The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-12-04 Council Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 4, 2012 – 7:00p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge ofAllegiance 4.Adopt Agenda 5.Proclamation Declaring December 18, 2012 as “Jack Vitelli Day” 6.Consent Agenda a.Acknowledgement of November 20, 2012 City Council Minutes b.Acknowledgement of November 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes th c. Approve Cancellation of December 12Airport Relations Commission Meeting d.Approval of Sign Permit for 1444 Northland Drive – Dungarvin e.Approval of Sign Permit for 745 South Plaza Drive – White Pines Senior Living f.Receipt of November Building Activity Report g.Approval of Purchase of Public Works Wheel Loader h.Approval of Publication of Summary Ordinance 444 (Commercial Property Maintenance Code) i.Approval of Master Subscriber Agreement JPA for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies j.Approval of Master Subscriber Agreement JPA Amendment for “FAST Access” Court Records System k. Appointment of Prosecuting Attorneys l.Appointment of Representative to the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee m.Approval of Consent of Easement Holder Agreement for a Utility Easement at 744 Woodridge Drive n.Approval of Increased Municipal Bond Coverage o.Approval of Hiring Seasonal Ice Rink Attendants p.Approval of 2013 City Commission Appointment Process q. Certification of Delinquent Sewerand Weed RemovalBills r.Approval of Contractors List s. Approval of Claims List 7. Public Comments 8.Public Hearings a.Adoption of 2013 Budget and Levy 9.Unfinished and New Business a.Planning Case 2012-32, Variance Request for an LED Sign – Mendota Heights BP b.Planning Case 2012-33, Variance andConditional Use Permit Request – Mike and Theresa Hueg c. Request to Utilize Unimproved Rights-of-Way d.Report on Conclusions of City Administrator Performance Review 10.Council Comments 11.Adjourn 5. City of Mendota Heights Proclamation WHEREAS, Councilmember Jack Vitelli has served on the Mendota Heights City Council for three terms, a total of twelve years; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Vitelli has always been a strong advocate for the residents, taxpayers, businesses and staff of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, while on the city council, Councilmember Vitelli served on designated subcommittees on the Mendota Heights Par 3, the Village at Mendota Heights, and Mendota Plaza, among others, as well as serving on the Mendota Heights Planning Commission prior to his election to the city council; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Vitelli has chosen to retire from city council service effective at the end of 2012; and WHEREAS , the City Council, staff, and Mendota Heights community wishes to honor Councilmember Vitelli’s dedication, insight and contributions to the City and will miss his bright and positive presence around City Hall; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Vitelli will be enjoying his time at the cabin, woodworking, and spending more time with his grandchildren; and th WHEREAS , Councilmember Vitelli’s last city council meeting will be December 18, 2012. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Mendota Heights declares December 18,2012 as “Jack Vitelli Day” in the City of Mendota Heights. Mayor Date December 4, 2012 6a. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 20, 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 proposed additionsto the agenda by adding an Item 8 –Updates, to include the MAC/RNAV Report, update on the storm cleanup, and an update on Valley Park. Council Comments would then become Item 9. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the amended 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 thereinpulling items M) Approval of Resolution Community Development Block Grant Application, N) Approval of Revised Flexible Benefits Plan, and P) Renewal of Joint Powers Agreement Establishing Lower Mississippi River. a.Acknowledgement of October 30, 2012 City Council Minutes Mayor Krebsbach noted that there was an amended set of minutes for the Council to acknowledge. Changes included the addition of a statement made by Mayor Krebsbach on why she voted for the Fleischhakergarage when she had made an earlier statement that she would be opposed to it, and on the top of page four where it reads “The next step is the Required Navigation Performance . . .”, the word ‘is’ should be ‘in’. Councilmember Petschel moved adoption of the amended minutes. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 b.Acknowledgement of October 30, 2012 City Council Workshop Minutes c.Acknowledgement of November 14, 2012 Canvassing Board Minutes d.Acknowledgement of November 14, 2012 Airport Relations Commission Minutes e.Receipt of October 2012 Fire Synopsis Report f.Approval of End of Firefighter Probationary Period g.Approval of Sign Permit - 750 Main Street h.Approval of Sign Permit - 1355 Mendota Heights Road i.Approval of Resolution Accepting Gifts to the Police Department j.Change of Date for January 1, 2013 City Council Meeting [meeting on January 8 and January 15 k.Authorization to Hire Seasonal Rink Flooders l.Approval of Resolution Entering Into 2013 Joint Powers Agreement for Recycling Funding m.Approval of Resolution Community Development Block Grant Application n.Approval of Revised Flexible Benefits Plan o.Accept Insurance Committee Recommendation on Supplemental Insurance Plans p.Renewal of Joint Powers Agreement Establishing Lower Mississippi River q.Watershed Management Organization with Second Amendment r.Receive September and October Treasurer’s Reports s.Approval of Contractors List t.Approval of Claims List Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS M) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION Councilmember Petschel asked if this application is onlyfor Mendota Heights residents or is it county- wide, and is this the city’s contribution to a county-wide project. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek replied that the City of Mendota Heights has participated in community development block grant funding for quite some time. This is administered by Dakota County as the Community Development Agency(CDA).It is funding that is availableto Mendota Heights residents who are income qualified for a low income housing loan –not a grant, but a loan – so this particular grant is available to people who make eighty percent of the median income or less. This grant program is federal dollarsandis a benefit forMendota Heights’ residents. It is administered entirely by Dakota County on the city’s behalf. The county is able to do the screening of the applicants to make sure they meet qualifications, offer the loans, and follow up on them. Councilmember Petschel asked how the residents of Mendota Heights would find out about this program. Sedlacek answered that the city has highlighted the application in the Heights Highlights, the Friday News, and on the city’s website. The CDAalso offers it if anyone is in need of financial assistance related to housing. They have a number of programs and if it is a Mendota Heights resident, theCDA can then direct them towards this program. Councilmember Petschel asked if the fund been depleted each year. Sedlacek commented that they typically get around $20,000 specific to this program. Over the course of the life of this program it has been spent –with some years being leaner than others. The CDAis currently focusing on making fewer loans but in larger amounts. Councilmember Duggan askedwho makes that final decisionon selecting the applicants. Sedlacek answered that it is on a first come, first serve basis, as long as the applicant qualifies. Councilmember Duggan asked for acknowledgement that the maximum that the city could get is $22,000. Sedlacek confirmed that was correct. Councilmember Petschel suggested that the word “acting” be removed from in front of “city administrator” in #2 of the resolution, which staff acknowledged. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 N) APPROVAL OF REVISED FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN Councilmember Duggan suggested a couple of changes: 1.Second ‘whereas’ that reads “the City ofMendota Heights desires to have a Flexible Benefits Plan covering its qualified employees, their spouses and their dependents . . .” – no need for the second ‘their’ before ‘dependents’ but it’s fine 2.Under the ‘further resolved’ that reads “that the City Administrator or their designee” –‘their’ implies plural and should read “that the City Administrator or designee” and change the ‘are directed’ to ‘is directed’ 3.He also questioned if there been anychanges since Resolution 90-63. City Administrator Justin Miller replied that there have been changes but theywere not approved in a resolution, so thatis the most recent resolution. Councilmember Duggan moved ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN, with the amendments as proposed. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 P) RENEWAL OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER Mayor Krebsbach asked City Engineer John Mazzitello to explain what the changes are to the agreement. City Engineer Mazzitello explained that the original Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) exists from 2001 and was set to expire in December 2011. All of the member cities passed resolutions extending the JPA to 2012 because the Watershed Management Organization was in the process of rewriting their watershed management plan. The new JPAis for a term that would expire on January 1, 2023 and there are five principal changes: 1. Section 5, Subdivision 1 – Adds member cities to the Technical Advisory Committee 2. Section 6, Subdivision 1 – Adds the statute reference to the paragraph 3. Section 6, Subdivision 4 – Repeals the section prohibiting removal of Board members 4. Section 10, Subdivision 7 – Adds provisions for cost allocation for water quality (allocations for water quality are already in place), and adds exhibit “C” to the JPA 5. Section 12, Subdivision – Establishes the sunset date of the JPA as January 1, 2023 Mayor Krebsbach asked for clarification on item one in that she thought the city was represented on the Technical Advisory Committee.City Engineer Mazzitello replied that thereare current appointees to the board. What this provision would do is allow city staff to also sit on the Technical Advisory Committee. Councilmembers received examples of how the City of Mendota Heights would be affected by the addition of provisions for cost allocation for water quality, as opposed to cost allocation for water quantity as is currently done. Councilmember Duggan commented that on the list of member cities and the number of votes each have; however, in relation to budget, it states that each member city only has one vote. City Engineer Mazzitello answered that the table in the original JPA outlining the number of votes the city has is intended for policy decisions and projectdecisions. When it comes to the budget, it was determined that each city should have a single vote. Mayor Krebsbach asked if the number of votes regarding policy or project is based on population. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that it is based on acreage and land value. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVISED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION FOR THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) PLANNING CASE 2012-13, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE Mayor Krebsbach commented that this topic was discussed in workshop and asked Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek to explain the ordinance.Sedlacek explained that this planning case was originally submitted by city staff at the request of City Council in May of 2012. The purpose of the code amendment isto create property maintenance standards and abatement procedures for commercial properties. The Planning Commission discussed this topic over a course of several meetings with an emphasis on making sure that businesses had an opportunity to provide input. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council adopt the new code.TheCity Council discussed this at their workshop session on October 30. The ordinance in front of the Council was the ordinance passed by the Planning Commission with a couple of very minor grammatical changes after the workshop. They also eliminated a small section on stormwater, which staff decided was already included in another section of the code. Councilmember Petschel asked if the surrounding communities have commercial property ordinances. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek replied that a number of communities throughout the Twin Cities area have some form of commercial property maintenancecode.The initial draft came from the cities ofEagan and Minnetonka. Councilmember Petschel stated she believes that Eagan does a good job with their commercial properties. Mayor Krebsbach asked if staff heard directly from businesses in Mendota Heights in opposition to this. Sedlacek answered that thebusiness ownerof FischervilleCoffee House spoke of their concerns about the ordinance. Also, the comments from the Chamber of Commerce were global. Mayor Krebsbach commented that the ordinance presented isvery complete. She asked what type of calls or questionsthe city may get upon initial enforcement. Sedlacek stated there might be issues with parking lots and weeds. Mayor Krebsbach proposed the following changes to the ordinance: 12-8-3 Building and Structure Appearance and Safety Requirements After “Any building or structure – add “,including retaining walls,” to paragraph A o Keep 12-8-4 Maintenance Requirements for Vacant Buildings 12-8-5 Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance Keep the general comment about maintaining landscaping and taking care of the debris o A of the particulars would be struck o Keep Fencing o 12-8-6 Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures Accessory Structures would basically be struck o Keep Signage o Keep Exterior Lighting o Strike 12-8-7 Accumulations and Hazardous Material Keep 12-8-8 Rubbish, Garbage and Trash Keep 12-8-9 Abatement and Enforcement Procedures Mayor Krebsbach stated she feels it is important to have this ordinance. Councilmember Povolny asked how much different this ordinance is from the residential property maintenance code. Sedlacek replied that this ordinance has more detail in it. Some of the suggestions that the mayor has proposed, make it more similar to the residential property code. Councilmember Povolny asked why they should not be the same. Sedlacek replied that would be an option. He continued by explaining that the direction to staff at the start of this project was to have a very robust property maintenance code to make sure all of the issues were being handled. Mayor Krebsbach commented that there has always been an interest to at least have something that the city could use to take care of things like broken windows, etc. The documents before the Council would be about as close a match as could be gotten betweencommercial and residential. Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of ORDINANCE444, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 TO ADD CHAPTER EIGHT, COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES BY MAYOR KREBSBACH. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Councilmember Petschel commented she feels thatin the process of using this code,the city may find that there are some things that would need to be changed or tweaked. Councilmember Duggan proposed amending Section 12-8-1 Findings and Purpose Statement, Number E, tostate “assist in correction of dangerous or life threatening conditions that may be identified within the City” – replacing correction for the word identification. Councilmember Petschel stated that she would be comfortable with the change. Councilmember Duggan alsocommented that 12-8-3 Building and Structure Appearance and Safety Requirements has a recommendation that if someone does not want to replace a broken window with glass, they can board it up. He proposed there be a period after “glass” and strike “, or in the alternative, remodeling of the exterior by removing the window and its frame and replacing such window with exterior siding to match and blend in with the surrounding siding.” Mayor Krebsbach asked that “, including retaining walls,” be added to 12-8-3 Paragraph A. Councilmember Vitelli amended his motion to include the proposed changes. Councilmember Povolny stated that is acceptable to him as well. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 UPDATES MAC/RNAV Update Councilmember Petschel shared an update on the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) by stating that she was at the MAC meeting where the issue before them was institution of Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures. After much testimony by Edina and Minneapolis, MAC voted to split the project. Operations would remain the same on the north parallels but on seventeen, twelve-left, and twelve-right, RNAV could be implemented, feeling that those communities could really benefit from RNAV. It is not known when it is going to be implemented. Councilmember Petschel testified before the MAC stating that her preference would be to do all of the runways or do none. She based that on testimony from the FAA that having the north ends of the runway operating differently from the south end would leave the airport at risk. Councilmember Vitelli commented that it was surprising to him that there is so much ‘to do’ and all that is being done is improve navigation. Storm Cleanup City Administrator Justin Miller stated that late in the evening of November 10, 2012 there was a storm in Mendota Heights which was later determined to be a small tornado. The fire department, public works, and police department all responded. .There were no injuriesreported. Sunday morning staff surveyed the damage which was localized to a few areas on the north end of town. It was staff’s recommendation to the Council that debris would not be picked up city-wide. There were also questions about why the sirens did not go off. These storms that touched down in Burnsville, West St. Paul, Lilydale, and MendotaHeights literally came out of nowhere. There were no watches or warningsissued. Valley Park City Engineer John Mazzitello stated that last summer the city entered into a developer’s agreement with Lilydale Apartments, LLC. As part of that development,the developer needed to remove a portion of Interstate Valley Creek Trail, which was to be restored. The construction season came to an abrupt end last November and they were unable to pave the trailby the end of 2011 and were poised to pave it in 2012. Early in the spring staff received word from MnDOT and Xcel Energy that they had utility work to do in the area and requested that the trail not be paved. The pavement was delayed and was intended to be finished in 2012 when they discovered there was an erosion issue in the area. MnDOTand Xcelwill have to repair the erosion and it is going to delay pavement of the trail. He has word from Xcel Energy that it is their full intention to pave the trail at the earliest opportunity in the spring of 2013. Mayor Krebsbach asked if there were any postings explaining that the trail is not complete. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the trail is passable, it is just not paved. Councilmember Duggan asked if Xcel Energy could be requested to do some screening or plantings in relation to the giant pipes that can be seen from I35E near Highway13. City Engineer Mazzitello stated he would be happy to speak with Xcel aboutthat.Councilmember Petschel stated the area appears to be very vulnerable. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli expressed his appreciation to city staff on the great response to the tornado. He was very impressed with their dedication. Councilmember Petschel stated she attendedthe Section 3 AA Diving Championship. Aresident from the Copperfield Addition, who attends Cretin-Derham Hall High School,medaled and dove very close to a personal best. That is quite an accomplishment for someone who just recently took up the sport. Councilmember Duggan congratulated the Mayor on her election for anotherterm. He also congratulated John Mazzitello for twenty-plus years of service to our country and on the awards and recognitions he has received. John also is obtaining his MBA and has a perfect 4.0 GPA. He also wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Mayor Krebsbach thanked Councilmember Povolny and Councilmember Duggan for acknowledging her successful bid for another term as mayor; it was a very healthy campaign and was good for the city. She also noted the passing of Phil Bifulk, former resident of Mendota Heights and neighbor. She stated if the city ever has a task force on the water surcharge they should name it after Phil Bifulkwho was very concerned about any kind of surcharge that was brought forward. She also commended the firemen on the Fire Relief Association’s dance. It was very well attended. Besides protecting us, they do so much for building community and creating fun. The tree lighting at the Village is going to be Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. City Administrator Justin Miller expressed his appreciation to Lorri Smith and all of the election staff. It was a heavy election turnout and everything went very smoothly. There was an 88%voter turnoutin Mendota Heights. ADJOURN Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. ____________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 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, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 23, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-32 Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP 2030 Dodd Road Variance allowing electronic sign display Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP for approval of a variance allowing an electronic sign display at 2030 Dodd Road and the property is zoned B-2 Neighborhood Business. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is proposing to replace an existing pylon sign with a monument sign which includes LED fuel price numbers that are stationary (not animated or flashing), which will change approximately once per day. The issue of electronic signs was last addressed in June of 2006 when the City considered a request by Henry Sibley High School to construct a digital sign on their property. In this case, the council affirmed its position that such signs are not allowed, and adopted a resolution with a series of findings that described the City’s concerns related to flashing, animated and blinking electronic signs. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant has proposed that the electronic sign should not result in illumination qualities that would either negatively impact surrounding properties or create a distraction that could pose a safety risk to nearby traffic. The applicant has proposed shutting off the sign at night, so illumination from the sign is not anticipated to be constant. Mr. Grittman discussed the front and side yard setbacks in the B-2 District. He indicated the proposed sign lies within the required setbacks, and would be replacing an existing sign in substantially the same location. The new sign would be lowered in height, which lessens the overall non-conforming condition. The new sign would be modern, compact and will improve the overall appearance of the property, in contrast to the existing 45 foot tall pylon sign. 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and does not recommend the variance. While the applicant suggests that operational issues demonstrate the additional safety and convenience of the LED price technology, the ability to make such changes in message electronically is not unique to this property. It is noted that the reduction in height will, in part, meet that same objective, and the safety and convenience argument would be applicable to any property that wishes to display alternative messages over time. If the Commission believes that this technology is appropriate, it should consider an ordinance amendment rather than the variance for this case. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a variance was necessary with this case. She questioned what language prohibits LED signs. Mr. Grittman reviewed the language in detail with the Commission stating the LED portion of the proposed sign would be prohibited, as it was a steady collection of lights. Commissioner Roston inquired if all illuminated signs were prohibited in the City. Mr. Grittman stated only in the case where the public was able to view the light source. If a diffuser was placed over the individual bulbs, the sign would not be in violation with the current ordinance. Commissioner Roston questioned if LED Christmas lights violated the ordinance. Mr. Grittman commented these were not considered signs and the ordinance did include an exception for holiday displays. Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the intent of the current code was to limit gas station pricing signs. Mr. Grittman did not feel the language spoke directly to LED but, as nay request for electronic displays were denied by the Council in the past. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek clarified it was the intent of the City Code was to limit this type of LED signs. Commissioner Roston was in favor of recommending the diffuser be placed over the LED bulbs, as this would eliminate the need for a variance. Commissioner Field asked if the SuperAmerica sign that was denied was similar in design and nature to the BP sign. Mr. Grittman noted this was several years back and he recalled the lights were essentially the same, however he did not recall if the lights were LED or incandescent. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the City Attorney had provided the commission with advice on the interpretation of an intermittent, steady or rotating beam. He stated a legal opinion could assist with resolving this matter. Mr. Grittman did not recall receiving direct advice from the City Attorney. Commissioner Noonan commented the matter at hand was the fact the bulb source could be viewed from the proposed BP sign. Chair Norton was in favor of the proposed BP sign as it was newer technology and recommended an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Roston agreed, as this would clarify the current language for future sign requests. Mr. Sedlacek repeated the intent of this ordinance was to not allow an LED sign of any sort. The direction provided to the applicant was either to request to change the ordinance as written or request a variance to the rule. The request before Commission was for a variance to the City Code. Commissioner Viksnins commented the concern with LED was the rotating display. He indicated the proposed gas station sign would not be rotating and therefore did not conflict with the LED concerns. Mr. Grittman stated one of the council’s concerns in the past was the flashing of LED lights and video. This would then become a huge enforcement concern for the city. Chair Norton asked if other cities were allowing LED sign displays. Mr. Grittman stated that electronic displays are commonly limited to gas station price displays, with a ban on animation. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 Commissioner Hennes questioned if an amendment were discussed in the future how this case would be affected. Mr. Grittman indicated an amendment could be made to address the B-2 zoning district. Another option would be to write the language specifically addressing the conditional use permits for the gas stations. Shawn Hoffmann, 2030 Dodd Road, indicated he was the manager of the BP. He commented the current sign language was written before LED technology was available. It was his opinion the language was outdated and he encouraged the commission to consider reviewing the language. He discussed the proposed LED sign further stating it was a cost effective and energy efficient technology. He noted the current highway sign was at an awkward angle and the new sign would alleviate this concern. He stated the new technology would also be safer. Commissioner Roston questioned the timing of the proposed sign and if the request could be delayed for 30 days. Mr. Hoffman stated he owned the sign already. He expressed concern about the use of a diffuser, as this would greatly affect the visibility of the numbers. Commissioner Magnuson understood the safety concerns with changing the prices given the height of the current sign. She asked if a monument sign closer to the ground was feasible. Mr. Hoffman indicated space was not available for this type of sign. He explained if the current sign were lowered it would be difficult for passing traffic to view the pricing. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE ACTION ON THIS ITEM FOR 30 DAYS AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO FIND A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION. Commissioner Viksnins asked if a pragmatic solution should be sought or if the ordinance should be amended. Commissioner Field stated he would not support the motion as he was in favor of amending the ordinance to comply with current technology. He did not want the application delayed in hopes of finding a solution. Chair Norton agreed. Commissioner Noonan stated the applicant could work with a vendor to seek a translucent diffuser in the next 30 days, which would not delay the sign request. Commissioner Magnuson questioned how an ordinance amendment was initiated. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff has received direction from both the council and commission in the past to address city code. Commissioner Roston withdrew his motion to table action on the item. Commissioner Viksnins withdrew his second. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, RECOMENDING THAT CITY STAFF DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT STATIC LED DISPLAY SIGNS FOR GAS STATIONS. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2012, meeting. Commissioner Roston left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PLANNING CASE #2012-33 Mike Hueg Lots 9-12, Block 7, Somerset View Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Construct Single Family Home and Attached Garage Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Mike Hueg for approval of a variance and conditional use permit to construct a single family home and attached garage. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants are proposing to construct a single family home on a parcel in the Somerset View subdivision. The parcel sits at the southwest corner of Somerset Road and Burr Oak Avenue. The city’s zoning ordinance requires single family lots to have at least 100 feet of frontage on improved public streets. While this parcel has much more than 100 feet of frontage, neither of the streets are improved, and therefore require approval of a variance to permit the construction. Mr. Grittman explained as part of the request, the applicants also propose to construct an attached garage of approximately 1,480 square feet. The zoning ordinance specifies that attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet and up to 1,500 square feet be allowed only with the approval of a conditional use permit. Lastly, the applicants are seeking approval of a license to construct private improvements within an unimproved public right of way. The applicants’ proposal would extend a driveway along the unimproved Burr Oak Avenue to its intersection with Dorset Road. While this request is not technically a zoning application, it is relevant to the consideration of the variance request. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit with conditions. The conditions have been proposed to recognize that one single family lot exists in the area as a lot of record, and the improvements necessary to provide public street access to the property can be reasonably seen to be out of scale with the construction of a home on the existing parcel. Further development of the property should only be considered with street access due to the need for better public service vehicles, avoiding a profusion of private use of the public rights of way, and managing traffic generation in the area. Staff had no objections to the CUP as there were no apparent issues with the proposed garage, and it complies with the terms of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Magnuson questioned where the utilities would be located. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the preliminary location was described to run within the Burr Oaks Avenue right-of-way. He commented there was adequate space for the lines. Mike Hueg, 17590 Hemlock Avenue in Lakeville, stated he was proposing to build a single family home, which would allow him to live closer to family. He thanked staff for their assistance in preparing his application. He encouraged the neighbors to be open minded to the fact there was right-of-way available that would allow him access his lot. He explained a shared driveway was discussed with city staff but was not favorable to the city. 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 Commissioner Magnuson asked if access could be gained from Somerset Road. Mr. Hueg stated this was an option, but that a great deal more green space would be disturbed if this route were chosen. Commissioner Viksnins requested further information on the topography of the parcel and questioned if the site would be further subdivided. Mr. Hueg indicated he had no plans to subdivide the property. He then reviewed the topography of the parcel stating the property would drain properly after construction. Mr. Sedlacek clarified the request before the commission this evening was for a conditional use permit and variance. He noted the license would be discussed by the city council. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Mary Kirby, 3 Dorset Road, commented she has lived at this address since 1993. She explained the request for a license would remove and replace her existing driveway. Ms. Kirby had not issue with the Hueg’s building a home on their property, however, she did object to the request for a license to utilize the Burr Oaks Avenue right of way. She recommended the license for access be gained from another direction. She indicated her own driveway has been in place for the past 40 years and has requested a license to formally recognize her use of the right of way. Ms. Kirby expressed concern that the license could result in storm water runoff from city right of way into her property. The city installed a rain garden in the right of way in 2005 to address runoff issues. Ms. Kirby felt that the existing use of the right of way at Dorset Road would pose a challenges to adding an additional driveway. She requested additional conditions to the approval, assuring that she would be notified in advance if anyone were to access her property and that the city be lenient with parking regulations during the construction period. Second, that the applicant will indemnify her from any liability related to the construction and use of her driveway. In addition, the applicant will indemnify her from any liability to water runoff and changes to the right of way. Lastly, she requested the conditions for approval clearly state the party responsible for covering the expenses of the reconstruction of her driveway. Larry Koll, 2 Dorset Road, opposed the request before the commission this evening. He questioned if the variance and conditional use permit could be considered by the commission without a proper license for access in place. Mr. Koll expressed concern with the safety of adding another home to this right of way. Art Miller, 1 Dorset Road, opposed the variance request stating the additional home would change the character of the neighborhood. He questioned if a fire truck or other emergency vehicle could even access the site. Mr. Miller stated the property at 3 Dorset would be negatively affected by the request for a license. He recommended another alternative be sought by Mr. Hueg. He suggested for safety reasons, that the commission deny the request. Pat Henry, 4 Beebe Avenue, opposed the request for the license as the area already had drainage issues. He commented the home and additional impervious surface would compound these concerns. Mr. Henry requested Somerset Road be used to access this single family lot. Commissioner Hennes questioned if a shared driveway was agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Hueg stated have been discouraged by the City in the past. He explained that a shared driveway would be difficult as the Kirby’s park in their driveway. He understood that he would be responsible for replacing the Kirby’s driveway through the construction process. Commissioner Viksnins asked what other points of access were considered. Mr. Hueg that the site was bound by two undeveloped rights of way. The reason for using Dorset Road was that emergency vehicles would only have to pull line 180 feet. He did not see the benefit of putting in a 1,000 foot road from Somerset Road. He commented he has not seen a water concern on this property. He noted the proposed building pad would be at a lower elevation than the Kirby’s. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the parcel could access Dodd Road. Mr. Hueg stated this was not feasible as emergency vehicles could not reach his parcel and utilities would be difficult. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 Mr. Sedlacek informed the commission that staff’s first preference to access this site is a full public street in the platted right of way. The second preference would be to grant a license to utilize the right of way. A distant third option would be to approve a shared driveway. Gary St. John, 7 Meers Avenue, supported the Hueg’s decision to build on their property. He requested the city consider shared access from Dodd Road. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. FUTURE SUBDIVISION OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY MORE THAN THE ONE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF FULL PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY’S ORDINANCES. 2. EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IN THE CITY’S UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY, ALONG WITH AN INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY FOR LIABILITY RELATED TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. 3. CONSTRUCTION, AND RELATED RECONSTRUCTION, OF DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO PROVIDE SIDE-BY-SIDE PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS MAINTAINING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AT 3 DORSET ROAD, AND A TOTAL DRIVEWAY CURB CUT WIDTH AT DORSET ROAD OF NO MORE THAN 25 FEET. 4. PROVISION OF A GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORM WATER MODELS, SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (PE) REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS SO AS TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES FOR PURPOSE AND FUNCTION, AND TO ENSURE NO ADDITIONAL STORM WATER RUNOFF IMPACTS OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE AREA. 6. NO BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE, AND NOTING THE RESTRICTION ON FUTURE SUBDIVISION, HAS BEEN RECORDED WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS. Commissioner Magnuson asked if it was proper for the Commission to take action on the item without having the license approved by the City Council. She stated she did not have enough information on this case to make a proper decision. Mr. Sedlacek indicated staff debated this issue and how to bring the application forward. The processing of the variance and conditional use permit was known and therefore staff was comfortable with bringing the request forward. He explained the license request would be determined by the council and that approval of the planning case was not an implicit approval of a license. Following the variance request, the applicant needs to procure a license, a building permit and grading permit for the driveway. Each of these decisions will be independently evaluated. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the applicant had considered and exhausted all options. Mr. Grittman commented the current State law has removed the hardship language and replaced it with practical difficulty. For this reason, the case was easier to review. 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 AYES 6 5 NAYS 1 (MAGNUSON) CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,480 SQUARE FEET, AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 6 5 NAYS 1 (MAGNUSON) Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2012, meeting. December Meeting Date Mr. Sedlacek explained the commission would need to reschedule the December planning commission meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RESCHEDULE THE DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DECEMBER 26, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-28 Curt Skallerup Conditional Use Permit  Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-29 Daniel Fleischhaker Variance  Approved by the City Council in opposition to the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-31 David Williams Conditional Use Permit  Approved by the City Council in opposition to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, RECOMENDING THAT STAFF REVIEW AND AMEND THE CITY CODE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF GARAGE DOORS ALLOWED ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:58 P.M. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary 7 6c. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT: Cancellation of December Airport Relations Commission Meeting BACKGROUND The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission typically does not hold their monthly meeting during December of each year. The commission is asking for council approval of cancelling this meeting. The January meeting agenda tentatively includes a review of recent RNAV activity and a look at the commission’s 2013 work plan. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve thecancellation of the th December 12Airport Relations Commission meeting. This action requires a majority vote of the city council. 6d. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council & City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Sign permit approval for 1444 Northland Drive BACKGROUND Sign Minds has submitted for Councilapproval a 32 square foot internally lit channel letter building wall sign on behalf of the building owner Crosswind, LLC. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Upon staff review the sign meets the City sign code criteria and staff recommends Council approval of the sign as proposed. 6e. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Paul Berg, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Sign Permit Approval – 745 South Plaza Drive (White Pines Senior Living) BACKGROUND Signminds, Inc. has submitted a sign permit application for a new, building mounted sign at the facility currently under construction at 745 South Plaza Drive. The proposed sign is 87 square feet and back lit. The proposed sign is consistent with the PUD Amendment plans approved as th part of the 4amendment to the developer’s agreement. Please see the attached sign description. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed sign. 6f. 6g. DATE:December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT:Purchase of a WheelLoader for the Public Works Department BACKGROUND In 1968, the City of Mendota Heights purchased a Caterpillar Model 120 Motorgrader road grader. Over 44 years later that road grader is still in service. Although this piece of equipment still serves the City, it is the desire of the Public Works Department to replace the road grader with a more modern and versatile piece of equipment, a wheel loader with accessories. The purchase of a wheel loader has been one of the top priorities for capital purchase for a number of years as the road grader continues to age. Repairs and maintenance to the road grader are becoming more difficult and parts are becoming harder to find. Staff has researched the purchase through utilization of the State of Minnesota purchasing contract. The preferred vehicle is a Caterpillar 950K Wheel Loader.Not only will this piece of equipment serve as a loader to assist City staff in the removal of snow piles and moving large quantities of material, it will allow public works staff to load plow trucks with salt much quicker, and, with the appropriate accessories, it will be able to serve as an additional snow plow. The 950K Wheel Loader will be able to perform the functions of the existing grader as well. By replacing the grader with the 950K Wheel Loader, the City will gain capability and flexibility for the maintenance of its infrastructure. Through the State of Minnesota Equipment Purchasing Contract, City staff has received a quote from Ziegler Cat for $303,399.43 for the purchase of a Caterpillar 950K Wheel Loader. This purchase includes the base unit, snow plow blade attachment, 10-foot hydraulically controlled snow wing, general purpose and multipurpose four cubic yard buckets, and a 5-year/5,000 operating hour warranty.The quoted price also includes an $11,000.00 trade-in credit for our existing road grader. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of the wheel loader ($303,399.43) can be drawn from the General Fund Balance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the purchase of the Caterpillar 950K Wheel Loader. If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing the purchase of the proposed wheel loader by a simple majority vote. 6h. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Summary Ordinance 444 for Publication BACKGROUND Ordinance 444, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 TO ADD CHAPTER EIGHT, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERY MAINTENANCE was passed at the November 20, 2012 meeting of the city council. The ordinance becomes effective upon publication of the ordinance. City Clerk Lorri Smith has provided the attached summary ordinance, which is recommended for publication rather than having the full ordinance printed. The summary makes no changes to Ordinance 444 as passed by city council. The decision to publish a summary ordinance requires city council approval. BUDGET IMPACT Utilizing a summary ordinance saves publication costs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SUMMARY ORDINANCE 444 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 TO ADD CHAPTER EIGHT, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. This action requires a four-fifths majority vote. tm; E SUMMARY ORDINANCE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ORDINANCE 444 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 TO ADD CHAPTER EIGHT, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota authorizes the amendment of City Code Title 12 which adopts commercial and industrial property maintenance regulations to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. Any building or structure, including retaining walls, must comply with the requirements for building and structure appearance and safety requirements, maintenance requirements for vacant buildings, landscaping and grounds maintenance,signs and lighting, rubbish, garbage and trash. The complete text of Ordinance 444 may be obtained at the City Ha atwww.mendota-heights.com. Dated: December 4, 2012 6i. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: Resolution 2012-102: Formally Authorizing the City Administrator to sign Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) “Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies” BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota Court system continues to work towards the use of electronic records through the eCourtMN initiative. Dakota County will pilot the First Appearance Support Track (FAST). The City is required to sign a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota Court Administration in order to gain access to court records.This agreement governs only access to court data. The JPA has been reviewed by the prosecuting attorney. ATTACHED Memo explaining FAST process JPA Resolution BUDGET IMPACT There is no documented cost to the City of Mendota Heights. RECOMMENDATION Resolution No. If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting 2012-102: RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZATING THE CITY ADMINISTRATORTO SIGN JOINT POWERSAGREEMENT “MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENTFOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.” City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2012-102 RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZATING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT “MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATASERVICES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.” WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to ensure that our residents receive the most streamlined process possible from the courts; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Court Agreement requires a Joint Powers Agreement to provide records access; and WHEREAS , the City Administrator is required to sign the Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Government Agencies; and WHEREAS, the Master Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the Minnesota State Court Administrators Office is the first step towards improving record access in the court room; and WHEREAS, the city is regularly represented by William Bernard, Jerome Porter and Barry Wittenkeller in the Dakota County Criminal Courts; and WHEREAS, the City wishes toensure the prosecuting attorneys have access to courtrecords in a timely manner; and NOWTHEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Mendota Heights hereby authorizes the City Administrator isto execute on behalf of the City of Mendota HeightsResolution 2012-102: Formally Authorizing the City Administrator to sign Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) “Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies”. th Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4day of December, 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 6j. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: 2012-103:Resolution Formally Authorizing the City Administrator to sign Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)Amendment “Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for ‘FAST Access.’ ” BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota Court system continues to work towards the use of electronic records through the eCourtMN initiative. Dakota County will pilot the First Appearance Support Track (FAST). The City is required to sign a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota Court Administration in order to gain access to records. Additionally the City is required to sign an Amendment to the Master Agreement to access court data. The first amendment to the JPA is to allow access to the FAST system.Future amendments for access will be brought to council. The end users of the FAST system are also required to sign a “FAST Access” User Acknowledgement Form. This agreement has been reviewed by prosecuting attorney. ATTACHED Memo explaining FAST process Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for “FAST Access” “FAST Access” User Acknowledgement Forms Resolution BUDGET IMPACT There is no documented cost to the City of Mendota Heights. RECOMMENDATION Resolution No. If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting 2012-103: RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZATING THE CITY ADMINISTRATORTO SIGN JOINT POWERSAGREEMENTAMENDMENT “MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT FOR ‘FAST ACCESS.’ ” City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2012-103 RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZATING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT “MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT AMENDMENTFOR ‘FAST ACCESS.’” WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Court Agreement requires a Joint Powers Agreement to provide court records accessduring the First Appearance in criminal courts; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Court Agreement requires a Joint Powers Agreement Amendment for ‘FAST Access’(First Appearance Support Track)to provide courtrecords access; and WHEREAS , the City Administrator is required to sign the Master Subscriber AgreementAmendment for ‘FAST Access’; and WHEREAS, the Master Agreement Amendment between the City of Mendota Heights and the Minnesota StateCourt Administrators Office initiates the process of improving court record access for the prosecuting attorney; and WHEREAS, the City is regularly represented by William Bernard, Jerome Porter and Barry Wittenkeller in the Dakota County Criminal Courts; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the prosecuting attorneys have access to availablecourtrecords in a timely manner; and NOWTHEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Mendota Heights authorizes the City Administrator to sign the: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT “MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR ‘FAST ACCESS.’ ” th Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4day of December, 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 6k. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: Resolution 2012-104; Formally Appointing William Bernard, Jerome Porter, Barry Wittenkeller of the firm Grannis & Hauge, P.A. as Prosecuting Authority for the City of Mendota Heights BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota Court system continues to work towards the use of electronic records through the eCourtMN initiative. Dakota County will pilot the First Appearance Support Track (FAST).The FAST program will allow the prosecutors to see court documents electronically in the court room during the first appearance in criminal court. In order to participate in the FAST project the city is required to sign the JPA, the Amendment to the JPA and pass a resolution documenting the appointment of the prosecuting attorney. The firm of Grannis and Hauge has represented the City as its prosecuting attorney since 2004, handling misdemeanor (gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor and petty misdemeanors) in criminal court. A copy of the resolution will be provided to the courts. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact for this item. RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion authorizing RESOLUTION 2012-104; FORMALLY APPOINTING WILLIAM BERNARD, JEROME PORTER, BARRY WITTENKELLER OF THE FIRM GRANNIS & HAUGE, P.A. AS PROSECUTING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2012-104 FORMALLY APPOINTING WILLIAM BERNARD, JEROME PORTER, BARRY WITTENKELLER OF THE FIRM GRANNIS & HAUGE, P.A. AS PROSECUTING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to ensure that our residents receive the most streamlined process possible from the courts; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Court Agreement requires a resolution to document the prosecuting authority appointment; and WHEREAS , the City Administratoris required to sign agreements (Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Government Agencies and Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for “Fast Access”) authorizing our counsel to participate in the developing streamlined processes; WHEREAS, the City has previously appointed the law firm of Grannis and Hauge, P. A. byresolution; and WHEREAS, the city is regularly represented by William Bernard, Jerome Porter and Barry Wittenkeller in the Dakota County Criminal Courts; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the prosecuting attorneys have access to all availablerecords in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights wishes to ensure the best service to the residents; and NOWTHEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has appointedby Resolution 2012-104: Formally appointing William Bernard, Jerome Porter, Barry Wittenkeller of the firm Grannis & Hauge, P. A. as prosecuting authority for the City of Mendota Heights. th Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4day of December, 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 6l. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: Appointment of Representative to the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee (DCDPC) BACKGROUND In 2001 all Dakota County citiesalong withtheCounty formed a county wide initiative of planning and preparing for emergency response. The original committee was funded by a .25 cent per resident contribution. In 2003 the City Council authorized the membership in a county wide Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the direction of seeking ways to improve emergency cooperation across Dakota County. The DCDPC has worked hard to secure grant funding to offset the start-up costs of the programming. The committee is funded primarily through grant dollars and by a budgeted contribution from each member city. In 2011 a long term capital budget was prepared and approved by the county administrators group. The long term funding will begin appearing in the 2014 Mendota Heights Emergency Management budget. The committee has implemented many programs all focused on the mission of better preparing Dakota County for large scale emergency response. The DCDPC meets monthly and hosts a variety of training programs throughout the year, such as the 2011 workshop for the council. The DCDPC annually hosts a resource day open to the public the event moves around the county to different locations. They have also periodically presented an overview of programs to the Council. BUDGET IMPACT The city budget for the DCDPCin 2013 is $1980. Most all of the costs associated with the DCDPC are offset by grant money. RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion authorizing the City Administrator send the DCDPC Chair Dave Gisch a letter stating the appointment of the Police Chief for 2013. 6m. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Consent of Easement Holder Agreement for a Utility Easement at 744 Woodridge Drive BACKGROUND In July of 2008, the owners of 754 Woodridge Drive received approval for a lot split that created the property at 744 Woodridge Drive. In 2010, the property at 744 Woodridge Drive was sold and developed. The sanitary sewer service line for 754 Woodridge Drive traverses the property at 744 Woodridge Drive and requires a utility easement be recorded for the service line. The attached documents constitute the easement agreement between the two properties. Part of the proposed easement overlaps a City drainage and utility easement located along the eastern property line of 744 Woodridge drive. This overlap of easement is necessary for the 754 Woodridge drive sanitary sewer service line to make connection to the City owned sewer main. City policy states that sanitary sewer service lines are the responsibility of the property owner until the service line connects to the City sewer main. In order to record the new easement at Dakota County, consent is needed from the existing easement holder (the City of Mendota Heights) for the two easements to overlap. City staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the attached documents and have found them to be acceptable to the City. BUDGET IMPACT There is no anticipated cost to the City of Mendota Heights as part of this agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Consent of Easement Holder agreement. If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the agreement by a simple majority vote. (reserved for recording data) ______________________________________________________________________________ UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of THIS UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) _________________, 2012, by and between Aaron Macke and Sarah Macke, husband and wife (“Grantor”), and Todd Hulse and Sara Hulse, husband and wife (“Grantee”). Recitals A. Grantor is the fee owner of certain real property located in Dakota County, Minnesota, legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Grantor’s Property”): B. Grantee wishes to acquire a permanent easement from Grantor for utility purposes including, without limitation, repairing, maintaining, and replacing a sewer line and related appurtenances over and across a portion of Grantor’s Property, which will extend from, and carry waste water and sewage under and from, the property legally described on the attached Exhibit B (the “Grantee’s Property”) to the sanitary sewer line existing on Grantor’s property as depicted on Exhibit C. Grantor has agreed to grant and convey to Grantee an easement over and across a portion of the Grantor’s Property for the purposes stated herein, on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: Grant of Easement 1..Grantor does hereby grant unto Grantee a permanent utility easement over, across, on, under and through that portion of the Grantor’s Property described on the attached Exhibit C (the “Easement Property”). The easement rights conveyed to Grantee hereunder shall include the rights on the part of the Grantee, its contractors, employees, agents, successors and assigns, to repair, maintain, and replace a sewer line and appurtenances within the Easement Property. The easement rights granted herein shall include the right of ingress and egress over, under and across that portion of Grantor’s Property as may be necessary to perform the work associated with the exercise of Grantee’s easement rights granted herein. 1 362917.1 Grantor’s Covenants 2.. Grantor covenants and warrants unto Grantee that Grantor is the fee owner of the Grantor’s Property and has the right to convey the easements described herein; that the title to the Grantor’s Property is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except as set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto, and that there are no parties with any interest in the Grantor’s Property which would require a consent to the granting of the easements described herein, except as identified on Exhibit D. Grantor agrees that Grantor will indemnify, defend and hold the Grantee harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, suits or claims arising from the breach of the foregoing covenants. Restrictions on Easement Areas 3.. Grantor agrees that the Easement Property shall be subject to the following restrictions: (i)No improvements of any kind shall be constructed by Grantor within the Easement Property; (ii)Vegetation within the Easement Property shall be limited to grass cover and shall specifically exclude any trees or deep rooted vegetation which would interfere with the maintenance, use and repair of the sewer line and appurtenances; (iii)No grading or filling shall be permitted by Grantor within the Easement Property; and (iv)Grantor shall not place, construct, store or permit any obstruction or materials permanent or temporary in nature within the Easement Property which will or might interrupt, interfere with or impede the maintenance, use and repair of the sewer line and easement rights granted herein. The foregoing shall not limit rights on the part of the Grantee pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Agreement, or obligations on the part of Grantee, hereby established, to fill and grade the Easement Property to substantially its pre-existing condition upon completion of any repair or replacement of the sewer line and appurtenances installed by Grantee within the Easement Property. Enforcement 4.. The provisions of this Agreement may be enforced by Grantee in any manner provided by law or equity, including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: (i) Injunctive relief; (ii)Action for specific performance; and/or (iii)Action for money damages. Controlling Law 5.. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, that provision shall be severed from this Agreement and the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2 362917.1 Duration; Binding Effect 6.. The easements granted herein shall be perpetual and shall run with and bind the title to Grantor’s Property and shall be appurtenant to and run with the title to the Grantee’s Property. The covenants, rights, obligations and restrictions granted, conveyed or established by this Agreement shall be interpreted and construed as integral, essential and non-separable limitations on and definitions of the nature and intent of the easements created herein. Counterparts 7..This document may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same original instrument. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument the date and year first above written. Aaron Macke Todd Hulse Sarah Macke Sara Hulse 3 362917.1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2012, by Aaron Macke and Sarah Macke, husband and wife. ____________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2012, Todd Hulse and Sara Hulse, husband and wife. ____________________________________ Notary Public Drafted by: Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612/339-6321 4 362917.1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Grantor’s Property Real property in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot Two (2), Block One (1), IVY RIDGE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Certificate No. 145915 362917.1 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Grantee’s Property Real property in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot One (1), Block One (1), IVY RIDGE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. 362917.1 EXHIBIT C Easement Property An easement for utility purposes over, across, on, under, and through that part of Lot 2, Block 1, IVY RIDGE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, said easement being a 15.00 foot wide strip of land, the center line of which is described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence southerly, along the east line of said Lot 2, a distance of 304.74 feet to the point of beginning of the center line to be described; thence deflecting to the right 136 degrees 31 minutes 13 seconds to a northwesterly line of said Lot 2 and said center line there terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened so as to begin on the east line and to terminate on the northwesterly line of said Lot 2. 362917.1 EXHIBIT D Existing Liens and Encumbrances Easements, restrictions, covenants and agreements of record, if any. 362917.1 (reserved for recording data) _____________________________________________________________________________ CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE The undersigned (the “Mortgagee”) is a mortgagee of a portion of the Easement Property described in that certain Utility Easement Agreement dated _______________, 2012, to which this Consent of Easement Holder is attached (the “Easement Agreement”), pursuant to that certain Mortgage dated November 23, 2010, recorded on December 9, 2010, as Document No. 672413 (the “Mortgage”). Mortgagee hereby consents to and joins in the Easement Agreement; provided, however, that such consent and joinder does not modify or amend the terms and conditions of the Mortgage, and the lien of the Mortgage shall remain as a lien on the property described in the Mortgage until released or satisfied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Mortgagee has caused this Consent of Mortgagee to be executed on the _____ day of _______________, 20__. ASSOCIATED BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: _______________________________________ Its: ____________________________________ STATE OF __________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ________________ ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ____ day of ___________, 20__, by ________________________, the __________________ of Associated Bank National Association, on behalf of the bank. ___________________________________ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612/339-6321 362917.1 (reserved for recording data) _____________________________________________________________________________ CONSENT OF EASEMENT HOLDER The City of Mendota Heights (the “City”) is the owner of an easement over, across and under a portion of the Easement Property described in that certain Utility Easement Agreement dated _______________, 2012, to which this Consent of Easement Holder is attached (the “Utility Easement Agreement”), pursuant to that certain Easement Agreement dated June 13, 1974, recorded on August 7, 1974, as Document No. 74355 (the “City Easement”). City hereby consents to and joins in the Utility Easement Agreement; provided, however, that such consent and joinder does not modify or amend the terms and conditions of the City Easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Consent of Easement Holder to be executed on the _____ day of _______________, 2012. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: _______________________________________ Its: ____________________________________ STATE OF __________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ________________ ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ____ day of ___________, 20__, by ________________________, the __________________ of City of Mendota Heights, on behalf of the City. ___________________________________ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612/339-6321 362917.1 6n. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Municipal Bond Coverage BACKGROUND The city has received a request from the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association to increase the amount of the bond that is currently carried on our property/casualty insurance policy. The city currently has a bond in the amount of $200,000 for coverage of damages should an employee fail to perform their job duties. The bond that is carried by the city also covers the fire relief association. State statute requires the relief association to have a bond that is 10% of the money in their Special Fund. The current bond is short of the coverage required. If this bond coverage is not increased, the fire aid paid to the relief association through the city will be withheld until the required coverage is obtained. We asked for a quote to increase our bond from $200,000 to $500,000. The premium for this coverage will go from $597 a year to $779 annually. BUDGET IMPACT The increased premium will be paid for with the annual premium for property/casualty insurance policy. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council direct staff to increase the coverage of the municipal bond from $200,000 to $500,000 for the insurance policy that renewed on November 1, 2012. 6o. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO : Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Approval of employment of part-time winter 2012/2013 seasonalice rink attendants BACKGROUND Staff is requesting council approval for the hiring of the below listed part-time winter seasonal ice rink attendants. All final candidates were offered their position contingent upon a successful completion of a criminal background check and council approval. The proposed salaries are consistent with the part-time seasonal staff pay matrix. Parks and Recreation –Seasonal Rink Attendant Positions 2012/2013 Rink Attendants Hourly Wage Rink Attendants Hourly Wage Samantha Garretson $8.75 Erin Patrick $8.25 Jordan Kelliher $8.75 Grant Poole $8.25 Katherine Kulhanek $8.25 Trew Poole $8.50 Leah Kunkel $8.50 John Remachel $8.25 Sydney Latterell $8.50 Marie Thornton $8.25 Kieran Lynch $8.25 Zackary Zafke $8.25 Brian Meyers $8.50 Jake Wittrock $9.00 Parker Nickelson $8.50 Alexandra Henderson $22.50 (Skating Instructor)/$8.75 (Rink Attendant sub) BUDGET IMPACT As noted above. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that city council approve the above mentioned part-time seasonal position candidates for employment for the winter 2012/2013 season. If the city council concurs in the recommendation, it should pass a motion to approve the above listedseasonal hires. 6p. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Terms BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights is well served by three commissions which are advisory to the city council. Members of the airport relations commission, parks and recreation commission and planning commission serve three year terms and are appointed by the city council. The following commissioners are at the end of their current term and eligible for reappointment: Planning Commission: Ansis Viksnins and Litton Field, Jr. Airport Relations: Sally Lorberbaum and Bill Dunn Parks and Recreation: Stephanie Levine and Michael Toth In addition to these terms, there will be one full(three year) term open on the planning commission, as Steve Norton takes on his new role with the city council. Staff proposes the following process for appointment and reappointment for our advisory commissions: Publicize the opening for a planning commission appointment starting December 5, 2012, with applications due to City Administrator Justin Miller by January 24, 2012. Invite all commissioners with expiring terms to submit a written request for reappointment by December 13, 2012. If any commissioners do not request reappointment, those openings would be o publicized starting December 14, 2012. A resolution reappointing commissioners would be included on the agenda for the January 8, 2012 city council meeting. Interview candidates for commission openings Tuesday, February 5, 2013, starting at 6:00 p.m. A resolution appointing new commissioner(s) would be included on the agenda for the February19, 2013 city council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION tm; E Staff recommends the proposed timeline for appointment and reappointment to our advisory commissions. If the city council wishes to implement the recommendation, pass a motion directing staff to seek applicants for advisory commission terms. This action requires a simple majority vote. tm; E 6q. 6r. 6s. 8a. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2013Final Budget and Tax Levy BACKGROUND On September 4, 2012 council adopted resolution 2012-75 approving the preliminary tax levy for the year 2013. The preliminary levy of $6,416,559 was certified to Dakota County in September 2012. There have been no changes to the amount to be levied. The only change made to the preliminary budget was to update the Met Council charges in the sewer utility budget. This change does not impact the amount to be levied. Thefive yearcapital plan is attached to this memo and will be included in the final 2013budget. The final copies of the budget will be available once it has been adopted.The proposed budget is currently available for viewing on the city’s website. The final budget will be available for viewing on the website or in person at city hall once the 2013 budget has been adopted. The city will accept public comments regarding the final budget and levy for 2013. Attached are the slides that I will be presenting at the meeting. The 2013 tax rate, levy and budget will be reviewed at that time.At this hearing, residents are free to address the council regarding their questions or concerns with the 2013 levy or budget. Levy Comparison 2012 Levy 2013 Proposed 2013 Final General Fund $5,193,935 $5,331,402 $5,331,402 Emergency Preparedness 25,000 25,000 25,000 Fire Relief 68,500 68,000 68,000 Infrastructure/Facility Reserve 20,000 20,000 20,000 Equipment Reserve 20,000 20,000 20,000 Legal & Contingency 40,000 40,000 40,000 Improvement Bonds 441,786 545,471 545,471 Equipment Certificates 53,004 52,059 52,059 Market Value Referendum 262,847 266,627 266,627 Street Light District 45,000 48,000 48,000 Total Levy $6,170,072 $6,416,559 $6,416,559 BUDGET IMPACT The final levy proposed is $246,487 greater than 2012. This represents a 3.99% increase for the year. The total 2013 budget is $11,212,628 for all funds. This is an increase of 7.73% over 2012. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept public comments on the 2013 levy and budget.After the hearing has been conducted, adopt the attached resolution approving the final 2013 levy and budget. City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2012-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2012 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2013AND ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2013 WHEREAS , the city has previously adopted a preliminary tax levy in resolution 2012-75; and WHEREAS , the city will accept public comments on December 4, 2012 on the proposed budget and tax levy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the city council adopts the following levy for tax against all taxable property in the City of Mendota Heights for collection in the year 2013. 2013Final General Fund $ 5,331,402 Emergency Preparedness $ 25,000 Fire Relief $ 68,000 Facility Reserve $ 20,000 Equipment Reserve $ 20,000 Legal & Contingency $ 40,000 General Levy$ 5,504,402 Special Debt Levies Improvement Bonds $ 545,471 Equipment Certificates $ 52,059 Total Special Levy$ 597,530 Market Value Referendum Levy $ 266,627 Street Light District Levy $ 48,000 Net Certified Levy $ 6,416,559 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the budget as proposed is deemed to be practical and reasonable to maintain the city operations and is hereby approved. The 2013 budget reflects $11,212,628of expenses for all funds. The clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of December, 2012. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 9a. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Denying aVariance,Planning Case 2012-32 BACKGROUND Sean Hoffmann, on behalf of Mendota Heights BP, submitted a planning application requesting a variance to city code prohibiting illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays or lights. Mr. Hoffmann would like to replace the existing pylon sign at 2030 Dodd Road with a monument sign which includes an LED display for gas prices. The property is guided and zoned for mixed-use, and is currently used as a motor fuel station. The planning commission heard this request at their November 27, 2012 meeting. Mr. Grittman reviewed his planning memo which has been attached. The planning commission sought clarification on the current code.Mr. Grittman explained that the current code prohibits signs in which the direct source of light is visible. The commission discussed the code in very specific detail; Jake Sedlacek shared the city staff interpretation that current code is intended to prohibit LED displays, including the type being requested. Mr. Sedlacek reported that the applicant had been advised that there were two potential options to get approval for the sign: propose a change to city code, or request a variance for the proposed LED display. Mr. Hoffmann described his application and how the proposed sign, with LED gas prices, would fit with the neighboring parcels. Mr. Hoffmann stated his opinion that the LED display would improve safety for drivers trying to read the sign, and for employees attempting to update the sign. Mr. Hoffmann stated that he submitted the request for a variance, rather than a chance to City Code, to provide the city greater discretion to evaluate this and future requests. Following discussion, the planning commission acted on the request, but also recommended that city staff propose an ordinance amendment to allow electronic displays for gas prices at motor fuel stations. There were no comments at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The planning commission voted to pass a motion recommending denial of the variance as attached 7:0. If the city council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR ELECTRONIC SIGN DISPLAY AT 2030 DODD ROAD. This matter requires a simple majority vote by the city council The planning commission voted to pass a motion recommending that staff prepare an application to amend code to allow for electronic display of gas prices at motor fuel stations with limiting conditions.If the city council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion directing staff to submit a planning application amending City Code pertaining to electronic displays at motor fuel stations. This matter requires a simple majority vote by the city council. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN DISPLAY AT 2030 DODD ROAD WHEREAS Sean Hoffman,on behalf of Mendota Heights BP, has applied for a variance to install LED gas prices on a new monument sign at 2030 Dodd Road(PID Section 25, Twn 28, Range 23, PT OF W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 COM ON CEN TH # 49 275 FT SW OF ITS INT WITH TH # 100 SE AT 90D 143 FT SW AT 90D 117 FT NW 149.29 FT TO CEN TH # 49 NE ON CEN 159.9 FT TO BEG SUBJ TO TH #49as proposed in planning case 2012-32; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their meeting November 27, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that variance asproposed in planning case 2012-32 is hereby denied with the findings of The property is not unique in that numerous properties rely on changeable copy messages The practical difficulties noted by the applicant relate to the operational factors of the business, rather than the property The alternative sign technology is not necessary to make reasonable use of the property The zoning ordinance permits changeable copy signs, but not the proposed technology, and as such changeable copy signs are not prohibited Although the sign would be to the proposed site under this application, approval could lead to a precedent in considering similar applications in the area Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fourth day of December CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, ATTEST Lorri Smith,City MEMORANDUM Background and Description of Request: Analysis: 2 3 Action Requested: Staff Recommendation: Supplementary Materials: 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Variance to Allow an LED Electronic Sign Display 2030 Dodd Road 5 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance to Allow an LED Electronic Sign Display 2030 Dodd Road 6 N Freeway Rd Freeway Rd 2030 Dodd Road Mendakota Dr Site Location Map Water/WetlandsCity Roads Major Roads Municipal Boundaries 9b. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND BUDGET IMPACT RECOMMENDATION CITY OF MENDOTA DAKOTA COUNTY, RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE WITH 1480 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL AREA AT 1170 DODD ROAD WHEREAS, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, CITY CITY OF MENDOTA CITY OF MENDOTA DAKOTA COUNTY, RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT IMPROVED STREET FRONTAGE AT 1170 DODD ROAD WHEREAS, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BEIT FURTHER RESOLVED, CITY CITY OF MENDOTA MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: November 21, 2012 MEETING DATE: November 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Construct Single Family Home and Attached Garage CASE NO: Case No. 2012-33; NAC Case 254.04 12.23 APPLICANT(S): Michael and Theresea Hueg LOCATION: 1170 Dodd Road ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicants are proposing to construct a single family home on a parcel in the Somerset View subdivision between Dodd Road and Dorset Road. The parcel sits at the southwest corner of Somerset Road and Burr Oak Avenue both of which are platted but unbuilt streets. have at least 100 feet of frontage on improved public streets. While this parcel has much more than 100 feet, neither of the streets is improved, requiring the approval of a variance to permit the construction. As a part of the request, the applicants also propose to construct an attached garage of approximately 1,480 square feet. The zoning ordinance specifies that attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet up to 1,500 square feet may be allowed only with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Finally, the applicants are seeking approval of a license to construct private improvements (a private driveway) within an unimproved public right of way. The a driveway along the unimproved Burr Oak Avenue to its intersection with Dorset Road. While this request is not technically a zoning application, it is relevant to the consideration of the variance request. Analysis: Variance. When considering a variance, the zoning ordinance provides the following requirements: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Current variance code l ordinance this refers to varying from performance standards in the ordinance. In summary, the City must find the following: The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. The proposed manner of use is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and with the Comprehensive Plan. he manner of use. The difficulties are unique to the property and not created by the owner. The use of the property for single family purposes is consistent with the ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and the surrounding neighborhood. The lack of improved street frontage is a vestige of the pattern of development and construction over time, leaving this parcel surrounded by developed parcels. In this case, the applicant could avoid the need for a variance by petitioning for construction of the street. The significant issue with that option is that street construction would not appear to benefit any other property. Moreover, as much as 350 feet of street would need to be constructed to provide the proper access for this one lot, and at least another 400 feet of construction to avoid ending that street in a dead-end. Thus, it would appear that the practical difficulties faced by this parcel are unique, and would qualify the parcel for variance consideration under the requirements of the ordinance. Complicating this analysis, however, is that the subject property is about 1.5 acres in size, raising the possibility that a future owner would seek to request further subdivision. The permission to develop a lot without full street frontage is not a preferred option, but could be considered appropriate for a single home. Multiplying this pattern could erase To resolve this concern, staff would recommend that a restrictive covenant be added as a condition of any variance approval which prohibits further subdivision and/or development of the property for more than the one single family home without full street construction, eliminating the prospect for further variances. Finally, with regard to the variance request, the issue of development impacts must be considered. As a companion request to the variance, the applicant would need permission of the City Council to construct a privately maintained driveway within the right of way of Burr Oak Avenue. This request is complicated by the existence of a similar driveway that provides access to 3 Dorset Road within the Burr Oak right of way. To provide the access requested by the applicant, a new driveway that joins the current driveway would need to be constructed (creating a shared driveway condition) or the Historically, the City has tried to avoid new shared driveway arrangements due to problems with cooperative use and maintenance. As a result, the side-by-side private driveways could be constructed, keeping the . This would entail the reconstruction of a portion of the existing driveway. The applicant would need to enter into a license agreement that provides for private maintenance and indemnifies the City from liability for issues related to the construction of use of those improvements. In addition to driveway construction, drainage can be a concern with new pavement and grading. The applicant should provide a grading and drainage plan to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer, with the additional requirement that no new run-off be directed onto adjoining private property. Conditional Use Permit. The City requires that attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet (up to a maximum floor area of 1,500 square feet) be processed with a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the CUP provision is to ensure that the proposed garage is compatible with the proposed use of the property and with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the parcel (as noted) is well over an acre in size, and the garage size would appear to have little or no impact on any of the surrounding properties. The applicants have indicated on their plan and in their application narrative that they will meet the uble door. The size of the garage is proposed to be approximately 1,480 square feet, consistent with the requirements of the CUP provision. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider from among the following alternative recommendations: Variance: (1) Recommendation for approval of the variance to construct a single family home on a parcel without improved public street frontage, based on the draft findings attached to this report, and with the following conditions: a. Future subdivision or construction of any more than the one proposed single family home is prohibited without construction of full public street b. Execution of a license agreement providing for construction and way, along with an indemnification of the City for liability related to those improvements. c. Construction, and related reconstruction, of driveways within the right of way to provide side-by-side private driveways maintaining access to the property at 3 Dorset Road, and a total driveway curb cut width at Dorset Road of no more than 25 feet. d. Provision of a grading and drainage plan, with existing and proposed stormwater models, signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Minnesota, and acceptable to the City Engineer. e. Planning and construction of improvements so as to replace all existing storm water management features for purpose and function, and to ensure no additional stormwater runoff impacts other private property in the area. f. No building permit shall be issued unless the applicant provides evidence that a copy of the resolution approving the variance, and noting the restriction on future subdivision, has been recorded with the Dakota County Property Records. (2) Recommendation of denial of the variance, based on the draft findings for denial attached to this report. Conditional Use Permit: (1) Recommendation of approval of the CUP for an attached garage of approximately 1,480 square feet, based on findings that the proposed garage will be consistent with the development of the subject property, compatible with the surrounding area, and will not negatively impact other property in the neighborhood. (2) Recommendation of denial of the CUP for an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, based on findings that the over-sized garage would not be compatible with the character of the area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Variance and CUP, with the conditions as noted. The conditions have been proposed (along with the draft findings) to recognize that one single family lot exists in the area as a lot of record, and the improvements necessary to provide public street access to the property can be reasonably seen to be out of scale with the construction of a home on the existing parcel. However, further development of the property should only be considered with street access due to the need for better public service vehicles, avoiding a profusion of private use of the public rights of way, and managing traffic generation in the area. With regard to the CUP, there are no apparent issues with the proposed garage, and as it complies with the terms of the zoning ordinance, staff recommends approval as submitted. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 11/8/12 2. Site Location Map Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Variance for Single Family Home on Parcel Without Improved Street Frontage 1170 Dodd Road 1. The proposed single family home is to be constructed on an existing lot of record within an established single family neighborhood, a reasonable use of the subject parcel. 2. The property is zoned and guided for single family residential use, consistent with the proposal. 3. The property has platted right of way on two sides, but no constructed public street improvements nearby. 4. The parcel is more than 1.5 acres in area, and can accommodate the construction without creating negative impacts on the area. 5. The lack of improved street frontage is unique to this parcel, in that all other divided parcels in nearby proximity to the subject property have such access. 6. The lack of improved street frontage creates practical difficulties in establishing the proposed reasonable of this property. 7. The Burr Oak right of way can accommodate an additional driveway without creating a need for shared driveway use or maintenance (although the neighbors may choose to do so without requiring it). 8. While a single family home may be constructed on the existing lot of record with only nominal impacts, further subdivision and/or home construction would be inconsistent with these findings. 9. With the conditions imposed on future development, as well as driveway construction and grading and drainage control, the proposed home will be otherwise consistent with zoning and land use plan directives for the parcel and the neighborhood. Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance for Single Family Home on Parcel Without Improved Street Frontage 1170 Dodd Road 1. The proposed single family home would be more than 300 feet from the nearest public street, raising issues of public safety and emergency vehicle access. 2. The use of the public right of way for private driveway improvements necessitates either side-by-side private driveways at Dorset Road, or shared design. 3. Without direct public safety access, the proposed residential use of the property is not reasonable. 4. The establishment of a single family home on a large parcel without street access can be seen as setting the stage for future requests for similar substandard development. 5. The practical difficulty is not unique to this parcel in that the City commonly requires fully developed public street access for all parcels, and such street access can be provided within existing right of way. 6. The practical difficulty can be seen as an economic condition rather than a physical attribute of the land, and economic conditions alone may not be used as the rationale for approval of a variance. 7. The undeveloped rights-of-way for Bur Oak Avenue and Somerset Avenue were specifically platted to service future infill development in the area, With the expectation that upon infill development construction, full street improvements would be installed. Ellen St John St Butler Ave 1170 Dodd Road Subject Parcel Maple Park Dr Site Location Map Water/WetlandsCity Roads Major Roads Municipal Boundaries CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR AVARIANCE TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET AT LOTS NINE THROUGH TWELVE, BLOCK SEVEN, SOMERSET VIEW TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday,November 27, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Michael and Theresea Hueg to construct a single family home on Lots 9 through 12, Block 7, Somerset View.The parcel is bounded on the north by the undeveloped Burr Oak Avenue right of way and on the west by the undeveloped Somerset Road right of way. A variance is requested to develop a home without 100 feet of frontage on an improved right of way. The applicant is also seeking a conditional use permit to construct a garage greater than 1200 square feet.This application has been assigned planning case number 2012-33. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Lorri Smith City Clerk 9c. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Requests to Utilize Unimproved Right of Way BACKGROUND Planning application 2012-33, submitted by Mike and Theresea Hueg, seeks to construct a single family home on an undeveloped lot in the Somerset View plat. To access this parcel, The utilize the Burr Oak Avenue unimproved right of way. Staff has also received a request from Tim and Mary Kirby, 3 Dorset Road, to formally recognize their private driveway, currently located within the Burr Oak Avenue right of way. which was approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Ttuminous driveway at that time, wide enough to park two cars side by sideto access their garage; the gravel driveway has existed since the parcel was developed. Staff has noted that the right of way is also utilized by property owners at 4 Beebe Avenue and 1 Dorset Avenue, for driveways of much shorter lengths. In addition to private driveways, several adjoining land owners utilize the public right of way as yard space, including fences, plantings and recent landscaping. The right of way itself is filled with mature trees, and includes a city- constructed rainwater garden, which serves to control storm water from draining into private property. At a public hearing on the Hueg planning application, four residents spoke in opposition to the use of the Burr Oak Avenue right of way for an additional access from Dorset Road. Residents expressed concern about water runoff and change to the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, staff has had phone conversation with an additional resident who is concerned about loss of mature trees within any portion of the right of way. Attached to this memo are a license request from Mike and Theresea Hueg for a new private right of way and a request from Tim and Mary Kirby to formally license their existing driveway both the paved and unpaved portions. Both requestors utilize language from existing licenses within the city of Mendota Heights, with slight modifications. The City Attorney will be prepared to answer questions on license language. Staff recommends, however, that city council first consider the broader question of the appropriateness of utilizing the right of way. Each request for a license includes a site plan the proposed plans are in conflict. The Hueg plan shows a new single driveway down the middle of the right of way, to accommodate a single- The Kirby plan shows the existing driveway: this includes the permitted paved portion which is two-cars wide and runs down the middle of the right of way. This site plan also includes the unpaved portion of the driveway, and the existing rainwater garden. Neither plan details unlicensed and non-permitted uses of right of way by other adjoining land owners. would be to construct a street built to city standards. As an alternative, staff finds the request to utilize unimproved right of way for a private driveway as an acceptable solution. In this alternative, access could be made from Dorset Road, Dodd Road or Mears Avenue. A third option is to utilize a shared driveway from Dodd Road. intend to access utilities from Dorset Road. These utilities will be built to city standards, as city staff does not recommend granting a license for private utilities within the right of way. Construction work for utilities will involve removal of improvements currently within the Burr Oak Avenue right of way. Given the conflicting requests, staff would encourage city council to provide feedback to staff and preferred access. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that city council provide input on the license requests. Staff also recommends that both license applicants be directed to submit one site plan which accommodates both requests. If council wishes to implement the recommendation, pass a motion tabling the license requests to utilize Burr Oak Avenue right of way for private access to a later meeting. This action requires a simple majority vote by the city council. 9d. DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tamara Schutta, HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Report on City Administrator’s Performance Review BACKGROUND Prior to the regular city council meeting, the city council will be conducting a performance review of the city administrator. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute 13D.05, the review may be held in a closed session but the conclusions must be reported at the next open meeting of the city council. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council summarize the conclusions of the city administrator’s performance review at this time.