city could have an engineer assess of the condition of the road before and after construction. Assistant City Engineer Ruzek replied that this has not been done; however, it would be an easy walk-through with the contractor to agree on the condition of the streets before any construction would start. Mayor Krebsbach asked what the percentage would be that the City would be contributing to this project. Assistant City Engineer Ruzek replied that the final numbers are not in yet, but he believes that the City is anticipating picking up eighty percent of this project. Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing. page 4 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 As there were no questions or comments from the public, Councilmember Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to Approve Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Lemay Lake Road Neighborhood Street Improvement Project 201105. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Krebsbach asked Finance Director Kristen Schabacker to explain how residents could pay their assessments. Finance Director Schabacker explained that a letter would be sent to the residents with their assessment amount. The resident would have thirty days to pay their assessment at City Hall, and after thirty days, the unpaid assessment would be certified to their property tax. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) HUNTER/ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT As this public hearing was closed at the last Council meeting, Mayor Krebsbach asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any new information they wished to present to the Council. There were no new comments or questions from the audience. Councilmember Duggan asked if the survey conducted by the residents could be introduced to the Council. Mayor Krebsbach asked if the residents wished to present the survey. Mayor Krebsbach also explained that it was actually a petition with a proposal that was agreed to by those who signed. Mr. Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, explained that the petition came as a result of conversation after the last meeting. Four points were agreed upon, the official petition was created, the neighborhood was canvassed, and the petition was delivered to City Hall. The petition was signed by thirty-five out of forty properties. The residents believe it addresses all of the major concerns. The four points outlined on the petition were: 1. Twenty-eight foot wide streets 2. No bump outs 3. Surmountable curb where possible and barrier curb where necessary 4. Parking allowed on one side of the street Mr. Tim Murphy, 1916 Hunter Lane, asked for clarification as to street width on Hunter Lane. Mayor Krebsbach replied that this would be decided at this meeting. Mayor Krebsbach asked City Engineer Mazzitello to walk through the materials provided by staff. Mazzitello answered that after the public hearing had been closed at the last meeting Council provided staff with their opinions, which were summarized in the packet, with respect to street width and curb type. There were a number of items Council agreed upon: page 5 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 1. Remove the proposed bump outs so there would be no alteration in the curb width other than at points with transition 2. There would be no change in road width at the ninety degree curb that connects Hunter Lane and Orchard Place 3. The Culligan Lane East reconstruction would be reconstructed to thirty feet wide to match the existing width of Culligan Lane West With respect to street width, the engineering standard for a minimum street width to accommodate parking on both sides of the street is thirty feet. A width of twenty-eight feet could support parking on one side only. A width of twenty-seven feet would not support on-street parking which is consistent with public safety’s input. City staff also reviewed curb types and, in keeping consistent with city’s policy, staff recommends barrier curb throughout the entire project for the following reasons: 1. Easier to plow 2. Handles stormwater drainage far better than surmountable curb does. Staff has not yet run their stormwater calculations as part of the street design because that happens after the project is ordered. 3. Provides a measure of public safety in being able to keep vehicles in the roadway 4. Has a longer life span as it is damaged less through the life of the road 5. Barrier curb will be needed in some places on this project as a matter of drainage issues and to have a consistent curb type throughout this project, staff is recommending the barrier curb type Councilmember Petschel asked for clarification that the speed of the water coming downhill on Hunter Lane would be included in the stormwater calculations. City Engineer Mazzitello confirmed that this would be included. Mayor Krebsbach asked for an indication of where staff anticipates catch basins to be installed. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that could not be ascertained at this time. Councilmember Duggan asked which house number is at the crest of the hill at Hunter creating the flow south versus the flow north. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the house number is 1880, beginning at approximately the north end of the driveway. Mayor Krebsbach asked what the recommendation would be for a street width on Culligan going south, beginning at Victoria Curve, if on-street parking were restricted to one side of the street. City Engineer Mazzitello answered that if parking were restricted to one side of the street, the ideal dimension would be thirty feet. Since they would be doing twenty-eight on the rest of Hunter, they could do twenty-eight all the way through. He believes that thirty-six feet is the existing width of Victoria. Councilmember Petschel asked for clarification on parking when the synagogue is meeting. The reply was there is currently parking on only one side of the street. Mayor Krebsbach commented that the synagogue has not made any requests in regards to the on-street parking or the width of the street. The petition and the understanding is that the same width would carry all of the way to Victoria. City Engineer Mazzitello stated that the staff recommendation is parking on both sides of the street throughout; twenty-nine feet north of Culligan, thirty-six feet south of Veronica. page 6 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 Mayor Krebsbach asked if the staff recommendation is that the parking stops at the synagogue. City Engineer Mazzitello replied in the affirmative; staff could taper their recommendation back so the thirty- six foot width would stop at the edge of the synagogue property. Councilmember Vitelli moved to the accept staff’s recommendation and approve the resolution ordering the project as presented. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Additional discussion and clarification on street widths and types of curb ensued to make sure that all stormwater drainage issues had been addressed. Mayor Krebsbach called for the vote. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 (Duggan, Krebsbach) Since the motion requires a fourth fifths majority, the motion did not pass. Mayor Krebsbach asked if there was another motion. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the resolution ordering the project with the following conditions: 1. Twenty-nine foot consistent roadway widths for Hunter Lane and Orchard Place north of Veronica and Culligan Lane intersection 2. Thirty-six foot width from Veronica and Culligan Lane intersection south to the Beth Jacob Congregation property line 3. Street width would remain at twenty-nine feet wide through the ninety degree curve connecting Hunter Lane and Orchard Place and in keeping with the twenty-nine foot consistent street width, there would be no bump outs either 4. A mixture of barrier curb and surmountable curb throughout the project as outlined on the minimum barrier curb map provided by staff, with the understanding that the recommended amount of barrier curb may increase as the project moves forward Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Further discussion, comments, and questions were made by the Councilmembers in relation to the barrier curb versus surmountable curb. Councilmember Petschel expressed her willingness to compromise as long as the drainage issues were resolved. However, she also wanted to ensure that everyone knew that surmountable curbs would require additional catch basins, making the project more costly. Funds for storm sewer, including catch basins, come out of the stormwater utility fund, which is paid for out of every resident’s utility bill. City Engineer Mazzitello confirmed this point and also pointed out that the barrier curb estimates were included in the current project cost estimates. Ms. Carol Adams, 1991 Hunter Lane, commented that she had proposed the wider street to accommodate the synagogue parking. However, she certainly does not want the water rushing down the page 7 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 hill and then a bump out at her property. If the street is going to be narrowed, then she requested it be made consistent all of the way to Victoria Curve. After discussion, Councilmember Duggan amended his motion and moved to approve the resolution ordering the project with the following conditions: 1. Twenty-nine foot consistent roadway widths throughout the length of the project, no bump outs, and with parking permitted on both sides of the street 2. Surmountable curb where permissible and barrier curb where necessary in the judgment of engineering staff Mayor Krebsbach seconded the amended motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Vitelli) Councilmember Petschel requested that the speed cart be placed on Hunter and Orchard before the project begins and after the project is completed so comparative data can be gathered and analyzed. Mayor Krebsbach asked City Engineer John Mazzitello to explain what is next for this project. He replied that staff will proceed with designing the project and in January 2013 there would be a second neighborhood meeting. In February or March 2013, the final plans would be ready for Council approval. Staff is estimating that construction would begin by June 2013. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Povolny stated this was a tough project and he expressed his appreciation to the residents for their patience. He reminded all residents to be respectful of speed in neighborhoods when driving through. Councilmember Petschel complimented staff on the work completed on the club house at the golf course. It has been painted and has a new roof. She attended the fire department open house and there was a wonderful memorial for fallen firefighters. It also gave her a chance to see the bronze sculpture of a firefighter that was donated. Councilmember Petschel also commented the she visited a neighborhood that had a break-in. The residents were appreciative and reassured by the response from a Mendota Heights Police Officer. Councilmember Vitelli asked for an update on the I-35E bridge event. Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener replied that it is still going on. Councilmember Duggan mentioned the Adopt a Fire Hydrant program, which is an opportunity for anyone who has a fire hydrant near their home to adopt it. This would include keeping the hydrant clear of snow, weeds and grass. Councilmember Duggan also stated that the BC2, the Bakery Café has opened in Mendota Plaza. page 8 October 16, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 City Administrator Justin Miller mentioned the bonfire that is traditionally held on Halloween night is tentative due to a county wide burning ban. The City will continue to update the website on the status of this event as information becomes available. City Administrator Miller also reminded residents of a Council meeting on being held on October 30, 2012, which is replacing the regularly scheduled meeting of November 6, 2012, due to the General Election. The Council will also be holding a workshop meeting on October 30, 2012. He also commented that if anyone has a complaint about their cable service through Comcast, there are two routes they can take: 1. Call Comcast directly at 651-222-3333 2. The North Dakota Communications Commission, who handles the franchise agreement, has an expedited process to track unresolved complaints and they can be reached at 651-450-9891 The Dakota County Community Development Agency puts out a foreclosure report every month, which lists the number of foreclosures throughout the county. County-wide foreclosures are going down and it is even more the case in Mendota Heights. As of year-to-date, Mendota Heights has had eight sheriff’s sales as compared to twenty-five at this point last year. Also, for the past two months there have been zero ‘notice of pendency’ filings. Mayor Krebsbach mentioned that she was at the Fire Department Open House and it was outstanding to see all of the families. The fire department always hosts an outstanding event ADJOURN Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. ____________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Roston. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 24, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-28 Curt Skallerup of VIRGO, LLC 2250 Pilot Knob Road Conditional Use Permit Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Curt Skallerup for approval of a conditional use permit for an indoor trampoline park. Mr. Grittman noted that the commission considered this request at its September meeting. At that time, questions were raised with regard to shared parking and the appropriateness of this use in the industrial zoning. He explained that a list of questions was forwarded to the applicants and a response was received just prior to this evenings meeting. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval at this time based on the information provided by the applicant. Commissioner Field asked if the applicant was present this evening. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant was from out of state and not in attendance this evening. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the hours of operation should be a condition for approval. Mr. Grittman indicated this could be added by the Commission as a condition for approval. Commissioner Magnuson asked how the onsite signage would be addressed by staff. Mr. Grittman anticipated working with the applicant on this issue along with the property owner. He recommended this be made a condition for approval as well. page 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 2 Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M.; FRIDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 A.M. AND FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO ADD SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT MARKINGS OR OTHER INDICATORS IN THE PARKING LOT AREA THAT WOULD MINIMIZE TRAFFIC CONFUSION FOR THE TRAMPOLINE PARK CUSTOMERS. Commissioner Field questioned if an additional condition should be added to require a minimum number of parking spaces, in case the adjacent use were to change. Mr. Grittman stated this could be added but would be difficult to enforce. He stated the site did have adequate parking at this time. ADDED CONDITION: 3. THERE SHALL BE 60 PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED FOR THE SUGGESTED USE. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 30, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-29 Daniel Fleischhaker 1018 Overlook Road Variance Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Daniel Fleischhaker for approval of a variance for more than three doors on a garage. Mr. Grittman noted that this item was discussed by the Commission at their September 24th meeting. He reviewed the number of garage doors currently allowed by City Code. At the last meeting, the applicant noted there were several homes in Mendota Heights with more than three garage doors. Mr. Grittman noted one of these was approved in error. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory structure upon the subject property in a size and location proposed with a condition that the applicant amend the proposal to meet the requirement for garage door width. Staff recommends denial of the variance request to construct the garage with a second double garage door based on the fact requisite findings to support a variance are not present. page 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 3 Daniel Fleischhaker, 1018 Overlook Road, commented he spoke with 22 of his neighbors regarding this matter and received signatures supporting his proposed garage. He noted three of his neighbors did not sign or were not available to sign the petition. He indicated he had a large lot with room for the oversized garage. He requested the Commission approve the double door as it was more architecturally appealing and symmetrical. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Field understood the concerns raised by the applicant this evening, but stated City Ordinance had to be followed. Commissioner Magnuson agreed stating it was unfortunate the property did not have a practical difficulty in this case. Commissioner Viksnins commented the Commission was guided by City Ordinance on this issue and not by the favor of the neighbors. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 30, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-31 David Williams 755 Wentworth Avenue Conditional Use Permit Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of David Williams for approval of a conditional use permit for a garage greater than 1,200 square feet and a variance for more than three doors on a garage. Mr. Grittman noted that David and Kim Williams wished to construct a new home upon the property located at 755 Wentworth Avenue. Included in the home plans are two attached two-stall garages, each having a double garage door. In total, 1,478 square feet of garage space was proposed. This request appeared before the Commission this past July for a wetland permit to construct a single family home upon the subject property. A site map and floor plan was reviewed in detail. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed. Staff believes that while the applicants are proposing to use the property in a manner that is consistent and will have little or no impact on neighboring properties, the applicant can clearly comply with the requirements of the Ordinance and therefore Staff does not support the variance request. David Williams, 18870 Brookwood Road in Prior Lake, thanked the Commission for considering his request this evening. He stated he works in St. Paul, and his children attend St. Thomas Academy and Visitation schools. His page 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 4 family was pleased to have found a lot to build on in Mendota Heights. He commented a four car garage home was designed given the fact he was building on an eight acre parcel and would not visible from the road. In addition, a four-car garage was not uncommon in the city, and referenced the Hidden Creek development. Mr. Williams explained that he felt four doors were appropriate for a four car garage, and that he was proposing to use an aesthetically pleasing garage door. He requested the Commission take into consideration his situation and approve the requested variance. Commissioner Magnuson asked if work on the home had begun. Mr. Williams stated the site had been cleared and footings for his home had been poured. Commissioner Hennes questioned how Mr. Williams would proceed if the variance was denied. Mr. Williams stated he would have to erect one single car door and one double garage door. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Al Maas, 14551 Judicial Road in Burnsville, explained he was Mr. Williams’ general contractor. He indicated he was not aware of the City Ordinance when the home was designed. He was not made aware of the Ordinance until he submitted the building plans. He explained he was not trying to force the issue but had not seen this type of Ordinance throughout his 25 years of building. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Field empathized with Mr. Williams and stated that the Commission had to follow City Ordinance. He understood that this garage would not be seen from the roadway. He did not want to see new home construction limited. Commissioner Hennes agreed, but stated both cases should to be treated the same. He suggested the Ordinance be reviewed by the Commission in the near future. Commissioner Magnuson also voiced support for the request, while acknowledging that the Commission was faced with denying this variance. Mr. Williams asked how he could go about proposing a change to the current City Ordinance. Chair Norton suggested Mr. Williams speak with staff regarding this matter after the meeting. He indicated the Commission would be more than willing to consider this request. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 30, 2012, meeting. page 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 5 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-27 Mendakota Country Club Wetlands Permit and Variance Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-28 Curt Skallerup Conditional Use Permit Action was tabled by the Planning Commission and discussed this evening. PLANNING CASE #2012-29 Daniel Fleischhaker Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Variance Action was tabled by the Planning Commission and discussed this evening. PLANNING CASE #2012-30 Robert Whebbe Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Variance Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:52 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary page 14 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Set Date of Meeting to Canvass Election Results BACKGROUND Following municipal elections, cities are required to meet and canvass the results. This year such meeting is required to be held between November 9th and 16th. This meeting requires a majority of the council to be present. Staff is recommending that a meeting be set for 9:00 am on Wednesday, November 14th in the city council chambers to canvass the results of the November 6th general election. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council set a meeting date of Wednesday, November 14th at 9:00 am to canvass the results of the November 6th general election. This action requires a majority vote of the city council. page 15 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of Police Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Resignation of Part-time Police Support Specialist BACKGROUND The City would like to thank Sandra Ristine, part-time Police Support Specialist for her valuable contribution and six years of faithful service to the City of Mendota Heights. Ms. Ristine is currently on a medical leave of absence. Ms. Ristine has submitted her letter of resignation and will not be returning to the position due to her health challenges. During Sandra’s service to the city, she handled numerous phone calls and in-person inquires professionally and caringly. Sandra embraced changes learning four different records management programs over the last six years. Sandra volunteered for several city related events such as the Mendota Heights 5K race, clean-up day, Police Department 50th Anniversary Open House and many other events. Sandra recently completed training all the Police Officers on a new “integrated” records search system. We have a deep appreciation of Sandra’s work and she will definitely be missed. BUDGET IMPACT Not Applicable. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends the city council accept part-time Police Support Specialist Sandra Ristine’s resignation effective November 22, 2012. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 16 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Part-time Police Support Specialist Position BACKGROUND The Police Department support personnel staff level currently authorized by the City Council is 2 FTE’s; one full time and two part time employees. The basis behind this is to achieve added flexibility for vacation, sick time and scheduling purposes. As you are aware, Sandra Ristine is currently on a medical leave of absence and will not be returning. City staff have reviewed and updated the 2006 position description to reflect the primary responsibilities of the current position. Attached is a copy of an updated position description for your review. The primary functions of the Police Support Specialist is to provide support services to the Chief of Police and other Police personnel and assist in maintaining complete and accurate police department records. The Police Support Specialist position is assigned to pay grade 12 on the 2012 Employee Position Placement/Pay Classification Plan. The 2012 pay grade 12 hourly rate is $19.79 – $23.80. The starting salary range for the part-time Police Support Specialist will be $19.79 - $21.70 (Step A – Step C) plus benefits. Staff is requesting Council approval of the revised position description as well as authorization to begin the recruitment process for the part-time Police Support Specialist position. Part-time Police Support Specialist Susan Donovan has agreed to work additional hours during this transitional period. Upon filling the vacancy, Susan Donovan will return to her regular part time schedule. Police Department Budget can support the additional hours. BUDGET IMPACT As noted above. page 17 RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that city council approve the revised position description and authorize the staff to begin the recruitment process. Staff also recommends approving the additional hours for Susan Donovan during this transitional period. If council concurs in the recommendation, a motion should be made to approve the additional hours for Susan Donovan, the revised position description and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process. A simple majority vote is all that is needed on this issue. Attachment(s): 1. Police Support Specialist Position Description page 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TITLE: POLICE SUPPORT SPECIALIST DRAFT Department: Police Accountable To: Police Chief and Shift Supervisor Class Code: Non-Exempt Primary Location: City Hall Normal Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Date of Last Revision: 2006 Job Purpose: To provide support services to the Chief of Police and other police staff and assist in maintaining complete and accurate police department records. Working knowledge of departmental functions policy and standard operating procedure is required. Essential Duties 1. Data Records Management: Ensure accurate, timely and thorough processing of police records and data through efficient use of the Records Management System (RMS) and available databases. • Ensure complete, timely entry and coding of data into existing RMS. Ensure compliance with legal requirements and policies regarding law enforcement information. • Maintain integrity of police records, databases and information pursuant to federal and state statutes and City of Mendota Heights policies. • Develop new and/or streamline existing processes for electronic data storage and retrieval, data analysis and information sharing to support directed patrol efforts and investigations – including development of spreadsheets and databases. • Process and organize professional work product including accurate, timely reports for prosecutors and police. • Ensure that all reports are accurate, approved by a supervisor, coded and distributed appropriately for optimum use and retention of information. • Ensure that all reports submitted for prosecution are proofread and approved by a supervisor. • Design and prepare reports concerning police department operations, calls for service and crime statistics for police department members and supervisors, city administration, and contract cities. • Ensure that the information collected by the Mendota Heights Police complies with state and federal requirements and the policies set by the entities that maintain and disseminate law enforcement records and information (comprehensive law enforcement data, records retention, etc.). • Provide reports to the public (media, insurance companies, etc.) in compliance with state statutes under the direction of the chief of police. • Process reports on alcohol and tobacco compliance checks for businesses and city councils. • Create administrative reports and process applications regarding gun page 19 2 permits to purchase, liquor license applications and other background as required by ordinance and/or state statute. • Conduct monthly validations of hot files entries and update records as needed. • Assist Investigators with daily work assignments and follow up with criminal cases. • Evaluate criminal cases for status and initiate letters to victims as appropriate. 2. Police department liaison to Records Management Partners, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (CJRS/CJIS) and Dakota County Courts. • Ensure integrity of state and federal databases through policy implementation, training and documentation. • Conduct and review criminal history records for criminal case files, permits, licensing and background checks. • Transcribe case file narratives, statements, search warrants, correspondence, reports, etc. from voice recordings, direct dictations or drafts which are needed for investigation and prosecution ensuring a professional, accurate work product. • Disseminate data to law enforcement partners to facilitate suspect investigation and case closure while following data practices and case manage policies. 3. Communications: Provide prompt, courteous service to the public via telephone or in person inquiries and refer them as necessary or appropriate. • Ensure regular business hours through adequate staffing • Facilitate a pleasant professional, clean and productive work environment. • Maintain confidentiality and integrity of information. • Responds to data requests for in accordance with department policy and state and federal data privacy laws. • Disperse notifications of court appearances and ensure that officers are properly notified of any changes. • Evaluate and recommend policies and procedures for official police department forms, reports and correspondence for use by both internal and external customers. • Respond to requests via 800MHz radio for 2200 when required. • Prepare, receive and distribute mail. 4. Knowledge of CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System) • Trained and knowledgeable in CJIS policy to appropriately utilize and maintain law enforcement data per state and federal guidelines, and to potentially serve as TAC (Terminal Agency Coordinator) or Assistant TAC. • Retrieve, review and maintain driver’s license, motor vehicle, criminal and other file inquiry data as legally required. • Enters data into and searches state and national databases, processing page 20 3 messages and data applicable to the department and case files as required. • Updates, modifies or removes data from state and federal Computers as required. 5. Other Duties • Ensure adequate office supplies (including paper, ink, staples, tape, labels, report forms, fax cover sheets, etc.) • Maintain petty cash, reconcile and audit with the cooperation of the Finance Department. • Maintain records of false alarms. Send notifications to homeowners and to each of the contract municipalities for billing purposes bi-annually. • Deliver vehicles and/or equipment for services or repair upon request of sergeant. • Perform other duties as apparent or assigned. Minimum Qualifications • Associate Degree in Administrative Assistant or equivalent in an accredited college or technical college and two (2) years administrative support (clerical) experience in a professional office environment. Five (5) years of increasingly responsible office experience in a professional office environment and education may be considered for this position. • One (1) year data entry experience. • One (1) year of transcription experience. • Certified by BCA and CJIS as Operator/TAC within 6 months of position appointment. • Two (2) years of computer experience in Microsoft Office Suite or equivalent and proficiency in programs such as Word, Excel and Access. • Ability to type a minimum of 55 wpm. • Licensing Required-Possession of a valid driver’s license. Desired Qualifications • One (1) year experience with a law enforcement or related agency. • Trained and certified as a Minnesota BCA Terminal Operator. • Microsoft Office Master Certified. Knowledge/Skills/Abilities Required A. Ability to type a minimum of 55 wpm and accuracy from transcription and rough draft. B. Maintain professional relationships with office staff, Police Officers and the public. C. Ability to calmly and effectively respond to emergency situations. D. Ability to deal in a courteous, tactful and businesslike manner in handling inquiries from the public by telephone and in person. page 21 4 E. Ability to maintain all office files and records so that information is readily available. F. Ability to maintain a high degree of confidentiality of all information and records of the Police Department. G. Develop and maintain base knowledge of Minnesota State Data Practices Laws. H. The ability to exercise independent judgment and discretion in decision making with minimal supervision. I. The ability to use word processing, spreadsheet, database and financial system software as part of completing professional responsibilities. J. Ability to communicate effectively and professionally, both orally and in writing with co-workers and members of the public. K. Ability and willingness to learn other computer software applications. Core Competencies of Position • Knowledge of work rules. Develops and maintains a thorough working knowledge of all city and applicable jurisdictional policies and procedures in order to facilitate compliance with such policies and procedures by all staff members. • Develops respectful, cooperative and productive work relationships with coworkers. • Commitment to customer service. Demonstrates by personal example the service quality and integrity expected from all staff members. Represents Mendota Heights in a professional manner to the general public, employees and to other outside contact/constituencies in a manner that helps maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’ reputation as well-managed and citizen-oriented. • Communication. Confers regularly with and keeps immediate supervisor informed of all important matters pertaining to those functions and job responsibilities for which the employee is accountable. • Productivity and work organization. Demonstrate ability to plan, organize and accomplish work in a timely and efficient manner. • Problem solving and decision making. Exercise good judgment, analytical thinking, and independent thinking as it relates to departmental and city procedures, problems and policy interpretations. • Safety rules and procedures. Develop knowledge of and observe the safety policies and procedures of the city. Perform tasks in a safe and efficient manner while using appropriate safety equipment, clothing and devices. Physical Activities/Requirements Positions in this class typically require: sitting, feeling, manual dexterity, grasping, talking, hearing and seeing. The individual may encounter stress and pressures from dealing with emotional issues and conflicts. There is sustained exposure to computer keyboards and video screens. Sedentary work: Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally and/or a negligible amount of force frequently or constantly to lift, carry, push, pull or otherwise move objects. Environmental Conditions-Work is performed in a well-lit, well ventilated and temperature controlled office. Noise level is at a minimum. page 22 5 Equipment and Tools-Computer, terminal, peripherals, multi-line telephone, fax machine, calculator, and other basic office machines. Safety Policy It is the responsibility of every employee of the City of Mendota Heights to know and observe the safety policies and procedures of the city. Each employee is expected to perform their tasks in a safe and efficient manner while using appropriate safety equipment, clothing and devices. Miscellaneous Information A department uniform will be required to be worn. This position is subject to call back. Final candidates to be interviewed will be tested for typing skills, clerical and word processing skills and customer service skills. Final candidate must satisfactorily pass a criminal background investigation and reference verification, and psychological examination. Individual will be required to submit to and pass a drug and/or alcohol screen. The above description is intended to describe the general functions, skills and knowledge of the person assigned to this job. These examples are intended only as illustrative of various types of work performed, and are not all inclusive. The employee may be required to perform other related duties as assigned. The job description is subject to change as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change. page 23 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Senior Citizen Assessment Deferral – 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive, Unit #8 BACKGROUND City Council conducted an Assessment Hearing for the 2012 street rehabilitation project on October 2, 2012. Council closed the hearing and adopted the assessment roll for the project. Staff has received a written request from Ms. Janet Duckson to defer the assessment against her property for the project on Eagle Ridge Drive. Cities are authorized to let a property owner defer paying a certified assessment until a later date, provided the property owner or the property meets certain criteria. There are three types of authorized deferrals; undeveloped property, senior citizen and disability deferrals, and green acres. Ms. Duckson, who lives at 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive, Unit #8 (PID #272245002200), is asking the City Council to defer the assessment of $464.27 that was levied against her property at the October 2nd Assessment Hearing. Ms. Duckson meets qualification for an assessment deferral under the senior citizen clause of the assessment policy. BUDGET IMPACT Deferring the assessment for 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive would not have an adverse effect on the project funding. Deferred assessments become payable at the end of the assessment term, or upon transfer of title for the property; at that time the City would receive payment of the deferred assessment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached Resolution deferring the assessment for 1869 Eagle Ridge Drive, Unit #8 (PID #272245002200). If Council wishes to implement the Staff recommendation, pass the attached RESOLUTION DEFERRING THE MAKING OF ASSESSMENT AS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1869 EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE, UNIT #8 (IMP. NO. 2011-06) by a simple majority vote. page 24 page 25 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 12- RESOLUTION DEFERRING THE MAKING OF ASSESSMENT AS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1869 EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE, UNIT #8 (IMP. NO. 2011-06) WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer has calculated the proper amount to be specifically assessed for Improvement 2011-06, the rehabilitation of the 2011 street rehabilitation project (Diane Road, Celia Drive, Rae Court, Adeline Court, Nina Court, Barbara Court, Douglas Road (ease of Victoria), and Eagle Ridge Drive; and WHEREAS, the assessment roll for said improvements has been filed with the City Clerk and at all times since its filing has been open to public inspection; and WHEREAS, a hearing on said assessments was duly held at 7:00 p.m. on October 2, 2012, at the City Hall in the City of Mendota Heights, MN and; WHEREAS, Janet Duckson, is the owner of certain property more particularly described as Parcel No. 27-22450-022-00, the legal description of which is following described property situated in Dakota County, Minnesota; Lot 20, Block 2, Interest Attributable to Common Area Known as Lot 1, Block 1 Eagle Ridge Plat 1 WHEREAS, the assessment roll for said project proposed a total assessment against the above-described property of $464.27; and WHEREAS, Janet Duckson has requested that the making of an assessment against said property by reason of said improvements be deferred until such time as the assessment term has expired, the property is sold, or otherwise transferred in Title Ownership. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the assessment roll for said improvements (Improvements No. 2011-06) be corrected to defer the making of an assessment at this time against the property of Janet Duckson (parcel no. 27-22450-022-00). 2. That upon completion of the assessment term of 10 years, or upon the future sale of title transfer of said property there shall be levied an assessment in the principal amount of $464.27 by reason of Improvement No. 2011-06, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from October 2, 2012. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to correct the assessment roll for said improvements as set forth above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 30th day of October 2012. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By:_______________________________ ATTEST: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 26 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for Replacement Portable Generator BACKGROUND Mendota Heights Sewer Utility Department has been utilizing a trailer mounted 100 Kilowatt (KW) generator to supply power to lift stations during power outages. The portable generator is a necessity as without power to the lift stations the potential for claims against the city could be severe if large scale back-ups occur. The current generator was purchased by the city in 1975. The generator has been reliable but updated regulations require the city to meet new standards for efficiency and noise pollution. Quotes have been solicited from four manufacturers for a replacement unit of matching specifications. Three quotes have been submitted to the city. Total Energy Systems (Kohler) $33,500.00 Ziegler Power Systems (CAT) $51,235.00 Titan Energy Systems (Generac) $51,915.00 BUDGET IMPACT The Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund has $55,000.00 budget for the replacement trailer mounted generator in 2012. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends authorizing a purchase order for Total Energy Systems for $33,500.00. Neighboring cities have been contacted (Bloomington, Burnsville, Richfield and Eagan). All contacted cities have Kohler generators (as well as other brands) and highly recommend them. The generator at Mendota Heights city hall is also a Kohler so the city may receive added benefits with familiarity of the unit. The existing trailer unit will be sold at auction. page 27 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for Stand-by Generator at Public Works Facility BACKGROUND Mendota Heights Public Works Facility is without a standby backup power system. Currently during a power outage the city is not be able to utilize the fuel pumps, service garage or any other equipment requiring electricity. Quotes have been solicited from three manufacturers for the purchase of a generator for back- up/stand by power. Three quotes have been submitted to the city. Company Generator Size Price Total Energy Systems (Kohler) 60KW $18,320.00 100KW $29,050.00 Titan Energy Systems (Generac) 50KW $20,233.34 100KW $26,827.58 Ziegler Power Systems (CAT) 50KW $27,260.00 100KW* $33,630.00 *No enclosure or transfer switch included in quote (add approx. $5000.00) The recommendation is for a 100KW unit. The quote for the 100KW generator from Titan Energy is less than the quote from Total Energy systems for the Kohler generator. However, staff recommends purchasing the Kohler unit so all generators in the city can be serviced by the same company. In addition, Kohler has had more positive reviews when reference checks were conducted. If the city chooses, the power generation unit could be ran during peak usage times and additional power sold to the power company. BUDGET IMPACT This generator is not identified in the 2012 city budget. It is listed as a capital outlay item but was not officially incorporated into the budget. As this unit is shared amongst the street department, parks department and the sewer department the funding is proposed as follows: The sewer department share would come from the surplus budget of the trailer mounted unit, while page 28 the street department and parks department portion would be taken from the facility reserve fund. All funds have an adequate balance to allow for this purchase. This purchase is for the generator only; an electrician will need to be hired to install the unit. Staff has met with electricians and the installation is estimated between $5000 and $10,000. A memo will be submitted to council at a future meeting for the installation costs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends authorizing a purchase order for Total Energy Systems for $29,050.00. This action requires a majority vote of the city council. page 29 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer Michael Albers, PE, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Accept Quotes and Award Contract for Storm Sewer Improvements BACKGROUND Two proposals (see attached resolution) were received for the Storm Sewer Improvements at 945 Wagon Wheel Trail and the Par 3 Golf Course (1695 Dodd Road). Gartzke Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid of $15,867.00. Their bid was lower than the Engineer’s Estimate of $16,660. The proposed project is for extending an existing culvert at 945 Wagon Wheel Trail and replacing a culvert at Par 3 (1695 Dodd Road). The anticipated completion date for the project is December 14, 2012. Staff expects that Gartzke Construction, Inc. is capable of meeting the completion dates and implementing the project in accordance with the plans and specifications given. BUDGET IMPACT The project costs will be funded through the Storm Water Utility Fund which has sufficient funds to cover the project costs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council accept the quotes and award the contract to Gartzke Construction, Inc. for their bid in the amount of $15,867.00. If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AT 945 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL (PROJECT #201209) AND PAR 3 GOLF COURSE (PROJECT #201210). This action requires a simple majority vote. page 30 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AT 945 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL (PROJECT #201209) AND PAR 3 GOLF COURSE (PROJECT #201210) WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for extending an existing culvert at 945 Wagon Wheel Trail and replacing a culvert at Par 3 (1695 Dodd Road), bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received: NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID Gartzke Construction, Inc. $15,867.00 Northdale Construction Co., Inc. $19,476.98 and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the low bid submitted by Gartzke Construction, Inc. of Hastings, Minnesota, be accepted. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted. 2. That the bid of Gartzke Construction, Inc. of Hastings, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described storm sewer improvements be and the same is hereby accepted. 3. That the contract be awarded to Gartzke Construction, Inc. of Hastings, Minnesota, and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this thirtieth day of October 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 31 DA T E : O c t 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 TO : M a y o r , C i t y C o u n c i l a n d C i t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r FR O M : P a u l R . B e r g , C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t O f f i c e r SU B J E C T : B l d g RRe p o r t - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 Bu i l d i n g No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Bu i l d i n g No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Bu i l d i n g No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Building No. ValuationFee Collected Pe r m i t s Pe r m i t s Pe r m i t s Permits SF D 1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 13 , 5 7 6 . 0 6 $ SF D 4 3 , 1 0 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 24 , 8 0 6 . 9 4 $ SF D 0 SFD31,353,883.00$ 13,593.21$ AP T 0 - $ - $ A P T 0 - $ - $ A P T 0 APT0 To w n h o u s e 0 - $ - $ T o w n h o u s e 0 - $ - $ T o w n h o u s e 0 Townhouse0 Co n d o 0 - $ - $ C o n d o 0 - $ - $ C o n d o 0 Condo0 Mi s c . 65 9 0 3 , 3 2 4 . 0 0 $ 12 , 9 7 0 . 0 0 $ Mi s c . 49 0 7 , 3 3 2 , 0 6 5 . 0 0 $ 93 , 1 9 6 . 2 7 $ Mi s c . 51 5 1 1 , 8 5 7 , 1 6 7 . 0 0 $ 89,925.61$ Misc.5075,342,935.00$ 77,141.75$ C/ I 5 3 6 6 , 6 4 9 . 0 0 $ 4, 6 1 6 . 6 3 $ C/ I 11 2 2 2 , 5 6 0 , 4 6 1 . 0 0 $ 16 1 , 7 9 8 . 5 2 $ C/ I 11 0 5 , 7 0 3 , 9 5 3 . 0 0 $ 58,542.78$ C/I916,923,977.00$ 68,263.09$ Su b T o t a l : 7 1 3 , 2 6 9 , 9 7 3 . 0 0 $ 31 , 1 6 2 . 6 9 $ Su b T o t a l : 6 0 6 3 2 , 9 9 6 , 5 2 6 . 0 0 $ 27 9 , 8 0 1 . 7 3 $ Su b T o t a l : 6 2 5 1 7 , 5 6 1 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $ 148,468.39$ Sub Total:60113,620,795.00$ 158,998.05$ Tr a d e Tr a d e Tr a d e Trade Pe r m i t s No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Pe r m i t s No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Pe r m i t s No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d PermitsNo. ValuationFee Collected Pl u m b i n g 1 9 - $ 1 , 6 7 4 . 0 0 $ P l u m b i n g 1 5 7 - $ 1 3 , 2 5 3 . 0 0 $ P l u m b i n g 1 2 3 8 , 2 0 8 . 0 0 $ Plumbing1336,895.00$ Wa t e r 1 - $ 1 0 . 0 0 $ W a t e r 3 - $ 3 0 . 0 0 $ W a t e r 2 2 0 . 0 0 $ Water110.00$ Se w e r 3 - $ 7 5 . 0 0 $ S e w e r 1 4 - $ 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ S e w e r 1 0 - $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ Sewer8200.00$ He a t , A C & Ga s 31 - $ 6 , 3 1 6 . 0 0 $ He a t , A C & Ga s 13 8 - $ 32 , 8 5 8 . 0 0 $ He a t , A C & Ga s 23 1 17,524.00$ Heat, AC & Gas22318,961.00$ Su b T o t a l : 5 4 - $ 8, 0 7 5 . 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l : 3 1 2 - $ 46 , 4 9 1 . 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l : 3 6 6 - $ 26,002.00$ Sub Total:365-$ 26,066.00$ Li c e n s e s No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Li c e n s e s No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d Li c e n s e s No . V a l u a t i o n F e e C o l l e c t e d LicensesNo. ValuationFee Collected Co n t r a c t o r C o n t r a c t o r C o n t r a c t o r C o n t r a c t o r Li c e n s e s 2 0 - $ 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ L i c e n s e s 3 2 8 - $ 1 6 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ L i c e n s e s 3 2 6 - $ 1 6 , 3 0 0 . 0 0 $ Licenses327-$ 16,350.00$ TO T A L 1 4 5 3 , 2 6 9 , 9 7 3 . 0 0 $ 4 0 , 2 3 7 . 6 9 $ T O T A L 1 , 2 4 6 3 2 , 9 9 6 , 5 2 6 . 0 0 $ 3 4 2 , 6 9 2 . 7 3 $ T O T A L 1 , 3 1 7 1 7 , 5 6 1 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 , 7 7 0 . 3 9 $ TOTAL1,29313,620,795.00$ 201,414.05$ NO T E : A l l f e e a m o u n t s e x c l u d e S A C , W A C , a n d S t a t e S u r c h a r g e . A m o u n t s s h o w n w i l l r e f l e c t o n l y p e r m i t , p l a n c h e c k f e e , a n d v a l u a t i o n a m o u n t s . Ye a r t o D a t e - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 1 YEAR TO DATE-October 2010 YE A R T O D A T E - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 1 YEAR TO DATE - October 2010 YE A R T O D A T E - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 1 YEAR TO DATE -October 2010 CU R R E N T M O N T H - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 YE A R T O D A T E - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 Cu r r e n t M o n t h - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 YE A R T O D A T E - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 Cu r r e n t M o n t h - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 YE A R T O D A T E - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Denying a Variance for More Than Three Garage Doors BACKGROUND Daniel Fleischhaker has submitted a planning application requesting a variance to have more than three garage doors along with a conditional use permit for a garage greater than 1200 square feet at 1018 Overlook Road. The planning commission heard this request at their September 25, 2012 meeting and recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the garage expansion. City council approved the request for the conditional use permit at their regular meeting October 4, 2012. The request for a variance was tabled by the planning commission to the October 23, 2012 meeting, with direction to the applicant to provide a better definition of the unique circumstances which justified the variance. The applicant reported to the planning commission that he contacted 22 neighbors, getting signatures in support of the variance from each neighbor he contacted. The applicant stated that the garage expansion was a proper scale for the home, and that two double-wide garage doors would be the appropriate scale for the garage. Mr. Fleishhakker stated his opinion that two double garage doors would be more aesthetically pleasing than a double and a single door. The commission discussed the requirements for passing a variance. While several commissioners voiced support for applicant’s request, they did not feel that the standards for granting a variance had been met. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The planning commission voted to pass a motion recommending denial of the variance 6:0. 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 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR MORE THAN THREE GARAGE DOORS AT 1018 OVERLOOK ROAD. page 45 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR MORE THAN THREE GARAGE DOORS AT 1018 OVERLOOK ROAD WHEREAS, Daniel Fleischhaker has applied for a variance to install a second double garage door at 1018 Overlook Road (PID 27-32800-04-010, Lot 1, Block 4 Highland Heights South) as proposed in planning case 2012-29; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting October 23, 2012. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a variance as proposed in planning case 2012-29 is hereby denied with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able to meet the requirements for garages. 3. A large majority of neighboring properties with larger garages meet the required garage door standard of no more than three such doors. 4. There do not appear to be conditions on the property that create practical difficulties in meeting the normal zoning standard. 5. Approval for the variance on this property where most neighbors have complied with the code without variance would be inconsistent with the standards applied to the neighborhood. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this thirtieth day of October 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 46 DATE: October 23, 2012 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-29 – Variance for Garage Door Width BACKGROUND Daniel Fleischhaker has submitted a planning application requesting a conditional use permit for a garage greater than 1200 square feet and also requesting a variance to have more than three garage doors at 1018 Overlook Road. The planning commission heard this request at their September 24, 2012 meeting. The planning commission supported the conditional use permit for the garage expansion which was approved by the City Council at their regular meeting October 4, 2012. The applicant showed images of a number of garages in the vicinity of 1018 Overlook Road with four doors, to support his claim that a four door garage was both a reasonable request and more aesthetically pleasing than a large garage with three doors. Staff explained that prior to the zoning code review completed in 2011, a garage less 1200 square feet in area was allowed to have four doors; during the zoning code review a maximum of three doors was made the standard for all garages. The commission tabled the request for a variance, directing the applicant to better define the unique circumstances and practical difficulties which would justify the variance. The commission also asked staff to look into the approval for the newly constructed home at 690 Hidden Creek Trail, which has four garage doors. Staff has reviewed the permit for that home; the building permit was approved in error. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the recommendation of the city planner, denying the variance, as detailed in his memo dated September 19, 2012. A copy of last month’s agenda materials has been attached. page 47 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Michelle Barness / Stephen Grittman DATE: September 19, 2012 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a garage of more than 1,200 square feet; Variance for two double- garage doors CASE NO: NAC Case: 254.04 -12.18 APPLICANT(S): Daniel Fleischhacker LOCATION: 1018 Overlook Road ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Daniel Fleischhacker is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a two stall garage addition to his existing attached garage at the property located at 1018 Overlook Road. With the garage addition, the total garage space on the property will be approximately 1,470 square feet. The submitted application includes the attached garage addition of about 700 square feet (25 feet x 28 feet). Analysis: Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit is required for the construction of an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, with a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet. Because the addition of the requested two stall garage will cause page 48 2 the existing garage on the property to expand to approximately 1,470 square feet, the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for its construction. The proposed garage addition is designed with two stalls facing west towards Summit Lane, and extending 25 feet north of the existing garage. The applicant has indicated that the exterior materials of the proposed garage will be consistent with the existing garage, including brick finish and an insulated overhead garage door. It is also encouraged that the roof pitch of the proposed garage match the existing garage and principal building to be aesthetically compatible with those structures. With the proposed attached garage addition, the expanded garage will still meet the required 30 feet front and corner side yard setback requirement. In addition, the floor of the expanded garage will remain at least 1½ feet above the street grade at the curb. According to Zoning Ordinance Section 12-1D-3, no more than three garage doors (a double width door, along with a single width garage door, or three single garage doors) are permitted in a residential district. The applicants are proposing the addition of a double wide garage onto their existing double wide garage, which does not meet this requirement. In order to proceed with their request for a conditional use permit for a larger attached garage, the applicants will have to reduce the proposed garage door to a single-width garage door. In review of aerial photography of the neighborhood, it appears that most of the neighbors near the subject property maintain a maximum of only three garage stalls. Just one garage along Overlook was found to have 4 garage doors facing the street. Most of the homes had just two or three garage doors visible, even though many of the homes are large and had larger garages. As such, the proposal to construct the garage with two double garage doors would appear inconsistent with the majority of homes in the area. To pursue the request to construct the building with a second double door, the applicant is seeking a variance from the code standard cited above. Variances are reviewed as to their ability to show unique property attributes that differentiate the property from similarly situated parcels in a way that suggests a departure from the standards would be a reasonable use of the property. When considering variances, the City is required to find that: (1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and (2) The applicant’s proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this manner due to circumstances that: a. Are unique to the property, b. Are not caused by the applicant, c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s plans and ordinances, page 49 3 d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the property is located. The applicant has suggested that the oversized (double) lot would be one factor that is unique to the property. However, the intent of the City in adopting the garage door limitation was to minimize the extensive street view of garage doors from the street – lot size would not necessarily relate to this intent. As noted above, several property owners in the immediate area have constructed garages in compliance with the three- garage-door standard. Approving a variance in this case would raise issues of consistent application of the code, and consistency with the neighborhood. Moreover, the uniqueness factor is intended to demonstrate practical difficulties in using the property according to the code. While the double-lot size may be greater than other nearby properties, it does not interfere with meeting the requirements of the code. In any case, because a variance is needed, the proposed double garage door could not be approved with the CUP. Instead, the applicant’s request could proceed only with a condition that the zoning standards are met by the application. To do so, an approval would require a condition that only a single garage door could be constructed under this CUP. With regard to options for the applicant, staff would note that the minimum practical double garage door would be at least 16 feet in width, with some manufacturers offering “double” doors at 14 feet in width. With this observation, a 12 foot wide door would be considered a single door for the purposes of meeting the zoning ordinance requirements. Action Requested: Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations: A. Conditional Use Permit 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit clause allowing expanded attached garages of between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet. Conditions may include the following: a. The applicant revise his existing conditional use permit request to approval for the construction of a single-door garage expansion, as opposed to a double door. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed garage would adversely affect surrounding properties; and that the page 50 4 proposed double garage door design cannot proceed without a variance from zoning ordinance standards. B. Variance 1. Approval of the variance to allow two double garage doors as proposed, based on findings that the size of the property established a condition unique to this property that justifies a variance from the zoning standards. 2. Denial of the variance, based on findings attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: While Planning staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed, Staff recommends approval only with the condition that the applicant amend the proposal to meet the requirement for garage door width. As such, Planning staff further recommends denial of the requested variance to construct the garage with a second double garage door. As noted in the report, staff believes that the requisite findings to support a variance are not present with this permit. Supplementary Materials: Application materials page 51 5 Findings of Fact for Approval Attached Garage Conditional Use Permit 1018 Overlook Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able to meet the requirements for attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet. 3. The proposed detached garage is consistent with other single family properties in the area. 4. The proposed garage has been designed to be consistent with the architecture and materials of the principal building. 5. The proposed addition fits on the property without raising issues of overcrowding. page 52 6 Findings of Fact for Denial Variance to allow two double-garage doors 1018 Overlook Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the above Permit: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able to meet the requirements for attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet. 3. A large majority of neighboring properties with larger garages meet the required garage door standard of no more than three such doors. 4. There do not appear to be conditions on the property that create practical difficulties in meeting the normal zoning standard. 5. Approval for the variance on this property where most neighbors have complied with the code without variance would be inconsistent with the standards applied to the neighborhood. page 53 Highwa y 1 3 Lil a c L a Marie Ave Ja m e s R d Douglas Rd Overlook Rd Su m m i t L a Wa l s h L a Avanti Dr Ce l i a D r Fa r o L a Tw i n C i r c l e D r Vic k i L a Ov e r l o o k L a Ma y f i e l d H e i g h t s R d Ro l l i n g G r e e n C v O x f o r d C t Dou g l a s C t Bwana Ct Wi n d w o o d C t Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads parcels Municipal Boundaries Delaware Ave 1018 Overlook Road page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 page 58 page 59 page 60 Dakota County, MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 139 feet page 61 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit, Planning Case 2012-28 BACKGROUND Curt Skallerup submitted a planning application requesting a conditional use permit for an indoor trampoline park at 2250 Pilot Knob Road. The property is guided and zoned for industrial use; the proposed use would share a building with an existing industrial/office use. The planning commission heard this request at their September 24, 2012 meeting. Mr. Grittman reviewed his planning memo which has been attached. The planning commission supported the concept, but requested the applicant to provide further detail on parking, signage and traffic impacts. The commission tabled the request to the October 23, 2012 meeting. Mr. Grittman summarized his report from the September meeting, and the materials submitted by the applicant October 23, 2012. With the additional information, staff was comfortable recommending approval of the conditional use. The commission discussed conditions for approval, which were included in their motion regarding the planning application. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The planning commission voted to pass a motion recommending approval of the conditional use permit as attached 6:0. 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INDOOR TRAMPOLINE PARK AT 2250 PILOT KNOB ROAD. page 62 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INDOOR TRAMPOLINE PARK AT 2250 PILOT KNOB ROAD WHEREAS, Curt Skallerup has applied for a conditional use permit for an indoor trampoline park at 2250 Pilot Knob Road (PID 27-48274-01-010, Lot 1, Block 1 Mendota Heights Business Park 5th Addition) as proposed in planning case 2012-28; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting October 23, 2012. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a conditional use permit as proposed in planning case 2012-28 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The use can be accommodated on the proposed site and in the general area. 2. Management will be able to address potential conflicts with industrial activities and traffic. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a conditional use permit as proposed in planning case 2012-28 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation are limited to 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Sundays. 2. The applicant must submit a sign package for staff review. 3. 60 parking spaces shall be designated for the conditional use. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this thirtieth day of October 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 63 page 64 page 65 DATE: October 23, 2012 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-28 – Conditional Use Permit for Trampoline Park BACKGROUND Curt Skallerup has submitted a planning application requesting a conditional use permit for an indoor trampoline park at 2250 Pilot Knob Road. The planning commission heard this request at their September 24, 2012 meeting. The planning commission discussed the concept and felt favorably towards the request, but needed more detail on parking, traffic and other site issues. The commission tabled the matter, asking the applicant to work with staff to provide more information. The following questions were sent to the applicant to respond to: Please provide a projection of the average and maximum parking spaces needed for your business. Is the parking on site sufficient to handle the needs of both businesses in the building? How many parking spaces in the south lot are commonly occupied by the other tenant’s employees? Please describe anticipated traffic impacts on Pilot Knob Road: number of cars, time of day, etc. Is there a way to add signage, pavement markings, or other indicators in the parking lot area that would minimize traffic confusion for trampoline park customers? The main issue here is that employees of an industrial site get used to a certain regular pattern of traffic – users of the trampoline parking will be one-timers, who may park in the wrong places, wander in the wrong doors, etc., because they aren’t familiar with the property – how will they help minimize this? Is there going to be much drop-off traffic, where customers will pull up to the curb, drop off kids and then return later? If so, should they re-stripe or reconfigure the lot to accommodate this kind of traffic? What business signage are they proposing on the site? Staff has not received any written response prior to agenda assembly. page 66 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: September 20, 2012 MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment and CUP – Commercial Recreation in the I, Industrial District CASE NO: Case No. 2012-28; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.20 APPLICANT(S): Virgo LLC, Curt Skallerup, Jeff Rutten LOCATION: 2250 Pilot Knob Road ZONING: I, Industrial GUIDE PLAN: Industrial Background and Description of Request: The applicants are seeking approval of a request to establish a “trampoline park” within a facility at 2500 Pilot Knob Road. The indoor facility would accommodate entertainment and fitness training through the use of several clusters of enclosed trampoline structures. The applicants indicate that they will utilize the facility to market toward individuals or groups seeking activity and exercise, and well as entertainment. The facility would include different series of trampoline-based recreation areas and party rooms for the use of groups gathering at the site. The proposed use is a form of commercial recreation, similar in nature to a fitness club, bowling center, or similar use. These uses are found most commonly in Mendota Heights in the B-3, General Business District or the B-4, Shopping Center District. Depending on the specific use, those districts may allow such a use either as a permitted or conditional use. page 67 2 In the Industrial District, the closest comparative use is “Participative Athletics”, allowed by Conditional Use Permit. Analysis: The issue for the City in this case would be whether the nature of the use and traffic patterns generated by the use would be consistent with the intent of the Industrial District and consistent with surrounding land uses. As noted, the current industrial district allows “Participative Athletics” by Conditional Use Permit. The City recently approved such a permit for an entity known as “Crossfit” which is a custom athletic training facility. The trampoline park use differs from the Crossfit model in that it proposes to attract general groups and members of the public for occasional site visits, rather than a defined clientele for a specific training schedule. The provision of party rooms and related entertainment in the proposed facility differentiates this use from that of the athletic training aspect, even though the applicants suggest that some athletic training/activity may also occur as a part of the business plan. In the industrial district, retail trade is generally discouraged due to conflicts between the introduction of general traffic into areas often dominated by trucking or other business traffic. Moreover, parking supply for industrial uses is much less than that of commercial activities. For the proposed site, the applicants indicate that they would have a capacity of up to 150 patrons at any one time, and have 60-70 parking spaces available for their use. Proposed hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and until 10:00 or 11:00 on weekends. At issue, at least for the proposed site, is that the applicants propose to occupy only a portion (perhaps one-third) of an existing industrial building. Because hours of operation would overlap common industrial business hours, the issue of introducing commercial traffic, families and children into the business operations of an otherwise active industrial property increases the potential for land use conflicts and other problems. It should be noted that where activities are promoted toward children, it is not uncommon to see significant levels of pedestrian and bicycle traffic as a component of the customers’ travel. If the use is to be considered in the Industrial District, staff would recommend that such facilities only be considered at the edge of commercial areas where commercial traffic conditions were more common, and less likely to raise the conflicts found in the midst of industrial areas. In this case, the applicants have provided a proposed address for their operation, but staff has not seen details of how the site would accommodate the use, control traffic and building access, or other aspects common to Conditional Uses. To continue the process, action on a Conditional Use Permit for this particular site and operation would require additional detail. page 68 3 Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following alternative actions: Conditional Use Permit for Trampoline Park facility at 2250 Pilot Knob 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the use can be accommodated on the proposed site and in the general area, and that management will be able to address potential conflicts with industrial activities and traffic. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that (1) the proposed use is commercial in nature, more similar to those activities currently located in the Business Districts of the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance, (2) that the use would occupy a property that would continue to be dominated by full industrial activity, incompatible with the proposed child-focused land use, and (3) that the proposed site location is inappropriate for the introduction of this level of commercial activity. 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending additional details from the applicants regarding specific site use, building plans, traffic management, and other aspects of the facility on the subject site. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff does not recommend the CUP at this time. The proposed use appears to raise concerns over its compatibility with industrial use areas generally, and the specific site would continue to have approximately 50,000 square feet of active industrial use in the building. If the application is to continue forward, staff would recommend tabling action for the current meeting, with a request that the applicants provide significant additional detail about the operational aspect of the facility on the subject property as noted in this report. Supplementary Materials: Application materials dated 8/28/12 page 69 L e m a y L a k e R d W a t e r s D r Pi l o t K n o b R d Aca c i a D r Enterpri s e D r Acacia Blvd Commerce Dr V a l e n c o u r C i r Perron Rd E Kendon Ave Centre Pointe C v L e m a y L a k e D r Lakeview Ave Furlong Ave L a k e A u g u s t a D r Victory Ave Perron Rd W St a t e H w y 5 5 St a t e H w y 1 3 Si b l e y M e m o r i a l H w y State Hwy 110 State Hwy 1 1 0 St a t e H w y 5 5 Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads parcels Municipal Boundaries Delaware Ave2250 Pilot Knob Road page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75 page 76 page 77 page 78 Dakota County, MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 396 feet page 79 DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit, Resolution Denying a Variance, Planning Case 2012-31 BACKGROUND Al Maas, on behalf of David and Kim Williams submitted a planning application requesting a conditional use permit for a garage greater than 1,200 square feet, and a request for a variance for more than three garage doors at 755 Wentworth Avenue. The property is guided and zoned for low density residential; the applicants are constructing a single family home on the property. The planning commission heard this request at their October 23, 2012 meeting. Mr. Grittman reviewed his planning memo which has been attached. The planning commission supported the conditional use permit for the garage over 1,200 square feet. The planning commission agreed with the planner’s recommendation that there were no unique conditions or practical difficulties which justified the variance. Mr. Williams addressed the commission, identifying the location of the home in relation to the right of way and the design of the garage as unique characteristics of the development, intended to minimize the visual impact of the garage. Mr. Maas informed the commission that the architect for the home had also designed 690 Hidden Creek Trail, and was unaware of the new code requirement which limited the total number of doors to three. Mr. Maas understood the intent of the ordinance was to minimize the impact of garages as viewed from the right of way, and expressed his opinion that the proposed home was consistent with the intent of the ordinance. There were no comments at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The planning commission voted to pass a motion recommending approval of the conditional use permit as attached 6:0. 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 page 80 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 1,200 SQUARE FEET AT 755 WENTWORTH AVENUE. The planning commission voted to pass a motion recommending variance as attached 6:0. 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 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR MORE THAN THREE GARAGE DOORS AT 755 WENTWORTH AVENUE. page 81 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 1,200 SQUARE FEET AT 755 WENTWORTH AVENUE WHEREAS, Al Maas, on behalf of David and Kim Williams, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a garage with a total area greater than 1,200 square feet at 755 Wentworth Avenue (PID 27-03800-33-010, Lot 3, Auditors Subdivision No. 3) as proposed in planning case 2012-31; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting October 24, 2012. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a conditional use permit as proposed in planning case 2012-31 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed garage, subject to resolution of the garage door design, meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. The proposed garage is compatible with other single family properties in the area. 3. The proposed garage has been designed to be consistent in character with the architecture and materials utilized on the occupied area of the home. 4. The proposed ratio of living space floor area to garage space is roughly proportional to the majority of homes in the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a conditional use permit as proposed in planning case 2012-31 is hereby approved with the following condition: 1. Either the applicant revise his existing conditional use permit request for the construction of a single door garage expansion, or the applicant obtains a variance. 2. Screening be provided on the north side of the driveway to minimize headlight glare upon the abutting property to the north. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this thirtieth day of October 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 82 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR MORE THAN THREE GARAGE DOORS AT 755 WENTWORTH AVENUE WHEREAS, Al Maas, on behalf of David and Kim Williams, has applied for a variance to construct a garage with a two double garage doors at 755 Wentworth Avenue (PID 27-03800-33-010, Lot 3, Auditors Subdivision No. 3) as proposed in planning case 2012-31; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting October 24, 2012. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that a variance as proposed in planning case 2012-31 is hereby denied with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. The proposed garage can be constructed to meet the standards of the code relative to garage door width. 3. The unique conditions on the property are not the factors relating to size of the garage door design – those factors only mitigate the impact of the design. 4. The proposal to construct a garage with two double doors is inconsistent with the majority of homes in the area. 5. The approval of the variance would grant a privilege to this property owner which has been denied to others in the same zoning district. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this thirtieth day of October 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 83 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: October 11, 2012 MEETING DATE: October 23, 2012 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a garage of more than 1,200 square feet; Variance for two double- garage doors CASE NO: Planning Case: 12-31; NAC Case: 254.04 -12.21 APPLICANT(S): David and Kim Williams (Meadowcraft Homes) LOCATION: 755 Wentworth Avenue ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: David and Kim Williams wish to construct a new home upon property located at 755 Wentworth Avenue. Included in the home plans are two attached two-stall garages, each having a “double” garage door. In total, 1,478 square feet of garage space is proposed. To accommodate the proposed garages, Meadowcraft Homes LLC, on behalf of the property owners, has requested approval of the following: A conditional use permit to allow the construction of an attached garage greater than 1,200 square feet in size. A variance to allow two “double” garage doors. page 84 2 The Planning Commission may recall that the applicants appeared before the Commission this past July requesting a wetland permit to construct a single family home upon the subject property. That request was ultimately approved by the City Council. At the time, detailed home plans (prompting the conditional use permit and variance requests) were not available. Analysis: Conditional Use Permit. According to the Ordinance, a conditional use permit is required for the construction of an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet in size, with a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet. Thus, to accommodate the proposed 1,478 square foot garage, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary. The two garages areas are proposed on the north side of the home, near the rear lot line. As shown on the submitted site plan, the garages are perpendicular to each other with a pass way between the two. The Garage 1 measures 672 square feet in size while Garage 2 measures 806 square feet. Garage 2 includes a 278 square foot rear currently designated as “storage area”. According to the submitted building elevations, the home will be finished in a combination of brick and stone veneer. Garage roofs will be integrated into the roof design of the home. The home layout is unique in that access to the garage(s) would be achieved at the rear of the house. While the rear yard setback of 34 feet exceeds the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback requirement of the Ordinance, some concern exists regarding the exposure of the home’s driveway and parking area to the abutting home to the north. To minimize impacts (primarily headlight glare), screening should be in place along the north side of the driveway. Existing vegetation may provide such screening. Also to be noted is that the ground level of the proposed home measures 4,119 square feet in size. With this in mind, the proposed ratio of living space floor area to garage space is roughly proportional to the majority of homes in the area (which exhibit building footprints approximately half that of the proposed home). Variance. According to Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, no more than three garage doors (a double width door, along with a single width garage door, or three single garage doors) are permitted in a residential zoning district. The applicant’s home plans call for two, two-stall garages (attached) each having a double garage door. Thus, approval of a variance is necessary to accommodate the proposed garage doors. page 85 3 The applicants have suggested that the variance should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The garage doors do not dominate the elevations of the home as designed. 2. Other homes in the City have larger garage doors. 3. Considering the size of the subject site (approximately 8 acres) the home and garage sizes (doors) are appropriate. 4. The site is very private (wooded) and the garage doors will not be visible from the public street. 5. The subject site lends itself to the scale of home proposed. When considering variances, the City is required to find that: 1. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and 2. The applicant’s proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this manner due to circumstances that: a. Are unique to the property, b. Are not caused by the applicant, c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s plans and ordinances, d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the property is located. In consideration of the preceding variance evaluation criteria, the following could be considered to support approval of the applicant’s request: Uniqueness to Property. Most of the neighboring homes in the area have two and three-stall garages. In this regard, the proposal to construct a garage with two double garage doors would appear inconsistent with the majority of homes in the area. To be noted however, is that the 8 acre subject site is unique in that is significantly larger than the developed lots in the area and that the home is proposed to be located such that the garage doors will not be visible from adjacent property and rights-of-way. Intent of City Ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that no more than three garage doors (a double width door, along with a single width garage door, or three single garage doors) are permitted within residential zoning districts. This regulation serves to limit long expanses of garage doors visible to neighboring properties and rights-of-way. Considering that the two double doors are proposed to be perpendicular to each other and that the garage is proposed in a location which is not visible to surrounding properties, in this particular instance it appears that the Zoning Ordinance may impose a “practical difficulty” upon the applicants. page 86 4 For such a finding, the City might consider the orientation of the proposed doors and the relative isolation of the building location as unique factors making this proposal “reasonable”. Action Requested: Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations: A. Conditional Use Permit 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit clause allowing expanded attached garages of between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet. Conditions may include the following: a. Screening be provided on the north side of the driveway to minimize headlight glare upon the abutting property to the north. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed garage would adversely affect surrounding properties; and that the proposed double garage door design cannot proceed without a variance from zoning ordinance standards. B. Variance 1. Approval of the variance to allow two double garage doors as proposed, based on findings attached to this report. 2. Denial of the variance, based on findings attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed. In regard to the variance request, Staff believes that while the applicants are proposing to use the property in a manner which is consistent which will have little or no impact on neighboring property, the applicant can clearly comply with the requirements of the ordinance. Staff does not support the variance. Supplementary Materials: Application materials page 87 5 Findings of Fact for Approval Attached Garage Conditional Use Permit 755 Wentworth Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above conditional use permit: 1. The proposed garage, subject to resolution of the garage door design, meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. The proposed garage is compatible with other single family properties in the area. 3. The proposed garage has been designed to be consistent (in character) with the architecture and materials utilized on the occupied area of the home. 4. The proposed ratio of living space floor area to garage space is roughly proportional to the majority of homes in the area. page 88 6 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Variance to allow two double-garage doors 755 Wentworth Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above variance: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback, size and finish materials. 2. The size of the site and the proposed garage location are such that the two double garage doors will not be visible from adjacent property and rights-of-way. 3. The configuration of the garage and orientation of the garage doors is consistent with the intent of the ordinance limitation on garage door size. 4. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have imposed a practical difficulty upon the applicant which prevents use of the property in a reasonable manner 5. The practical difficulties resulting from the provisions of the Ordinance are unique to the subject property. page 89 7 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance to allow two double-garage doors 755 Wentworth Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the above variance: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback, size and finish materials. 2. The proposed garage can be constructed to meet the standards of the code relative to garage door width. 3. The unique conditions on the property are not the factors relating to size of the garage door design – those factors only mitigate the impact of the design. 4. The proposal to construct a garage with two double garage doors is inconsistent with the majority of home in the area. 5. The approval of the variance would grant a privilege to this property owner which has been denied to others in the same zoning district. page 90 Do d d R d Marie Ave 1st Ave 3rd Ave D i a n e R d Tr a i l R d 2nd Ave Evergreen Kn Bachelor Ave Callahan Pl Va n d a l l S t Syl v a n d a l e R d Emers o n A v e M e d o r a R d Sutton La 4th Ave Stanwich La C h e r r y H i l l R d K n o l l w o o d L a Will o w L a Fa r m d a l e R d Sunset La C e l i a D r Brookside La La u r a S t Upper Colonial Dr Park Place Dr C l e m e n t S t Wa c h t l e r A v e Pa r k C i r Nina Ct Barbara Ct Ar v i n D r Mager Ct G r y c C t Bo a r d w a l k C l e m e n t S t 755 Wentworth Ave. Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads Municipal Boundaries page 91 page 92 page 93 page 94 page 95 page 96 page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 page 102