Loading...
2018-01-02 Council MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 2, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice, 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 called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption, making note that 5f. Approve Professional Services Contract with KLJ for RFP Development has been postponed to a future meeting and item 9f. 2018 Fee Schedule has been added. Councilor Duggan moved adoption of the agenda as revised. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items c. Purchase Field Grader for Park Maintenance and j. Approval of Claims List. a. Approval of December 19, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Approve 2018 Financial Items • Resolution 2018-02 Establishing 2018 City Depositories of Funds • Resolution 2018-03 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2018 • Authorize Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims c. Purchase Field Grader for Park Maintenance d. Resolution 2018-05 Calling for a Public Hearing on the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements e. Approve Police Officer Hire f. Postponed to a future meeting g. Ratify Agreement with Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local #76 h. Approve 2018-2019 Teamsters Labor Agreement COLA Adjustment i. Receive Update on 2017-2018 City Council Goals Action Plan j. Approval of Claims List Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C) PURCHASE FIELD GRADER FOR PARK MAINTENANCE Councilor Duggan asked for more information about the field grader attachment. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the current field grader has been in service for several years, and was previously retired from the City of Eagan. This would be a laser guided plow that would connect to a laser level that the city owns. It would be used to upgrade the baseball fields and hockey rinks, and is estimated to last for at about 20 years. It would be purchased through the state contract. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the purchase of a field grading plow attachment. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 J) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST City Administrator Mark McNeill, referencing the Dering Pierson Group invoice, stated that staff was still working with the contractor and asked that the approval be deferred for two weeks. Councilor Duggan asked about the status of the road salt budget. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the city was stocked up at the beginning of the year with salt left over from 2017. Councilor Duggan asked about the cost of the Friendly Hills Warming House. Mr. Ruzek replied that this was a newly constructed warming house, and additional improvements were made to the hockey rinks, the lighting, along with new electric and gas services. Councilor Duggan asked who would be reporting to staff on the condition of the rink. Mr. Ruzek replied that John Boland, Parks Supervisor, has managed the building project and Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Coordinator, monitors the rink usage. Mayor Garlock moved to approve the Claims List with the omission of Dering Pierson Group invoice. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 There were no public comments. No items scheduled. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council PUBLIC COMMENTS PRESENTATIONS Page 2 of 15 PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2018-01 RE -AFFIRMING AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT — MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT (REF. PLANNING CASE NO. 2017-19) — ORDINANCE 518 REZONING TO HR -PUD (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) 2160 & 2180 HIGHWAY 13 MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT PUD Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this resolution was to re -affirm the previous resolution approving the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD). Also Ordinance 518 would officially approve the rezoning of the property. On June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-43, amending the Comprehensive Plan from Business to HR -PUD at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13. On September 5, 2017, the City adopted Resolution 2017-69 which approved the rezoning of this property from B-3 General Business District to HR -PUD High Density Residential — Planned Unit Development, a preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and a wetlands permit. A few weeks later, on September 21, 2017 the City Council also adopted Resolution 2017-95 which approved a final plat for the subject property. For clarification purposes, Mr. Benetti noted that the subject parcel — that being the former Larsen Greenhouse and Mendota Heights Motel sites, was eligible for a PUD because the project consisted of a residential use that would not otherwise be a permitted use in the B-3 zoning district. According to Title 12-1K of the City Code, the conditions to be met to authorize a PUD are that the Council may reduce the ten acre requirement for a planned unit development, but to no less than five (5) acres, and only if it finds that the planned unit development, in addition to meeting all of the standards of section 12-1K-5, is determined by the council to be "infill type development" that would be difficult to develop, would not require any wetlands permits, would not require any critical area variance, would not increase traffic or parking estimates for the project area above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use, and provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area. Mr. Benetti explained that the resolution before the Council provided additional findings and would not reverse Resolution 2017-69. The Council would be re -affirming and adopting additional findings for approval. Mr. Benetti explained the additional findings that are included in Resolution 2018-01. The City Council was also asked to consider and adopt Ordinance No. 518, amending the official zoning map and rezoning property located at 2160 Highway 13 and 2180 Highway 13 to HR -PUD High Density Residential -Planned Unit Development District ("HR -PUD"). Councilor Miller stated that he spent time studying the information. Mr. Benetti indicated the City has the discretion to create PUD's on sites that are less than 10 acres in size, however, they are limited by seven thresholds which are contained in City Code Section 12-1K. He asked if staff had been aware of these requirements in May, 2017. Mr. Benetti confirmed that they were aware. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 15 Councilor Miller stated that, in his opinion, this action being now requested of the Council was an attempt to rectify issues of threshold numbers, infill development, a wetlands permit, and traffic and parking estimates. He pointed out that if the Minnesota Department of Transportation were to call for a traffic study, the city would have had the developer do one. Mr. Benetti confirmed this to be correct. Councilor Miller noted that the city was told, via a letter dated June 29, 2017 from MnDOT, that because an apartment complex of this magnitude would generate upwards of a thousand trips per day, that they were requiring a right-hand turn lane off Highway 13, yet a traffic study was not provided. He quoted Mr. Benetti has having said that "they [MnDOT] believed that the road could handle the uptick in traffic" — he then asked who from MnDOT made that assurance to the city. Mr. Benetti replied that it was stated in a memo from MnDOT. The city provides them the plans and they provide the city with any conditions. A traffic study was never requested in that memo. Councilor Miller explained that each time information was prepared for the Planning Commission, the Council, and the public, it was stated that the zoning was R-3 for the PUD. Once the Council amended the Comprehensive Plan on June 6, 2017, only projects that met the requirements for that Residential HR -PUD or R-3 would be eligible. Councilor Miller continued by saying that going back to the May 23, 2017 public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Benetti referenced that again, yet when reviewing the traffic study that was completed by WSJ, there was no mention of the R-3 zoning; however, they referenced a B -Business district. Mr. Benetti confirmed and stated that the original zoning was B-3 General Business and that was changed to a new district - HR -PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The traffic comparison was based on the previous zoning of B-3. Councilor Miller asked if the city should not be following the guidelines of the R-3 zoning. Mr. Benetti replied that they are following the HR -PUD. Mr. Miller asked why, on the traffic study, did it use the comparison for the B-3 — wouldn't using the HR -PUD give them a lower number. Mr. Benetti replied that when looking at the fourth bullet point (Will not increase traffic or parking estimates for the project area above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use for the project area's size in the zoning district in which it is situated), that statement refers to the original B-3 zoning. Councilor Miller claimed that the other part of the traffic study relating to the parking comparisons were done using a number that Mr. Benetti recommended, which was 100 units less than what the current ordinance requires.; rather than going with the current city ordinance. He asked why that was done in that matter. Mr. Benetti replied that there was a previous study completed for The Reserve at Mendota Village apartments. When staff reviewed it, they noted that basically the same study was used to equivocate or to provide for a certain allowance for this development because Mr. Swenson did not want to put in 2.5 stalls per unit. Staff felt it was more important to leave as much open space as possible on this site. With parking spaces underground and the surface parking, the total came to be approximately 1.9 stalls per unit. Councilor Miller, regarding the traffic study, said that WSJ referenced the fact that they used the 9th Edition Trip Generation Manual and yet that is not the most recent one. There is a 10th edition. Mr. Benetti replied that he assumed they were using the most recent edition. Councilor Duggan, referencing the Wetlands Permit area, asked if in April or May of 2017, staff had not determined that a Wetlands Permit was needed for this apartment proposal. Mr. Benetti replied that there was a determination made early on that a Wetlands Permit should be applied for because it was really January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 15 unknown if it would be required until they got into the full development review. Councilor Duggan then said that this initial determination — that a Wetlands Permit was required — continued through August and September of 2017. Mr. Benetti replied that it was initially determined by staff that the only impact to the wetlands was going to be for a utility connection within the 100 -foot boundary. Staff has since asked the developer if he could revise his plan to have all of the utility work completed outside of the boundary. Mr. Swenson, the developer, has agreed to stay outside of the 100 foot wetland boundary for the utility connection. Councilor Duggan asked when staff received the grading plan from the developer if it confirmed staff s initial judgment that a Wetlands Permit was necessary. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Councilor Duggan continued by stating that as Mr. Benetti was making these recommendations he knew that, under section 12 -1K -2b of the city's zoning ordinance, this site was disqualified from being considered for HR -PUD zoning or HR -PUD status under the city comprehensive plan if it required a Wetlands Permit. Mr. Benetti replied that this statement was not correct. Councilor Duggan continued by stating that Mr. Benetti recommended that the Planning Commission and the City Council violate the Code and both parties did so. Mr. Duggan stated that because of a lawsuit filed, the developer has provided the city with an altered grading and utility plan so that a Wetlands Permit would not be required. City Attorney Tom Lehmann stated that he was not following what was Councilor Duggan's question. Councilor Duggan repeated that he was asking for agreement that the facts were being altered because of the lawsuit. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that this was Councilor Duggan's opinion but was not, in fact, accurate with regards to why this had been requested. The attorney that represents the city in this matter would say the same thing. He said that, in his experience, this is not uncommon. This is certainly something that the Council would decide on whether to adopt or not. From his point of view, looking at it as the representative of the city, that it was not done just to pad the lawsuit; it was not done in contrary to the law allowing it; it was not uncommon to come up with additional findings when there was more information relative to this. Councilor Duggan stated that going back, the council was in agreement and advised through September, October, and November 2017, that a Wetlands Permit was required. The approved plat on November 21, 2017 showed a utility easement along the east edge of the property line. Unless such an easement is vacated, there is always a right to use the easement. He asked if the developer was going to vacate the easement and if he did, would that not require a modification of the plan. Mr. Benetti replied that at this point there were no plans to utilize this area. Councilor Duggan asked where the developer was going to locate whatever it was he was going to do that would have disturbed the soil within 100 feet of Lemay Lake. City Attorney Lehmann stated that he wanted to make sure that, as he expressed, this was not the position that the city was taking on this. He expressed his appreciation for Councilor Duggan's opinion, but it was not the stance the city was taking. He requested that Councilor Duggan restate his questions in the form that this was his position because it comes across, in the record, that it is the city's. The city has not voted on this and to generalize these opinions create an unclear record that would be part of the ongoing lawsuit. Councilor Duggan then asked if anyone has seen a new upgraded utility and grading plan from the developer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the utility plan was revised — there was a sanitary sewer connection along the eastern property line; the City of Mendota Heights still maintains an January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 15 undeveloped right-of-way easement in that location. Within that undeveloped right-of-way that runs between the subject parcel and Lemay Lake, the city owns a mainline sanitary sewer. The development was going to make a new connection on that main line. Instead of where they originally showed their connection, which was going to be within that 100 -foot wetlands buffer, they were going to be putting the connection further north — outside of that buffer. Councilor Duggan asked if that information should had been provided to the Council. Mr. Ruzek replied that the items being reviewed now were actually for a plat approval. The city and staff are required to make sure developments meet their code; as far as utility connections and those are typically not reviewed by the Council. Councilor Duggan continued. The Planning Report of August 22, 2017 to the Planning Commission disclosed that the south building would be located 88.1 feet from the east property line. The east property line is less than 50 feet from the high water mark of Lemay Lake. Residents in the area are concerned. Councilor Duggan believed that this needs to be addressed. He then asked if the developer's revised plans showed where the on-site utilities were going to be installed, and when would the Council get to see those plans? Councilor Duggan stated that with the challenges that had been presented and looking at the requirements, he did not believe that those requirements were being met. Councilor Miller, referencing the comment made by Mr. Ruzek that typically the plans would not come before the Council, asked for confirmation that they should have gone to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruzek replied that the plans were provided in the Council packet; however, they were generally not scalable or measurable. The grading review, the stoiiuwater review, and the utility review happens in strong detail during the building permit phase. Building permit phases are not approved by the City Council. That type of grading is not scrutinized by the elected officials. Where the utility connects to the city's main line would not have a major impact on the development. Mr. Ruzek also noted that he had not received a revised grading plan; the original grading plan had a generalized 100 -foot buffer area. The developer added a surveyed 100 -foot buffer on the plan. All of the grading has always been outside of that 100 -foot zone. Councilor Miller stated that if the grading plans were altered from the original iteration, no one had seen the evidence or assurance that the developer no longer needed a Wetlands Permit. He noted that there had been a `commonly accepted' definition of "infill" and asked who it was commonly accepted by. It appears to still be at odds with the definition of the city's zoning ordinance Despite the 12 -1K -1d of the zoning ordinance, which required certain parking and traffic estimates be made under the threshold requirements of PUD's less than 10 acres; at no point has the council or the public been provided with the information for consideration. Furthermore, Councilor Miller said that in every instance, when referencing this it had been referred to as a R-3 zoning. Tonight it had been decided to reference it back to B-3. Nearly four months after the Council voted to approve this PUD, the Council sees the parking and traffic estimates. He said that this seemed to be a rather retroactive manner. Councilor Miller continued, stating that in an attempt to comply with the zoning ordinance and act in a conservative manner regarding the creation of a PUD under 10 acres, where it is normally permitted for 46 units, the Council had been asked to vote on something that more than tripled that amount at 140 January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 15 units. To him that was not conservative. None of this information in his opinion, was complete. The public hearing was not complete because it contained incomplete information. Councilor Miller believed that the public, the people who trusted enough to vote for the Councilors, have not had the opportunity to support, comment on, or oppose the seemingly now revised product. This should be the very purpose of having a public meeting. In his opinion, this had been a debacle and the Council owed it to themselves and, more importantly, to the residents to right the ship. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that Councilor Miller was absolutely right, the policy was the Councils', and his job was to point out the law and make sure the city was following the law. In regards to the grading plan, it was his understanding that the grading plan had never changed; the only thing that had changed was the utility connection that Mr. Ruzek talked about. In response to the comments made about the meaning of "infill type development," City Attorney Lehmann stated that when the Council was asked to make decisions based upon ordinances, one of the things that was looked at was to see if there was a definition that would define commonly used terms. In this case, the city's code did not define an `infill type development' with respect to how it would be applied in a PUD. As the memo pointed out, it did define `infill type development' with regards to noise attenuation and aircraft. In that situation, he said that it would not be uncommon to look outside of that and refer to other types of definitions that have been used in other codes or in other cities who have used this definition. That was how staff came up with the commonly accepted meaning of "infill type development." In his opinion, the city could feel pretty comfortable that the definition used was not out of the ordinary, did not stretch the limits of the imagination, was not set forth to strengthen the city's position in any way — it was a commonly referred definition in the zoning, area, or realm of people who deal with this. City Attorney Lehmann continued with regards to the parking and what the code referred to, was that this site had been zoned B-3. The ordinance said that the city could not increase the parking or the traffic greater than what it was zoned. He was unsure where this R-3 came into since it was not an R-3. It could be rezoned to a HR -PUD and the code required that the city could not increase the traffic greater than it was originally zoned for — and that was what the traffic study showed. As a result it fell within the allowable things that the Council could decide if it wanted to grant this PUD. Councilor Duggan stated that it was clear to him that in adopting the HR -PUD, the Council had to deteiinine what kind of zoning would be used. The underlying zoning of the land, before the adoption of the PUD, was what prevailed. He continued by saying that anyone could debate the argument that the traffic would be more or less than the previous zoning would allow. However, if it were to be 140 units, and the standard age of residents living there would be 40 to 60 years, he said that it would normally be assumed at 10 trips a day per unit — equaling approximately 1,400 trips per day, not the 1,000 trips per day being heard. This proposal has issued a challenge of how to make a left-hand turn onto Highway 13, which had been very difficult. It would be much more difficult after this or any other development. The tree planting and the grading were all to be in the perimeter. Councilor Duggan stated that he was unsure if he had seen a clear delineation of what was proposed there. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 15 For these, and many other reasons, he had suggested that this proposal go back to the drawing board, which he still believed to not be unreasonable. City Attorney Lehmann stated that it was important that it be understood exactly what the code said. In regards to the traffic and parking, the code says 'it would not increase traffic or parking estimates for the project area above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use' which was B-3. Councilor Duggan asked if there was a record of what the traffic had been before this. City Attorney Lehmann replied that he did not know the answer to that and he did not know if it was relevant or not. All the city had to show was that it was not more than what was allowed in the B-3 zone. Councilor Duggan continued by stating that it seemed to be a lot of playing around with definitions of words; the word `reasonable', the word `amended', the word `type' in the phrase infill type development — he was unsure where `type' came into play because if it read `infill development' they would be limited in what could be built there because of its proximity to the airline paths and noise attenuation. City Attorney Lehmann replied that what was set forth when it said 'the commonly accepted meaning of "infill type development" referred to a development that was proposed on a vacant or under-utilized parcel of land that was located in an urban area that was largely developed and was already served by public infrastructure, such as water, transportation, storm and waste water and other utilities', which was what was had here. The definition that was in the code pertained to an `undeveloped parcel or parcels of land proposed for development similar to or less noise sensitive than the developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped parcels'. That definition does not apply to what is being done in this situation with the PUD and that was why it was not uncommon or not an unaccepted practice to go out and try to find a more common definition. Councilor Duggan moved that the Council go back to the drawing board, start all over again with the developer and the city working together. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Nays: 3 (Paper, Petschel, Garlock) City Attorney Tom Lehmann stated that he wanted to make sure that it was clear that the code for Mendota Heights talks about `infill type development'. That was the realm in which staff needed to operate in to determine the definition. Staff did not add any words to that definition. The code requirements were determined by the Council to be "the infill type development", that would be difficult to develop. Councilor Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-01, REAFFIRMING AND ADOPTING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND FINAL PLAT TO MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MINNESOTA, LLC FOR THE NEW MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (LOCATED AT 2160 AND 2180 HIGHWAY 13). Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 15 Councilor Duggan stated that when looking at the resolution, it talked about `reaffirming and adopting additional findings' and then asked what the `additional findings' were. Mayor Garlock commented that he was aware that this process had been ongoing since February 2017. He also knew that Councilor Duggan met with city staff and Michael Development and they talked about the impervious surface. They agreed to reduce a couple of lanes of parking to increase the green space. They talked about the setbacks and the developer agreed to shorten one of the buildings. Councilor Duggan had worked with them and staff, and then there were revisions made to the plans. Councilor Duggan spoke up and said that he had not seen any of the drawings or delineations showing any of the items that were discussed, other than the parking. Mayor Garlock continued by stating that Councilor Duggan had expressed his approval with 80 to 100 units. As far as the traffic, he believed that it had been well stated that in the B-3 zone, there could be businesses that would generate more traffic than this apartment building. There have been many meetings with Michael Development; he stated this has been an open process. The Council has documented all of the meetings that have been had. Like any other project, there are always changes made during the process. He said that the Council does not limit the number of changes that can be made. Mayor Garlock complimented the staff for their hours of work put into this project. Staff is paid for their knowledge and ability to guide the City Council and the Planning Commission. He expressed respect in their positions and in their knowledge because this was not his field of expertise. City Attorney Tom Lehmann provided legal advice and said that we trust in his judgment. He believed this to be a good project, however, changes could still be made down the road. Councilor Duggan asked for permission to reveal what he and the Mayor discussed three or four months ago; which the Mayor stated was ok. Councilor Duggan said that the Mayor was concerned for Mr. Swenson as he had made a significant investment and Councilor Duggan replied that was his risk. He said that the Council did not have to guarantee that someone will make money developing within the City. Councilor Duggan believed that the standards and the principles of the city were being pushed aside. Councilor Duggan agreed that it was a good project — to a point. It was just too large of a project. Councilor Paper commented that, in his opinion, what Mr. Swenson has brought to the city was 140 units of housing at market rate. In order to qualify for a market rate apartment, a person must have a good job. He said that 25 year olds are not necessarily looking to purchase a home. It is ok for the City to evolve, to move forward, and to progress while being measured. Mr. Swenson was bringing the city a quality project that the city would not find any problems with in the future. He was able to finance the project and will see it through to completion. Councilor Paper stated that there is a beautiful apartment project being built at Dodd and Highway 110. The roof is now on and soon residents would be moving in. Mr. Swenson is also providing a benefit to the city by allowing more people to enjoy this community. The city needs to evolve — and not always be looking back at 1970. He said that if the city is not evolving, it is dying. Councilor Petschel reminded everyone that it was alright to disagree. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 15 Mayor Garlock called for the vote. Ayes: 3 (Paper, Petschel, Garlock) Nays: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Councilor Paper moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 518 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP rezoning property located as 2160 Highway 13 and 2180 Highway 13 to HR -PUD High Density Residential -Planned Unit Development District ("HR -PUD"). Mayor Garlock seconded the motion Ayes: 3 (Paper, Petschel, Garlock) Nays: 2 (Duggan, Miller) B) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE — FROM PHIL CARLSON, CONSULTING PLANNER — STANTEC Consulting Planner Phil Carlson from Stantec provided an update on the Comprehensive Plan process. He said that no decision was being asked of the Council that evening, but that comments were welcome. This plan update was started in 2016. Stantec has worked with the Planning Commission on the Goals & Vision stage of the plan. They are currently in the Alternatives stage. The six stages of the plan are Project Initiation, Inventory & Analysis, Goals & Vision, Alternatives, Implementation, and Plan Preparation. Mr. Carlson stated that the City is currently at a population of just over 11,000 residents and is not expected to grow dramatically. The age profile shows that Mendota Heights is an aging community. The City now has more people over 40 than under 40 years of age. The number of households with children has dropped by approximately 300, and households without children has increased by approximately 300. The City has a better educational achievement than some of the surrounding communities and the state. The median market value of homes is significantly higher than the surrounding communities and the county. In regards to affordable housing needs, the suggestion is that Mendota Heights should be able to have the potential to allow for 50 units by allowing areas to be zoned at a reasonable density that could allow multi -family housing and less expensive housing. There are 4,000+ owner occupied housing units and not quite 600 renter occupied housing units. Most of the housing was developed in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's. This does not reflect the new housing that is under construction. The mapping of the existing land use and future land use to be provided in the Comprehensive Plan; may not change significantly because the area is largely developed. There are estimates of 80,000 — 90,000 cars a day that travel 0111-494 and I -35E; 20,000+ on Highway 110; 8,000 — 9,000 cars per day on Dodd Road. All of these numbers will only increase over time. The City is served by several bus lines, however, the city is not hugely dependent on transit. The Council should continue working with the parks commission to review improvements and connections to park areas. A critical area along the Mississippi River exists. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 15 Amenities in the City include stable single family neighborhoods, which are centrally located in the metropolitan area; proximity to both downtown areas; and high quality schools. Challenges include limited public transit and lack of retail, goods, services, and restaurants. The City is mostly developed causing high land prices. There is a significant concentration of retail at Dodd and Highway 110; strong retail market metro -wide influencing Mendota Heights. The City strengths include visibility from Highway 110; far from competing retail area; high incomes; modest opportunities. The weaknesses include limited prospects for destination retails. The Industrial and Office Pluses include low unemployment --Mendota Heights has two jobs for every employable resident of the community. The Industrial Park is largely buffered from the rest of the community and takes the brunt of the airport noise. Industrial and Office minuses include that there is not a lot of land left; no retail or restaurant options for employees; no sidewalks; airport noise; limited transit. Mr. Carlson reviewed the vision statement that had been developed for the City: Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented, residential community with a vibrant business and industrial base; highly regarded educational and religious institutions; a spacious, natural feel; and the amenities of a city. The mission statement for Mendota Heights that was developed was: Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality, public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth. To receive feedback and comments from the community, Stantec conducted community workshops, an online survey, a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), and community open houses. Mr. Carlson will work in January with Community Development Director Tim Benetti to develop the draft alternatives for the elements of the Plan to be brought to the February Planning Commission meeting; draft implementation plans in March, and expect to have a full draft of the Plan by May in front of the Planning Commission and City Council. It is hoped that an open house and Public Hearing on the Plan would take place in June, 2018 so that the City Council can consider approval this summer In regards to the survey, Councilor Paper asked how they engaged the 120 people that responded? Mr. Carlson replied that the survey was available on the city's Facebook page and the city's website; other informal community Facebook pages were also utilized. Councilor Paper asked if it had been in the Heights Highlights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it had been in the Heights Highlights when the announcements were made about the open houses. Councilor Paper believed that 120 responses seemed low for a community of 11,000. Mr. Carlson replied that in his experience, this response rate was pretty good. Councilor Paper then asked how long, on average, had it taken for an individual to complete the survey? Mr. Carlson replied that it was not a long survey. He said that there were specific questions and an open ended question to provide additional comments. Councilor Paper then referenced the lack of public transportation and asked how the City could get the Metropolitan Council, who subsidizes the bus service, to add more bus lines or more frequency to January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 15 support the businesses? Mr. Carlson replied that it would probably be a multi -pronged effort between city staff and the owners/operators of the businesses to approach the Metropolitan Council with that request. Councilor Paper asked if Mendota Heights gets overlooked for additional bus service because of the assumption that the city does not need it? Mr. Carlson replied that he did not believe so. They are looking at ridership and numbers. Councilor Petschel noted a report that was done several years ago of a license plate study in the Park `n Ride for the light rail station at the Veterans Administration. They traced the license plates to where the commuter was from and the vast majority were found to be from Mendota Heights. This community is a big user of the light rail station at the VA, which she found interesting. Councilor Miller asked if anyone had collected any data on the 120 responders to the survey? Mr. Carlson replied that those types of questions were not asked. The intent was to foster discussion and to get ideas about what the residents thought of the community and to obtain suggestions. Councilor Duggan praised Mr. Carlson for a job well done. C) DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that over the past 35 years the City has used the South-West Review as its official newspaper. However, the Pioneer Press has also made a proposal to be the official newspaper. He said that both papers offered advantages. The Pioneer Press is a daily newspaper and gives staff more flexibility in publishing notices. They have 5,500 subscribers in Mendota Heights. The South-West Review has provided the city with very good service for the past 35 years and they are slightly less in rates. It is a weekly newspaper, and each residence of Mendota Heights is delivered a free paper. Councilor Paper commented that the local newspaper still has a place in the community. They are the ones providing the residents with direct access to local happenings. He said that if we do not support these small locals, they will be gone. Councilor Miller echoed Councilor Paper's comments. Councilor Duggan expressed his support of the Pioneer Press. He said that they have approximately 5,500 paid subscribers from the city, which is the majority of the houses in the community. He has yet to see the South West Review being delivered to his door. He suggested the city try it for a year. Councilor Petschel stated that she liked the flexibility of the Pioneer Press because it is a daily paper. She also did not know where to pick up a South West Review. On the other hand, she had a tremendous love and sympathy for small town newspapers. Mayor Garlock stated that he does receive the South West Review and that he receives the Pioneer Press as well. He understands that it would be easier for staff with the Pioneer Press. He has spoken to the reporter with the South West Review many times and they have done a very good job. Councilor Duggan moved to designate the Pioneer Press as the official newspaper. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 15 Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 (Duggan, Petschel, Garlock) Nays: 2 (Paper, Miller) D) DESIGNATION OF 2018 ACTING MAYOR Councilor Petschel moved to reappoint Councilor Joel Paper to be acting Mayor for 2018. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 E) CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission currently has two student appointees. He recommended the students be appointed on a school year basis. He suggested that the current appointees be extended through July 1, 2018. Councilor Paper suggested that the process be opened up in April and appointed by June 1st Mr. McNeill said that the information on the current Planning Commission opening is on the city's website. He suggested that a workshop session be scheduled for January 16, prior to the next Council meeting to interview applicants for this open position. Councilor Petschel pointed out that the liaison appointment to the Dakota County Sheriff's Advisory Board is made by the Sheriff, at his discretion, and is not a City appointment. The following will represent the City in 2018: Traffic Safety Committee City Council—Councilor Liz Petschel Planning Commission—Litton Field Lower Mississippi River Watershed Citizen Rep --Mary Jean Schneeman Alternate --Jill Smith Dakota County Sheriff's Advisory Board Representative—Councilor Liz Petschel F) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE & SANITARY SEWER RATES City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the fee schedule is reviewed annually. Staff would like to review the proposed changes and then bring it back to the Council for official action in two weeks. Councilor Duggan suggested that the amendments be discussed at the work session on January 16thThis suggestion was approved by all. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 15 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that residents can now sign up for the Royal Ball to be held on February 11th for fourth grade students or younger. The ice rinks are also open. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock noted two contributions from Mr. Joe Meisinger, one for the Scott Patrick Benevolent Fund for $500 and another for Special Olympics for $1,250. Councilor Miller expressed his appreciation to have an open and respectful discussion this evening. He expressed his appreciation to everyone who participated in the 2nd Annual Greater Mendota Heights Pub Crawl over Christmas break. Councilor Paper expressed Happy New Year wishes to everyone. He urged everyone to get out and use the ice rinks. He also wished the mayor continued good health in the coming year. Councilor Duggan expressed Happy New Year to everyone. He also noted the Sibley High School Band is accepting contributions for the Washington DC trip on July 4th to represent the State of Minnesota. Councilor Petschel echoed Councilor Miller's comments that it is wonderful that the Council can come together and agree to disagree. She stated that there were a couple of statements made recently that are simply not true. She has found the use of these statements disturbing. One is that the apartment project lacked transparency. She said that that was a completely false statement. She had two pages of publicly noticed meetings that had minutes and that they are able to be viewed on the City's website. All of the discussions were public, and to imply that this group was involved in something that was not transparent was something about which she was offended. She was also offended by something said by a homeowners association and by an ad-hoc neighborhood group; that being the existence of backroom deals. Again, she said that that was a lie. This statement was said and anyone can go back and review the recorded meeting. That was something that absolutely did not occur — she felt that that is slander. She felt that this comment slandered the developer, this Council, the Planning Commission and city staff. She said that there were no backroom deals and there was nothing done that was not transparent. The other thing that bothered her was that there was a lack of acknowledgement that the City needs housing of this sort. The council has received feedback from the residents and Dakota County. Residents are aging in place and would like to stay here, and they have no place to go. Along with that, there are millennials who want to move here and have no place to move into. The demographics, she believed, was going to show millennials cycling into the city and residents who are aging in place taking advantage of this new housing as a way of eventually cycling out of the city. She had heard statements that the city did not need to provide this kind of housing. However, she said that we do because we try to meet the residents' needs. January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 15 She had also heard the statement made that this would become a precedent, and how would the city ever say "no". She said that the city has already said no. She made the motion to kill the Trammel Crow project at The Village because it did not seem right. With concerns about the lake, she does not believe that anyone had any idea how contaminated this piece of property actually is. This property previously had much more impervious surface with no drainage plan. The greenhouse property was never hooked up to the sewer. Developing this piece of property is a huge challenge for anybody because of the contaminated soil conditions. What had to be put in was something with underground parking that could be vented 24 hours a day. Anyone concerned about the lake should celebrate this plan because it will finally captures and treats the stormwater, which will only help the lake conditions. She found it distressing that there was concern about the lake but no acknowledgement that this process would finally address many of things that were stressing the lake. Another comment which she has heard was that the city "gave the store away" when they did the TIF [tax increment financing] assistance. She said that the council had worked with Ehlers, a highly respected bonding group. A public workshop was done with Ehlers about exploring TIF for this project. They had looked at what Mr. Swenson was asking for in terms of a TIF. TIF did not mean that he would not be paying taxes. She said that the Ehlers opinion was that "this was a very modest TIF project". Councilor Petschel stated she would like the discussions to be polite. Her issue was with a lot of the pejorative language that had been used, and the things that had been stated that simply were not true. She was upset about how these pejorative terms had been used as a broad brush on this Council, on the developer, on the staff, and on the Planning Commission. Therefore, speaking for herself, she apologized to the staff, to Mr. Swenson, to the Planning Commission, and to this group. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. VA—JLD , c-4-1`;`4 9____, Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: 41),-z-tAi Lorri Smith City Clerk January 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 of 15