2017-02-07 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 7, 2017 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approve January 17, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Approve January 17, 2017 City Council Workshop and Closed Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge January 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
d. Approve Resolution 2017-16 Granting a Permanent Easement to Dakota County
e. Approve Repairs to Heating, Ventilation, Gas Monitoring Systems at the Fire Station
f. Approve the Purchase of a John Deere Mower and Broom for the Public Works Department
g. Amending Agreement with St. Paul Water Regarding Water Surcharge
h. Approve Disposal of City Property from Police Department
i. Approve Building Activity Report for December 2016
j. Approve Treasurer’s Report
k. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations - none
8. Public Hearing
a. Resolution 2017-14 Ordering Improvement Project - Kensington Neighborhood
b. Resolution 2017-15 Ordering Improvement Project - Mendota Heights Road Street
Rehabilitation
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2017-11 Approving a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit for 1919 Hunter Lane
b. Resolution 2017-17 Approving a Lot Split for 697 Wesley Lane
c. Approve Resolution 2017-18 Renaming of the Mendota Heights 5K
d. Authorize Contract with JEA Architects for Architectural Services for City Hall Lower Level
10. Council Comments
11. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, January 17, 2017
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 Garlock thanked all those present for their patience as the City Council concluded a closed
session, causing a delay in the start of this meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
The following members were present: Mayor Garlock, Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, and
Petschel.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The City Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
SWEARING IN OF POLICE CHIEF KELLY MCCARTHY
City Administrator Mark McNeill presided over the swearing in of Police Chief Kelly McCarthy.
APPOINT DAVID DREELAN AS FIRE CHIEF;
APPROVE PROCESS TO FILL ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITION
page 3
Councilmember Duggan moved, since all interested parties were present, that this item be moved up on
the agenda.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that Fire Chief John Maczko had previously announced his
retirement effective February 28, 2017. Two applicants from within the department were interviewed.
The Selection Committee is recommending for appointment Assistant Chief David Dreelan to fill the
vacancy effective March 1, 2017. Administrator McNeill shared the background, experience, and
qualifications of Mr. Dreelan; noting he is also Deputy Chief for the City of Plymouth’s Fire
Department.
If appointed, staff recommended that a notice of vacancy for the Assistant Fire Chief be posted through
February 3, and that the same selection committee used for the Fire Chief position be reconvened to
make the recommendation on the Assistant Chief position to the Council on February 21, 2017.
Councilmember Duggan moved to direct that the notice of vacancy for the Assistant Chief position be
posted through February 3rd, and that the Selection Committee be reconvened to hold interviews and
make a recommendation to the Council on February 21, 2017 for the Assistant Fire Chief position.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Paper moved to appoint David Dreelan as Mendota Heights Fire Chief effective March
1, 2017.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Duggan commented on the tradition of the Dreelan family and their commitment to the
City of Mendota Heights.
New Fire Chief David Dreelan expressed his appreciation at being chosen for such an honor and gave a
brief history of an event that took place with his father, Mr. Paul Dreelan, who retired from the Mendota
Heights Fire Department after 21 years of service.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for
execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items b) Approval of January 5, 2017
Council Workshop Minutes and d) Approve Reappointments to Commissions.
a. Approval of January 3, 2017 City Council Minutes
page 4
b. Approval of January 5, 2017 Council Workshop Minutes
c. Approve Council Meeting Dates & Times
d. Approve Reappointments to Commissions
e. Award of Professional Services Contract for the Dodd Road Trail Project
f. Approve Purchase of Bobcat Skid-Steer Loader
g. Approve Vacation Accrual for Assistant City Administrator
h. Approve Hiring of Community Development Director
i. Approve Resolution 2017-13 Application for 2017 Dakota County Community Development Block
Grant Funding
j. Approve Resolution 2017-12 Adopting Dakota County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Authorize
Submittal of Adopted Plan to HSEM and FEMA
k. Approve Extension of JPA With Dakota County for Emergency Management Services
l. Approve City Hall Landscaping Project
m. Approve December 2016 Fire Synopsis
n. Approve October & November 2016 Treasurer’s Report
o. Approve of Claims List
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
B) APPROVAL OF JANUARY 5, 2017 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
Mayor Garlock noted that on Thursday, January 5, 2017, the City Council went into closed session for
the purpose of an on-going litigation. By law, a summary is to be publically made at the next open
meeting of the City Council. Therefore, he reported to the public that no action was taken during that
closed session.
Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the January 5, 2017 Council Workshop Minutes with the
statement as read by Mayor Garlock.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) APPROVE REAPPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that interviews for two openings on the Parks and Recreation
Commission were held at a workshop prior to this meeting. He announced that Mr. Bob Klepperich and
Mr. Steve Goldade would be the appointees to fill the two vacancies.
Councilmember Petschel moved to make the following reappointments:
• Commissioner David Sloan to the Noise Oversight Committee-6-25-2017 through 6-25-2019
page 5
• Student Representatives Myles Bowen and Clair Dunham to the Parks and Recreation
Commission-2-1-2017 through 2-1-2019
And to make the following new appointments:
• Bob Klepperich and Steve Goldade to the Parks and Recreation Commission
Councilmember Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
No items scheduled.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR PILOT KNOB ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WITH DAKOTA
COUNTY & ORDINANCE NO. 507 ESTABLISHING “NO PARKING” ZONES
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the proposed Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota
County and Ordinance 507, establishing “no parking” zones. Dakota County is proposing to widen
Mendota Heights Road from 1,000 feet west of CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to 800 feet east of CSAH
31 to create left turn lanes, signal revisions at CSAH 31 and Mendota Heights Road, and the conversion
of the CSAH 31 and Northland Drive intersection to a 3⁄4 intersection. The project also requires the
establishment of “No Parking” zones.
The “No Parking” zone currently on Mendota Heights Road is from Northland Drive to Pilot Knob
Road; however, the project would require that be expanded to the east. Also, Northland Drive would
have an established “No Parking” zone within 250 feet of Pilot Knob Road. Currently, the east side of
Northland Drive is posted as “No Parking”; however, it is not identified in the city code.
Dakota County has secured federal funding of over $700,000 for this project. The remaining portion of
the project would be divided with the County paying 55% and the City paying 45%. It is estimated that
construction costs are $35,000 and approximately $42,900 for engineering. There will also be some
minor right-of-way acquisitions at the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Mendota Heights Road for
the new turn signals to be installed.
page 6
The County held a business engagement open house on January 12 with three people attending
representing two businesses. No written comments have been received.
Mayor Garlock noted that there have been a high number of crashes at the affected intersection and that
completion of this project would help to minimize those.
Councilmember Petschel asked if this was before the Council previously. Mr. Ruzek replied that the
former Council tabled this item and desired to have the new Council be the decision maker.
Councilmember Petschel stated that the issue was that the vacant property in this area has been almost
impossible to develop because of the traffic movement. This proposed project would make it more
difficult. The purpose of tabling was to be able to reach out to a previous developer that was interested
in this vacant lot, to see if they would still be interested if this project were to occur.
Mr. Ruzek replied that staff did not reach out to a particular developer as there is no one individual
developer tied to the vacant lot.
Councilmember Miller asked if the signals being changed at Northland Drive meant that travelers could
no longer cross Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Miller then
asked where drivers could make a U-turn. Mr. Ruzek stated that traffic coming out and heading west on
Northland Drive would have to go north on Pilot Knob Road and immediately make a U-turn back to get
onto I-494.
Councilmember Duggan asked if signage would be installed informing drivers that it was no longer a
through-road. Mr. Ruzek replied that the project would include all appropriate signage.
Councilmember Miller asked why a stoplight was not being installed. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be
too close to I-494. The State of Minnesota would likely deny permission to have a new stoplight in close
proximity to two existing ones.
Councilmember Petschel asked what reason is being given for wanting to do this. Mr. Ruzek replied that
it is the frequency of crashes in this area. Traffic waits to head southbound on Pilot Knob Road, then
tends to make unsafe turning movements which results in a high crash volume.
Councilmember Miller asked if the primary focus of this project was to redo Mendota Heights Road and
the signal or is it to prevent cars from crossing Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be a
combination of both.
Mr. Tom Anton, Design Engineer from Dakota County, noted that this project started out as a result of a
study done by the Traffic Group, who identified the Northland Drive intersection as a problem
intersection. In 2015, Dakota County applied for Highway Safety Funding. This project includes the 3/4
intersection at Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive. Knowing that those left-turning vehicles would be
diverted to Mendota Heights Road, they included the widening of Mendota Heights Road for dedicated
left-turn lane.
page 7
Mr. Anton stated that Dakota County has been successful in acquiring the right-of-ways needed for the
project. The County is wishing to move forward with their plans and is looking for approval from the
Council to begin construction this summer.
Councilmember Miller asked what a 3/4 intersection is. Mr. Anton replied that this is an engineering
term for a partial access intersection. If a right-angle intersection has been designed with all turning
movements allowed, adding creating a median with in “in-bound” turn lane only effectively reduces the
conflict points by reducing a left-turn movement. That creates a 3/4 intersection.
Councilmember Miller asked if there were any other comparable projects completed within the County
and what were the results. Mr. Anton answered that there have been several projects where they have
installed a center median to restrict movements at problem intersections and they have been successful.
Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the Joint Powers Agreement for with Dakota County.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Duggan moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 507 AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER
3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE AMENDING PROHIBITED PARKING ON NORTHLAND
DRIVE AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
C) APPROVE SHARED RECYCLING COORDINATOR POSITION
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that this is an opportunity for Council to consider a shared-
employee that would help the City with promoting recycling. Currently, the City receives money from
Dakota County to facilitate recycling at least among its municipal waste, including city buildings and
parks. Recycling was one of the job responsibilities of the former Planner’s position; however, after
Nolan Wall’s departure and a reorganization of duties was completed, recycling is now the
responsibility of the Public Works Director.
The City participated in preliminary discussions with the cities of Inver Grove Heights, South St. Paul,
and West St. Paul to talk about a shared position. None of those cities are large enough to warrant a full-
time position. In the end, Inver Grove Heights decided not to participate; but South St. Paul and West St.
Paul each have committed 10 hours a week to a shared position. They have made an offer to an
individual who would be paid in the $17-$18/hour range. The City of Mendota Heights has included
monies in the budget this year if the Council chooses to participate. After discussions with the other two
cities, it was determined that Mendota Heights could have a morning or afternoon each week [4 hours
per week] for the use of this person. Funding for that number of hours would come to approximately
$4,000/year. The City could use this position to coordinate Clean-up Day activities; the position could
also be available to residents and businesses who have questions about recycling.
page 8
If approved, a Joint Powers Agreement memorializing the details will be presented at a future meeting
for consideration.
Councilmember Miller asked for specifics on what this person would be doing. Administrator McNeill
replied that this person would work for the City on-site for four hours per week. Duties would include
attendance at the Dakota County Solid Waste meetings on behalf of the City; they would look at the
Clean-up Day contract and organize that event, and other activities that could be done better to serve the
community in terms of recycling.
Councilmember Miller asked if this person would be responsible for ensuring that recycling is truly
getting to the right channels. Administrator McNeill replied that this would be the responsibility of the
solid waste haulers at the residential property level since the City has an open-system. However, the
Coordinator would make sure that those opportunities are being fully utilized at the City level.
Councilmember Duggan asked when they anticipate this position would start. Administrator McNeill
estimated that within 30 days, the Joint Powers Agreement could be before the Council for approval.
Councilmember Duggan asked if one City would be coordinating this individual. Administrator McNeill
replied that the City of West St. Paul would be the lead city handling this position.
Councilmember Miller asked if this person would also be responsible for grant applications.
Administrator McNeill replied that if there are grants available, the City could pursue that.
Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize participation in a shared recycling position with the Cities
of West St. Paul and South St. Paul for four hours per week.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) APPROVE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT 800 MHz RADIOS
Police Sergeant Eric Petersen explained a request to replace the Police Department’s portable radios.
These radios will no longer be supported by the manufacturer. Funds have been set aside annually for
the past 7 to 9 years for this purchase.
A bid was received from Ancom - Motorola, based on the State Contract, for the purchase of 25 APX
6000 800 Mhz portable radios, at a price of $4,238 per radio. In addition, the vendor is also willing to
reimburse the City $500 per radio that is traded in. The vendor would be responsible for destroying the
old radios. The total cost would be $93,456.25.
Councilmember Duggan asked if the purchase price includes the sellback credit. Sergeant Petersen
replied that the overall price quote does have the sellback credit included.
Mayor Garlock asked if all of the programming was through the DCC [Dakota County
Communications] free of charge. Sergeant Petersen replied in the affirmative.
page 9
Councilmember Paper asked if would be a maintenance agreement on the radios. Sergeant Petersen
replied that this price includes a 2-year repair service. After two years, an extended warranty can be
purchased.
Councilmember Miller asked if they anticipate getting 10-years worth of service out of these radios.
Sergeant Petersen replied that this is the industry standard and that is what is anticipated. He then asked
if the price increase at the end of January was for a newer model. Sergeant Petersen replied that it is not
a newer model. The 2016 State Contract pricing has been extended through January 2017.
Councilmember Duggan asked if there was any sales tax involved, or if the radio purchase is exempt.
Sergeant Petersen stated that he believes that the department is exempt since it is a government agency.
Councilmember Miller asked if in 5 or 6 years would the department be able to purchase new
replacement radios and integrate them with the existing radios. Sergeant Petersen noted that there are
several different models of police radios that are typically used. The model proposed is most similar to
the one that is currently being used. However, with changing technology, there is the possibility that the
new radios would not be compatible.
Councilmember Petschel asked if the City should start saving money again after this purchase in
anticipation of future purchases. Sergeant Petersen replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize staff to sign the purchase agreement with Ancom for the
purchase of 25 portable radios.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Duggan congratulated Police Chief Kelly McCarthy now that she has been officially
sworn in. He also congratulated Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator, Mr. Timothy
Benetti, Community Development Director, and Fire Chief David Dreelan. He then suggested that there
be a brief overview of these people in the Heights Highlights.
He also suggested that the City Commissions be highlighted in the newsletter, letting the public know
who these people are and what they do. He expressed his appreciation to those who applied for the Parks
and Recreation Commission and encouraged those who were not selected to try again in the future.
Councilmember Miller congratulated Chief McCarthy, Fire Chief Dreelan, and Fire Chief Maczko for
all of his years of service. He congratulated Mr. Bob Klepperich and Mr. Steve Goldade in their
appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission and expressed his appreciation to all of the other
commissioners who serve in a volunteer capacity.
page 10
Councilmember Paper expressed his appreciation to Fire Chief Maczko for his 39 years worth of service
to the Fire Department. He extended congratulations and support to Dave Dreelan on his new
appointment as Fire Chief. And he extended his congratulations to Chief McCarthy.
Councilmember Petschel expressed her appreciation to the Public Works department for the salting and
the plowing in the midst of all the winter weather events. She said that the quality of the roads in
Mendota Heights is much better than other municipalities she frequents.
Councilmember Petschel said that she received feedback from a resident that, in the process of plowing,
public works destroyed his mailbox. However, before he could lodge a complaint, the public works
people were in his yard replacing his mailbox. The resident wanted to be sure they were recognized for
the wonderful job they do and how grateful the resident was.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 11
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Held Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at City
Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, and
Petschel were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill.
INTERVIEWS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The City Council interviewed five candidates for two open positions on the Parks and Recreation
Commission. They were as follows: Bob Klepperich, Aaron Menza, Steve Goldade, Nissa Tupper, and
Patrick Watson.
Following the interviews, the council discussed and agreed to appoint Bob Klepperich and Steve Goldade
to the Parks and Recreation Commission. This recommendation will be made at the upcoming Council
meeting.
CLOSED MEETING TO DISCUSS LABOR GRIEVANCE
Mayor Garlock adjourned to closed session of the City Council at 6:07 pm to discuss attorney/client
privilege matters relating to an existing labor grievance. Those present included Mayor Garlock,
Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel. Also in attendance were City Administrator Mark
McNeill, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, City Attorney Tom Lehmann, and Labor Attorney Kevin Rupp.
Motion by Mayor Garlock, seconded by Councilmember Duggan to reopen the workshop meeting at 7:17
p.m.
It was stated that no official action was taken by the Council in this closed session meeting. The Council
will summarize the discussion at the next Council meeting.
ADJOURN
Motion by Mayor Garlock, seconded by Councilmember Duggan, to adjourn the meeting at 7:17 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
January 24, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
January 24, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian
Petschel. Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field proposed that Case 2016-43 to the third position and hear Cases 2017-01 and 2017-
02 first. The agenda was approved as amended. Commissioner Roston indicated that he would
need to leave at 8:15 p.m., which was accepted by Chair Field.
Approval of December 21, 2016 Minutes
Chair Field noted that the minutes needed to be amended to reflect the correct meeting date of
December 21, 2016. Commissioner Costello noted that the date needed to be corrected in the
first paragraph as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2016 AS CORRECTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Agenda
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP stated that he and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek has
spoken with people who intended to in attendance for Case 2017-01 and had indicated to them
that it would probably not occur until approximately 7:30 p.m. The Commission then made the
decision to change the order of the agenda to hear Case No. 2017-02 first and Case No. 2017-01
second. All commissioners agreed.
It was recommended that estimated times for agenda items not be given or shared in the future.
page 13
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-02
MARK GERENT, 697 WESLEY LANE
LOT SPLIT
Planner Carlson explained that this application was for a subdivision of an existing single-family
lot located on the corner of Wesley Lane and Wesley Court, 697 Wesley Lane. The proposal is to
split the lot into two new single-family lots, each of which would meet the minimum
requirements set in the City Code. There is an existing home in the middle of the lot with a
driveway coming up the west end of the lot into the rear.
Showing an image of the proposed survey, Planner Carlson stated that the intent is to remove the
existing single family home. The narrow end of the lots would face on Wesley Lane with one
using the existing driveway to access a new garage and home, the other accessing Wesley Court
coming off the east side of the lot. The proposed location of the homes and driveways are
preliminary and for discussion only. The application is for the subdivision of the two lots and not
for the actual specific location of the homes and driveways.
A key feature of this lot is that it is heavily wooded on the south side, facing Wesley Lane,
bermed and rises creating a hidden lot. Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that the rise and
berm and most of the existing trees would be preserved along the perimeter of the lot.
Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions.
Referencing Condition No. 6, Commissioner Hennes asked if drainage problems existed on the
site. Planner Carlson replied that anecdotally he had heard that there were. The owner of the
property to the west had called and stated, due to the driveway being located directly adjacent to
the western property line, that when snow is plowed and when it rains in the summer that
drainage is directed into the rear yard of the adjacent property to the west. When the new lot is
built upon it would be necessary to not aggravate those kinds of problems. Removing that
driveway would be one step, at least in the winter. The plan is for that driveway to come up short
and stay in the front of the lot and not create a plowing problem with pushed snow right next to
the lot line. This is a detail that would come in at the building permit stage and not at this point.
Commissioner Magnuson, indicating that this question was not specific to this application but to
a broader audience, noted that there is another lot split request this evening and that it appears to
be a lot of this type of requests lately, wondered if the City Council has had any conversations or
developed any guidance in terms of how they want the community to look going forward. The
City seems to be going from a community that enjoys some larger-sized lots, to one that seems to
be subdividing up into smaller parcels. Planner Carlson answered that he is unaware of any
specific conversations taking place. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that this new City
Council that took office on January 1, 2017 has not had that discussion.
Commissioner Noonan stated that it is the large lots that can be subdivided because they are in
accordance with the R-1 standards; so they can be subdivided as a right.
page 14
Administrator McNeill noted that this was a valid and appropriate question to ask the City
Council in light of the upcoming update to the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mark Gergen, 1900 Oak Street, came forward to address the Council and to answer
questions. To address the issue of smaller lot splits, Mr. Gergen stated that he is affiliated with
building homes all over the Twin Cities area and one of the attractions to Mendota Heights are
the lot sizes. He said that a lot sized 100-feet by 150-feet in the metropolitan area is a very
generous lot.
Mr. Kenneth Larson, 703 Wesley Lane, is the owner of the property directly to the west of the
applicant’s property. He explained that he is very upset about this application. The property line
is within inches to one foot of his driveway. He said that there had been physically threatened,
and noted other incidents of retaliation. He said that this started when the real estate agent told
the previous property owners that there would not be anything built on the lot he purchased.
After making additional claims, he stated that he is against that property line being located within
five feet of his driveway. He claimed that the moving of the driveway to the front would only
make the snowplowing and drainage problems worse. He has already had to replace his
sprinklers heads many times. He stated that there had been intentional driving on their yard
coming from the neighbor’s driveway, which peeled off the sod.
Chair Field requested that Mr. Larson keep to the topic at hand, that being the application for the
lot split. Mr. Larson stated that he is against this application. He also stated that approximately
50% of the trees on the south side of the lot are buckthorn, and not desirable.
Mr. Patrick Smith, 695 Wesley Court, stated that he is not in favor of the lot split. One of the
reasons he purchased his home two or three years ago was because they could not see a home
right next to them. One of the newly proposed homes would be in his view.
He said that his second concern is drainage. His home sits on the top of a berm. The home that
would be built towards Wesley Court would be constructed in a low point between the road and
the top of the berm. There is already standing water that flows downward toward his fence area.
The water is supposed to be directed towards Mager Court, however, it does not do that. His fear
is that if this home is sitting in that low area, that any grading to alleviate that is going to direct
more water towards his property.
His third concern is that the lot lines are not accurate. He requested that there be a review done to
make sure that whatever the original plat was that the lot lines are accurate.
He also noted that it appears that there will only be 24 feet of space between the proposed
houses. He questioned whether that is wanted in the community?
page 15
He went on to say that there are approximately 13 trees that sit in the yard, and that half of those
are to be removed; that does not include the row that is on Wesley Lane. It includes the trees that
are actually in the yard. Those trees are the ones that he sees out of his window and enjoys.
He said that when he purchased his home there was an architectural committee that was part of
the covenants of the area. He asked how that is being addressed?
Chair Field reiterated that the Commission is only dealing with the lot split, and could not
consider any issues that anyone has with the association.
Mr. Dave Dresbach, who lies in Block 1, Lot 8 of Rolling Woods Addition at 710 Mager Court,
came forward stated that he has lived at his property since 1989. He purchased his property, as
have other since, when there was an association governing homes in the subdivision. Such things
as home size, fences, and specific uses were subject to approval by association members. This
association was abandoned after the last lot was built upon. Many have expected, and have seen,
a general adherence to the association expectations.
He said that one of the items in the covenant was that no lot would have more than one single-
family dwelling. This application seems to violate the spirit of that provision.
At that point, Chair Field stopped Mr. Dresbach and stated that the Commission could only deal
with a lot split, and not with issues that were in any covenants and the frustrations arising out of
those covenants not being followed today.
Mr. Dresbach, referencing the driveway issues raised by Mr. Larson, stated that the variance that
was issued to allow the installation of the driveway within a few inches of his property line
should be brought back into code. He also recommended the removal of the buckthorn on the
property.
Ms. Mary Dresbach, the wife of the previous speaker, stated that the lot split is a decision that
can be made because there are not more covenants affective in the neighborhood. This is a matter
of what the neighborhood should look like. Developers do not care as they are looking to split a
lot to build two homes; the neighbors who have been there for a long time are going to deal with
the consequences. She understands that legally all kinds of things can be done. She urged the
Commission to take into consideration the people that live in the area.
Mr. Steve Santos, 673 Wesley Lane, stated that he firmly agrees that the lot split can be a very
negative impact on the neighborhood and property values. He said that he comes from the
investment community, and sees many characteristics of the last real estate bubble seen. If
houses are forced onto what appears to be undersized lots, he felt that it could jeopardize the
overall value of all of the properties throughout the City, including his own. He voiced his
objection to this lot split request. He echoed the concerns made by Mr. Larson and the issues
with his driveway. The proposed split of the lot and the proposed positioning of the homes do not
compliment this neighborhood.
page 16
Mr. Mark Gergen, 1900 Oak Street, returned to respond on the comments made. To address the
driveway issue, he noted that he would prefer to move it over. In most cities there is a three-foot
minimum allowed between a driveway and the lot line. The challenge in this case is that the
driveway was in place prior to the neighbor’s home being built; in redoing this he would adhere
to an approximate five-foot minimum. However, he said that the further away from the lot line it
is moved, the more there would be the cutting into the berm and the more trees would need to be
removed.
To deal with most of the other issues that were brought up, he stated that he would be pleased to
have a neighborhood meeting, and speak with them about the issues. He suggested that the
neighbors look at what he built at 1900 Oak Street and 1930 Oak Street [a previous lot split] to
be assured that this is not something that would be detrimental to the values of the properties.
As far as architectural review and those kinds of things, he believes their standards are above
what would have been seen in the covenant or restrictions.
Commissioner Hennes asked for clarification as to where the existing driveway is, and where the
proposed new driveway would be located. Mr. Gergen pointed out the locations on the survey
but reiterated that he would be willing to move the new driveway and have a five-foot buffer
between the driveway and the lot line.
Based on a question asked by Commissioner Magnuson about whether or not the applicant
would be required to adhere to the current city code regarding the setback requirements for the
driveway, Planner Carlson stated that his interpretation of this is that there is an existing
condition and there is a driveway in place as a legal non-conforming situation. However, he
believes it would be reasonable to assume they could keep the portion that is there, remove what
is not needed, and it would be considered acceptable as a grandfathered in existing condition.
Moving it would clean up this situation, provide the required setback, and give the relief to the
neighboring property owner, but it would require cutting into the berm and removing a tree. The
Planning Commission would have to make that judgement.
Commissioner Roston commented that the Commission is only dealing with a lot split right now;
the driveway and everything else will be addressed in the site plan, construction plans, and staff
would deal with that later. He then asked if the driveway decision needs to be made right now?
Planner Carlson replied that as part of the subdivision process, some of these site alteration
features could be addressed within the conditions.
Commissioner Roston noted that, as he viewed the survey, these are two conforming lots. No lot
size variances are being requested by anyone.
Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation on the setback requirement for the driveway if the
existing non-conforming condition was not in existence. Planner Carlson replied that it would be
five feet.
Commissioner Magnus asked if Condition No. 6 could be changed. Instead of reading ‘not to
aggrevate’, could it be changed to reduce, mitigate, or alleviate. This would be the best
page 17
opportunity to solve any existing drainage problems. Mr. Gergen replied that he would be happy
to address that at the neighborhood meeting and to listen to their concerns, and bring it back at
that time.
Planner Carlson stated that it would be appropriate to try to make sure that the Commission is
not making the problem worse with this lot split and whatever happens on the new lots.
However, he would not wish for this applicant, the Planning Commission, or staff to promise the
neighbors that they would be solving any drainage problems within this application, which is
why he worded Condition No. 6 the way he did.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-02, LOT SPLIT, BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is
requested.
2. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City code minimum standards and are
comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Wesley Lane.
3. The specific plans proposed have placed the proposed future homes and driveways such
that there is minimal removal of existing trees, thus preserving as much as practical the
existing character of the neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as
part of any building permit application.
2. Such grading plans and building plans that will allow for the preservation of the trees on
both Parcel A and Parcel B as shown on the survey drawing date 1-13-2017 from Bohlen
Surveying and which will serve to alleviate any drainage problems onto neighboring
properties. Any other land disturbance must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
3. Front setbacks to Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall
be 40 feet and 45 feet, respectively, more or less as shown on the Bohlen survey drawing,
in order to preserve the existing trees indicated.
4. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department, as part of any building permit application.
5. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted
on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front
property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines.
page 18
6. On Parcel A, the rear portion of the existing driveway will be removed, and graded so as
not to aggravate drainage problems, and the ground restored with suitable ground cover,
as approved by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
7. Park dedication fees in lieu of land per current City policy will be paid before the
subdivision is recorded with Dakota County.
8. The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota
County.
9. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
building permit.
AND WITH THE ADDITION THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
10. On Parcel A, when the building permit is applied for it will adhere to the setback
requirements for the placement of the driveway
Commissioner Magnuson, for the record, commented that she would vote in favor of this
because this lot split meets the requirements as they exist in the code, and there is no reason not
to vote for it under those circumstances. She was glad to hear that the whole issue of this
subdivision process may be something that can be studied more in depth as the Comprehensive
Plan is looked up and updated going forward.
Chair Field stated that he understands the position of Commissioner Magnuson; however, he was
unsure if in the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, there would be any changes to the
subdivision process. \He said that the only thing that can be changed is the land use.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 7, 2017
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-01
DBG, LLC, 1919 HUNTER LANE
LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Planner Carlson explained that this application was for a lot split and critical area permit on a
property located on Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane. There is an existing home in the middle of
the lot and the lot is large enough to accommodate a lot split. This split would create two lots
both of which would face Hunter Lane. The lots each would meet the minimum size required by
City Code.
The additional issue with this application is that it is within the critical area and so some
increased scrutiny is required. The critical area is a unique feature, a unique natural resource, and
any development in or near it should be considered carefully. Planner Carlson shared an aerial
view of the property in relation to the Mississippi River and the critical area bluff. The corner of
this property is 400+ feet from the beginning of the bluff. There are standards in the code that
want a setback 40 to 50 feet from the bluff for any kind of disturbance to ensure that the
character of the bluff and the visibility from the Mississippi River is not compromised. In this
page 19
case, this property is sufficiently far away that there would be very little impact on the critical
area.
The applicant has submitted plans that show some trees being removed from the property and
has been asked, as part of the review process, if some of those trees could be preserved. When
looking at the preliminary grading plan, it appears that the grading would take out two trees that
front on Hunter Lane. These trees appear to be large mature trees and it would seem that some
small adjustment in the grading plan could preserve the ground near them and allow them to
remain.
The applicant has submitted plans, survey, preliminary grading plan, and proposed building areas
that meet the standards in the City Code. Staff recommended approval of this application with
conditions.
Planner Carlson mentioned two specifics, 1) if there is a way to adjust the plan to accommodate
the preservation of the two trees; and 2) there is a City project for the street reconstruction that
would affect these properties and that is noted one of the five conditions.
Commissioner Noonan was struck by the similarities of this application with the previous one
heard and took the opportunity to compare the conditions. In this particular case he noticed that
there is no requirement for parkland dedication or payment in lieu of parkland and asked if that
was an oversight. Planner Carlson replied that this lot was originally two lots that were facing the
other way and so the parkland dedication has already been paid.
Commissioner Roston asked for confirmation that two lots already exist on the property; the only
thing the Commission is doing is rotating the lot lines. Planner Carlson confirmed that this is the
case.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Fritz with DBG, LLC came forward to address the Commission and answer questions.
He noted that the purpose of rotating the lot lines is to help minimize any grading issues.
Mr. Fritz noted the new proposed driveways on the submitted photographs. He also stated that
two trees in question are not in good condition. Following the demolition of the current house
the trees would be impacted and probably not survive. Commissioner Magnuson asked about the
remaining three trees. Mr. Fritz replied that those could stay.
Chair Field asked if the Libertini family currently owned this property. Mr. Fritz replied in the
affirmative. Chair Field noted for the record that he works with Mr. Libertini and; therefore, may
have a conflict of interest. He did not recognize the address as being that of Mr. Libertini, but
state if anyone felt that there is a conflict of interest he would recuse himself from voting on this
application.
Mr. Scott Miller, 1021 Wagon Wheel Trail, came forward on behalf of the Libertini family. He
too asked for confirmation that this is merely a movement of the lot lines, not an actual lot split.
page 20
Planner Carlson confirmed. Mr. Miller continued by stating that he understands the Abrams sent
in a couple of questions, one of which he believed was addressed in the presentation; that being
the drainage.
He continued by referencing the Mendota Heights City Code 12-1D-4, D2 that reads “Whenever
buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building
shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required
district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures”. Mr. Miller stated that
when they did the calculation for the setback, it was only for the adjoining neighbor. However,
the code reads ‘structures’ (plural). Most of the communities in which he has worked consider
the average of the entire street. The concern is that they could legally go about 38 feet from
staff’s calculations. The first neighbor is approximately 46 feet and, he believed, the adjoining
neighbors are even further back. He would like to see if the developer could accommodate on
parcel two, where it borders Culligan Lane, if that could be setback to meet the adjoining
neighbors – if they would be willing to do that.
His next question was regarding the teardown of the home. He wanted to ensure that City Code
12-1E-1, A5A that reads “Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and
additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor
elevation more than one foot above the existing condition” is followed. Planner Carlson replied
that this would be his interpretation of this portion of the code and that it would be required.
Mr. Miller would also like to have the location of the trees addressed to prevent sight-line issues
as people are driving down Hunter Lane and turning onto Culligan Lane.
Mr. Wes Cutter, 1169 Veronica Lane, asked about the trees along the north property line, and if
they were going to be impacted by the construction of the homes? Chair Field reiterated that the
Commission was merely looking at a lot split, not on the removal of trees. Mr. Cutter asked how
he could find out if those trees were to be impacted. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek came
forward and pointed out that the trees in question were actually on the property to the north and
not on the subject parcel.
Mr. Cutter stated that he understood that this lot split is legal but he would hate to see a large lot
like this go away.
Ms. Becky Doherty, who lives down the hill from the subject parcel, also agreed that this is a
legal lot split, but voiced her opposition. She also noted that even after having the street rebuilt
they still have a problem with drainage runoff. She hoped that when they build the new house
they would take that into consideration. She also had a concern about safety issues with the
driveway entrances being on Hunter Lane.
Mr. Mike Fritz with DBG, LLC returned and stated that one of the reasons for removing the trees
on the corner is for safety. However, they are not opposed to planting new trees along Culligan
Lane as replacements. He believes that opening up the corner is a good idea.
page 21
He also noted, based on the documents provided to staff, they meet the setback requirements on
both streets as they are applying front yard setbacks to both the Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane
sides of the lots.
Planner Carlson noted that when a building permit comes they would apply the setback rules in
the code and make sure that it is cited properly; likewise with the first floor elevation.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-01, LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is
requested.
2. The two lots resulting from the lot split are comparable in size and frontage to other lots
in the area.
3. The plans and approvals required in the building permit process will serve to ensure
adherence to the spirit and intent of the Critical Area code.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as
part of any building permit application.
2. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department, as part of any building permit application, such additional
landscaping to be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. This will
include revisions to the submitted grading and landscape plans to allow the 20” pine and
22” pine trees on the Hunter Lane frontage to remain if at all possible.
3. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted
on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front
property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines.
4. The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota
County.
5. Connection charges for City Project # 200902 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 7, 2017
meeting.
page 22
C) PLANNING CASE #2016-43
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DOMESTIC CHICKENS – DRAFT ORDINANCE
Chair Field noted that in December 2016 the Planning Commission had a discussion of possible
things to do with chickens and forwarded their comments to the City Council, who in turn
returned it back to them and asked them to draft a proposed ordinance for the City Council’s
consideration. The objective this evening was to look at drafting an ordinance for the City
Council’s consideration.
Planner Carlson highlighted some of the issues in the draft ordinance that staff has created for
consideration by the Planning Commission. Staff took into consideration many comments from
discussions had at the Planning Commission and the City Council. There are also a number of
very interested residents in this issue.
This draft ordinance does amend both the Animal Control section of the City Code and the
Zoning Code. It was organized to allow the keeping of domestic chickens as a permitted
accessory use. It was suggested that there be an annual permit with a fee but no fee amount of
specified. There were no screening of chicken coops and runs proposed in the ordinance;
however, it is an important issue and can be added as appropriate.
The area or size was taken from other cities; two square feet for the coop and five square feet for
the run. Staff suggested in this ordinance that the composting of waste could be allowed if
handled properly. Staff also suggested a six-foot height to the coop but has received comments
back from residents that this is unreasonable and much too low. Staff suggested ten-foot side
setbacks and thirty-foot rear setback. Other accessory uses are allowed simply a five-foot setback
on side and rear.
Staff did not include a requirement for neighbors to sign off. Planner Carlson felt strongly, as a
planner who engages in land use law discussions, that the City should not require the code to
require a “sign off” by neighbors; it should stand on its own.
Planner Carlson then went through the points of the ordinance with the Planning Commission:
• Section 5-3 of the code be titled ‘Domestic Animals’
• Section 5-3-1 to include the definition of what a chicken is and refers to its’ Latin name
of Gallus and species of Gallus domesticus
• Addition of Section 5-3-10A with clarification of up to four female chickens, kept in an
accessory structure, and refers back to the Zoning Code that would then have the bulk of
the regulations and 5-3-10B which is the Animal Warden authority
• Since a new section was added then the following sections would be renumbered to
follow suit
Chair Field asked if there was a definition of ‘Animal Warden’ elsewhere in the code. Planner
Carlson replied that the City Council appoints an Animal Warden and that is in the Police
page 23
Department, who then contract out for that service. A clear definition of that is outlined in that
appointment.
• Section 12-1B-2 – domestic chickens was added to ANIMALS, DOMESTIC with
definitions of Domestic Chickens, Chicken Coop, Chicken Run, and Rooster included
• Section 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures was amended to include Chicken Coops and
Runs with specific requirements
o Dimensions
o Height
o Construction requirements (included requirement of screening of the coop and
run; however, Planner Carlson left that up to the Commission to determine if it
should remain in or not)
Regarding the maximum coop height requirement of six feet, Planner Carlson shared some
comparisons between a garage [maximum height is the average between the roof peak and the
eave gutter line] and accessory structures [allowed to be 15 feet high]. He said that one could
build a shed that is meets that definition without any questions asked. Staff’s initial
recommendation was that coops have a maximum six-foot height level. However, one of the
objections is that this is way to short to allow the entering of the coop and still have some
breathing room. This is open for discussion and possible change.
Another issue is the setbacks. He then shared a graphic showing a sample lot that is typical of the
minimum lot size with the minimum setbacks indicated.
o Regulations
o Permit process
• Section 12-1D-3C.2 amended by renumbering and amending sub-paragraph 2 regarding
the number of accessory structures on a property
• Section 12-1E-3C amended to add the conditional use of keeping chickens for
noncommercial purposes
Planner Carlson noted that several emails had been received on this subject and copies had been
provided to the Commissioners. Chair Field noted that these emails would be incorporated into
the public record.
Commissioner Roston noted that he had submitted an email as part of the public record;
however, unfortunately he needs to leave for a prior commitment. In his email he stated that he
would recommend the 30-foot setback and the screening be required. He is opposed to the
composting, as, in his experience, most people do not do it correctly. He would also recommend
that this be a conditional use permit rather than a permitted use. He has already voice his
opposition to the keeping of chickens but has lost that battle already.
Commissioner Hennes asked the reasoning for the 30-foot setback. Planner Carlson replied that
they simply suggested that the chicken coop would meet the same setback requirements as a
structure.
page 24
Commissioner Magnuson asked how Planner Carlson wanted them to proceed, should they
comment on the draft itself now or have the public hearing first. It was suggested that the public
hearing take place first.
Commissioner Petschel asked if fencing in the run would be exempt from the opacity
requirements for fencing in general. Planner Carlson replied that he does not know what those
opacity requirements are. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he believes the
ordinance instructs for a 30% clear fence in the residential district. However, this is a good
question.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, stated that he is in support of this ordinance. In
regards to the setback requirement he noted that some of the lots in older neighborhoods,
especially north of Dodd Road and south of Highway 110, are not the typical lot size of 100 x
150 feet; some are 75 x 100 feet. He shared images of two such properties, owned by supports of
this ordinance, with indications of where the coops would be legally situated; one would end up
being in the location currently occupied by the deck and the patio and on the other property, a
large tree occupies the only acceptable spot.
He also noted that his neighbor, who is also in support of this ordinance, has a lot of trees and no
place to put a coop inside of the setback requirements as proposed. They have an existing
accessory structure that they would love to incorporate into a coop structure. Unfortunately it
goes above the six-foot average height requirement.
He believes that if the Commission keeps the setback requirements as proposed they will see a
lot of variance requests for coop placement. He also pointed out that dog kennels are allowed in
the five-foot accessory structure area.
In regards to the height requirement, his neighbor wanted to convert part of his garden shed into
a chicken coop. However, his garden shed is nine feet tall.
Commissioner Hennes asked Mr. Watson, given all of the research he has done, what he would
recommend. Mr. Watson stated that an accessory structure is an accessory structure; there is
already a screening requirement in the proposed ordinance for a chicken coop, which makes a
great concession to people who don’t necessary look at what their neighbors doing on their
property. He would be OK with the screening requirement if the Commission could get away
from the 30-foot setback requirement. As for the height, he would not change the accessory
structure height just for a chicken coop. In his opinion no one would build a 15-foot tall chicken
coop. However, if they did there is a screening requirement.
Mr. Alex Theobald, 1045 Delaware Avenue, noted that the City Council agreed to allow four
chickens per lot in the City, that the structure be constructed so that it is easily cleaned, and the
chickens are enclosed and protected. He continued by explaining that a six-foot maximum height
would not make for an easily cleaned structure. Also, standard door heights are six feet eight
page 25
inches. If the structure were allowed to accommodate a standard door it would make construction
a lot easier.
In relation to the setback requirement, Mr. Theobald recommended they keep the accessory
structure setback of five feet. These buildings are going to look quite similar to any other
accessory structure that is already in existence.
Mr. Theobald then asked questions regarding the screening and what the actual requirements
would be for that. Planner Carlson, referencing City Code 12-1I-9 that reads “Any use in the I
district abutting on the R district that shall have open storage shall be effectively screened from
the eye level vision by providing and maintaining a wall, fence or planting strip to screen and
reduce the noise, dust and vision between the two (2) uses. Such wall or fence shall be six feet
(6') in height and at least ninety percent (90%) opaque during all seasons”, noted that the
reference stayed in the draft ordinance but the actual standard did not. He invited the Planning
Commission to decide what, if anything, they would like to do about screening.
Mr. Theobald stated that there is another screening option in the code; Section 12-1E-1C that
reads “Screening Of Certain Materials: All waste material, debris, refuse, garbage, fuel including
woodpiles of two (2) cords or larger (a cord is 4 feet x 4 feet x 8 feet), or materials not currently
in use for construction shall be stored indoors or totally screened from the eye level view from
public streets and adjacent properties”.
Mr. Theobald asked if the email he had sent was now a part of the public record. The answer was
in the affirmative.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Magnuson asked how height is measured. Planner Carlson replied that it is the
average from the eaves to the peak. If it is a flat roof, then it is just the height. However, the six-
foot height was a number that was pulled out of the air and it would be appropriate for the
Commission discuss and decide what might be appropriate.
Commissioner Magnuson also asked about the floor of the chicken coop; the draft states that the
minimum is two square feet per chicken, and that the floor area of the run must be five square
feet. She asked if that should read ‘a minimum of five square feet’. Planner Carlson replied that
‘minimum’ would be appropriate.
She then noted that at one point the ordinance states that the construction of and materials used
for the chicken coop and run must adequate to prevent access by rodents. She wondered about
other animals, such as raccoons, etc. Planner Carlson replied that he would check on whether or
page 26
not the word vermin would include other animals and agreed that the terminology should be
broadened.
Commissioner Magnuson asked a question brought up by a resident and that was what happens if
someone has a chicken coop and they cease to have chickens; should there be some kind of
requirement that if a chicken coop has been abandoned that it should be removed within a certain
period of time – or is there a requirement in the code already regarding the removal of a structure
that is in disrepair. The reply was that there is a requirement under property standards.
In regards to the setback, she asked why the setback from the side yard is only ten feet but the
setback from the rear yard is 30 feet. She would be more comfortable with a straight-up ten-foot
side yard and ten-foot rear yard setback. She likes ten feet rather than five feet simply because
she does not like five feet setbacks anyway.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the City requires screening for dog kennels. Planner Carlson did
not believe so. Commissioner Petschel stated that if the City does not require it for dog kennels
then they probably should not require it for chicken coops.
In regards to the setbacks, in practice he believes this would sort itself out. Residents would
naturally work with the length of their property rather than the width. Commissioner Petschel
said that it behooves everyone to have a good relationship and work with their neighbors; maybe
then this does not need to be spelled out in the code.
Chair Field agreed with Commissioner Petschel comment on working with neighbors;
unfortunately chickens are new to the City and that, to him, is a concern. The Chair said that
some cities started with chicken ordinances on a more regulated basis and then, as things
evolved, made changes. Part of him agrees with Commissioner Roston that a conditional use or
at least a permit being subject to the consent of the neighbors as being a viable way to bring
chickens into the City and see how they work while still maintaining control. He looks at the
enforcement practices of the Animal Warden and they are somewhat limited. Once a permit is
issued the warden can only intervene if there is a threat to the health and safety of the people or
animals.
Planner Carlson noted that this ordinance does amend two parts of the code, the animal control
and the zoning. Under the Animal Warden, it does give that position the authority to go in if
there is a problem. But the bulk of this ordinance is under the zoning code so it would be just
normal zoning violations and enforcement. There could be an issue with the coop, that it is not
quite clean enough or any of those laundry list of conditions that might not get to the point where
the Animal Warden would need to go out and address a dangerous situation but still would not
meet the standards in the zoning code – the zoning enforcement officer could go out and address
it.
He also felt quite strongly that the code should not depend on the neighbors approving. The City
ordinances are set by the City Council and equal protections is applied to everyone and not relies
on the goodwill between neighbors.
page 27
In regards to conditional use versus permitted accessory use, Planner Carlson stated that he felt
that it is a question of process and money. It was suggested that there might be a $25 fee to put
up a chicken coop; however, a conditional use involves several hundred dollars and a 40 to 60
day process. If comparing this to dog kennels, someone would not be required to go through a
several hundred dollars process to put in a dog kennel.
Chair Field asked if the permit process was chosen, then in what situation could the permit be
revoked. Planner Carlson replied that this would be a zoning enforcement issue. If someone is
not meeting the standards that are in the code the permit could be revoked. That has not been
developed in the language so far but it certainly could be.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he echoed many of the comments made by Commissioner
Roston; however, he also echoed the comments made by Commissioner Magnuson and
Commissioner Petschel. He thought the comment about a 30-foot setback does indeed push the
coop potentially closer to the rear face of an adjoining house. By the same token he also liked the
idea of pushing a little further off of the side yard to get it further away from the lot line. He
would support the notion of a reworked rear yard setback but would also support the
maintenance of the side yard. In addition, he would echo Commissioner Roston’s comment with
respect to the permission to compost waste. He is quite right in that unless the City is very
prescriptive as to how it’s done, it most likely would be done inappropriately. He proposed that
the waste disposal provisions be fairly narrowly defined and not permit the composting.
Commissioner Petschel asked about fencing – should this be treated like fencing on the perimeter
of a yard, which has requirements for visibility, or should it be exempted. Planner Carlson
replied that the chicken coop and the run, which would be fenced, could be set back at least five
feet or ten feet or more and would not be a perimeter fence. Commissioner Petschel noted that he
was inquiring about the requirements of the fencing around the coop and run, not that he agreed
it would be the same as a perimeter fence. It was noted that they could quite literally use chicken
wire.
Chair Field proposed that staff take the comments and discussions from the Commission and
create a revised ordinance, making sure the clean up the wording and language that happens
when merging two different documents together, and return to the Commission with it.
Discussions continued regarding the height of the chicken coop. It was determined that research
should be done to determine the standard height of chicken coops in other communities.
The Commissioner then went through the proposed ordinance section-by-section and provided
direction to staff of their recommended edits:
• Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar
to the zoning enforcement officer
• Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed
• Section 12-1D-3C
o The run – the run should a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken
o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven
feet
page 28
o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the
rear yard lot line
o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents
[substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents]
o Remove the reference to screening
o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used
and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue”
o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw
shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops
o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HENNES, THAT
STAFF TAKE THE COMMENTS AND REVISIONS SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION
AND REWORK THE ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AT THEIR FEBRUARY 28, 2017 MEETING
Verbal Review
Planner Carlson noted that there were no applications considered at the last Planning
Commission meeting and; therefore, there are no verbal updates to provide.
Staff and Commission Announcements
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that City Development Director Tim Benetti would
join city staff on February 21, 2017. Chair Field expressed his appreciation to Planner Carlson
for working with the City while this role was being filled.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:09 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (ROSTON)
page 29
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-16 Approving a Permanent Easement to Dakota County
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to grant a permanent easement on a portion of Outlot A, TOWN CENTER
plat to Dakota County for trail maintenance and construction purposes.
BACKGROUND
Dakota County has a planned trail extension and underpass proposed for 2017.
DISCUSSION
In conjunction with the Highway 110 reconstruction project, Dakota County is proposing to
construct a shared use pedestrian trail and underpass from South Plaza Drive to the Northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110. For this work to occur, Dakota
County will require a permanent easement from the city. The easement and depiction are
attached for your reference.
BUDGET IMPACT
None. Governmental agencies grant easements to each other as a standard practice.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 2017-16 granting a permanent easement to
Dakota County for trail purposes on the described portion of Outlot A, TOWN CENTER.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion approving
Resolution 2017-16, APPROVING A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO DAKOTA COUNTY.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 30
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-16
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO DAKOTA COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has interest in properties described as:
OUTLOT A, as recorded on the TOWN CENTER plat, Dakota County, Minnesota and
shown sheet 47 on County Project # 97-151; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota County will need a permanent easement over a portion of said
real property to construct, maintain, and operate a shared use pedestrian trail; and
WHEREAS, an easement document was drafted by Dakota County granting easement
rights to said property for said purposes to Dakota County.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby
approves and authorizes a permanent easement to Dakota County granting immediate right to
enter the above described property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council herby authorizes
the Mayor to sign the easement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of February, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 31
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TRAIL EASEMENT
File No. County Project No. 97-151 Parcel No. S.P. Project No. 019-090-018 County Road No. ____________
Section One - Grant of Easement.
By this instrument, the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter
called GRANTOR, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby
conveys to DAKOTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, its successors and assigns,
a permanent easement for regional transportation trail purposes, together with an unrestricted right to improve
and maintain the same, within the following described easement area located in Dakota County, State of
Minnesota:
A permanent easement for trail purposes over, under, and across that part of Outlot A, MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TOWN CENTER, Dakota County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, described as follows:
Beginning at the most western corner of said Outlot A; thence South 29 degrees 41 minutes 24
seconds East, assumed bearing, along a west line of said Outlot A 148.75 feet to the point of
beginning of the easement to be described; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 53 seconds East,
along a southerly line of said Outlot A 200.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 07 seconds
East 50.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 53 seconds West parallel with said southerly line
200.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 02 minutes 07 seconds West 50.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
GRANTOR conveys to DAKOTA COUNTY the exclusive right to construct, operate and maintain a regional transportation trail over the real property legally described herein. GRANTOR warrants that they have good legal title to this real property and that they will do nothing to undermine the trail or the improvements constructed thereon by DAKOTA COUNTY.
GRANTOR conveys to DAKOTA COUNTY the right to occupy and move equipment over this real property, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the trail.
The trail will be used for non-motorized multi-transportational purposes such as, but not limited to, walking, biking, roller blading and cross-country skiing. DAKOTA COUNTY, or local law enforcement agencies, may operate motorized vehicles on the trail for the purposes of park/trail security, emergency services and park/trail maintenance.
Section Two - Construction and Maintenance DAKOTA COUNTY, its agents or contractors, shall construct a bituminous trail surface using appropriate construction standards for trail construction along the length of this easement. The trail surface and other
page 32
(Over) improvements on the trail shall be constructed by DAKOTA COUNTY at its own expense, or with grant funds obtained by DAKOTA COUNTY. DAKOTA COUNTY has no obligation to construct the trail or other improvements if the funds required for these improvements are not appropriated or received from other sources.
DAKOTA COUNTY, by its own forces or through contract agreement, shall provide routine repair and maintenance of the trail surface and other improvements at its own cost.
DAKOTA COUNTY shall indemnify and hold GRANTOR harmless for any damages, claims or causes of
action that may arise from the use, construction or maintenance of the trail or the easement provided herein.
Section Three - Termination of Easement
By this instrument, GRANTOR conveys a permanent trail easement to DAKOTA COUNTY. However, DAKOTA COUNTY may terminate this easement if the funds to construct and/or maintain the trail are not appropriated and cannot be otherwise obtained through grants. In such event, DAKOTA COUNTY shall provide written notice to GRANTOR, or its successor in title to the underlying land, of its intent to terminate this easement. Termination shall be effective thirty (30) days after deposit of a notice of intent to terminate in the US Mail, certified with return receipt postage prepaid, or personal delivery of the notice to terminate to GRANTOR, or its successor in title.
Dated this ______ day of _________________, 2017. GRANTOR: _____________________________
_____________________________
Exempt from deed tax, and filing or recording fees pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 386.77.
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _____________, 2017 by the City of Mendota Heights, Grantor(s).
___________________________ Notary Public Drafted By – and Return To: Jacob Rezac Dakota County Transportation Department 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 891-7981
page 33
SHEET
OF
DRAWN BY
63
Date License #
Print Name:
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION
H:\Projects\8796\CAD_BIM\Plan\8796_dr01.dgn11/18/20164:14:14 PM...\CAD_BIM\Plan\8796_dr01.dgn
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
J. VAN BECK DAKOTA COUNTY
P. ENGELMEYER
COMM. NO. 0158796
TH 110 TRAIL
B. LEBA
PETER R. ENGELMEYER
53652
97-151
COUNTY PROJECT NO.
019-090-018
STATE PROJECT NO.DI
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
DIDI DI DI
DI107
106
103
104 102
101
100
111 110
105
115
116
120
121
122
123DICOCOCO 203100
105
110 115120120115120115300301200+31.2 +79.2 +27.2
0.02 0.00 0.02
0
.02
0.
0
20.020.02
0.02 0.020.020.
0
20.02R
R
TRAIL A STA. 100+00.00
S.P. 019-090-018
BEGIN C.P. 97-151,
TRAIL A STA. 120+58.00
S.P. 019-090-018
END C.P. 97-151,
HWL = 847.6 FT
BTM = 845.0 FT
CDA FILTRATION BASIN
A
B
R
R
C
SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA.
E
E
D
D
D
SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
PLAN AREA.
SITE MANAGEMENT
F
4
EX. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. D&U
EX. D&U
BR NO 19X08
BR NO 19X09
DAKOTA COUNTY
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AREA
SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTALLY
AREA
SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTALLY
AREA
SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTALLY
RETAINING WALL C
EX. D&U
EX. D&U
EX. D&U
EX. D&U
EX. D&U
LEGEND
R
/
/
/
/
XXX
DIDI
4
SUBSURFACE DRAIN
SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW
SILT FENCE (MACHINE SLICED)
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
EXIST. / PROP. MANHOLE
EXIST. / PROP. APRON
EXIST. / PROP. DROP INLET
EXIST. / PROP. CATCH BASIN
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PROPOSED DITCH
RIPRAP
STORM SEWER STRUCTURE NO.
SURFACE FLOW
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (CATEGORY 4N)
MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 9 (3" DEPTH)
SEED MIXTURE 33-261
SEED MIXTURE 35-241
TRAIL SUPERELEVATION TRANSITION
MULCH ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY BLANKET.
MULCH AND FERTILIZER.
SEE CONSTRUCTION AND SOIL NOTES FOR TYPES OF SEEDING,
AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
AS CONDITIONS WARRANT. PLACE ADDITIONAL MEASURES
ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE NEEDED
CROSS SLOPES ARE FOOT PER FOOT.
SHALL BE 4" PERF. TP PIPE DRAIN UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
FOR INSTALLATION LOCATIONS. ALL SUBSURFACE DRAIN
FOR CLARITY. SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS AND STD. PLANS
SUBSURFACE DRAIN IS SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY
AND CROSS SECTIONS.
FOR SPECIAL DITCH GRADES, SEE PROFILE SHEETS
TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE INCIDENTAL.
CONNECTION OF ANY SUBSURFACE OR BRIDGE DRAIN
CONTOURS AT PROPOSED BRIDGE LOCATIONS.
SEE CONTOUR PLANS FOR PROPOSED AND EXISTING
FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS.
GENERAL NOTES:
A
NOTES:
B
C
D
E
BULKHEAD EXISTING PIPE (INCIDENTAL)
FIELD TRANSITION TO TRAIL A
MATCH EXISTING CROSS SLOPE
ESTABLISHMENT DETAILS IN MEDIAN.
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL TURF
DRAIN AND BASIN REQUIREMENTS.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE
SEE DRAINAGE DETAILS, CONTOUR PLANS AND
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
F
1000
scale in feet
50
{ TRAIL A
{ TRAIL C
47
{ TRAIL B
S PLAZA DRMARKET STAND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLAN
DRAINAGE, SUPERELEVATION, EROSION CONTROL
{ HWY110WB
{ HWY110EB
TH 110SEE INSET
MATCHLINE STA. 123+30.00
MATCHLINE STA. 123+30.00
{ HWY110WB
{ HWY110EB
MARKET STINSET
1000
scale in feet
50
page 34
DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: John Maczko, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Building Maintenance
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize heating, ventilation, and gas monitoring work to be done at the
Fire Station.
BACKGROUND
At the 2016 budget workshop the City Council discussed needs at the fire station. Several items
have been put on hold while the study of the fire station needs was completed by the consultant.
Council asked that the department evaluate current station needs to determine if there were any
safety issues that needed immediate attention. Several areas of concern were identified and
council appropriated funding to deal with them.
Two of the needs identified involved the non-functioning ventilation and gas monitoring system
in the apparatus bays and the heat in the attached maintenance area.
Assistant Chief Dreelan has obtained quotes from two mechanical contractors who reviewed the
ventilation, heat and gas monitoring systems related to the apparatus bay and attached the
maintenance area. The following quotes were received:
Yale Mechanical $10,640
Owens Mechanical $16,430
Yale has been maintaining the systems at the fire station for a number of years and we are very
satisfied with their work and service.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of the repairs is budgeted for in the 2017 Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
It’s my recommendation that we have Yale Mechanical replace the gas monitoring system in the
apparatus bay and fix the heating issues in the adjacent maintenance areas for quoted price of
$10,640.
page 35
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: February 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of a John Deere Mower
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the purchase of a budgeted mower for use by the Public Works
Department.
Background
The 2017 Budget provided money to purchase a mower to replace the existing 2011 Kubota
F3680 mower. The current mower is constantly experiencing mechanical problems.
Staff received a quote from Frontier Ag & Turf, which gets its prices from a purchasing
consortium called the NPPGov group. The eligible organizations who make purchases from
NPPGov include states, cities, counties, and other governmental organizations. This is a
purchasing consortium, and so eliminates the need to do a separate competitive bid by the City—
the consortium does the bidding on behalf of the participating entities.
In my opinion, the NPPGov price is less than what would have been received from the State bid
group.
Budget Impact
The quote from NPPGov for the mower was $31,895.57. There is also a need to purchase a John
Deere Broom attachment, which would add $4,078.92. The Kubota F3680 is being traded in for
$13,274.49.
Therefore, the net purchase price for the mower and broom, less the trade-in is $22,700.
$22,800 was provided in the 2017 Budget to purchase the new mower and broom.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize a purchase for a new John Deere Mower and
broom, from Frontier Ag & Turf in the amount of $22,700 including trade-in.
Action Required
If the City Council concurs with the recommendation, it should approve a motion authorizing the
purchase of a new John Deere mower and broom for a new amount of $22,700, from Frontier Ag
and Turf.
page 36
DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Water Surcharge Agreement
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Omnibus Agreement with Saint
Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) to change the billing reimbursement for the collection
of the water surcharge.
The will change the manner in which the SPRWS is reimbursed for providing billing services for
the City.
BACKGROUND
At its December 6th meeting, the City Council approved a modification to its agreement with
SPRWS to reduce the amount of the water surcharge which has been collected by the Water
system on the City’s behalf from 10%, to 5%. The reduction was prudent, as, following the
transfer of the water system physical plant to SPRWS in December, 2015, the City has fewer
maintenance responsibilities. See the memo dated December 20, 2016, for more information.
Previously, reimbursement to SPRWS for the collection of the surcharge was based on 2/10 of
one percent (0.2%) of the total amount collected. SPRWS asked for a way for it to be more fully
compensated, as its reimbursement amount would be halved with the new surcharge amount to
be collected. It instead proposes a flat 26 cents per bill issued. With this flat amount, there
would be no variations for either side, based on changes in water consumption or in the
surcharge amount. The amount of the reimbursement would be changed annually by a formula
to account for inflation as determined by the Consumer Price Index, and rounded to the nearest
cent. Any change of less than one in the formula will result in no price adjustment.
The SPRWS has been collecting the reduced surcharge since January 1, 2017. This change in
reimbursement would be retroactive to January 1, assuming it is approved by the City Council on
February 7th, and the St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners on February 15th.
page 37
BUDGET IMPACT
At the City’s request, SPRWS did an analysis of what the amount of reimbursement would be in
the new system, vs. what the 0.2% had generated. After running a comparison of the prior two
year’s water usage using the two systems, it was found that there would actually have been a
slight savings to the City (2.5% in 2015, and 5% in 2016) under the new flat rate system.
Overall, the amounts were small, based on the annual approximate billing amounts of $4600.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the reimbursement method be changed to go to a flat amount per account, as
described in Amendment No. 1.
Note that the action taken by the City Council on December 20th had anticipated this action,
which is being presented at this time.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve:
Amendment No. 1 to Omnibus Agreement
Between the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St. Paul,
and City of Mendota Heights.
page 38
2/7/17 INFORMATIONAL ONLY—ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN
DATE: December 6, 2016
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 506 – Amending City Code 10-5-6: Water Surcharge
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 506, amending City Code 10-5-6: Water Surcharge.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights adopted Ordinance 149 at their October 18, 1977 City Council meeting.
Ordinance 149 established a Water Surcharge of ten percent (10%) be imposed for water
supplied to properties located within and without of the city.
The Water Surcharge has been used for the purpose of assisting the City of Mendota Heights in
paying for the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement or other
obtainment, and the maintenance, operation and use of the City’s municipal water system.
DISCUSSION
The City Council voted earlier to transfer ownership of Mendota Heights municipal water system
to the City of Saint Paul Regional Water Authority (SPRWS). This action was approved by water
authority board on September 21, 2016.
This transfer of ownership has reduced Mendota Heights’ responsibility towards future costs
related to water system operations as outlined above. While Mendota Heights will still have
costs relating to maintenance of the water system because of local projects, or if water main
work is required due to county or state improvements, the need to retain as much of a surcharge
is reduced. Staff therefore proposes to maintain a surcharge at half the current amount.
For comparisons, other SPRWA member cities have the following surcharge amounts in place:
• Falcon Heights: 6%
• Maplewood: 7%
• West St. Paul: 1%
The Cities of Lauderdale, Lilydale, and Mendota do not have a surcharge,
page 39
Collection Fee: SPRWS has been charging 2/10 of 1% to collect the surcharge. That has
sometimes proven to be unsatisfactory, as the fixed costs to collect the fee remain the same, in
spite of the variations in water consumption. Cutting the amount of the surcharge revenue in
half will not allow SPRWS to collect enough to cover costs.
Instead, the SPRWS proposes to go to a flat amount of 26 cents per bill (plus an annual
escalator) to process the bills. The 26 cents is the average annual amount which has been
charged per bill over the past five years. City staff sees that as a reasonable solution.
This will require a modification of the Article VIII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Agreement with the
SPRWS (attached). That will be considered at a future meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Water Surcharge currently collects approximately $220,000 per year. The proposed
surcharge would therefore collect around $110,000 per year
For individual users, the SPRWS estimates that the average residential customer in Mendota
Heights would have paid $35.82 as a surcharge amount in 2017. Reducing the amount of the
surcharge to 5% will mean an annual savings of $17.91 per household.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve Ordinance 506 amending Title 10-5-6 reducing the
Water Surcharge to five percent (5%). It further recommends approval to change the method of
reimbursing SPRWS to go from a percentage of fees collected, to that of collecting a flat 26 cents
per bill in 2017, plus an annual inflator based on the Consumer Price index.
SPRWS has indicated that if the reduced surcharge amount is to begin being collected in 2017;
direction from the Mendota Heights City Council is requested by December 9th.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 506:
“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6 OF THE CITY
CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY,
CONCERNING A WATER SURCHARGE RATE”.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 40
AMENDMENT NO. 1
to
OMNIBUS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
and
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO OMNIBUS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) entered
into this 14th day of February 2017, by and between the BOARD OF WATER
COMMISSIONERS, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (the “Board”), and the
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota
(“Mendota Heights”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Mendota Heights and the Board entered into an Omnibus Agreement dated
December 8, 2015 for the provision of water service by the Board to properties within Mendota
Heights (the “Contract”); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire at this time to amend the Contract to provide for a change
in the water surcharge established by Mendota Heights for properties within its city limits from
10% to 5% and to change the method used by the Board to administer the billing of said
surcharge.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties mutually agree to amend the Contract as follows:
1. Article VIII. Section 4. WATER SURCHARGE is deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:
page 41
Section 4. WATER SURCHARGE
Mendota Heights has established a water surcharge equal to five percent (5%) of the
Water Service Base Fee and Water Usage Charge imposed for water supplied to properties
within the City of Mendota Heights (“Mendota Heights Water Surcharge”).
Effective January 1, 2017, Mendota Heights will pay the Board a monthly payment equal
to 26 cents ($0.26) per water bill issued the prior month for properties within the city limits of
Mendota Heights (“Surcharge Fee”). The Surcharge Fee shall be annually adjusted effective each
successive January 1 (“Annual Adjustment”). The Surcharge Fee will also be adjusted January
01, 2022 and each subsequent five years thereafter to correct for rounding (“Rounding
Adjustment”).The Annual Adjustment shall be calculated by the end of each year and shall be
the quotient of the current year July CPI over the past year July CPI multiplied by the current
Surcharge Fee and rounded to the closest one cent. If such quotient in the CPI results in a
number less than one, the Surcharge Fee will not be adjusted.
The Rounding Adjustment shall be the quotient of the current year July CPI over the July
CPI of five years’ prior multiplied by the current Surcharge Fee and rounded to the closest one
cent. If such quotient in the CPI results in a number less than one, the Surcharge Fee will not be
adjusted.
"CPI" is the Bureau of Labor Statistics Table 1 Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, by expenditure category, using the Unadjusted indexes
"All items" (top line of the expenditure category).
The Board will send a monthly payment to Mendota Heights equal to the amount of
Mendota Heights Water Surcharge during the month (less the current Surcharge Fee) on or
before the 15th day of the following month.
2. The provisions of this Amendment are retroactively effective to all billing after January
1, 2017.
3. Except as modified herein, the terms of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.
[Remainder of page left intentionally blank.]
page 42
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to
Contract to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
Approved: BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
________________________________ By ___________________________________
Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager Matt Anfang, President
Saint Paul Regional Water Services
By ___________________________________
Approved as to Form: Mollie Gagnelius, Secretary
________________________________ By ___________________________________
Lisa Veith, Todd Hurley, Director
Assistant City Attorney Office of Financial Services
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By_________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By_________________________________
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
page 43
page 44
1/9/2017 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
December 1, 2016 thru December 31, 2016 January 1, 2016 thru December 31, 2016 January 1, 2015 thru December 31, 2015 January 1, 2014 thru December 31, 2014
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 10 4,801,562.00$ $54,162.40 SFD 11 5,374,424.00$ $59,311.34 SFD 20 8,145,000.00$ 82,200.73$
APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 2 440,000.00$ $4,441.88 Townhouse 18 4,145,000.00$ $43,118.57 Townhouse 12 2,845,000.00$ $31,324.08 Townhouse 0 -$ -$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 25 371,740.87$ 5,479.89$ Misc 625 8,044,412.43$ 114,207.25$ Misc 649 9,361,102.50$ 140,094.21$ Misc 631 7,877,628.71$ 141,869.04$
Commercial 1 2,700.00$ $88.50 Commercial 29 8,314,914.00$ $71,966.01 Commercial 40 6,498,600.37$ $77,011.08 Commercial 51 11,689,820.50$ 109,214.03$
Sub Total 28 814,440.87$ 10,010.27$ Sub Total 682 25,305,888.43$ 283,454.23$ Sub Total 712 24,079,126.87$ 307,740.71$ Sub Total 702 27,712,449.21$ 333,283.80$
Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
Plumbing 3 $339.07 Plumbing 180 $16,498.90 Plumbing 222 $20,361.57 Plumbing 155 10,554.43$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 3 $30.00 Water 8 $80.00 Water 5 50.00$
Sewer 0 $0.00 Sewer 30 $2,250.00 Sewer 23 $1,575.00 Sewer 21 525.00$
Mechanical 40 $3,707.50 Mechanical 379 $47,516.09 Mechanical 368 $37,250.24 Mechanical 284 25,943.14$
Sub Total 43 4,046.57$ Sub Total 592 66,294.99$ Sub Total 621 $59,266.81 Sub Total 465 37,072.57$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 310 $15,500.00 Contractor 336 $16,800.00 Contractor 339 16,950.00$
Total 71 814,440.87$ 14,056.84$ Total 1584 25,305,888.43$ 365,249.22$ Total 1669 24,079,126.87$ 383,807.52$ Total 1506 27,712,449.21$ 387,306.37$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Kensington Neighborhood Improvement Project
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council preside over a public hearing for the
Kensington Neighborhood Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
The preparation of a feasibility report for the Kensington Neighborhood Improvement Project
which is required to follow the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 process was authorized by the
Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution 2016-80 at the city council meeting held
on November 1, 2016. The Statute 429 process is required because the city council intends to
assess a portion of the project.
The feasibility report for the Kensington Neighborhood Improvement Project was accepted by
the Mendota Heights City Council and called for a Public Hearing on February 7, 2017 by
adopting Resolution 2017-05 at the January 3, 2017, city council meeting. The recommendation
of the feasibility report was to proceed with this project.
This project includes rehabilitation to Bedford Court, Claremont Drive (reconstruction), Concord
Way, Lockwood Drive, Stockbridge Road and Whitfield Drive.
Street Reconstruction – Claremont Drive
Proposed improvements for Claremont Drive will include the reclamation of the existing
bituminous roadway and the placing of a 2.5” bituminous base course and a 1.5” bituminous
wear course over the salvaged reclaimed pavement material and new gravel base, curb and gutter
replacement, storm sewer extension and catch basin repair.
Street Rehabilitation – Bedford Court, Concord Way, Lockwood Drive, Stockbridge Road,
and Whitfield Drive
Proposed improvements for Bedford Court, Concord Way, Lockwood Drive, Stockbridge Road,
and Whitfield Drive will include the reclamation of the existing bituminous roadway and the
placing of a 2.5” bituminous base course and a 1.5” bituminous wear course over the reclaimed
pavement material, curb and gutter repair, and catch basin repair.
page 62
Trail Improvements
Pedestrian curb ramps will be constructed at the each end of the trail on Stockbridge Road with
truncated dome detectible warning systems in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
Issues
A Neighborhood Informational Meeting was held on January 18, 2017 to provide the property
owners an opportunity to discuss the projects in an informal setting prior to the Public Hearing.
Staff presented the proposed improvements, project costs, estimated assessments and answered
resident’s questions. There were approximately 30 residents in attendance.
The property owners asked a variety of questions regarding assessments, timing, construction
issues, traffic issues, and street drainage issues. As of this time, no comments have been
received in objecting to the proposed project. One of the three townhome associations sent a
letter of support in 2015.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to determine if plans and specifications should be ordered.
Details of the project and proposed financing will be presented to the public at the hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT
The total estimated cost of the project is $1,254,620.00.
PROJECT COSTS
ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL
STREET REHABILITATION (Single Family) $268,216.00 $67,054.00 $335,270.00
STREET REHABILITATION (Multi Family) $735,480.00 $183,870.00 $919,350.00
Totals $1,003,696.00 $250,924.00 $1,254,620.00
* Includes 25% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance.
The Kensington Neighborhood Improvement Project is proposed to be financed by special
assessments, municipal bonds, and utility funds. Funding sources and amounts are shown below:
FUNDING SOURCES
ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT
MUNICIPAL
BONDS
MSA
FUNDS
UTILITY
FUNDS
STREET REHABILITATION $335,270.00 $130,350.00 $194,500.00
10,420.00
STREET REHABILITATION $919,350.00 $379,850.00 $505,500.00 34,000.00
Totals $1,254,620.00 $510,200.00 $700,000.00 $44,420.0
Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Pursuant to the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy adopted by the city
council on June 16, 1992, the Kensington Neighborhood Improvement Project is proposed to be
assessed to the benefiting property owners as follows:
• All units with a driveway located on a street in the project area in the single
family home portion will be assessed as a street rehabilitation per the Street
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy.
• All units with a driveway located on a street in the project area in the multi family
home portion will be assessed as a street rehabilitation per the Street Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction Policy.
• City costs include curb and gutter replacement, sod restoration, and appurtenant
work.
page 63
The following tables show the estimated unit assessments based on the City policy and proposed
unit assessments that are being recommended by staff.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – MULTI FAMILY HOME
Assessable Costs $759,700.00
Assessment $379,850.00 50%
Assessable Units 288
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $1,318.92 $379,848.96 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $1,318.92 $379,848.96 50%
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – SINGLE FAMILY HOME
Assessable Costs $289,320.00
Assessment $144,660.00
50%
Assessable Units 33
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $4,383.64 $144,600.00 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $3,950.00 $130,350.00 39%
The estimated unit assessments for the street rehabilitation in the single family area are higher
than the rates that staff anticipates for future reconstruction and rehabilitation projects with
pavement reclamation due to limited assessable parcels on the street. Staff proposes to assess the
benefiting properties $3,950/unit in the rehabilitation project area in order to bring the rate closer
to anticipated costs.
Levy Impact: Bonds are typically sold to finance the City’s share of the project costs. Of the
two projects being considered at the February 7th City Council meeting, if only the Kensington
project is ordered to be completed, the City’s levy increase would be $84,500 (nearly identical to
the $75,000 levied for the Mendota Road/Warrior Drive project). The Kensington project will
result in an approximate 1% levy increase.
However, if both projects are approved, the levy would increase by $139,000 annually (which
would be the first of 10 years of levies for a street rehabilitation project.) That would increase
the property tax levy by 1.73%.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council conduct the Public Hearing and order the improvements,
authorizing staff to prepare the plans and specifications for the Kensington Neighborhood
Improvement Project.
ACTION REQUIRED
Conduct the public hearing, and then if city council wishes to implement the staff
recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE KENSINGTON NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (PROJECT #201409). This action requires a super majority vote, meaning a
minimum of 4 affirmative votes of the City Council must be cast.
page 64
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-14
A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE KENSINGTON NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT #201409)
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 2017-05 on January 3, 2017 setting the
date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements regarding the Kensington Neighborhood
Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, ten (10) days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing
were given and the hearing was held on the 7th day of February, 2017, at which time all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon on the question of the
proposed construction of the following described improvements:
Street rehabilitation improvements consisting of, but not limited to, bituminous milling or
removal, bituminous reclamation, catch basin repair, concrete curb and gutter repair,
bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work to the existing urban street section for
Bedford Court, Claremont Drive, Concord Way. Lockwood Drive, Stockbridge Road and
Whitfield Drive.
WHEREAS, the proposed assessable area for said improvements is situated within the
City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minnesota and includes those parcels that currently
have driveway access on the project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. Such improvements are necessary, cost-effective and feasible as detailed in the
feasibility report.
2. That the Public Works Director be and is hereby authorized and directed to
prepare plans and specifications for said improvement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of February, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 65
DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Mendota Heights Road Street Rehabilitation Project
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council preside over a public hearing for the
Mendota Heights Road Street Rehabilitation Project.
BACKGROUND
The preparation of a feasibility report for the Mendota Heights Road Street Rehabilitation
Project which is required to follow the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 process was authorized
by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution 2016-79 at the city council
meeting held on November 1, 2016. The Statute 429 process is required because the city council
intends to assess a portion of the project.
The feasibility report for Mendota Heights Road Street Rehabilitation Project was accepted by
the Mendota Heights City Council and called for a Public Hearing on February 7, 2017 by
adopting Resolution 2017-06 at the January 3, 2017, city council meeting. The recommendation
of the feasibility report was to proceed with this project.
This project includes rehabilitation to Mendota Heights Road from Lexington Avenue to Dodd
Road (Highway 149) and Condon Court. Sanitary Sewer is proposed to be extended to Condon
Court. Trail Rehabilitation is proposed through a mill & overlay treatment.
Street Rehabilitation – Mendota Heights Road
Proposed improvements for Mendota Road will include the reclamation of the existing
bituminous roadway and the placing of a 3” bituminous base course and a 2” bituminous wear
course over the reclaimed pavement material, curb and gutter repair, sanitary sewer extension
and catch basin repair.
Street Rehabilitation – Condon Court
Proposed improvements for Condon Court will include the reclamation of the existing
bituminous roadway and the placing of a 2.5” bituminous base course and a 1.5” bituminous
wear course over the reclaimed pavement material, curb and gutter repair, and catch basin repair.
page 66
The sanitary sewer extension mentioned previous is proposed to serve Condon Court. A
proposed development on Condon Court would be responsible for 5/6th of the sewer cost. The
remaining property on Condon Court would be responsible for the remaining 1/6th of the cost.
Trail Improvements
Proposed improvements to the existing Mendota Heights Road trail include milling & overlaying
the existing bituminous surface with 2” bituminous pavement. A trail extension is proposed
near Lexington Avenue to provide a safer crossing.
Pedestrian curb ramps will be constructed at the each end of the trail, as well as on every
crosswalk location on Mendota Heights Road trail with truncated dome detectible warning
systems in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Issues
Staff met with representatives from Patterson Dental, St. Thomas Academy, Convent of the
Visitation and Dick Bjorklund Construction, Inc. Voice messages were not returned from the
residential group home on Condon Court.
The property owners asked a variety of questions regarding assessments, timing, construction
issues, traffic issues, and street drainage issues. As of this time, no comments have been
received in support of or objecting to the proposed project.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to determine if plans and specifications should be ordered.
Details of the project and proposed financing will be presented to the public at the hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT
The total estimated cost of the project is $1,752,585.00.
PROJECT COSTS
ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL
STREET REHABILITATION (MHR) $1,041,944.00 $260,486.00 $1,302,430.00
STREET REHABILITATION (CONDON CT) $96,811.50 $24,202.88 $121,014.37
SANITARY SEWER $226,352.50 $56,588.13 $282,940.63
STORM SEWER $36,960.00 $9,240.00 $46,200.00
Totals $1,402,068.00 $350,517.00 $1,752,585.00
* Includes 25% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance.
The Mendota Heights Road Street Rehabilitation is proposed to be financed by special
assessments, municipal bonds, MSA, and utility funds. Funding sources and amounts are shown
below:
FUNDING SOURCES
ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT
MUNICIPAL
BONDS
MSA
FUNDS
UTILITY
FUNDS
STREET REHABILITATION $1,302,430.00 $585,778.00 $416,652.00 $300,000
STREET REHABILITATION $121,014.37 $23,700.00 $97,315.00
SANITARY SEWER $282,940.63 $280,941.00
STORM SEWER $46,200.00 $46,200
Totals $1,752,585.00 $892,418.00 $513,967.00 $300,000 $46,200
Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Pursuant to the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy adopted by the city
page 67
council on June 16, 1992, the Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation Project is proposed to be
assessed to the benefiting property owners as follows:
• All units with a driveway located on Mendota Heights Road will be assessed as a
street rehabilitation per the Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy.
• All units with a driveway located on Condon Court will be assessed as a street
rehabilitation per the Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy.
• All units with a driveway located on Condon Court will be assessed a sanitary
sewer charge for 100% of the project costs for that improvement.
• City costs include curb and gutter replacement, sod restoration, and appurtenant
work.
The following tables show the estimated unit assessments based on the City policy and proposed
unit assessments that are being recommended by staff.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
Assessable Costs $1,171,557.00
Assessment $585,778.50 50%
Assessable Units 5727 FT
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $102.28/FT $585,758.00 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $102.28/FT $585,758.00 50%
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – CONDON COURT
Assessable Costs $116,022.50
Assessment $58,011.25
50%
Assessable Units 6
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $9,668.54 $58,011.24 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $3,950.00 $23,700.00 20%
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS – SANITARY SEWER – CONDON COURT
Assessable Costs $282,940.63
Assessment $282,940.63
100%
Assessable Units 6
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $47,156.77 $282,940.62 100%
Proposed Unit Assessment $47,156.77 $282,940.62 100%
The estimated unit assessments for the street rehabilitation are higher than the rates that staff
anticipates for future reconstruction and rehabilitation projects with pavement reclamation due to
limited assessable parcels on the street. Staff proposes to assess the benefiting properties
$3,950/unit in the rehabilitation project area in order to bring the rate closer to anticipated costs.
Levy Impact: Bonds are typically sold to finance the City’s share of the project costs. Of the
two projects being considered at the February 7th City Council meeting, if only the Kensington
project is ordered to be completed, the City’s levy increase would be $84,500 (nearly identical to
the $75,000 levied for the Mendota Road/Warrior Drive project). The Kensington project will
result in an approximate 1% levy increase.
However, if both projects are approved, the levy would increase by $139,000 annually (which
would be the first of 10 years of levies for a street rehabilitation project.) That would increase
the property tax levy by 1.73%.
page 68
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council conduct the Public Hearing and order both improvements,
authorizing staff to prepare the plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of Mendota Heights
Road and Condon Court and the extension of a sanitary sewer to Condon Court.
ACTION REQUIRED
Conduct the public hearing, and then if city council wishes to implement the staff
recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD STREET
REHABILITATION PROJECT (PROJECT #201616). This action requires a super majority
vote, meaning that a minimum of 4 affirmative votes must be cast in favor of this resolution.
page 69
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-15
A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD STREET
REHABILITATION PROJECT (PROJECT #201616)
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 2017-06 on January 3, 2017 setting the
date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Mendota Heights Road (from
Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road) and Condon Court in Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, ten (10) days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing
were given and the hearing was held on the 7th day of February, 2017, at which time all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon on the question of the
proposed construction of the following described improvements:
Street rehabilitation improvements consisting of, but not limited to, bituminous milling or
removal, bituminous reclamation, catch basin repair, concrete curb and gutter repair,
bituminous surfacing, sanitary sewer construction, trail rehabilitation and appurtenant
work to the existing urban street section for Mendota Heights Road and Condon Court.
WHEREAS, the proposed assessable area for said improvements is situated within the
City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minnesota and includes those parcels that currently
have driveway access on the project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. Such improvements are necessary, cost-effective and feasible as detailed in the
feasibility report.
2. That the Public Works Director be and is hereby authorized and directed to
prepare plans and specifications for said improvement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of February, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 70
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP
Interim Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-01
Lot Split & Critical Area Permit
DBG, LLC, 1919 Hunter Lane
COMMENT:
Introduction
The application is for a lot split (subdivision) and Critical Area Permit.
Background
There is an existing single family home on the lot which would be removed to create two new single family
lots.
Discussion
The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests
and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required. The Planning commission held a public hearing on the matter on January 24, 2017.
There were a number of comments from nearby neighbors expressing concerns about setbacks, the character
of the neighborhood, drainage, and traffic on Hunter Lane.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests, with the conditions and Findings of Fact
in the staff report. If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting
RESOLUTION 2017-11 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 1919
HUNTER LANE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 71
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-11
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AT 1919 HUNTER LANE AND PID# 27-44900-00-020
WHEREAS, DBG, LLC has applied for a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit as
proposed in Planning Case 2017-01 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on January 24, 2017.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the request as proposed in Planning Case 2017-01 is hereby approved with the following findings
of fact:
1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is
requested.
2. The two lots resulting from the lot split are comparable in size and frontage to other lots
in the area.
3. The plans and approvals required in the building permit process will serve to ensure
adherence to the spirit and intent of the Critical Area code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot
Split and Critical Area Permit as proposed in Planning Case 2017-01 are hereby approved with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as
part of any building permit application.
2. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department, as part of any building permit application, such additional
landscaping to be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. This will
include revisions to the submitted grading and landscape plans to allow the 20” pine and
22” pine trees on the Hunter Lane frontage to remain if at all possible.
3. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted
on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front
property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines.
4. The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota
County.
5. Connection charges for City Project # 200902 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
page 72
Res 2017-11 page 2
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of February, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 73
Res 2017-11 page 3
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
PID# 27-44900-00-020
Leone Rearrangement, all of Lots 1 and 2
page 74
Request for Planning Commission Action
MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP
Interim Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-01
Lot Split & Critical Area Permit
DBG, LLC, 1919 Hunter Lane
COMMENT:
Introduction
The application is for a lot split (subdivision) and Critical Area Permit.
Background
There is an existing single family home on the lot which would be removed to create two new single family
lots.
Discussion
The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests
and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation
to the City Council.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 75
Item No. 2017-01
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 24, 2017
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
RE: Planning Case 2017-01: Request for a Lot Split
Applicant DBG, LLC
Property Address 1919 Hunter Lane
Action: Approval of lot split/subdivision request;
Approval of Critical Area Permit
Deadline: March 7, 2017 (60 days from complete application submittal)
REQUEST Request to subdivide in an R-1 district to replace one single-family lot (existing
home) with two conforming single-family lots;
Request for Critical Area Permit
SITE CONTEXT
Existing Zoning R-1 One-Family Residential
Existing Lot
Existing Lot Area
Lots 1 and 2, LEONE
43,914 square feet (1.01 acres)
Designated Future Land Use Low Density Residential
Site Description and Present Use
The subject site contains an existing single family home. The site is bordered to the north and
west by existing single family homes, to the east by Hunter Lane and to the south by Culligan
Lane. Existing access to the property is from Hunter Lane through a driveway on the property’s
northern edge. The existing home sits in the middle of the property.
Surrounding Properties and Neighborhood
All properties adjacent to the site and most properties in the vicinity are single family homes. The
exception is the synagogue, a block south at 1179 Victoria Curve. The subject property is a
page 76
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 2
corner lot that directly abuts two other properties. To the west is a single family home fronting
Culligan Lane. To the north is a single family home fronting Hunter Court, a residential cul-de-sac,
and to the east across Hunter Lane are single-family homes.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two
single-family lots:
Proposed Parcel 1, on the north side of the existing lot, would be 100’ x 200’ and include
20,000 square feet and have frontage on Hunter Lane.
Proposed Parcel 2, on the south side of the existing lot, would be 120’ x 200’ and include
23,914 square feet, and have frontage on both Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane.
SUBDIVISON ANALYSIS
1) This application would result in two one-family lots. Both lots exceed the lot area (15,000
square feet) and lot width (100 feet) of the R-1 One Family Residential District.
2) The proposed lot size for both lots are comparable to the lot size and frontages of many
nearby existing lots.
page 77
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 3
3) Setbacks to both Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane are governed by the “average setback
rule” in Section 12-1D-4D, averaging the adjacent setbacks and the 30’ code standard:
a. For Parcel 1, the adjacent home to the north is setback about 38’ from the lot
line, which by formula would yield a required setback of 34’ for the new home.
b. For Parcel 2, the adjacent home to the west is setback about 46’ from the lot line,
which by formula would yield a required setback of 38’ for the new home.
c. The plans note that the front setbacks will be 40 feet, so the standard is easily met
for both parcels.
4) The property was originally platted as two lots so park dedication fees are not required.
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT ANALYSIS
1) Section 12-3-2 of the City Code notes the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay
District:
Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and
national resource
Promote orderly development
of the residential, commercial,
industrial, recreational and
public areas
Preserve and enhance its
values to the public and
protect and preserve the
system as an essential element
in the city's transportation,
sewer and water and
recreational systems
Section 12-3-8-A of the City
Code notes:
The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and
natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are
designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide
sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize
flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water.
2) The map above is a portion of the Dakota County mapping system showing contours in
yellow and the subject property outlined in orange. The closest corner of the property is
about 400 feet from the bluff line. The map to the right is a portion of the Dakota County
page 78
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 4
mapping system showing contours in yellow and the subject property outlined in orange.
The closest corner of the property is about 400 feet from the bluff line.
3) The proposed development does not impact the shoreline or bluff areas, does not
involve an on-site sanitary facility, and will, through the building permit process, provide
for adequate erosion protection and pollution prevention measures as part of the
construction activities.
4) The submitted plans indicate 14 trees surveyed on the site, of which 6 will be removed.
Additional trees will be replaced when building plans for the new homes are submitted.
Two large pines in the middle of the Hunter Lane frontage are slated to be removed, but
it appears that with minor modifications to the grading or building locations these trees
could be saved, which we would urge the applicant to do.
Above: View NW at Hunter & Culligan; Below: View SW on Hunter Lane
page 79
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 5
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission must determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character
and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. We
recommend that the planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of lot split
and Critical Area Permit subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department
as part of any building permit application.
2) The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department, as part of any building permit application, such additional
landscaping to be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. This will
include revisions to the submitted grading and landscape plans to allow the 20” pine
and 22” pine trees on the Hunter Lane frontage to remain if at all possible.
3) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be
denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along
the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines.
4) The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota
County.
5) Connection charges for City Project # 200902 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of the lot split and Critical Area Permit based on the attached
findings of fact.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the lot split and Critical Area Permit based on findings of fact.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
page 80
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot split and Critical Area Permit for 1919 Hunter Lane
1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is
requested.
2. The two lots resulting from the lot split are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in
the area.
3. The plans and approvals required in the building permit process will serve to ensure
adherence to the spirit and intent of the Critical Area code.
page 81
220200100 15111584
80
5347
3117117016 100100
19191187
19071905
1169
1916
HUNTER LNCULLIGAN LN
Scale Site Plan1919 Hunter Lane
Date: 1/18/2017
City ofMendotaHeights040
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entityfrom which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
CERTIFICATION
1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY & EXISTING CONDITIONS for :
1659
SISU LAND SURVEYING
10775 Poppitz Lane
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
BENCHMARK
FLORA AND FAUNA
HISTORIC BUILDINGS
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY NOTE
SOILS NOTE
M & M Home Contractors
Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556
PREPARED FOR:
LEGEND
SHEET 1 OF 4
page 86
CERTIFICATION
AREAS & IMPERVIOUS
SITE PLAN & PROPOSED PARCEL SPLIT for :
1659
SISU LAND SURVEYING
10775 Poppitz Lane
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
BENCHMARK
LOT AREAS
PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS
1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights
LEGEND
M & M Home Contractors
Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556
PREPARED FOR:
SHEET 2 OF 4
SETBACKS
PROPOSED BUILDINGS
page 87
CERTIFICATION
1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights
GRADING, DRAINAGE, & EROSION CONTROL PLAN for :
1659
SISU LAND SURVEYING
10775 Poppitz Lane
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
BENCHMARK
LEGEND
SHEET 3 OF 4
STORMWATER RUNOFF SUMMARY
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
M & M Home Contractors
Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556
PREPARED FOR:
Peak Discharge Comparision
Exist Prop Change Exist Prop Change Exist Prop Change
TOTAL1.431.520.092.963.080.126.957.080.13
Runoff Volume Comparison
Exist Prop Change Exist Prop Change Exist Prop Change
TOTAL 0.083 0.088 0.005 0.170 0.177 0.007 0.407 0.417 0.010
2-Year Storm (ac-ft) 10-Year Storm (ac-ft) 100-Year Storm (ac-ft)
2-Year Storm (cfs) 10-Year Storm (cfs) 100-Year Storm (cfs)
page 88
CERTIFICATION
LANDSCAPE PLAN for :
1659
SISU LAND SURVEYING
10775 Poppitz Lane
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
TREE PROTECTION
TREE PRESERVATION
TREE LEGEND
TREE REPLACEMENTS
1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights
LEGEND
SHEET 4 OF 4
M & M Home Contractors
Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556
PREPARED FOR:
page 89
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AT 1919 HUNTER LANE
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, January 24, 2017 in
the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit at 1919 Hunter Lane. This request has been
assigned Planning Case number 2017-01.
This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning) 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
page 90
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP
Interim Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-02
Lot Split
Mark Gergen, 697 Wesley Lane
COMMENT:
Introduction
The application is for a lot split (subdivision).
Background
There is an existing single family home on the lot which would be removed to create two new single family
lots.
Discussion
The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests
and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required. The Planning commission held a public hearing on the matter on January 24, 2017.
There were a number of comments from nearby neighbors expressing concerns about the character of the
neighborhood, setbacks and drainage. Staff has discussed the drainage situation with neighbors and the
applicant, and we have modified the conditions of approval to reflect the added analysis needed and
potential additional easements on the new lots.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, with some additions to the conditions in
the staff report. If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting
RESOLUTION 2017-17 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AT 697 WESLEY LANE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 91
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-17
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT
AT 697 WESLEY LANE AND PID# 27-64750-01-010
WHEREAS, Mark Gergen has applied for a Lot Split as proposed in Planning Case
2017-02 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on January 24, 2017.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the request as proposed in Planning Case 2017-02 is hereby approved with the following findings
of fact:
1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is
requested.
2. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City code minimum standards and are
comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Wesley Lane.
3. The specific plans proposed have placed the proposed future homes and driveways such
that there is minimal removal of existing trees, thus preserving as much as practical the
existing character of the neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot
Split as proposed in Planning Case 2017-02 is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as
part of any building permit application.
2. The applicant shall provide a drainage analysis of the property prepared by a qualified
professional to quantify the runoff, show additional drainage and utility easements if
needed, and prepare grading plans that will demonstrate that no additional stormwater
beyond the existing condition drains to neighboring properties.
3. Such grading plans and building plans will allow for the preservation of the trees on both
Parcel A and Parcel B as shown on the survey drawing date 1-13-2017 from Bohlen
Surveying and will not increase drainage problems onto neighboring properties. Any
other land disturbance must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
document.
4. Front setbacks to Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall
be 40 feet and 45 feet, respectively, more or less as shown on the Bohlen survey drawing,
in order to preserve the existing trees indicated.
5. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department, as part of any building permit application.
page 92
Res 2017-17 page 2
6. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted
on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front
property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines, and such additional
easements that may be deemed necessary by the City Engineer as a result of the requested
drainage analysis.
7. On Parcel A, the rear portion of the existing driveway will be removed, and graded so as
not to aggravate drainage problems, and the ground restored with suitable ground cover,
as approved by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
8. Park dedication fees in lieu of land per current City policy will be paid before the
subdivision is recorded with Dakota County.
9. The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota
County.
10. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
building permit.
11. On Parcel A, when the building permit is applied for it will adhere to setback
requirements for the placement of the driveway.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of February, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 93
Res 2017-17 page 3
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
PID# 27-64750-01-010
Lot 1 Block 1, Rolling Woods Addition
page 94
Request for Planning Commission Action
MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP
Interim Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-02
Lot Split
Mark Gergen, 697 Wesley Lane
COMMENT:
Introduction
The application is for a lot split (subdivision).
Background
There is an existing single family home on the lot which would be removed to create two new single family
lots.
Discussion
The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests
and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation
to the City Council.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 95
Item No. 2017-02
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 24, 2017
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
RE: Planning Case 2017-02: Request for a Lot Split in Rolling Woods Addition
Applicant: Mark Gergen
Property Address: 697 Wesley Lane
Action: Lot Split, Approval of Subdivision Request
Deadline: March 4, 2017 (60 days from complete application submittal)
REQUEST Request to subdivide in an R-1 zoning district to replace one single-family lot
(existing home) with two conforming single-family lots
SITE CONTEXT
Existing Zoning R-1 One-Family Residential
Existing Lot
Existing Lot Area
Lot 1, Block 1, Rolling Woods Addition
35,451 square feet (.81 acres)
Designated Future Land Use Low Density Residential
Site Description and Present Use
The subject site contains an existing single family home. The site is bordered to the north and
west by existing single family homes, to the east by Wesley Court and to the south by Wesley
Lane. Existing access to the property is from Wesley Lane through a driveway along the
property’s western edge. The existing home sits in the middle of the property and the existing lot
is bordered by mature trees on both Wesley Lane and Wesley Court.
Surrounding Properties and Neighborhood
All properties adjacent to the site and most properties in its immediate vicinity are single family
homes. The exception is the church which is located at 700 Wesley Lane south of the subject site.
The property is a corner lot that directly abuts two other properties. To the west is a single family
page 96
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 2
home fronting Wesley Lane. To the northeast is a single family home fronting Wesley Court and to
the northwest is a single-family home fronting Mager Court.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two
single-family lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 1-13-2017 from Bohlen Surveying and
Associates:
Parcel A, on the west side of the existing lot would be about 101’ x 175’, and would
include 17,762 square feet, with access from Wesley Lane via the existing curb cut and
driveway. The existing driveway is on the west lot line, closer to the lot line than the 5-foot
setback required by code.
Parcel B, on the east side of the existing lot would be about 102’ x 175’, and include
17,688 square feet, with access from Wesley Court via a new curb cut and driveway.
Some trees are proposed to be removed to allow the lot split and build two new homes:
o On Parcel A, keeping the existing curb cut and driveway in its current location
allows most of the trees on the front of the lot to remain. Four trees in the interior
of the lot would be removed for the new driveway and house. The new layout on
Parcel A would remove most of the rear section of the existing driveway,
eliminating activity and snow plowing there, a significant benefit for the neighbor
to the west, but care must be taken not to aggravate drainage problems.
page 97
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 3
o On Parcel B, four trees on the Wesley Court frontage would be removed to make
room for the new driveway and three internal trees would be removed for the
new house.
Above: View NE from Wesley Lane, Below: View SW from Wesley Court
ANALYSIS
1) This application would result in two one-family lots. Both lots exceed the minimum lot
area (15,000 square feet) and lot width (100 feet) of the R-1 District.
2) The proposed lot sizes for both lots exceed the lot size and frontages of nearby lots on
Wesley Lane and the proposed frontages are comparable.
3) Front setbacks required on Wesley Lane would be slightly more than 30 feet, per the
“average setback rule” in Section 12-1D-4D, but the proposed plan shows more than this.
page 98
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 4
4) Preserving as many of the mature trees as possible on the Wesley Lane and Wesley Court
frontages is desirable to impose the least disruption possible to the neighborhood
character.
5) Park dedication fees are required for the new lot created as a result of the lot split.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the
character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City
Council. We recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with
associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department
as part of any building permit application.
2) Such grading plans and building plans that will allow for the preservation of the trees on
both Parcel A and Parcel B as shown on the survey drawing date 1-13-2017 from Bohlen
Surveying and which will serve to alleviate any drainage problems onto neighboring
properties. Any other land disturbance must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
3) Front setbacks to Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be
40 feet and 45 feet, respectively, more or less as shown on the Bohlen survey drawing, in
order to preserve the existing trees indicated.
4) The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department, as part of any building permit application.
5) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be
denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along
the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines.
6) On Parcel A, the rear portion of the existing driveway will be removed, and graded so as
not to aggravate drainage problems, and the ground restored with suitable ground
cover, as approved by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
7) Park dedication fees in lieu of land per current City policy will be paid before the
subdivision is recorded with Dakota County.
8) The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota
County.
9) Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of
a building permit.
page 99
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 5
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the
following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the lot split based on the attached findings of fact.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on findings of fact.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
page 100
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot split for 697 Wesley Lane
1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is
requested.
2. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City code minimum standards and are
comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Wesley Lane.
3. The specific plans proposed have placed the proposed future homes and driveways
such that there is minimal removal of existing trees, thus preserving as much as practical
the existing character of the neighborhood.
page 101
203170 132113 101 6860189 1
7
8
100 2232
68
697
706 695
703
687
WESLEY LN WESLEY CTScale Site Plan697 Wesley Lane
Date: 1/18/2017
City ofMendotaHeights040
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entityfrom which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 102
page 103
page 104
page 105
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOT SPLIT AT 697 WESLEY LANE
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, January 24, 2017 in
the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider a Lot Split at 697 Wesley Lane. This request has been assigned Planning Case
number 2017-02.
This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning) 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
page 106
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: February 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Sgt. Tanner Spicer
SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-18 to rename the Mendota Heights 5k the, “Officer Scott Patrick
Memorial 5k to benefit the Special Olympics”.
Introduction
The City Council is asked to authorize the renaming of the Mendota Heights 5k to “Officer Scott Patrick
Memorial 5k to benefit the Special Olympics”.
Background
For the past 11 years, Gateway Bank has sponsored the Mendota Heights 5k to benefit Special Olympics
of Minnesota.
The Mendota Heights Police Department would like to have the 5k renamed the “Officer Scott Patrick
Memorial 5k to benefit the Special Olympics”.
Officer Scott Patrick was killed while making a traffic stop on July 30th, 2014. Officer Patrick had served
the citizens of Mendota Heights, Mendota, and Lilydale for 19 years. His death was a stark reminder of
the uncertainty that law enforcement officers and our communities face on a daily basis. By remembering
Officer Patrick, and all officers killed in the line of duty, we are not dwelling in the fear of that
uncertainty, but rather we are honoring the certainty, the deep knowledge, that exists in the hearts of
police officers everywhere. The certainty of the amazing things we can accomplish when the police and
the public come together and work towards a common goal. It is in that spirit of cooperation that we
request that the Mendota Heights 5k be renamed.
Budget Impact
No budget impacts to approving and adopting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council should pass resolution authorizing the change
of the name of the Mendota Heights 5k.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve resolution 2017-18, Renaming the Mendota Heights
5k to:
“Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5k to Benefit the Special Olympics”.
page 107
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2017-18
RENAMING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5K THE
“OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL 5K
TO BENEFIT THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS”
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has participated in and facilitated the Mendota
Heights 5k; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mendota Heights recognizes the profound impact the
death of Officer Scott Patrick had on our community; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Special Olympics of bringing joy through activity is
consistent with the vision of our community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mendota Heights is committed to honoring the service
of fallen law enforcement officers and the service of the Special Olympics.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mendota Heights 5k be renamed
the“Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5k to Benefit the Special Olympics.”
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 108
DATE: February 7, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Architectural Services—City Hall
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve the proposal of JEA Architects to provide design, bid, and
construction inspection services for the remodeling of the lower level of City Hall.
BACKGROUND
For years, mold has been an issue in the lower floor of City Hall. In October, 2016, a drainage
system was installed on the south side of the building which should eliminate the threat of further
water intrusion into the police and building storage areas, which was the reason for the mold.
Remodeling work can now take place.
Two architects were contacted by staff to submit proposals to provide the City with design
services for the remodeling of the areas which have been impacted by mold. That would include
demolition of the impacted areas, design of new walls, ceilings, and floor coverings; assisting the
city with seeking quotes or bids as necessary, and provide construction inspection during and
following the work.
Note that the remodeling work will need to be done in phases, as most of the areas will still be
occupied during the work. For example, the men’s locker room has been in a temporary location
for several months, but the locker room has already been remediated for mold. Once that locker
room is reconstructed and can be reoccupied, the squad room will similarly be relocated while
mold remediation and then remodeling takes place. Similar treatments will need to take place in
the women’s locker room, and in elections storage, general storage, and mechanical areas. One
of the storage areas would be remodeled into an office.
Note that neither of these proposals include mold investigation or remediation. Those will need
to be performed by companies which specialize in that work, and will incur a separate cost.
page 109
The company which is recommended is JEA Architects of Hopkins. I have had experience with
this firm with several smaller municipal remodeling projects in the past, and know that the
services which they would provide will fit well with our needs here.
BUDGET IMPACT
JEA submitted a range for its work of between $20,250 and $22,250, which was slightly higher
than the alternate proposal ($18,960). Both would also have standard reimbursable expenses
(mileage, copies, etc). However, the City is not obligated to take the low quote on professional
services.
The Facilities Reserve Fund has a current balance of approximately $30,000, which would pay
for the architectural services. One major reason that an architect is being hired is to provide an
estimate as to how much the remodeling will cost; that is part of JEA’s proposed Phase 1. It is
likely that the most likely sources of funding for the actual construction and mold remediation
work will be either 1) General Fund Reserves, or 2) the Water Tower Fund.
The proposal from JEA will provide those estimated costs prior to commencing construction
drawings. If it is determined to be too costly for remodeling to proceed now, the design contract
will be terminated, and the City would owe only for the work done in Phase 1. Depending on the
amount of time actually spent to that point, the design investigation costs would be in the $7500
to $10,000 range.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the City authorize the appropriate officials to enter into a standard AICP
agreement with JEA Architects for City Hall design work.
If approved, work will begin later in February.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, enter into an agreement with JEA Architects of
Hopkins, Minnesota, for architectural design services for the lower level of Mendota Heights
City Hall with costs not to range from $20,250 to $22,250, plus reimbursable expenses.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 110
ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE DESIGN SPACE PLANNING
JACK EDWARD ANDERSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 202 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
PHONE (952) 935-5164 FAX (952) 935-2102 WWW.JEAARCHITECTS.NET
January 12, 2017
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota heights, MN 55118
Re: Proposal of Professional Services for
Mendota Heights City Hall Lower Level Interior Remodeling
Dear Mark:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal for the Mendota Heights City Hall Lower Level
Interior Remodeling.
I. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
We have identified the following list of items for consideration in preparation of our fee quotation:
A. The project consists of interior remodeling and includes the following lower spaces:
• Refer to Attachment A
II. PHASE I - SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Our services include architectural services specifically as follows:
1. One visit to meet and verify and catalog the existing conditions.
2. Project research, existing space review.
3. Photograph the existing interior spaces.
4. Code review and assessment.
5. Provide 22” x 34” (or 24” x 36”) drawing as follows:
a. A2 – Existing Floor Plan with proposed layout (one or two options)
1) Miscellaneous Notes
2) Miscellaneous Details
3) Preliminary Phasing Plan review and assessment.
6. Preliminary cost estimate.
7. Engineering general review.
8. Meeting and coordination with City staff to present design criteria.
page 111
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
January 12, 2017
Page 2
II. PHASE II - SCOPE OF SERVICES (Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical)
A. Completion of Preliminary Design Drawings
B. Construction (contract) Document Drawings
1. Site visit/kickoff meeting.
2. Provide drawings and specifications as necessary.
3. Coordination with City personnel
4. Contract Document coordination and administration.
5. Construction (contract) Document Drawings
a. Architectural title sheet, floor plan/phasing sheet and detail sheet.
b. Engineering sheets necessary for the project
c. Architectural and engineering sections necessary to bid the project.
d. Final quality control review.
C. Bidding Services
1. Distribution of contract documents to bidders.
2. Field necessary communication relative to the bidding process.
3. Coordinate and provide project addenda as necessary.
4. General project administration.
D. Construction Administration Services
1. Administer Architectural/Owner/Contractor pre-bid meeting.
2. Review of shop drawings.
3. Present color selections for the project.
4. Provide Contract Document Clarification.
5. Site visitations.
1) Architectural
a) One (1) Pre Bid
b) Two (2) Construction
c) One (1) Punch List
2) Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
a) One (1) Construction
b) One (1) Punch List
page 112
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
January 12, 2017
Page 3
III. FEE PROPOSAL
A. We propose that the fee for the above scope of services be hourly not to exceed a
range of $20,250 - $22,250.00, plus reimbursables. Proposal adjustments can be
made based on final review of scope of work.
B. Additional Costs:
1. Standard reimbursables will be billed at 1.15 times cost (unless indicated otherwise).
These items include:
a. Reproduction ($5.50 per 22” x 34” or 24” x 36” sheet and
$0.30 per 8 1/2 x 11 copy)
b. Messenger/delivery/postage
c. Travel ($0.60 per mile)
d. Faxes ($.75 each)
e. Long distance telephone calls
C. Additional services will be billed at the following hourly rates:
Principal/Project Manager $125
Project Architect $95
Senior Technician $75
Technician $60
Clerical $40
IV. ADDITIONAL NOTES
A. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering services are included in our scope of services.
B. Civil and Structural Engineering services are not included in our scope of services.
C. We will execute an AIA Agreement appropriate for this project.
page 113
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
January 12, 2017
Page 4
Would like to note that we have an excellent track record of working through tough remodeling projects
with quality solutions and follow through including a number projects with the cities of Rosemount,
Savage, Shakopee, Edina and Mahtomedi.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Mendota Heights. Please feel free to call if you
have any questions regarding the services which are included in this proposal.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jack Anderson, AIA, CID, NCARB
President
JEA/kda
Enclosures
page 114