The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-02-07 City Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, February 7, 2018 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Special Presentation by Future Cities 6. Consent Agenda a. Approval of January 2, 2018 Council Work Session / Closed Session Minutes b. Approval of January 16, 2018 City Council Minutes c. Approval of January 16, 2018 Council Work Session / Closed Session Minutes d. Approval of Temporary Liquor License for Beth Jacob Congregation for March 18, 2018 e. Approval of Resolution 2018-11 Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County – FY 2018 f. Resolution 2018-14 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Ivy Hill Park Pond Improvement g. Approval of Recreation Facilities Reservation/Special Event Policy h. Approval of Citizen Comments Guidelines i. Approval of Claims List 7. Public Comments 8. Presentations a. Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study 9. Public Hearing a. Resolution 2018-13 Order Plans for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements 10. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2018-09 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment (Subdivision) Request for 572 and 566 Hiawatha Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-01) b. Resolution 2018-10 Approving a Lot Split (Subdivision) Request for 684 North Freeway Road (Planning Case No. 2018-02) c. Appointment of Dakota Broadband Board Member and Alternate Member 11. Community Announcements 12. Council Comments 13. Adjourn MEETING DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Future Cities Competition Presentations Introduction At its meeting of February 7th, the City Council will hear presentations from Friendly Hills Middle School students who are participants in the Future Cities competition. Background For the past ten years, Friendly Hills Middle School has been participating in the Future Cities Competition sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Former Mendota Heights Public Works Director and current Planning Commissioner John Mazzitello has provided mentorship to competing teams for nine of those 10 years (absent only the year John was deployed with the Air National Guard). The Future Cities Competition challenges teams of 6th through 8th grade students to design a city of the future based on a specific theme. The 2017 theme was The Age Friendly City. The State competition is held each January, where teams present their cities with a scale model of their city. In addition, teams are scored on a project plan, essay, and computer model using SimCity software. Once all the teams have presented, the scores are tabulated, and the top five teams advance to compete against each other in the State finals held later the same day. Friendly Hills Middle School entered three teams in this year’s competition, with one team reaching the State finals. The team, comprised of entirely 7th grade girls, finished in fourth place out of 59 teams entered. Recommendation Staff recommends Council receive the presentation from Friendly Hills Middle School. Action Required No Council action is required. For information only. page 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Closed Session and Work Session Held January 2, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, Petschel were also present. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATION MATTERS A motion to adjourn to a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute §13D.03 for Attorney Client Privilege for discussion of labor negotiations strategy. Those present included Mayor Garlock, Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel. Also in attendance were Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, City Attorney Tom Lehmann, and City Administrator Mark McNeill. A motion was made by Councilor Miller and seconded by Councilor Duggan to adjourn the closed meeting and to return to the open meeting at 6:05 pm. The motion passed 5-0. It was stated that no official action was taken by the Council in the closed session meeting. The Council will provide a summary of the closed session at a regular Council meeting as required by Minnesota Statutes. OPEN SESSION Salary Discussion Staff presented the compensation study results from consultant Springsted, Inc. Assistant City Administrator stated that a study had been commissioned with Springsted for a classification and compensation study for non-union employees. The City needed to report its Pay Equity status by January 31st, and that as a result of this study, it appears that the City’s pay plan would be in compliance. The pay plan as proposed by Springsted would reduce the number of pay grades from the existing 44, to 22, and would expand the number of steps from the current five, to seven. She also discussed implementation, and the transition to the new plan. Ms. Jacobson said that the adoption of this plan would be on the January 16th City Council agenda. Village Lots Discussion Mr. McNeill asked that the Council discuss what it would like to see done about the Village lots. He said that the preliminary KLJ North-South traffic study which had been presented at the December 19th City Council meeting had addressed the traffic impacts of the development of these lots on Dodd Road. Councilor Duggan indicated that he would like to see condominiums at that location, and would not want to see rentals. Councilor Miller said that he was concerned about traffic impacts and density at page 4 Jan 2, 2018 Council Closed Session/Work Session page 2 of 2 that location. Mayor Garlock said that he would like to see what we could live with, and then market it. Councilor Petschel said that the Comp Plan shows a lack of housing, and especially senior housing; she felt that townhouses wouldn’t address those needs. Councilor Duggan didn’t feel that the City needed to provide for all aging people in Mendota Heights, and that the City was now getting a nice mix of younger people who were maintaining quality homes. Councilor Petschel said that the merchants in the Village should be involved, and that they should be invited to a meeting to discuss the topic in the early summer. The Council reached no consensus as to the next step for the Village lots. 2018 Fireworks Mr. McNeill stated that, following an announcement in the Heights Highlights, he and several members of the City Council had received contacts from members of the public who were concerned about the discontinuance of July 4th fireworks. Some had volunteered to make donations. Councilor Miller said that firefighter Jay Taylor is willing to pursue it on behalf of the City. Mr. McNeill reviewed previous expenditures by the City, and the results of an on-line survey that he had done of other Minnesota cities. The consensus of the City Council was that the fireworks should continue for 2018, and that the city would contribute $10,000 of a $12,500 budget, if others were willing to do fundraising to cover the balance. 2018 Fee Schedule Due to a lack of time, this agenda item was not discussed. ADJOURN Motion Mayor Garlock and seconded by Councilor Paper to adjourn the meeting at 6:58 pm. Motion carried 5-0. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 5 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 16, 2018 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 called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Miller moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) 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 g) Approve Ordinance 519 Right-of-Way Management and Collocation and Lease Agreement and h) Approve Professional Services Contract with KLJ for Par 3 Turf Management RFP Development. a. Approval of January 2, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge December 11, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes c. Approval of Meeting Date Change for February 6th City Council Meeting d. Ratify Agreement with International Union of Operating Engineers Local 70 and Approve Job Description Amendments e. Approve of Police Office Hire f. Approve Resolution 2018-06 Joint Powers Agreement for Electronic Crime Unit g. Approve Ordinance 519 Right-of-Way Management and Collocation and Lease Agreement and approve the Summary Publication (4/5 vote required) h. Approve Professional Services Contract with KLJ for Par 3 Turf Management RFP Development page 6 January 16, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 6 i. Approve Resolution 2018-07 Calling for a Public Hearing for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements Project No. 201706 j. Authorization for ICMA-RC Managed Accounts k. Approval of Building Activity Report for December 2017 l. Approval of December 2017 Treasurer’s Report m. Approval of Claims List Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G) APPROVE ORDINANCE 519 RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT AND COLLOCATION AND LEASE AGREEMENT AND APPROVE THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION Councilor Miller asked what the potential pitfalls would be of approving this ordinance. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that there are no pitfalls that he can see. He said that the legislature passed a new statute allowing cities to have some flexibility in dealing with telecommunication providers. Cities are allowed to enter into negotiations with providers to come up with plans that meet both the city’s needs with regards to location, engineering, etc., and to also work with providers, realizing that these provide a benefit to the community. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated he was contacted by a representative from Verizon and they had questions on the draft agreement. Counsel Lehmann noted that he spoke with their attorney and he indicated that he had no problem with the ordinance. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt Ordinance 519, ADDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 7 TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING RIGHT OF WAY MANGEMENT, and to approve the summary publication. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) H) APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH KLJ FOR PAR 3 TURF MANAGEMENT RFP DEVELOPMENT Councilor Miller asked how the city decided upon KLJ to provide this service. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that there are not many firms in the field of turf management that are not actually in the business itself. Staff approached KLJ and they have a landscape architect on staff. They made a proposal to the City at the cost of $3,455. The Council asked staff to approach some of the local providers, to see if their staff would be able to help. Unfortunately, they were not in a position to do so. Councilor Petschel asked what it is exactly that the city would be getting from KLJ. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that KLJ has been asked to assist with the writing the Request for Proposals (RFP). The primary focus of the request is to seek a contractor who can work with the city at the Par 3 on chemical and fertilizer application. page 7 January 16, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 6 Councilor Paper asked why a landscape architect and not a turf expert created the RFP. Ms. Jacobson replied that the architect is experienced in turf management. Councilor Paper asked what other golf courses they have done work for. Ms. Jacobson did not have an answer, however staff did due diligence to see if the University of Minnesota extension program, which has a turf management program or other local golf courses could assist in writing an RFP. Councilor Miller moved to approve the professional services contract with KLJ for the development of a Request for Proposal for turf and grounds maintenance at the Par 3 golf course, at a cost not to exceed $3,455. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, commented on the comments given by Councilor Petschel at the last Council meeting. He stated this was not the language that would encourage open and honest communication between the citizens and the Council. He had two observations related to transparency. Transparency is not a process. Processes may or may not provide transparency. The characteristics of transparency are full information as available, collaboration, cooperation among parties, collective decision making, and free and open exchange. Mr. Treichel stated that processes decay over time. He encouraged the Council to use best practices as in other communities. He read in the minutes of the January 2, 2018 Council meeting that the Mendota Heights Apartments site is contaminated, which was disclosed by Councilor Petschel. That was the first time that anyone had heard about the site being contaminated and that should have been disclosed to all of the residents of Mendota Heights, but most certainly to the residents of Augusta Shores. This last minute disclosure about contamination only raises more questions about process and disclosure. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented on Resolution 2018-01 Reaffirming Findings Mendota Heights Apartments PUD. He stated the resolution attempted to justify the original decision of the Council made in September 2017. The major problem is that the resolution attempted to double down on the problems with the original plat approval in terms of density of the project and violations of the provisions of the PUD for the site. He suggested, given that the process had involved violations of city ordinances and the stretching of the provisions of the PUD, that it is community degradation. Mr. Smith continued by explaining that comments by Councilor Petschel on January 2, 2018, suggested one justification for the density of the apartment complex is for retirees to be able to stay in the city. He pointed out that the developer had explicitly stated that the target audience for those apartments is the age group of 30 – 45. He stated that the city faces a monumental challenge over the next 10 years, which is the Vikings development. He asked if the city really wanted that challenge to be in the hands of Councilors who want to believe that these challenges can be met in an effective manner for the city. He did not think so. page 8 January 16, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 6 In closing, Mr. Smith offered three principles that have guided development of this city since its inception: We do not need density. Do not pander to developers. Democracy thrives with an informed citizenry and dies in the dark. The citizens expect better. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2018-04 APPROVE REVISED FEE SCHEDULE City Administrator Mark McNeill explained the amendments made to the fee schedule. City staff is proposing to reduce the liquor license penalties, change the liquor application background fee to be compliant with state law, eliminate rental license fees, and add the non-compliant sump pump fee to the schedule. For Building Permits, it is proposed to delete the storm sewer utility charges and the water permit fee. In the Engineering section, it is proposed to increase the grading permit fee and collection of an escrow amount, to add a Public Right of Way Excavation Permit, and add a winter surcharge to the Public Right of Way Utility Permit. For Parks and Recreation, it is being proposed to add an application fee, separate the field preparation fees into weekend and weekday costs, increase the Par 3 golf fees, and delete the damage deposit collected for use of the Picnic Area Shelter. In the Planning section, it is proposed to add a security deposit and an administrative fee for Critical Area and Wetlands permits. For Public Safety, it is proposed to increase the fee charged for fingerprints. He said that storm and sanitary sewer fees would be discussed at a future meeting. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018 – 04 REVISING SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR SERVICES. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) B) RESOLUTION 2018-08 APPOINT PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Councilor Petschel noted that the Council had the privilege of interviewing four candidates for the open position on the Planning Commission. She complimented the way residents step up to serve their city. page 9 January 16, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 6 Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018 – 08 APPOINTING PATRICK CORBETT TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) C) APPROVE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained the proposed Classification and Compensation Plan as recommended by the City’s consultant Springsted, Inc. She stated that the city sought Springsted’s help in developing a new job evaluation system, as well as a compensation plan for administration of compensation. Springsted completed the study, which included developing a sustainable system for job evaluations. They also reviewed the city’s internal and external market competitiveness with comparable cities, and they developed a new compensation plan. Councilor Miller moved to adopt the proposed compensation plan including the use of the SAFE method for job evaluation for all non-union and union job classes, and the proposed 2018 non-union pay scale effective retroactive to December 31, 2017. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) D) APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF THE 2018 PAY EQUITY REPORT Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained that local government jurisdictions under the Local Government Pay Equity Act are required to file the reports every three years. Mendota Height’s report is due by January 31, 2018. Springsted completed the draft report based on the city’s compensation study and it was determined that the city’s pay plan is in compliance at this point. If Council approves the submission of the report, the State of Minnesota would then review and analyze the data and issue a Letter of Compliance or Non- Compliance. Councilor Miller moved to approve the Pay Equity Implementation Report and authorize the submission of the report to the State of Minnesota by January 31, 2018. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. page 10 January 16, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 6 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper expressed his appreciation to residents for using this opportunity to voice their opinions. Councilor Miller commented on the revitalization of Rogers Lake and how that lake has made a tremendous comeback. He encouraged residents to make an effort to do what they can to keep our lakes and other special natural spaces clean. Mayor Garlock thanked the Public Works Department for their wonderful snow removal efforts. Councilor Petschel noted that she takes extensive notes during meetings to enable her to follow up on questions and comments made. She apologized if anyone thought that she was not paying attention or listening to what was being stated. She has always felt that it has been a hallmark of the City that the public is courteous and respectful. She would like to see this long-standing tradition upheld and encouraged. She thinks that a resident’s input is important, however, it needs to be based on the truth and needs to be courteous. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Closed Session / Work Session Held January 16, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Councilors Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. INTERVIEWS OF CANDIDATES FOR VACANT PLANNING COMMISSIONER POSITION The City Council interviewed the following individuals who had indicated their interest in being appointed to the vacant Planning Commissioner vacancy: Patrick Corbett Cory Fleming Dan Johnson Chadwick Vandarious The Council will discuss an appointment at the upcoming Council meeting. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MATTERS A motion to adjourn to a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute §13D.05 subd. 3(b); for Attorney Client Privilege for discussion of pending litigation in the case of Robert Lambert v. City of Mendota Heights, was made by Councilmember Petschel and seconded by Mayor Garlock. The motion passed 4-0. Mayor Garlock adjourned to a closed session of the City Council at 6:05 pm. Those present in the closed session included Mayor Garlock, Councilors Miller, Paper, and Petschel. Also in attendance were City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, City Attorney Tom Lehmann, and Attorney Jana Sullivan of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. A motion was made by Councilor Miller and seconded by Councilor Paper to adjourn the closed meeting and to return to the open meeting at 6:40 pm. The motion passed 4-0. It was stated that no official action was taken by the Council in the closed session meeting. The Council will provide a summary of the closed session at a regular Council meeting as required by Minnesota Statutes. page 12 Jan 16, 2018 Council Closed Session / Work Session page 2 of 2 OPEN SESSION City Administrator Mark McNeill explained the amendments made to the fee schedule. City staff is proposing to reduce the liquor license penalties, change the liquor application background fee to be compliant with state law, eliminate rental license fees, and add the non-compliant sump pump fee to the schedule. For Building Permits, it is proposed to delete the storm sewer utility charges and the water permit fee. In the Engineering section, it is proposed to increase the grading permit fee and collection of an escrow amount, to add a Public Right of Way Excavation Permit, and add a winter surcharge to the Public Right of Way Utility Permit. For Parks and Recreation, it is being proposed to add an application fee, separate the field preparation fees into weekend and weekday costs, increase the Par 3 golf fees, and eliminate the damage deposit collected for use of the Picnic Area Shelter. In the Planning section, it is proposed to add a security deposit and an administrative fee for Critical Area and Wetlands permits. For Public Safety, it is proposed to increase the fee charged for fingerprints. These amendments to the fee schedule will be presented for approval at the upcoming Council meeting. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the proposed increase for storm and sanitary sewer fees. It is proposed to bring this to the Council at a future meeting for consideration. ADJOURN Motion Councilor Petschel and seconded by Councilor Paper to adjourn the meeting at 6:56 pm. Motion carried 4-0. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 13 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License-Beth Jacob Congregation COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Beth Jacob Congregation. Background Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes and our City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first having received a license. Temporary on-sale liquor licenses shall be granted only to clubs and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement. Beth Jacob Congregation, located at 1179 Victoria Curve, is planning to hold a fund-raising event at on their property on Sunday, March 18, 2018, starting at 5:00 p.m. They have submitted an application for a temporary on-sale liquor license to allow for the sale of alcohol at this event. Security will be present and liability insurance has been obtained. It should be noted that temporary on-sale liquor licenses have been issued in the past to charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with no incidents or negative reports. Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Beth Jacob Congregation for March 18, 2018. page 14 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County Introduction The City Council is asked to approve an application for participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program. Background Attached is the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application for federal fiscal [program] year 2018, along with an accompanying resolution for consideration and adoption. The City has participated in this program for many years. This year’s request is $20,031.00 for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. The program is administered by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and provides rehabilitation loans for owner-occupied housing meeting CDA income/benefit guidelines. The CDA will continue to administer all aspects of the loan program. Although the application document indicates the application “must be received by January 19, 2018”, the city did submit a preliminary application to the Dakota County CDA, which was tentatively accepted. The CDA requested the city adopt the attached resolution, which would indicate the city’s support and official approval to participate in the CDBG Program. Adopting this resolution after the application deadline date does not impact or disqualify the city from the 2018 CDBG Program. Budget Impact There are no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. This matter requires a simple majority vote. Action Required If the Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION No. 2018- 11 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING. page 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-11 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County CDBG Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2018 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is a sub-grantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency has requested federal fiscal year 2018 CDBG applications be submitted by January 19, 2018, based on allocation of funds approved in the Community Development Implementation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the following points be approved: 1. The Federal Fiscal Year 2018 CDBG application is approved for submission to the Dakota County Community Development Agency. 2. The City Administrator of the City of Mendota Heights is authorized to execute the application and all agreements and documents relating to receiving and using the awarded CDBG funds. 3. The Dakota County Community Development Agency is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG Home Rehabilitation Loans program on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of February, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 16 APPLICATION FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Application must be received by the Dakota County Community Development Agency NO LATER THAN JANUARY 19, 2018 For July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 General Information Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights, MN DUNS #: 146 367 607 Contact Name: Tim Benetti Applicant Address: 1101 Victoria Curve City, State, Zip: Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651.452.1850 Email: timb@mendota-heights.com Proposed Activities Activity Funding Amount #1 Title: Housing Rehab Loans CDBG Request: $ $20,031.00 #2 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #3 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #4 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #5 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. Total Request: $ $20,031.00 PLEASE NOTE: AT LEAST 50% of the proposed funding must qualify as a LOW/MOD benefit and NO MORE THAN 40% of the proposed funding can be for PUBLIC SERVICES. As public services may not account for more than 15% of the County’s total funding, public service requests may need to be decreased once all applications are submitted and reviewed by CDA staff. page 17 Certification I certify that the information contained in this application is true and correct and that it contains no misrepresentations, falsifications, intentional omissions, or concealment of material facts. I further certify that no contracts have been awarded, funds committed, or construction begun on the proposed project(s), and that none will be made prior to notification from the Dakota County CDA based on HUD’s issuance of a Release of Funds Notice. Signature of Authorized Official Date Title of Authorized Official PLEASE ATTACH THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY SHOWING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDS page 18 1 Please complete the following Sections I-V for EACH proposed activity. (For example, if 3 activities are being proposed, there will be 3 sets of the following pages.) Activity # 1 Activity Title: Housing Rehabilitation Loans II. Activity Information Has this Activity received CDBG funding before? ☒ Yes ☐ No Check the eligible activity category of the proposed activity: (See attached definitions) Affordable Rental Housing ☐ Rehabilitation of Multi-Unit Residential ☐ Rental Assistance Subsidies ☐ Fair Housing Activities ☐ Energy Efficiency Improvements Public Service ☐ Senior Services ☐ Youth Services ☐ Transportation Services ☐ Operational Support Affordable Homeowner Housing ☐ Homeownership Assistance ☐ New (Re)Construction Homeowner Housing ☒ Rehabilitation/ Energy Efficiency Improvement of Single Unit Residential ☐ Housing Counseling and Short-Term Assistance ☐ Fair Housing Activities Community Development ☐ Recreational Parks ☐ Water/Sewer Improvements ☐ Street Improvements ☐ Sidewalks ☐ Beautification ☐ Assessment Abatement Homelessness ☐ Coordinated Access to service & Shelter ☐ Housing Stabilization ☐ Emergency Shelter Operation ☐ Addition of Permanent Supportive Housing Units ☐ Shelter Renovation/Creation Neighborhood Revitalization ☐ Acquisition of Real Property ☐ Clearance and Demolition ☐ Clean-up of Contaminated Site Economic Development ☐ Employment Training ☐ Economic Development Assistance ☐ Rehabilitation of Commercial/Industrial Buildings ☐ Micro-Enterprise Assistance ☐ Relocation Planning and Administration ☐ Planning ☐ Administration I. Activity Title Describe the proposed activity. Click or tap here to enter text. page 19 2 Describe the activity schedule: Is this a continuation of a previously funded activity? ☒Yes ☐No Is this a time-specific project? ☐Yes ☒No If this is a time-specific project, please note the start and end dates below: Proposed Activity Start Date: July 1, 2018 Proposed Activity Completion Date: June 30, 2019 CDBG funded projects/activities must meet one of the program objectives. Check the objective for which the CDBG funds will be used. If you checked the Low/Mod Housing Benefit box, please answer the following: How many Low/Mod Households will benefit? 1 Households (Income eligibility must be verified by written documentation) Where will this activity occur? (Address of property, neighborhood, or citywide) City wide III. CDBG National Objective ☐ Low/Mod Area Benefit ☐ Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit ☒ Low/Mod Housing Benefit ☐ Low/Mod Jobs Benefit ☐ Slum/Blight Area Benefit ☐ Slum/Blight Spot Benefit ☐ Urgent Need (extremely rare; used only for emergencies): (Please explain) Click or tap here to enter text. If you checked the Low/Mod Area Benefit box, please answer the following: In what Census Tract/Block Group(s) do beneficiaries of your Activity live? (Please include map) Click or tap here to enter text. How many residents live in this area? Click or tap here to enter text. What is the percentage of low and moderate-income beneficiaries? Click or tap here to enter text.% How was this documented? ☐ HUD Data ☐ Survey (Please include a copy of survey) page 20 3 If you checked the Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit box, please answer the following: How many Low/Mod People or Households will benefit? Click or tap here to enter text. People Click or tap here to enter text. Households (Please choose either People or Households for each project). How will income be verified? ☐ Income Verification Request Forms ☐ Eligibility Status for other Governmental Assistance program ☐ Self Certification (Must request source documentation of 20% of certifications and must inform beneficiary that all sources of income and assets must be included when calculating annual income) ☐ Presumed benefit (HUD presumes the following to be low and moderate-income: abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, severely disabled persons, homeless persons, persons living with AIDS, migrant farm workers) If you checked the Low/Mod Jobs Benefit box, please answer the following: To meet the requirements of the “Jobs” National Objective, the business being assisted must enter into an agreement showing commitment that at lease 51% of jobs created or retained will be available to low/mod income persons. The business must also be prepared to provide a list of all jobs, detailed information about the jobs being created or retained, the selection and hiring process, and demographic information about the employees. Will this activity create or retain full time equivalencies (FTEs)? ☐ Create ☐ Retain For job(s) that are being retained, please provide evidence that the assisted business has issued a notice to affected employees or that the business has made a public announcement to that effect, OR an analysis of relevant financial records that shows the business is likely to cut back on employment in the near future without planned intervention. Will the job(s) created or retained require a special skill? ☐ Yes ☐ No What percent of permanent FTEs will be held by or available to low/mod income persons? Click or tap here to enter text. % If you checked the Slum/Blight Area or Slum/Blight Spot Benefit box, please answer the following: What are the boundaries of the slum/blight area or the address of the slum/blight spot? Click or tap here to enter text. (Please provide letter from building inspector or other documentation noting deficiencies and include photos) If Slum/Blight Area, what percent of buildings are deteriorated? Click or tap here to enter text.% What deficiency will be corrected or the public improvement be? Click or tap here to enter text. page 21 4 IV. Proposed Objectives and Outcomes Indicate the proposed objective and outcome of the activity/project. Outcome #1 Availability/Accessibility Outcome #2 Affordability Outcome #3 Sustainability Objective #1 Suitable Living Environment ☐ Accessibility for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment ☒ Affordability for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment ☒ Sustainability for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment Objective #2 Decent Housing ☐ Accessibility for the purpose of providing decent housing ☐ Affordability for the purpose of providing decent housing ☐ Sustainability for the purpose of providing decent housing Objective #3 Economic Opportunity ☐ Accessibility for the purpose of creating economic opportunities ☐ Affordability for the purpose of creating economic opportunities ☐ Sustainability for the purpose of creating economic opportunities Indicate how the activity outcome will be measured and projected number of beneficiaries. ☐ People ☐ Households ☒ Housing Units 1 ☐ Public Facilities ☐ Jobs ☐ Businesses ☐ Organizations V. Project Budget Provide the total project cost and CDBG request. Total Project Cost: $ 20,031.00 Total CDBG Request: $ 20,031.00 CDBG Percent of Total Cost: 100% Describe all other funding sources. Source of Funds Amount Committed Pending CDBG $ 20,031.00 ☐ ☒ Click or tap here to enter text. $ ☐ ☐ Click or tap here to enter text. $ ☐ ☐ Total: $ ☐ ☐ Please itemize project expenses, using the following guidance as applicable: • Acquisition & Improvement Costs - Include purchase price, closing costs, site improvements, clearance of toxic contaminants, and other acquisition and improvement costs page 22 5 • Construction/Rehabilitation Costs - Include site improvements, construction (labor, materials, supplies), installation, permits and other construction/rehabilitation costs • Professional Fees and Personnel Costs - Include architectural, engineering and code inspection fees, surveys, appraisals, legal fees, hazardous materials surveys, project management, and other professional/personnel fees • Other Development Costs - Include relocation, financing costs, environmental reviews, environmental studies, and other development costs • Eligible Costs for Planning Projects - Include professional services, project management costs, and other planning costs * * * * * Please review each section for completeness. Each activity should have separate Sections I through V. Itemized Use of Funds/Expenses Costs CDBG Funds Requested Other Funding Sources Housing Improvement Funds $ 20,031.00 $ 20,031.00 $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ $ $ Total: $ 20,031.00 $ 20,031.00 $ page 23 6 CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES DEFINITIONS The following are summary definitions of Community Development Block Grant Eligible Activities: Please Note: Although an activity may be deemed eligible for CDBG funding, it does not guarantee funding. The Community Development Needs for the CDBG Program in the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the priority of needs and as such, dictates which types of eligible activities may be funded in a given year. CDBG funds may NOT be used for costs attributable to a building used for the general conduct of government or used for political activities. Acquisition/Disposition: The use of CDBG funds to acquire real property, in whole or in part, by purchase, long-term lease, donation, or otherwise, for any public purpose. Real property to be acquired may include: land, air rights, easements, water rights, right-of-ways, buildings and other property improvements, or other interests in real property. Demolition/Clearance: Clearance, demolition, and removal of buildings and improvements including movement of structures to other sites. Economic Development Activities: Economic development activities may include, but are not limited to: (1) Construction by the grantee or sub-recipient of a business incubator designed to provide inexpensive space and assistance to new firms to help them become viable businesses, (2) Loans to pay for the expansion of a factory or commercial business, and (3) Providing training needed by persons on welfare to enable them to qualify for jobs created by CDBG-assisted special economic development activities. The level of public benefit to be derived from the economic development activity must be appropriate given the amount of CDBG assistance. Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation related activities may include single-family rehabilitation, multi-family rehabilitation, energy efficiency improvements, public housing modernization, and rehabilitation of commercial properties. General Administration: CDBG funds may be used for the general administration costs incurred by a Subrecipient to administer their CDBG program. Administration costs directly associated with a CDBG activity should be part of the activity as project administration. Relocation: CDBG funds may be used for relocation payments and assistance to displaced persons, including individuals, families, businesses, non-profits, and farms, where required under section 570.606 of the regulations (pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act). Public Facilities/Improvements: CDBG funds may be used by the grantee or other public or private nonprofit entities for the acquisition (including long term leases for periods of 15 years or more), construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation (including removal of architectural barriers to accessibility), or installation, of public improvements or facilities. Buildings for the general conduct of government cannot be acquired or improved with CDBG funds. This includes neighborhood facilities, firehouses, public schools, and libraries, as well as water and/or sewer treatment plants. The regulations further specify that facilities that are designed for use in providing shelter for persons having special needs are considered to be public facilities. Public Services: CDBG funds may be used to provide public services (including labor, supplies, and materials), provided that each of the following criteria is met: 1) The public service must be either a new service or a quantifiable increase in the level of service; and 2) The amount of CDBG funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities under this category may not exceed 40% of the City’s allocation and the total public services of all Sub-recipients may not exceed 15% of the total grant awarded to Dakota County for that year. Planning: Includes studies, analysis, data gathering, preparation of plans, and identification of actions that will implement plans. The types of plans which may be paid for with CDBG funds include, but are not limited to: Comprehensive plans; Individual project plans; Community development plans, Capital improvement programs; Small area and neighborhood plans; Environmental and historic preservation studies; and Functional plans (such as plans for housing, land use, energy conservation, or economic development). Homeownership Assistance: Homeownership assistance activities may include financial assistance for downpayments, closing costs or other part of the purchase process and counseling for pre-purchase, post-purchase or foreclosure prevention. page 24 DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-14 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Ivy Hills Park – Pond Dredging and Drainage Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION Council is asked to approve the plans and specifications and authorize an advertisement for bids for the Ivy Hills Park pond. Attached to this report is the first two pages of the plans and Opinion of Cost. The complete plans and specifications are available for review at city hall or by request. BACKGROUND Staff has received a number of calls regarding the pond in Ivy Hills Park having a sulfur odor. This typically occurs when bacteria grows in a non-oxygenated environment. Staff assessed the pond and discovered that the lowest pond skimmer outlet is not functioning due to excessive sediment build up in the pond. Public Works crews pumped the pond down multiple times this past summer to allow oxygen to reach the sediment. City staff also met to discuss potential improvements to a low area near the parking lot that has been consistently wet and suffocating surrounding trees. DISCUSSION City Council authorized staff to issue a request for proposals from a consulting engineer at their October 17th meeting and also authorized a wetland delineation of the pond. City Council then accepted the wetland delineation report at their November 21st meeting and also awarded a professional services contract for the design, surveying, testing and construction management of this improvement. Results of the sediment analysis determined that the material is of the SRV 1 class meaning no special disposal is required. There is an estimated volume of 1,210 Cubic Yards of material to be removed from this pond. It is proposed to utilize approximately half of this material to fill a low spot on the north end of the pond. The remaining material will be sent to an approved site. BUDGET IMPACT The dredging of the pond would be paid for through the Storm Water Utility Fund. The city currently has $100,000 budgeted for pond maintenance. The current opinion of costs for this work ranges from a low of $78,166 to a high estimate of $101,156. The contract with the page 25 consultant and the wetland delineation report totaled approximately $27,000. The account currently has a balance that would be able to account for the high range estimate. Using this project as a start to a pond maintenance program, staff should be able to reuse the specifications and knowledge learned from this project to design future bid packages in-house. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution approving the plans and authorizing and advertisement for bid. Due to the project having an estimate greater than $50,000, the city purchasing policy requires this be competitively bid (State limits are $100,000). Non-assessed Competitive bids require only a 10 day advertisement period however staff intends to advertise for 20 days with a bid opening being scheduled for February 28th and a potential award of contract on March 6th. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, it should make a motion authorizing staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements. page 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-14 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE IVY HILLS PARK POND IMPROVMENTS WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the Public Works Director to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City. 2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, February 28, 2018, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of February 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 27 Item Description Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension 4.01A Project Mobilization/Demobilization L.S.1 $8,350.00 $8,350.00 4.01B Clear and Grub Trees & Brush, Grind Stumps L.S.1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4.01C Erosion Control Construction Entrance Each 2 $1,050.00 $2,100.00 4.01D Street Sweeping L.S.1 $250.00 $250.00 4.01E Inlet Protection Each 2 $150.00 $300.00 4.01F Erosion Control Siltation Logs L.F.300 $3.00 $900.00 4.01G Reinforced Silt Fence L.F.50 $10.00 $500.00 4.01H Control of Water, Dewatering L.S.1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 4.01I Site Grading S.Y.2640 $1.60 $4,224.00 4.01J Mn/DOT Class V Rip Rap/W Type IV Fabric Ton 120 $94.80 $11,376.00 4.01K Pond Dredging of MPCA Dredged Material SRV1 Unregulated Fill C.Y.1,210 $13.00 $15,730.00 4.01L Disposal of MPCA SRV 1 Excavated Material at Nearby Owner Designated Location C.Y.500 $10.00 $5,000.00 4.01M Disposal of MPCA SRV 1 Excavated Material Off Site at Contractor Chosen Location Approved by the Engineer C.Y.710 $25.00 $17,750.00 4.01N Outlet Structure Modifications L.S.1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.01O Topsoil Borrow Ton 90 $40.00 $3,600.00 4.01P Flexterra HP-FGM with Seed S.Y.770 $4.00 $3,080.00 4.01Q Traffic Control L.S.1 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 4.01R Site Cleanup and Restoration L.S.1 $850.00 $850.00 4.01S Clean Pipes 100ft Downstream of Outlet Each 1 $500.00 $500.00 $91,960.00 RANGE -15% to +10% =$78,166.00 to $101,156.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION = Engineer’s Opinion of Cost City of Mendota Heights Ivy Hills Park Pond Maintenance page 28 page 29 page 30 Request for City Council Action DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Mendota Heights Recreational Facilities Reservation/Special Event Policy COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve the Mendota Heights Recreational Facilities Reservation/Special Event Policy. Background The City has 12 parks and recreation facilities which includes fields, shelters, courts and concession stands that are available for rent. Each year, City staff receives a large number of rental requests from residents, organizations and non-residents. Previously, the process to reserve a facility was unclear and inconsistent. Fees for rental of city facilities have been provided for in the City Fee Schedule. However, reservation procedures and administrative process has not been updated in the form of a formal written policy since 2004. This has led to inconsistency in the fees assessed, and in the way that priority is given to reservations and reservation procedures. Staff has reviewed the 2004 Policy and are recommending the following updates and changes: • The reservation process will now require an applicant to complete a City of Mendota Heights Facility Reservation Application. Reservation requests shall be made by submitting the Application generally between January 1 and February 15 of each year. Reservations will be confirmed by March 1st. Any request received after February 15th will be handled on a first come, first serve basis. • The outdated policy allowed reservations requests to be tentatively recorded in the reservation book when received. Applicants had three working days to submit the application and fee. Under the new policy reservations will not be accepted and confirmed without an application and payment. • The City will no longer require a $100 damage deposit from individuals reserving facilities. Staff has found it is not necessary. page 31 • The priority list for field reservations has been modified to include a reservation priority for public and private schools located in Mendota Heights. The proposed priority list shall be as follows: 1. City of Mendota Heights programs 2. City of Mendota Heights Co-Sponsored Activities 3. Agreements with Public and Private Schools 4. Recognized Community Youth Organizations 5. Mendota Heights Residents Use of the Facilities for Personal Use 6. Mendota Heights-Based Businesses/Commercial Organizations 7. Non-Mendota Heights Organizations, Businesses and Individuals • The City will no longer hold the permit with the Minnesota Department of Health for the sale of food and beverages at city concession stands during private events. Groups wanting to use concession stands for the sale of food and/or beverages will need to obtain their own license through the appropriate issuing agency. • The proposed policy includes new language a special events section which outlines the process for planning a special event within the City. If approved, the updated policy would be effective for the 2018 season. Budget Impact There is no budget impact for the Mendota Heights Recreational Facilities Reservation/Event Policy. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Recreational Facility Reservation/Special Event policy be adopted. Action Required If Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the Mendota Heights Recreational Facilities Reservation/Special Event Policy effective immediately. page 32 Mendota Heights Recreational Facility Reservation/Special Event Policy page 33 2 Purpose: This policy outlines the process, application materials, fees, and procedures of reserving a recreational facility or hosting a special event in Mendota Heights. General Reservation Information: • All permits are non-transferable • Reservations cannot be sublet to a third party • All reservations/events require a permit • All special requests and arrangements must be made during the application process • Live or played music is allowed at the facilities as long as it is not disruptive to other users and the surrounding community • Set up, preparation, and cleanup time must be considered and included in the permit time frame • There must be sufficient adult supervision included with all reservations • Failure to follow all laws, rules, city ordinances, or regulations will result in a cancellation of the reservation, no refund, fines, civil liability, or criminal prosecution • Vehicles must be parked in designated areas (no parking on the grass) • The renter must be in attendance at the event • The renter must have the permit in their possession • The permit holder assumes the responsibility of activities not limited to: o Supervision and control of children o Prevention of injury o General maintenance of the facility  Any damage caused to the facility will be billed to the renter o Properly disposing waste • Persons using Mendota Heights recreation facilities must adhere to the City of Mendota Heights ordinances and state laws. • Applicants must be 18 years of age or older Applications: An application can be obtained at the Mendota Heights City Hall (1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights MN 55118) or online at http://www.mendota-heights.com. A signed paper application can be emailed, faxed, mailed or delivered to Mendota Heights City Hall. No reservation is confirmed until the application is processed, payment is received, and the permit is issued. Reservations shall be accepted by the City generally between January 1 and February 15. Reservations shall be confirmed by March 1. Reservations received after February 15 will be handled on a first come first serve basis. page 34 3 Payment Options: Payment can be made by cash, check, Discover, MasterCard or Visa. (Credit card payments cannot be taken over the phone) Insurance: City of Mendota Heights staff reviews each request and will determine if insurance is necessary for the permit. Administrative Procedures: The City of Mendota Heights Recreation Program Coordinator will administer the reservations, and consult, as necessary, with the Assistant City Administrator. • Fees are subject to change each year at the discretion of the Mendota Heights City Council. • If more than one request is made for the same location on the same date, the priority policy will be used. In the case of a tie-breaker, priority will be given to the reservation with the highest number of Mendota Heights residents. • Any organization or individual who fails to provide/follow the guidelines or provide false information on an application is subject to revocation of the permit at the discretion of the Recreation Program Coordinator. Disposing of Waste: All renters are expected to dispose of waste in proper trash and recycling receptacles. • The City of Mendota Heights prides itself on being a clean, “green” community and renters are asked to recycle as much of their waste as possible. page 35 4 I. Athletic Facility Scheduling Policy The City of Mendota Heights is home to many athletic facilities for residents to enjoy. This includes, but is not limited to outdoor tennis courts, baseball/softball fields, soccer fields, hockey rinks, basketball courts, a golf course and many outdoor spaces. The City of Mendota Heights takes ownership of scheduling their own facilities in order to provide fairness to residents, attain maximum use of the facilities, while protecting them from overuse. Athletic Facility Billing and Fees: Fees are provided for in the City’s Fee Schedule, which is approved each year by City Council. (See attached) • Golf Course Rental: For pricing please contact the Recreation Program Coordinator (651) 255-1354. Inclement Weather and Unplayable Fields: Facility reservations may be cancelled and postponed due to weather. The permit holder will be in contact with the Recreation Program Coordinator to determine if the fields are playable. The City of Mendota Heights has the right to cancel a reservation if the facility is unsafe for participants or if the weather will have a lasting impact on the facility. If the city does not believe the facility could obtain safety vehicles due to ice, snow or water, the reservation will be cancelled. If lightning is spotted, participants are not allowed to be outside using the facility and must take shelter immediately. If an event is cancelled due to weather, it is not refundable. But, the policy holder can reschedule the event in the same calendar year at no charge. Athletic Facility Reservation Priority Classification: The City of Mendota Heights has created a priority list to define users and create a reservation policy that ensures the City is best meeting the needs of the community. Facilities will be scheduled based off the scheduling priority policy that is established herein. 1. City of Mendota Heights Programs a. This includes activities that are organized through the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Department or directly sponsored by the City as a cooperative program. Reservations for City sponsored activities, programs, games, practices, leagues and tournaments can be taken at any time for any date. There are no rental fees charged for City reservations. 2. City of Mendota Heights Co-Sponsored Activities a. This includes all City-sponsored activities, programs, practices, leagues, games and tournaments. An event is considered co-sponsored when the City of Mendota Heights’ staff is committed to one of the following: i. Planning/coordinating the activity page 36 5 ii. Taking reservations for the activity iii. Providing leadership and staff for the activity iv. Measure the impact of the individuals who have participated 3. Agreements with Public and Private Schools a. This includes schools that are located within the City of Mendota Heights. There must be an agreement in place that defines the City of Mendota Heights reciprocal use of the school’s athletic facilities. If there is no agreement in place, this priority shall be moved to after priority #4 4. Recognized Community Youth Organizations a. This includes youth organizations (youth 18 and under) that are recognized by the City of Mendota Heights. Currently, the two recognized associations are Sibley Area Youth Hockey Association (SAYHA) and Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA). b. These youth organizations must meet the following requirements on an annual basis: i. Must be a City of Mendota-Heights based, non-profit, 501c3 organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS). Proof of 501c3 status (letter from IRS) will be necessary ii. A copy of the board of directors contact information submitted to the City of Mendota Heights iii. The organization must be able to confidentially provide the following items in the form of a letter to the City of Mendota Heights: 1. A copy of current bylaws, policies and procedures which govern operations, shall be made available to the City of Mendota Heights 2. A coach’s certification training 3. The association must not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, religion or ability. Although team assignments may be determined by ability. There must be a policy for determining teams based on ability. iv. The organization should have liability insurance in place in an amount equal to the statutory maximum liability of a government unit with the State of MN as set forth in state law naming Mendota Heights as an additional insured. A copy of the insurance policy must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights. v. Youth organizations may be charged a seasonal damage deposit for usage of facilities 5. Mendota Heights Residents Use of the Facilities for Personal Use a. This includes residents of Mendota Heights using the facilities for personal use. 6. Mendota Heights-Based Businesses/Commercial Organizations page 37 6 a. This includes business and commercial organizations that have a Mendota Heights office as evidenced by their address to use the facilities 7. Non-Mendota Heights Organizations, Businesses and Individuals a. This includes all non-Mendota Heights residents, organizations, groups, and businesses who want to use the facilities. Concessions Sales: No person or organization can sell or offer any product, food or service for sale without the prior written approval of the Recreation Program Coordinator. The City of Mendota Heights does not hold a concessions/food license. Groups wanting to use the concession stand will have to obtain their own Food/Beverage License from the MN Department of Health, if selling. The City of Mendota Heights will need a copy of this license to obtain keys to the concession stand. Cancellation Policy: • Reservations cancelled more than 30 days in advance will receive a 100% refund (excluding the application fee) • Reservations cancelled 15-30 days in advance will receive a 50% refund • Reservations cancelled 1-14 days in advance will not receive a refund • Reservations cancelled due to inclement weather are not refundable, but may be rescheduled in the same calendar year at no additional charge page 38 7 II. Picnic Shelter Rental Policy The City of Mendota Heights is home to beautiful park shelters, which are a great gathering place for family reunions, birthday parties, graduation parties, class gatherings, etc. The park shelters are open to the public, unless reserved for an event. The City of Mendota Heights takes ownership of scheduling the park shelters in order to provide fairness to residents and attain maximum use of the park shelters. Park shelters must be booked at a minimum of two business days prior to the reservation. Park Shelter Rental Fees: Fees are provided for in the City’s Fee Schedule, which is approved each year by City Council. (See attached) Additional Charges: • Additional fees may be charged based on the size of the group and the additional facilities requested Renter’s Rights and Privileges: • Groups that rent out a picnic shelter are entitled to the sole use of the shelter building o Individuals or groups without permits must leave the picnic shelter when proof of the permit is presented o The rest of the park does remain open to the public • If no permit is presented, the facility is open to users on a first-come, first-serve basis • Reasonable decorating of the shelter is allowed, however, all decorations must be cleaned up by the end of the event o Do not attach any objects, signs, banners or materials to trees, shrubs, or park features. All signs must be removed from the property at the end of the event • Dunk tanks are not allowed • Air filled jumpers are not allowed Cancellation Policy: • Reservations cancelled more than 7 days in advance will receive a 100% refund • Reservations cancelled less than 7 days in advance will not receive a refund • Reservations cancelled due to inclement weather maybe reschedule within the same calendar year at no cost • If the date of an event changes, reservations may be rescheduled at no cost, but it must be in the same calendar year • No refunds for unused dates of facilities page 39 8 III. Special Event Policy The City of Mendota Heights considers, but does not limit special events as company celebrations, fundraising events, productions, exhibitions, festivals, entertainment, races, or other events that require a high level of municipal services for its execution on City owned property. If you are unsure whether your event is considered a “special event” in Mendota Heights please call the Recreation Program Coordinator (651) 255-1354. Special Event Fees: • Application fee of $25, non-refundable • Other fees may apply based on your event attendance and location • Applications must be submitted sixty (60) days prior to the event • Included with the application must be: o Locations of all activities o Site map o For races the proposed race route must be included Cancellation Policy: Reservations that are cancelled more than thirty (30) days in advance will receive a 100% refund. Reservations that are cancelled 15-30 days in advance will receive a 50% refund. Reservations cancelled 1-14 days in advance will not receive a refund. The application fee of $25 is non-refundable regardless of the date cancelled. If the event is cancelled due to inclement weather, the policy holder should contact the Recreation Program Coordinator to reschedule the event. There are no refunds for weather cancellations. The policy holder can reschedule the event in the same calendar year at no charge. Concessions Sales: No person or organization can sell or offer any product, food or service for sale without the prior written approval of the Recreation Program Coordinator. The City of Mendota Heights does not hold a concessions/food license. Groups wanting to use the concession stand will have to obtain their own Food/Beverage License, if selling. The City of Mendota Heights will need a copy of this license to obtain keys to the concession stand. Public Safety or Staff Assistance: Events requesting public safety assistance or assistance from city staff, shall contact the Recreation Program Coordinator, early on in the reservation process. No reservation is guaranteed to obtain help from city staff or the Public Safety Department. Once an application is submitted, staff will review requests to determine if there is a need and whether staff is available. If available there may be a fee for staff and the Public Safety Department. page 40 9 Approval of Event: The City of Mendota Heights will review requests and determine if the request can be met. The request will only be approved if the staff believes the location will be able to accommodate the special event. Other information: • A permit does not provide for exclusive use of bathrooms and parking lots. Groups that have a permit are allowed to use the designated permitted space, yet public park area does remain open for the public • The city does not lease or loan any equipment • Users are not allowed to attach any objects, signs, banners or materials to trees, shrubs, or park features. All signs must be removed from the park property at the end of the event • Do not mark any trails, streets, parking lots, paths, sidewalks, parking lots or buildings • The use of tents must be approved by the Recreation Program Coordinator page 41 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2018 Page 8 of 11 2018 PARKS AND RECREATION FEE SCHEDULE Concessions Building Reservation Must provide proof of Food/Beverage License $25/event Field Reservation Baseball/Softball/Soccer $35 for two hours + $25 application fee (once per application) Field Preparation Weekend Actual Cost Incurred Field Preparation Weekday $35 Field Chalk $10 / bag Field Drying Agent $15 / bag Ice Rink Reservation $35/hour for two hours + $25 application fee (once per application) Ice Rink Warming House Key Damage Deposit $100 Par 3 Footgolf Fees $8 / round Par 3 Greens Fees Juniors/Seniors-Weekday $11 / round Par 3 Greens Fees Juniors/Seniors-Weekend $13 / round Par 3 Greens Fees Weekday $12 / round Par 3 Greens Fees Weekend or Holiday $14 / round Par 3 10-Round Pass $90 Par 3 Pull Cart Rental $3/ round Par 3 Power Cart Rental $10 / round Picnic Area/Shelter Resident - Private $50 Picnic Area/Shelter Non-Resident - Private $75 Picnic Area/Shelter Resident - Business $75 Picnic Area/Shelter Non-Resident - Business $125 Picnic Area Cancellation 7 days advance notice 100% refund Picnic Area Cancellation Less than 7 days notice Not refundable Picnic Area Cancellation Due to inclement weather Not refundable but may be rescheduled at no additional charge Picnic Table Additional On-site $15 / each table per day Canoe Rack Rental Canoe Storage @Rogers Lake Park during summer months $50 / summer + $25 application fee Park Bench Donation $1,000 per bench NOTE: Mendota Heights schools, city events, and non-profit civic organizations are fee exempt for Picnic Area/Shelter rental fees. page 42 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FEE SCHEDULE 2018 Page 9 of 11 2018 PARKS AND RECREATION FEE SCHEDULE Tournament Field Reservation Baseball/Softball/Soccer Two-day tournament $400 + $25 application fee (once per application) Tournament Field Reservation Baseball/Softball/Soc One-day tournament $200 + $25 application fee (once per application) Tournament Additional Day(s)$45/per field Tournament Fee Softball or Soccer City Recreation No Charge Tournament Fee Softball or Soccer MHAA To Be Determined Tournament Additional Day(s)City Recreation No Charge Tournament Additional Day(s)MHAA To Be Determined Tournament Damage Deposit Fee $300 Trash Pick-up Following Large Event, taken from damage deposit $100/event Tournament Cancellation Fee One month notice 100 % refundable Tournament Cancellation Fee 15 to 30 advance notice 50 % refundable Tournament Cancellation Fee 1 to 14 advance notice Not refundable Tennis Courts $25 application fee page 43 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Council Meeting Citizen Comment Guidelines Date: February 7, 2018 COMMENT: INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to adopt guidelines for meeting attendees who wish to address the Council for items not scheduled for discussion on the Council agenda. BACKGROUND: Most public governing bodies allow for meeting attendees to address the board regarding items which have not been scheduled on the agenda. However, in order to keep discussion of the unscheduled matters manageable, the governing board often sets parameters for those comments. These guidelines typically set time limits for the discussion of a particular item, so that people who are waiting for matters that have already been scheduled are not unduly delayed. In addition, the Citizen Comment criteria often set restrictions to ensure that proper meeting decorum is observed, so that there are no personal attacks, or that the City Council meeting is used to espouse particular political views--if the speaker feels a need to share that type of information, there are other avenues for doing that. Public meetings are to conduct public business. In addition, so that the City Council is not asked to act on an unscheduled item before the issue can be fully researched, the guidelines should establish that no City Council action on a “Citizen Comments” matter may be taken at that meeting. To date, Mendota Heights has not had such guidelines. If the Council desires to adopt guidelines, the following is suggested as language which would appear on each regular City Council agenda: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. page 44 Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” In order for all to be aware of the guidelines, the above paragraphs would be would be printed on future City Council agendas whenever a Citizen Comments section is on the agenda, and would be posted at the podium. In order to help keep track of time, a staff member would time the presentation, and cards signifying “two minutes remaining”, “one minute”, and “time expired” would be displayed. RECOMMENDTION: I recommend the adoption of the above language for inclusion on future Council agendas. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the above language as a guideline for Citizen Comments at City Council meetings. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 DATE: February 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its meeting of February 7th, the Council will hear a presentation on the preliminary findings of traffics studies TH 149 (Dodd Road), Delaware Avenue, and Rogers Lake Neighborhood Traffic. The Council will be asked to provide comments on the draft report. BACKGROUND Dodd Road is a rural-section two lane state Trunk Highway, and Delaware Avenue is a similar two lane County Road. Both serve as north-south collectors through the City. Over the years, concerns have been raised about the ability of these two segments of road to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic in a safe and efficient manner. At a May 22nd City Council and staff workshop, the traffic-carrying issues relating to current and anticipated developments along TH 149 were identified as one of 8 major goals for the City to study by the end of 2018. The City Council is also concerned about Delaware Avenue from TH 110 south to O’Neill Drive in Eagan. This would be in relation to the Vikings development in Eagan and other developments in Inver Grove Heights which might impact Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights. The Council has also wanted an independent traffic analysis of Lake Drive and the Rogers Lake residential neighborhood to the north, in the vicinity of St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School. Commentary about the roads and the impacts of area developments have also been received from local residents. page 57 In September, the Council approved the hiring of the Engineering firm of KLJ to perform traffic analyses of the above sections of Mendota Heights roadways. DISCUSSION KLJ Engineering completed their data collection and preliminary analysis of the study corridor, and presented their initial findings at the December 19th Council meeting. Comments from this initial presentation and responses from the City of Eagan and Minnesota Department of Transportation have since been incorporated into the draft report. At the February 7th Council meeting, KLJ will be presenting a conclusion of their findings including current traffic volumes and concerns, projected 2040 volumes, and projected volumes based on areas south of I-494 being fully developed. In addition to the traffic concerns, KLJ has also identified potential intersection improvements which could be implemented to ease traffic congestion and safety. At the City Council presentation, KLJ will take any final questions or comments, and incorporate those into a final report to be submitted to the Council. Please note that the attached report does not include the Appendix, which consists of approximately 70 pages of data. Parties who wish to obtain a copy of the complete information may request that from City Hall. A copy can be emailed or otherwise be made available. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council review the draft report and hear the presentation. Following the presentation additional comments can be discussed to include in the final report. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should hear and provide comments regarding a study by KLJ Engineering of the traffic on Dodd Road, Delaware Avenue, and Rogers Lake neighborhood in Mendota Heights. Ryan Ruzek Mark McNeill Public Works Director City Administrator page 58 Mendota Heights N-S Mobility Study page 59 Introduction ....................................................... 1 Previous Studies ......................................... 1 Study Intersections ..................................... 2 Existing Conditions ............................................. 2 Data Collection ........................................... 2 Existing Crash Analysis ................................ 4 Existing Traffic Operations .......................... 7 Existing Traffic Control ................................ 8 Future Conditions .............................................. 9 Traffic Forecasts ....................................... 11 Future Traffic Control ............................... 11 Future Traffic Operations .......................... 14 Alternative Assessment ................................... 16 MN 110 Intersections ............................... 16 Market, Maple, and South Plaza Drive ...... 17 Marie and Wentworth .............................. 18 Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane ...... 19 Lake Drive ................................................. 20 Delaware Avenue ..................................... 21 Multimodal Considerations .............................. 22 Summary and Key Considerations .................... 23 page 60 1 IIntroduction Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue serve as two main north-south connections in Mendota Heights, MN. Both are two-lane roadways that historically have had acceptable corridor operations. With several developments planned adjacent to and along the corridors, future traffic volumes are expected to rise prompting the need for intersection and corridor improvements. This study will identify intersections that have existing deficiencies and are most affected by future development and recommend cohesive improvements for the City of Mendota Heights and roadway stakeholders to prioritize in future planning efforts. PREVIOUS STUDIES The need for this study was prompted in response to multiple major growth plans surrounding the study area. Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion and the Minnesota Vikings Headquarters and Mixed-Use Development Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review (AUAR) planning documents identified traffic and impacts for each development respectively, but neither document examined the combined impact of both developments. The intersections for each study were also primarily south of I-494 along Dodd Road and Argenta Trail and did not fully consider the impacts of traffic traveling to the north of the study areas into the city of Mendota Heights. In addition to the two AUARs, this study also incorporated two other Mendota Heights’ expected future developments. These impact studies and other past studies that were used to provide a basis for this project included: ¾ Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion AUAR (Sept 2007) ¾ Regional Roadway System Visioning Study (Aug 2010) ¾ Minnesota Vikings Headquarters and Mixed-Use Development AUAR (April 2016) ¾ Mendota Plaza Expansion Traffic Impact Study (Aug 2016) ¾ Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) ¾ Linden Street Senior Housing Traffic Impact Study (Dec 2017) ¾ Viking Lakes Event Travel Demand Management Plan (Jan 2018) Figure 1 – Cross sections of Dodd Road (left) and Delaware Avenue (right) page 61 2 SSTUDY INTERSECTIONS Key intersections in the study area were identified by Mendota Heights staff that could be impacted by future development. Intersections that were identified for existing and future analysis can be seen in Figure 2. These intersections included the following list on each study corridor: ¾ Dodd Road at: oI-494 South Ramps oI-494 North Ramps oMendota Heights Road oLake Drive oWagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane oSouth Plaza Drive oTH 110 oMarket Street oMaple Street o Marie Avenue o Wentworth Avenue ¾ Delaware Avenue at: o Oneill Drive o Mendota Heights Road o Huber Drive / Charlton Road o TH 110 ¾ Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive ¾ Lake Drive and Swan Drive Existing Conditions DATA COLLECTION Existing AM and PM intersection turning movement counts were collected and processed by KLJ for the 17 study area intersections. An additional school peak hour was also collected for the four Lake Drive and Mendota Heights Road intersections that are adjacent to Saint Thomas Academy and Convent of the Visitation School. The intersection counts were collected during October 2017 to provide average weekday volumes along the corridors. The peak hours of traffic volumes are identified below: ¾ AM Peak Hour – 7:15 - 8:15 AM ¾ PM Peak Hour – 4:30 – 5:30 PM ¾ School Peak Hour – 2:45 - 3:45 PM Figure 2 – Study area *North Plaza Drive existing counts were not collected as part of this study. Volumes used in future analysis were based off Mendota Plaza Expansion TIS. LegendStudy Intersections-./0All WayèéëSignal!"$TWSCpage 62 3 Figure 3 – Existing volumes 3,550 X,XXX 3,300 9,200 27,500 30,000 7,400 1,500 5,700 3,000 1,750 22,900 1,050 page 63 4 EEXISTING CRASH ANALYSIS The most recent 5-year crash data (2011-2015) was collected using Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) for each of the 17 intersections and three corridor segments. This detailed crash data is used to identify intersection and segment crash rates, crash severity, crash types, and crash costs to compare to each other and to Minnesota average and critical crash rates. However, because this data is more than two years old, the patterns that are identified should be weighed against recent crash data and trends. Tables 1 and 2 show a summary of this analysis with a detailed comparison in Attachment A. The results of the existing crash analysis identified one intersection above the critical crash rate (red) and seven intersections above both the expected crash rate and the expected severity rate (bold). None of the roadway segments were above the expected crash rates; however, the Delaware Avenue segment has a severity rate over the expected rate due to the severe nature of the existing crashes. Table 1 – Intersection crash statistics Intersection Traffic Control Total Crashes Injury Crashes Expected and Critical Crash Rates Observed Crash Rate Dodd Rd and I-494 South Ramps Signal 16 2 0.52 / 0.80 0.35 Dodd Rd and I-494 North Ramps Signal 17 7 0.52 / 0.86 0.53 Dodd Rd and Mendota Heights Rd Signal 8 3 0.52 / 0.94 0.38 Dodd Rd and Lake Dr Thru/Stop 1 1 0.18 / 0.51 0.07 Dodd Rd and Wagon Wheel Trl / Decorah Ln Thru/Stop 2 0 0.18 / 0.49 0.13 Dodd Rd and South Plaza Dr Thru/Stop 4 3 0.18 / 0.49 0.25 Dodd Rd and TH110 Signal 48 11 0.40 / 0.60 0.70 Dodd Rd and Market St Thru/Stop 1 1 0.18 / 0.46 0.05 Dodd Rd and Maple St Thru/Stop 0 0 0.18 / 0.47 0.00 Dodd Rd and Marie Ave All/Stop 5 2 0.35 / 0.71 0.24 Dodd Rd and Wentworth Ave All/Stop 10 5 0.35 / 0.74 0.57 Mendota Heights Rd and Lake Dr Thru/Stop 3 1 0.18 / 0.63 0.37 Lake Dr and Swan Dr Thru/Stop 0 0 0.18 / 1.40 0.00 Delaware Ave and Oneill Dr Thru/Stop 1 0 0.18 / 0.75 0.19 Delaware Ave and Mendota Heights Rd/Grieve Glen Ln Thru/Stop 2 1 0.18 / 0.64 0.26 Delaware Ave and Huber Dr / Charlton Rd Thru/Stop 5 2 0.18 / 0.59 0.52 Delaware Ave and TH 110 Signal 28 7 0.40 / 0.61 0.44 page 64 5 Table 2 – Segment crash analysis Segment Average Existing AADT Total Crashes Injury Crashes Expected and Critical Crash Rate Observed Crash Rate Dodd Rd - I-494 to MN 110 7,400 31 11 1.85 / 2.68 1.64 Dodd Rd - MN 110 to Went- worth Ave 8,300 24 10 1.85 / 2.73 1.44 Delaware Ave - Oneill Dr to MN 110 3,600 13 5 1.25 / 2.16 1.16 CCritical Crash Intersections ¾ Dodd Road and MN 110 was identified as a critical crash intersection and the detailed crash data shows a high number of rear end type crashes during the peak periods. This shows that most of the rear end type crashes are congestion-related prompting the need for operational improvements at the intersection, which is discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Elevated Crash Intersections ¾ Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps exhibited a high percentage of rear end crashes in the northbound and westbound directions. A high number of crashes were due to peak hour congestion and queueing in all directions at the study intersection. ¾ Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive has an elevated crash rate that can be attributed to high volumes of traffic throughout the day turning into and out of retail establishments in Mendota Plaza. The majority of traffic using South Plaza Drive turns left onto southbound Dodd Road conflicting with high traffic volumes on Dodd Road and leading to three out of four crashes being severe. Figure 4 – Congestion at MN 110 and Dodd Road Figure 5 – Northbound congestion at Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps page 65 6 ¾ Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue - High percentage of right angle crashes and 4 crashes in 2014 that could be classified as correctable (3 injury severity). These types of crashes are common at congested all-way stop intersections. ¾ Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive - This intersection is adjacent to Saint Thomas Academy and has a higher percentage of young drivers using it before and after the school day. This led to an incapacitating injury left-turn crash in 2011 which included a young distracted student rear-ending a vehicle waiting to turn left. ¾ Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road - Only 2 crashes. No discernible trend. ¾ Delaware Avenue and Huber Drive/Charlton Road – The intersection has pattern of run off road and sideswipe type crashes. This is also a transition point between a wider shoulder to the north and a narrow shoulder to the south. ¾ Delaware Avenue and MN 110 - High rear end crash rate during peak hours attributed to congestion on MN 110 similar to Dodd Road and MN 110. EElevated Severity Rate Segments ¾ Delaware Avenue segment was identified as an elevated severity segment. The corridor has a pattern of severe run-off road type crashes, especially on the north end of the segment. Narrow shoulders, no edgeline rumble strip, and limited clear zone are all factors along this corridor that could add to the severity rate. Figure 6 – Peak hour conflicts at Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue Figure 7 – AM traffic at Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive Figure 8 – Four run-off road crashes on Delaware Avenue attributed to narrow corridor design page 66 7 EEXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Existing traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic to identify intersection delay and level of service (LOS) based on HCM guidance. LOS grade values correspond to specific traffic characteristics within a given system. At intersections, LOS is a function of average vehicle delay. For two-way stop controlled intersections, minor approach delay is reported in addition to intersection LOS results. LOS “E” or worse, according to MnDOT standards, is considered deficient under normal traffic operations. Table 3 – HCM LOS thresholds Control Delay LOS Threshold Unsignalized Signalized ≤ 10 ≤ 10 A > 10-15 > 10-20 B > 15-25 > 20-35 C > 25-35 > 35-55 D > 35-50 > 55-80 E > 50 > 80 F Results of the existing traffic operations analysis identified several intersections and operational deficiencies in the study area. Existing weekday peak results are in figure 1.11. Detailed scenario results are in Attachment B. Noteworthy deficiencies include: ¾ Dodd Road at MN 110 has unacceptable operations in the AM peak hour and approaching capacity in the PM peak hour. The queues in the AM peak hour spill back to cause unacceptable conditions and block movements at Market Street. ¾ Delaware Avenue and MN 110 is approaching capacity. Wagon Wheel Tr Marie Ave Wentworth Ave S Plaza Dr Lake Dr Market St Maple St Legend LOS A-C LOS D LOS E LOS F Figure 9 – Existing traffic operations results (worst peak) page 67 8 EEXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL Selecting the appropriate traffic control device requires consideration of traffic patterns, volumes, roadway geometry, lane configurations, and multimodal aspects. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidance and standards on the installation of traffic control methods. The MUTCD considers vehicular volume, pedestrian volume, and crash frequency thresholds for multiple roadway contexts. Existing signals and unsignalized intersections that had hourly approach volumes of more than 75 vehicles (one of eight hours for satisfying minor approach for warrant 1B) were analyzed for existing traffic control warrants. Other context specific warrants (Warrants 4-8) were not analyzed as they do not fit the characteristics of the study intersections below. Warrants were based on peak hour turning movement counts which were fit to a daily volume profile. Minor right-turn volumes were excluded for dedicated right-turn lanes and included at 50 percent for shared right lanes. Table 4 shows a summary of the traffic control analysis under existing conditions and detailed information can be found in Attachment C. Warrant analysis results showed that signal warrants were met for all existing signalized intersections. For the unsignalized intersections that were analyzed, existing all-way stop intersections at Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue met Multi-Way Stop Application (MWSA) and 70% signal warrants for four hour and peak hour conditions. The remaining two-way stop control intersections did not meet signal or MWSA warrants under their current volume conditions. Table 4 – Existing control warrants Intersection Existing Control Warrants* 1A 1B 2 3 MWSA Dodd Road and I-494 South Ramps Signal Met Met Met Met Met Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps Signal Not Met Not Met Met Met Met Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road Signal Not Met Not Met Not Met Met Met Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive Two-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Dodd Road and TH 110 Signal Met Met Met Met Met Dodd Road and Market Street Two-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Dodd Road and Maple Street Two-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Dodd Road and Marie Avenue All-Way Stop Met** Not Met Met** Met** Met Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue All-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Met** Met** Met Delaware Avenue and TH 110 Signal Not Met Met Met Met Met *Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume *Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic *Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume *Warrant 3: Peak Hour *MWSA: Multi-way Stop Application **Met under 70% volume conditions page 68 9 FFuture Conditions Traffic projections were developed for 2040 to evaluate operating conditions under both existing and proposed roadway infrastructure. Multiple 2040 traffic scenarios were developed to determine the impact from major developments that are under construction or planned in the area. 2040 Base Scenario ¾ Based on traffic projections from 2030 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan extrapolated to 2040. ¾ Includes planned Mendota Plaza development near Dodd Road and TH 110. ¾ Does not include the new Viking Lakes development (Minnesota Vikings practice facility and adjacent development) or the planned Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion. 2040 Build AUAR (No Interchange) Scenario ¾ Includes 2040 base scenario traffic growth assumptions as well as traffic generated by the Viking Lakes site and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion. Trip generation for the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion sites are based on information in the respective AUAR documents for each site. ¾ Does not assume a future Argenta/I-494 Interchange. ¾ Assumes the most densely developed Viking Lakes scenario that was considered in the AUAR. Viking Lakes Development Details The Viking Lakes development is in the southeast quadrant of the I-494 and Dodd Road interchange (see Figure 10). The site will include the new Minnesota Vikings practice facility and associated office space, other offices not affiliated with the Vikings, hotels, retail, and apartments. During typical operating conditions (i.e., no major events occurring at the Vikings facilities), the following traffic volumes are expected to be added to the surrounding roadway network compared to existing conditions: ¾ 40,000 daily trips ¾ 3,100 AM peak hour trips (74 percent entering/26 percent exiting) ¾ 3,800 PM peak hour trips (35 percent entering/65 percent exiting) Viking Lakes Event Traffic As part of a separate study, a Travel Demand Management Plan is currently being developed for the Viking Lakes site to best accommodate traffic during atypical event conditions such as Vikings training camp, high school athletic events, concerts, etc. This event plan looked at events between 500 Figure 10 – Viking Lakes site plan page 69 10 and 7,200 attendees for existing events and up to 21,000 attendees for future events. However, vehicle traffic to and from the event site will be much lower due to transit/walk/bike and vehicle occupancy which decreases the maximum vehicles to 2,495 for existing events and 7,280 for future expanded capacity events. Many events will occur during off-peak time periods, during weekends, midday, or evening, where total volume splits using Dodd Road or Delaware Avenue are expected to be less than peak volumes. Therefore, the North-South Mobility Study will only evaluate typical operating conditions in the area. Results from the ongoing Travel Demand Management Plan will be considered in recommendations made in the North-South Mobility Study to ensure consistency between analyses and recommendations across studies. Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion Development Details The planned development covers a 3,140-acre area in Inver Grove Heights that is generally bound by I-494, Argenta Trail, TH 55, and Babcock Trail. Land uses include low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, office/industrial, public/institutional, and open space. The development is expected to add the following traffic volumes to the surrounding roadway network: ¾ 102,200 daily trips ¾ 5,300 AM peak hour trips (49 percent entering/51 percent exiting) ¾ 8,400 PM peak hour trips (47 percent entering/53 percent exiting) Figure 11 – Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area map page 70 11 TTRAFFIC FORECASTS Traffic projections for both 2040 Base Scenario and 2040 Build Scenario conditions were developed based on trip generation assumptions that are described above. This included the development of 2040 daily traffic projections as well as AM and PM peak hour turning movement projections. Origins and destinations of site generated trips were assumed after a review of prevailing traffic patterns and previous documentation. Adjustments were made based on existing regional travel patternswhich differed slightly from the Viking Lakes AUAR. It is expected that six percent of Vikings Lakes development traffic will use Dodd Road and nine percent will use Delaware Avenue between I-494 and MN 110. Six percent of Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion development traffic will use Delaware Avenue to the north of I-494. Traffic projections for the 2040 Base Scenario and 2040 Build Scenario can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONTROL Minnesota MUTCD traffic control warrants were evaluated with projected 2040 volumes to identify potential traffic control revisions throughout the study area. Attachment D has detailed future traffic control results. Traffic signals are expected to be warranted at the following intersections by 2040: ¾ Dodd Road and Marie Street (currently all-way stop control) ¾ Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue (currently all-way stop control) The impacts from potential traffic control revisions will be discussed in the alternatives analysis section of this report. Figure 12 – Directional distribution of AUAR development trips 6%4%1%6%8%9%3%2%9%8%page 71 12 Figure 13 – 2040 Base Conditions 5,500 5,000 11,400 34,500 37,500 3,600 10,500 2,800 3,900 27,500 X,XXX XX8,200 page 72 13 Figure 14 – 2040 Build Conditions (No Interchange) X,XXX 5,500 5,000 12,200 9,500 44,800 36,600 3,600 1,500 13,400 35,500 13,400 3,400 page 73 14 FFUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Increased traffic volumes through 2040 are expected to trigger many operational deficiencies throughout the study area, especially in the 2040 Build Scenario with added traffic from the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion developments. The 2040 Build Scenario is expected to trigger LOS F at all Dodd Road study intersections north of Wagon Wheel Trail and at all Delaware Avenue/Argenta Trail study intersections except at Huber Drive. Locations operating at LOS D or worse under 2017 or 2040 conditions can be seen in Table 5. A summary of 2040 traffic operations throughout the study area can also be seen in Figure 15 and detailed results can be found in Attachment E. 2040 Event Conditions While detailed traffic operations analysis related to event traffic conditions at the future Viking Lakes site is beyond the scope of this study, preliminary analysis that has been completed as part of the Viking Lakes Travel Demand Management Plan indicates that event traffic should result in similar (or better) operations throughout most of the study area. The likely exception to this is at the I-494/Dodd Road interchange; however, improvements to mitigate deficiencies at this location are being studied as part of the Travel Demand Management Plan. Table 5 – Existing and 2040 Future worst peak traffic operations results Intersection Existing Traffic Control 2017 Intersection LOS 2040 Base Intersection LOS 2040 Build Intersection LOS Dodd Road and I-494 South Ramps Signal B C E Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps Signal C C C Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road Signal C C C Dodd Road and Lake Drive TWSC* B C D Dodd Road and Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane TWSC* C F F Dodd Road and Plaza Drive TWSC* A D F Dodd Road and MN 110 Signal F F F Dodd Road and Market Street TWSC* F F F Dodd Road and Maple Street TWSC* A F F Dodd Road and Marie Avenue AWSC B E F Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue AWSC C F F Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive TWSC* A B B Lake Drive and Swan Drive TWSC* A A A Argenta Trail and Oneill Drive TWSC* A A F Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road TWSC* A A F Delaware Avenue and Huber Drive/Charlton Road TWSC* A A C Delaware Avenue and MN 110 Signal D F F *Intersection LOS at TWSC intersections reported as poorest approach LOS. page 74 15 Figure 15 – 2017 and 2040 worst peak intersection levels of service 2017 Existing Conditions 2040 Base Conditions 2040 Build Scenario (No Interchange) page 75 16 AAlternative Assessment Intersections that were identified as being deficient in existing or 2040 conditions were analyzed under several options to provide improvements to the intersection. Several options per intersection were identified as possible improvements, with a recommended option being identified for each intersection. To maintain a complete corridor vision, intersections were grouped together based on their existing control and location. High-level cost estimates were included for comparison purposes only. They represent high-level estimates and do not include right-of-way costs. MN 110 INTERSECTIONS The MN 110 intersections with Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue are both high traffic volume intersections. With 37,500 daily entering vehicles at Dodd Road and 35,000 daily entering vehicles at Delaware Avenue, both intersections are approaching the capacity of their existing 4-Lane highway footprint. With 2040 volumes identifying growth up to 50,000 daily entering vehicles for both intersections, an alternative corridor design or interchange will likely be necessary in the future. Alternatives that were analyzed for these intersections included: ¾ Expansion to 6 lanes on MN 110 and dual left turns ¾ Superstreet (Dodd Road right turn only + U-turns) ¾ Continuous flow intersections (displaced mainline lefts) ¾ Single point urban interchange (SPUI) The results of the alternative analysis for MN 110 showed that expansion to 6 lanes and dual left turn lanes would not provide acceptable intersection future conditions in the AM peak hour. The super street and continuous flow intersections provided adequate traffic progression; however, the delay at 3 separate parts of the intersection added up to operations that were approaching or at capacity. The SPUI alternative was the only option that provided acceptable long-term operations at Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. Table 6 – 2040 alternative assessment results – MN 110 Alternative High-Level Cost* Dodd Road Delaware Avenue Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6-Lane + Dual Lefts $6-10M 99/F 53/D 52/D 59/E Superstreet $2-3M 80/E 69/E 59/E 78/E Continuous Flow $3-4M 57/E 67/E 55/D 79/E SPUI $30-50M 8/A 8/A 6/A 12/B *Cost of improvements at only Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. Figure 16 – Examples of superstreet (left) and continuous flow (right) intersections page 76 17 MMARKET, MAPLE, AND SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE The four intersections adjacent to the MN 110 and Dodd Road intersection were identified as having deficient 2040 intersection operations. Dakota County recommends at least 1/4 mile spacing for signals along a major arterial roadway precluding a signal at either Market Street or N Plaza Drive. The queueing from MN 110 would also impact closely spaced signals. If all four access locations were unchanged, signal warrants for the four intersections are expected to not be met. However, if access is reduced at Market Street and N Plaza Drive, the resulting traffic shifts would warrant signals at Hilltop Road/Maple Street and S Plaza Drive. Table 7 –2040 alternative assessment results – Market, Maple, and S Plaza Drive Alternative High-Level Cost S Plaza Drive Market Street Maple Street Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Delay/LOS AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Full Access* - 24 / C 33 / D 17 / C 32 / D 9 / A 13 / B Roundabouts** $2.5-4M 26 / D 72 / F 6 / A 9 / A 7 / A 19 / C Reduced Access $800k-1.2M 11 / B 18 / C 6 / A 10 / B 8 / A 11 / B *Worst approach delay and LOS reported for two-way stop intersections ** Single Lane Roundabout assumed at Market and Hybrid 2x1 Roundabout assumed at N Plaza Drive The results of the analysis showed that when queueing was minimized at Dodd Road and MN 110 that operations were generally acceptable at S Plaza Drive, Market Street, and Maple Street. By reconfiguring to a reduced access design, delays at the study intersections were decreased from unacceptable to acceptable conditions. Although right-in right-out access at N Plaza Drive was modeled and preferred, the option of keeping southbound access into Mendota Plaza should be considered in the future. Figure 17 – Full access (left) and reduced access (right) alternatives X X XX XX Roundabout Option Roundabout Option page 77 18 MMARIE AND WENTWORTH Dodd Road intersections with Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue are both slightly skewed all-way stop controlled intersections. With volumes on Marie and Wentworth expected to increase from 3,000-4,000 existing to 5,000-6,000 in 2040 cross street traffic will drive the need for an alternative intersection that will benefit both safety and operations. Table 8 – 2040 alternative assessment results – Marie and Wentworth Alternative High-Level Cost* Marie Avenue Wentworth Avenue Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak All-way Stops - 36 / E 63 / F 89 / F 128 / F Signals $0.6-1.2M 21 / C 21 / C 19 / B 23 / C Mini Roundabouts $0.4-0.8M 28 / D 18 / C 21 / C 16 / C *Cost of two signals or two mini roundabouts; one at each study intersection The results of the analysis showed that both signals and mini roundabouts would provide operational benefit at the intersections. However, mini roundabouts would offer additional safety benefits, especially negating right-angle crashes, and non-peak benefits to the intersections compared to the signal alternatives. Mini roundabouts will also promote slower speeds along the corridor compared to signalized options. The mini roundabouts are also expected to cost less than the signalized intersections both in initial cost, right-of-way cost, and operating costs. Figure 18 – Existing all-way stop (top) and mini roundabout (bottom) options Source: Tollgate & MacPhail Mini-Roundabout - Department of Public Works, Harford County, MD page 78 19 WWAGON WHEEL TRAIL AND DECORAH LANE With MnDOT’s TH 149 reconstruction project, Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane will be reconstructed into a three-lane segment with a pedestrian crossing median between the intersections. This improvement is a near-term solution to increase both vehicle and pedestrian safety at the intersection. However, as volumes increase on Dodd Road this intersection will have future unacceptable operations and long-term alternatives will need to be considered. Table 9 – 2040 alternative assessment results – Wagon Wheel and Decorah Alternative High-Level Cost Wagon Wheel Trail/ Decorah Lane Delay (s) / LOS AM Peak PM Peak Two-way stop - 462 / F 685 / F Two-way stop (realigned) $200k 37 / E 66 / F Signal $200-400k 18 / B 30 / C Signal (realigned) $400-600k 10 / B 10 / B Mini Roundabout (realigned) $400-600k 8 / A 14 / B Using the final design footprint, it was shown that the intersection could be signalized with acceptable levels of service. Because of the offset nature of the intersection, minor approaches would need to have split cycles. If the intersection was realigned, signal and mini roundabout options would both be acceptable at the intersection. A signal would be the preferred option if future volumes warrant a signal; however, it is expected that a signal will not be warranted. If minor approach volumes don’t warrant a signal, the mini roundabout would provide acceptable operations. Figure 19 – Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane final design from TH 149 study page 79 20 LLAKE DRIVE The Lake Drive analysis was conducted to quantify operations around the school in the AM and school peak hour. Comments that cars were using Swan Drive as a cut through were analyzed and it was recorded that only five vehicles used this route during the school peak. However, several reasons that could cause cut through movements on different days include: ¾ Southbound delay at Lake Dr/Mendota Heights Rd and signal delay at Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road ¾ Limited sight distance caused by vertical curve at Lake Dr/Dodd Rd looking south Understanding these issues before suggesting improvements allows both reactionary (to physically prevent cut through traffic) and preventative (improve preferred routes) improvements to be considered. ¾ Reactionary Improvements o Build a cul-de-sac on Swan Drive to close access. o Restrict west-north access at Lake Drive and Swan Drive by constructing a raised median on Lake Drive. ¾ Preventative Improvements o Consider traffic enforcement to direct traffic at Lake Drive/Mendota Heights Road as a temporary measure to minimize southbound delay during the school departure. o Install a roundabout at Lake Drive/Mendota Heights Road to improve operations and safety. o Install dynamic or static intersection warning system at Dodd Road and Lake Drive in the northbound direction to flash when there is entering traffic from Lake Drive. The recommended action is to do nothing. Reactionary improvements are not preferred as these would impact access into the neighborhood. Although preventative improvements would provide operations and safety benefits, the higher cost of these options do not provide enough benefit to justify them. Figure 20 – Lake Drive options page 80 21 DDELAWARE AVENUE Delaware Avenue is expected to see the highest percentage increase in development traffic in the study area. Volumes are expected to increase from 3,000 daily trips to more than 13,000 daily trips in the full build scenarios. If these volumes are not mitigated, Delaware Avenue will be at capacity with several intersections that have unacceptable conditions. If the Argenta Interchange is constructed at the locally preferred location, this will alleviate development volumes that were routed to Delaware Avenue. It is expected that 90 percent of development traffic using Delaware Avenue will be shifted to using the Argenta Interchange restoring the acceptable operations of the corridor in the 2040 Base Conditions. The Argenta Interchange at the preferred location 1,500 feet east of the existing overpass should be the preferred option to limit congestion on Delaware Avenue. If the interchange is not built, Delaware Avenue will need to be expanded to a 3-lane or 4-lane option. The existing cross section of Delaware Avenue is very narrow with only two to four-foot shoulders and five to ten feet of clear zone in certain locations. With an existing crash trend of run-off-road type crashes, additional guardrail segments or future construction of curb and gutter should be considered along the corridor where clear zones are narrow and shoulders are under 4 feet. These improvements will increase safety along the corridor especially during inclement weather by not allowing vehicles to run off the road into trees and brush that line the corridor. Figure 21 – Location of preferred argenta interchange from Dakota County Regional Roadway System Visioning Study Figure 22 – Narrow Delaware Avenue segment south of Huber Drive page 81 22 MMultimodal Considerations Although this study was focused on identifying vehicular traffic due to regional development, bike and ped facilities are an important consideration for the final corridor vision. In depth pedestrian and bike facilities were not analyzed as part of the current study (as a previous trail study was finished in Nov 2017). Many of the alternative recommendations will coincide with multimodal improvements and will be analyzed in depth during preliminary design of the concepts. The Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) identified Dodd Road as a major N-S regional trail facility. The existing facilities are mostly on-street trails (wide shoulders) however north and south of MN 110 there are existing sections of off-street trails. A Ped/Bike tunnel was just recently constructed under MN 110 connecting these two segments. Trail crossings were also proposed at Wagon Wheel Trail / Decorah Lane as part of the TH 149 resurfacing project in addition to existing crossings at Mendota Heights Road, South Plaza Drive, and Marie Avenue. The recommendations of the study were to build seven additional sections of off-street trail segments along Dodd Road with public support as construction would require property owners to sell property or easements for the trail segments. Due to the limited right-of-way along Delaware Avenue, pedestrian accommodations in the study area between I-494 and MN 110 would be constrained by roadway grade profiles and right-of-way needed from property owners. Existing off-street trails on Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Road allow connections from Delaware Avenue to the west and serve as alternative multimodal routes to the narrow corridor. Figure 23 – Existing Wrail Iacilities in Mendota Heights page 82 23 SSummary and Key Considerations The recommendations in this report are a starting point for the City of Mendota Heights to work with MnDOT and Dakota County in identifying improvements to Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. This report identified the operations and safety deficiencies expected from future regional growth and development. The following considerations are listed to help identify preferred alternatives that should be constructed as operations deteriorate on Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. Dodd Road and I-494 North and South Ramps ¾ With the existing 4+ lane section of Dodd Road and improvements to the north ramps as part of the TH 149 MnDOT reconstruction, future intersection operations are expected to be acceptable with periodic signal timing adjustments during Viking Lakes development expansions. ¾ During events during weekday peak or over 4,000 expected attendance, event signal timing adjustments will be needed at the I-494 ramp intersections. This mitigation was recommended in the Viking Lakes Event Travel Demand Management Plan. Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive Improvements ¾ No improvements are recommended at Lake Drive and Swan Drive. ¾ Consider temporary use of traffic enforcement to direct traffic at Lake Drive/Mendota Heights Road to minimize southbound delay during the school peak departure. A long-term solution to increase safety could be a single-lane roundabout at this intersection similar to the existing roundabout at Visitation Drive to the east. Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane ¾ Improvements as part of the TH 149 reconstruction will address safety concerns at the study intersection with the addition of a pedestrian median and dedicated left turn lanes. ¾ Future operational deficiencies can be addressed by signalizing the reconstructed intersection if future signal warrants are met or realigning Decorah Lane and providing a mini roundabout. MN 110 Intersections ¾ With increased volumes on MN 110, Dodd Road, and Delaware Avenue providing unacceptable existing traffic operations, the MN 110 corridor should be analyzed to develop a corridor vision from Hwy 55 to I-494. The City should lead this effort to apply for grants and spur MnDOT interest to make this project a priority to study. ¾ Corridor improvements that can alleviate traffic congestion on MN 110 include Superstreet, Continuous Flow, or SPUI alternatives. However, a long-term solution will need additional analysis. Market, Maple, and South Plaza Drive ¾ The recommended alternative includes reducing access at Market Street and North Plaza Drive to right-in/right-out or 3/4 access and providing signalized full access at a realigned Maple Street/Hilltop Road and South Plaza Drive. Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue ¾ The recommended alternative is to construct mini-roundabouts at both intersections to provide safety and operational benefits, limit corridor speeds, and provide corridor continuity. Delaware Avenue ¾ It is recommended to provide additional guardrail segments or curb and gutter along Delaware Avenue to address a high number of run-off road type crashes. page 83 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-13 Order Plans for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements Project No. 201706 COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council conduct a public hearing for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND The preparation of a feasibility report for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements which is required to follow the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 process was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution 2017-71, 2017-72, and 2017-73 at the City Council meeting held on September 5, 2017. The Statute 429 process is required because the city intends to assess a portion of the project. The feasibility report for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements was accepted by the Mendota Heights City Council and called for a Public Hearing on February 7, 2018 by adopting Resolution 2017-113 at the December 19, 2017, city council meeting. The resolution was amended regarding the date of hearing in resolution 2018-05 and 2018-08. The recommendation of the feasibility report was to proceed with this project. The proposed streets to be rehabilitated are Avanti Drive, Bwana Court, Faro Lane, Summit Lane, Twin Circle Drive, Vail Drive, West Circle Court, Mendakota Court, Mendakota Drive, and South Plaza Drive. Based on our observations, as well as our pavement management system, a majority of these streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost effective to patch the street and rehabilitation is necessary. Staff has received several telephone inquiries as to when resurfacing will take place in the Lexington Heights subdivision. DISCUSSION The feasibility report indicates the estimated costs for the project, along with preliminary assessment estimates. At the end of the feasibility report, a project financing summary is included to show project cost splits and funding sources to be utilized. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,802,363 including indirect costs. Issues A Neighborhood Informational Meeting was held on January 10, 2018 to provide the property owners an opportunity to discuss the projects in an informal setting prior to the Public Hearing. Staff page 84 presented the proposed improvements, project costs, estimated assessments and answered resident’s questions. The property owners asked a variety of questions regarding assessments, timing, construction issues, traffic issues, and street drainage issues. Some properties on Mendakota Court that are stating their street is okay for now and other streets should be repaired first. Staff requested residents on Mendakota Court to notify the City of their preference to do the project in 2018 or delay to 2022. Out of a total of 34 properties, staff received 5 votes to delay the project and two votes to proceed with the project in 2018. The pavement management index for Mendakota Court shows an index in the fifties on a scale of 100. Pavement index for Mendakota Drive is in the thirties, South Plaza Drive is in the twenties and Lexington Highlands is in the teens and single digits. The costs shown for trail work in Mendakota Park appears to be excessive compared to the benefit received. Staff is proposing to proceed with ADA improvements and some spot repairs at trail connections but delaying the trail overlay portion. These trails could be fog sealed in 2019 as part of general street maintenance. BUDGET IMPACT Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Pursuant to the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties should be assessed 50% of the street reconstruction and rehabilitation costs. The following tables show the estimated unit assessments based on the City policy. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council conduct the Public Hearing and order the improvements, authorizing staff to prepare the plans and specifications for the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements. 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 LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS, SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE, AND MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT #201707. This action requires a super majority vote. FUNDING SOURCES ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT UTILITY FUND MUNICIPAL BONDS Lexington Highlands $795,762 $323,057 $22,230 $450,475 South Plaza Drive $271,823 $77,931 $50,000 $143,892 Mendakota Neighborhood $478,050 $194,996 $283,054 Mendakota Park Trails $256,729 $256,729 Total $1,802,364 $595,984 $72,230 $1,134,150 ITEM TOTAL UNITS ASSESSMENT Lexington Highlands 81 $3,988.36 South Plaza Drive Footage Assessment $30.73/foot Mendakota Neighborhood $478,050 $194,996 Mendakota Drive Footage Assessment $27.46/foot page 85 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-13 A RESOLUTION ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS, SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE, AND MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201707) WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 2017-113 on December 19, 2017 setting the date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements regarding the Lexington Highlands, South Plaza Drive, & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements; 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, 2018, 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 Avanti Drive, Bwana Court, Faro Lane, Summit Lane, Twin Circle Drive, Vail Drive, West Circle Court, Mendakota Court, Mendakota Drive, and South Plaza 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, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 86 City of Mendota Heights LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS, SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE & MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Public Hearing February 7, 2018 WSB Authorization and Acceptance • The preparation of the feasibility report was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution 2017-71, 2017-72, and 2017-73 at the City Council meeting held on September 5, 2017. This project has been designated as City Project No. 201706. • The feasibility report for this Neighborhood Improvements was accepted by the Mendota Heights City Council at the December 19, 2017 City Council meeting. ni Public Improvement Process for Special Assessment Projects (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429) Staff Activities/Tasks Prepare proposed Capital Improvement Program Feasibility report; prepare cost estimate, project budget, and schedule; determine benefited area and proposed assessments Mail hearing notices Prepare plans & specs Open bids; accept bids; award contract; prepare & execute contract; administer construction. Prepare and mail hearing notices Certify assessment to County Auditor City Council Decisions Modify/approve Capital Improvement Program and Resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report Accept report and call for hearing Hold public hearing on the proposed project and order the improvement and preparation of plans Approve plans and order advertisement for bids Authorize amount to be assessed and schedule assessment public hearing Hold final assessment public hearing; adopt assessment roll Authorized on September 5, 2017 Accepted on December 19, 2017 Public Hearing Scheduled on February 7, 2018 Project Scope Street Rehabilitation (Pavement Replacement) Avanti Drive Bwana Court Faro Lane Summit Lane Twin Circle Drive Vail Drive West Circle Court Project Scope Street Rehabilitation (Pavement Replacement) Mendakota Court Mendakota Drive South Plaza Drive Issues / Concerns we know about: • Traffic Issues: — Poor traffic configuration at South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road — Poor traffic flow at Mendakota Dr, and Mendakota Ct — Failing bituminous surfaces. • Storm Water Drainage Issues: — Poor drainage along some curbs. • Irrigation systems and pet containment systems • Inconvenience (e.g. access, dust, noise, etc.) n 1 Rehabilitation • Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood — Existing Conditions • The roadway widths currently vary from 29 feet to 30 feet measured from edge of roadway to edge of roadway. • Pavement cross-sections vary from 2.5" to 4" of bituminous surface over a 3 to 7" aggregate base. • The curb and gutter is in fair condition; however, some cracking and settlements have resulted in isolated drainage issues and additional pavement distress. • These streets currently have a bituminous surface reaching the end of there useful life. ni Rehabilitation • Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood — Proposed Street Improvements • The proposed surface improvements consist of a pavement rehabilitation with partial curb and gutter repair/replacement. • Roadways proposed for rehabilitation improvements will be constructed to the City's 7 -ton design standard and will consist of 1.5 inches of bituminous wearing course, 2.5 inches of bituminous base course, and 6 inches of reclaimed aggregate base • Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter shall be evaluated in the field and replaced as necessary to facilitate proper drainage. • Driveways that are disturbed due to the street reconstruction will be replaced in kind. • Disturbed boulevard areas will be restored. ni Rehabilitation • South Plaza Drive — Existing Conditions • South Plaza Drive is approximately 33 -foot -wide measured from edge of roadway to edge of roadway. • High Ridge Circle and Sibley Court have a pavement cross-section consisting of a 4.5" bituminous surface over a 8" aggregate base. • South Plaza Drive contains concrete and bituminous curbing. • This street is currently has a bituminous surface reaching the end of it's useful life. Rehabilitation • South Plaza Drive — Proposed Street Improvements • Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter shall be evaluated in the field and replaced as necessary to facilitate proper drainage. • The existing bituminous curb and gutter will to be completely removed and replaced with barrier style concrete curb and gutter. • The South Plaza Drive, and Dodd Road intersection will be evaluated to facilitate the addition of a left and right turn lane. n 1 Rehabilitation • Mendakota Neighborhood — Proposed Trail Improvements • Pedestrian ramps located within the project area shall be brought up to current ADA accessibility design standards. • The existing trail system within Mendakota Community Park will be overlaying with bituminous pavement. ni Project Costs ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL Lexington Highlands Neighborhood $663,135 $132,627 $795,762 Mendakota Neighborhood $398,375 $79,675 $478,050 South Plaza Drive $226,519 $45,304 $271,823 Mendakota Community Park Trail $213,941 $42,788 $256,729 Totals $1,501,970 * Includes 20% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. n 1 $300,394 $1,802,363 Project Area Assessment Map Lexington Highland Neighborhood Area (Pavement Rehabilitation) Avanti Drive Bwana Court Faro Lane Summit Lane Twin Circle Drive Vail Drive West Circle Court Exhibit A - Assessment Map Lexington Highlands Mendota Heights, MN 0 250 Feet 1 Inch = 250 fee! WSB Project Area Assessment Map Mendakota Neighborhood Area (Pavement Rehabilitation) Mendakota Court Mendakota Drive South Plaza Drive Exhibit B - Assessment Map Mendakota Neighborhood Mendota Heights, MN A 0 400 W.SB Feet 1 inch=400Fent Assessment Calculations • Street Rehabilitation — Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Pursuant to the City's Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties should be assessed at 50% of street rehabilitation cost. • The estimated total assessable amount for the project is based on specially assessing 50% of the following costs: mobilization, traffic control, bituminous removal/reclamation, bituminous base course, bituminous wear course, tack coat, valve and manhole adjustments, and appurtenant work. — City costs include curb and gutter replacement, storm sewer, and appurtenant work. ni Assessment Calculations ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS— STREET REHABILITATION LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS Assessable Costs $646,114 Assessment $323,057 Assessable Units 81 Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $3,988.36 ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS— STREET REHABILITATION MENDAKOTA Assessable Costs $389,992 Assessment $194,996 Assessed (Residential Area) $134,135 Assessable Units 34 Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $3,945.16 n 1 Funding Sources ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL BONDS UTILITY FUNDS Street Rehabilitation $1,473,404 $553,402 $920,002 Trail $256,729 $256,729 Storm Sewer $72,230 $72,230 Totals n 1 $1,802,363 $553,402 $1,176,731 $72,230 Project Schedule ACTIVITY DATE Accept Feasibility Study/Call for Public Hearing December 19, 2017 Hold Neighborhood Informational Meeting January 10, 2018 Conduct Public Hearing/Accept Project/Order Plans and Specifications February 7, 2018 Approve Plans and Specifications/Order Advertisements for Bids April 2018 Open Bids April 2018 Accept Bids/Award Contract May 2018 Begin Construction May/June 2018 Complete Base Course of Bituminous Pavement August 2018 Authorize Amount to be Assessed/Schedule Assessment Hearing October 2018 Conduct Assessment Hearing/Adopt Assessment Roll October 2018 ni Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Line Adjustment Ed Meisinger – 572 Hiawatha Avenue Planning Case No. 2018-01 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Lot Line Adjustment request to Ed Meisinger, for the two properties located at 572 and 566 Hiawatha Avenue. Background Mr. Meisinger is seeking permission to adjust (realign) the shared lot line between the two properties addressed as 572 and 566 Hiawatha Avenue. Mr. Meisinger and his family own both residential parcels, so the adjustment is simply a mutual agreement between the two properties. Pursuant to Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance), individuals may request a lot line adjustment provided the resulting lots retain or meet the required zoning standards under the applicable zoning district, which in this case is R-1 One Family Residential. The resulting lots meet the R-1 standards. At the January 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented on this item; and a public hearing was conducted by the commission. There were no comments or objections from the audience or any neighboring property owners. A copy of the 01/23/18 planning report, along with the Planning Commission meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative and quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision requests and has limited discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot Line Adjustment request with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION No. 2018-09 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 572 AND 566 HIAWATHA AVENUE. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 87 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-09 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 572 & 566 HIAWATHA AVENUE WHEREAS, Ed Meisinger (the “Applicant”) has applied for a simple lot line adjustment as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-01 for the two properties located at 572 Hiawatha Avenue and 566 Hiawatha Avenue, legally described and illustrated in the attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Properties”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and are located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the readjustment of lot lines between or within legal parcels of records, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to adjust and realign the shared lot line between the Subject Properties, resulting in a new lot width of 124.7 feet for 572 Hiawatha Avenue (from an original 100-ft. width) and a new lot width of 100 feet for 566 Hiawatha Avenue (from an original 124.7 ft. width); as legally described and illustrated in the attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot Line Adjustment request, with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-01 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. C. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot line adjustment request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-01 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) Appropriate documents indicating the new lot line adjustment shall be recorded with Dakota County page 88 Res 2018-01 Page 2 2) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of February, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 89 Res 2018-01 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Current Legal Description (Address: 572 Hiawatha Ave. - PID No. 27-17100-02-040): Lots 3, and 4 and that part of the adjacent vacated alley lying between the extensions Southeasterly of the southwesterly line of Lot 3 and the northeasterly line of Lot 4, all in Block 2, CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS, Dakota County, Minnesota. Current Legal Description (Address: 566 Hiawatha Ave. - PID No. 27-17100-02-070): Lots 5 and 6, the Southwesterly Half of Lot 7, and that part of the adjacent vacated alley lying between the extensions Southeasterly of the southwesterly line of Lot 5 and the northeasterly line of the Southwesterly Half of Lot 7, all in Block 2, CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS, Dakota County, Minnesota. page 90 Res 2018-01 Page 4 EXHIBIT B Proposed Legal Description Parcel A (Address: 572 Hiawatha Ave.) That part of Lot 5 lying Southwest of the Northeast 25.18 feet thereof, and all of Lots 3 and 4, and that part of the adjacent vacated alley lying between the extensions Southeasterly of the southwesterly line of Lot 3 and the southwesterly line of the Northeast 25.18 feet of Lot 5, all in Block 2, CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS, Dakota County, Minnesota. Proposed Legal Description Parcel B (Address: 566 Hiawatha Ave.) The Northeast 25.18 feet of Lot 5, Lot 6, and the Southwesterly Half of Lot 7, and that part of the adjacent vacated alley lying between the extensions Southeasterly of the southwesterly line of the Northeast 25.18 feet of Lot 5 and the northeasterly line of the Southwesterly Half of Lot 7, all in Block 2, CHEROKEE PARK HEIGHTS, Dakota County, Minnesota. page 91 Planning Staff Report DATE: January 23, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2018-01 Lot Line Adjustment APPLICANT: Ed Meisinger PROPERTY ADDRESS: 572 & 566 Hiawatha Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential ACTION DEADLINE: February 12, 2018 (60 days) INTRODUCTION Mr. Ed Meisinger (along with his wife Victoria Meisinger and daughter Michelle Neish) is requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between the two properties they jointly own, located at 572 & 566 Hiawatha Avenue. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. & Mrs. Meisinger are seeking to adjust the shared lot line between the two properties. The lot width of the smaller house (566 Hiawatha Ave.) is 124.7-ft.; while the larger residence (572 Hiawatha Ave.) is only 100-ft. The Owners/Applicant wish to swap the lot line widths by making 566 Hiawatha with a 100- ft. wide lot and 572 Hiawatha with 124.7-ft. lot width. The Meisingers will continue to own/occupy the main residence at 572 Hiawatha, while their daughter Ms. Neish will occupy the 566 Hiawatha residence. 566 Hiawatha contains a 1-1/4 story, 837 sq. ft. single-family dwelling; while 572 Hiawatha contains a one- story, 1,690 sq. ft. single family dwelling. There are no physical changes planned to each dwelling. 566 Hiawatha 572 Hiawatha page 92 Planning Report: Case #2018-01 Page 2 ANALYSIS The 566 Hiawatha lot is 125-ft. wide by approx. 195-200 ft. in depth, with 24,628 sq. ft. in lot area. The 572 Hiawatha lot is 100-ft. wide by 200-ft. in depth, with 20,341 sq. ft. in lot area. The new lot line will essentially be relocated 24.7 feet northerly between both properties, resulting in the new (preferred) lot dimensions presented and illustrated on the attached survey drawings. The survey maps indicate the new adjusted lot line will go through the existing playground structure. According to the Owners, this playground has been removed and relocated to the back area of the 572 Hiawatha parcel. Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided the following standards are met: Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. The resulting lot line adjustment keeps or maintains the minimum lot width of 100-ft. and minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. (R-1 District standards) for both lots intact, and there is no variance needed for any standards. For all intents and purposes, this lot line adjustment will have little, if any impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, or the overall use, enjoyment and purpose of the entire Cherokee Heights neighborhood. With the new lot line adjustment, there will be no impacts or need to vacate any dedicated drainage and utility easements, since no easements were ever dedicated under the original Cherokee Park Heights plat of 1924. Typically under new subdivision requests (including lots splits and lot line adjustments) the city will request the Applicant to provide (dedicate) new drainage and utility easements whenever needed. In this case the city is requesting the Applicant to provide a 10-foot easement along the front lot lines; and 5- foot wide easements along the new (adjusted) line and all other side and rear lot lines. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR page 93 Planning Report: Case #2018-01 Page 3 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties. OR 3. Table the requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with conditions noted as follows: 1) Appropriate documents indicating the new lot line adjustment shall be recorded with Dakota County 2) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. page 94 Planning Report: Case #2018-01 Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment 566 & 572 Hiawatha Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards. page 95 page 96 CHIPPEWA AVEMIRIAM ST WINSTON CTSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYHIAWATHA AVE SIMARD ST FREMONT AVE JUNCTION LN ANNAPOLIS ST W DO W N I N G S T LO N D O N R D DIEGO LNKIRCHNER AVE GA R D E N L N SUTCLIFF CIR WINSTON CIRDakota County GIS 572 & 566 HIAWATHA AVE.Planning Case No. 2018-01 City ofMendotaHeights0310 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 1/19/2018 page 97 66666666666666 ³ " " " " " * ³ "6666666666666666666 6 6 6 666666 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 50200 193 172 143 14090133 91130 123 79 1 4 67166 756056 5570 484140 3836992521199 15 5 1610535040 130 140501305050123 60566 572 564 555 567 574 557569565 573 563 551 559 562 558 583 586 549 HIAWATHA AVESIMARD ST253.4'200.85'Dakota County GIS 572 & 566 HIAWATHA AVE.Planning Case No. 2018-01 City ofMendotaHeights060 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 1/19/2018 page 98 page 99 page 100 January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 23, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 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 John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Michael Toth. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel. Introduction of Newly Appointed Commissioner Patrick Corbett Chair Field introduced the new Planning Commission member, Mr. Patrick Corbett. Commissioner Corbett expressed his gratitude for the opportunity and stated that he looked forward to working with the Commission. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 28, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) ABSTAIN: 1 (CORBETT) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-01 ED MEISINGER, 572 AND 566 HIAWATHA AVENUE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a lot line adjustment request filed by Mr. Ed Meisinger. He and his family own both lots located at 572 and 566 Hiawatha Avenue. The lots are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. He went on to explain that a lot line adjustment does require a Planning Commission review and recommendation and a City Council final approval. page 101 January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 8 Public hearing notice was printed in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to everyone living within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received from those neighbors. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location relative to surrounding homes and streets. The lot identified as 566 Hiawatha Avenue is approximately 125 feet wide by 195 to 200 feet in depth, totaling approximately 24,628 square feet; and the lot identified as 572 Hiawatha Avenue is approximately 100 feet wide by 200 feet in depth, totaling approximately 20,341 square feet. The applicants requested to move the lot line in between the two parcels to make 572 Hiawatha Avenue a little bit larger. Mr. Benetti also shared the survey maps with and without the adjusted lot line and noted that the lot line adjustments would have no impacts on any dedicated drainage and utility easements, there would be physical changes to the existing dwellings or the driveways. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the second condition of approval, asked for confirmation that the 10-foot wide easement along the front property lines and the 5-foot wide easements along the side and rear property lines were consistent with what would be included on a new plat request. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was correct and that this was very standard practice on these types of requests. Chair Field noted that prescriptive easements are included in case the City needed to use the lot line before the lot split, subject to the same provisions. So it is not like the applicant is losing anything in the process. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Mr. Ed Meisinger was invited to come forward and add any comments and answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Meisinger had no comments and there were no Commission questions. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-01 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: page 102 January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 8 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Appropriate documents indicating the new lot line adjustment shall be recorded with Dakota County 2. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, February 7, 2018 meeting. page 103 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split (Subdivision) Request Mark Gergen – 684 North Freeway Road Planning Case No. 2018-02 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Lot Split (Subdivision) request to Mark Gergen, for the property located at 684 North Freeway Road. Background Mr. Gergen is seeking permission to split the parcel located at 684 North Freeway Road into two separate lots, consisting of 0.57 acres each. Pursuant to Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance), individuals may request the simple subdivision of parcels provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. The subject parcel is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district. The resulting lots will meet the general R-1 zoning standards. At the January 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented on this item; and a public hearing was conducted by the commission. A few comments (but no objections) from neighboring residents were received and noted for the record. A copy of the 01/23/18 planning report, along with the Planning Commission meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative and quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision requests and has limited discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot Split request with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION No. 2018-10 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 684 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 104 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-10 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 684 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD WHEREAS, Mark Gergen (the “Applicant”) has applied for a Lot Split (Subdivision) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-02, for the property located at 684 North Freeway Road, and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Subject Property into two parcels consisting of 0.57 acres for each lot, as legally described in attached Exhibit A and illustrated in attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot Split (Subdivision) request, with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-02 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed subdivision and additional new housing will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along North Freeway Road. C. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on North Freeway Road. page 105 Res 2018-10 page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-02 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) All grading work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3) The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions. 4) All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on both sites and until each have been properly restored. 5) Front-yard setbacks from North Freeway Road for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be a minimum of 38-feet. 6) The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape and tree replacement plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review. 7) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 8) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 9) The existing home must 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) The existing home must be demolished on or before June 1, 2018; shall remain vacant; and not used for any residential occupancy or rental housing during this period. 12) Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. page 106 Res 2018-10 page 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of February, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 107 Res 2018-10 page 4 EXHIBIT A Original Legal Description PID# 27-38600-03-060 LOT 6, BLOCK 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS ADDITION, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS (refer to attached Exhibit B – following page): PARCEL A: THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH 5.00 FEET AND THE EAST 5.00 FEET AND THE WEST 5.00 FEET AND THE NORTH 10.00 FEET OF SAID WEST 1/2 OF LOT 6. PARCEL B: THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH 5.00 FEET AND THE EAST 5.00 FEET AND THE WEST 5.00 FEET AND THE NORTH 10.00 FEET OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF LOT 6. page 108 Res 2018-10 page 5 EXHIBIT B page 109 Planning Staff Report DATE: January 23, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-02 Lot Split – Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Mark Gergen PROPERTY ADDRESS: 684 North Freeway Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: February 19, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Mark Gergen is requesting approval to subdivide a parcel located in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district, to replace one single-family lot (with an existing home) with two conforming single-family lots for future residential development. The request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. BACKGROUND The original site contains an existing one-story, single family (basement walk-out) dwelling of 2,138 sq. ft., built in 1971. The subject lot is 1.15 acres in size; and has 200-ft. of frontage (lot width) along North Freeway Road and depth of approx. 250-ft. The home will be removed should this lot split be approved. page 110 Planning Report: Case #2018-02 Page 2 The site is bordered to the north, south east and west by existing single family homes. There are a number of mature trees scattered throughout the lower 1/3 of the lot, and some of these will have to be removed to make space for the future single family dwellings. Many of these trees are located in the lower area of the lot, located along the west-southwesterly-southerly area of the lot. 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 12/15/2017 from Bohlen Surveying and Associates.  Parcel A: the western area of the existing parcel will be subdivided to create a new 100-ft. by 250-ft. sized lot, consisting of 24,994 sq. ft., or 0.57 acres. The survey map includes 1-ft. contour (grade) elevation lines along the westerly side and rear yard areas of the existing lot, which illustrate a considerable grade elevation difference in this area, from 898-ft down to 878-ft. in the most southwest corner of new Parcel A. The existing dwelling has a retaining wall that supports or shores-up the west side of the home and existing garage/driveway area. The survey provided by Mr. Gergen illustrates a “Proposed 60’ x 60’ Bldg. Pad” – which is shown with a 30-ft front setback off N. Freeway Rd. and approx. 20-ft along each side yard. The survey does not provide a location of the new driveway.  Parcel B: the east side of the existing lot will be subdivided to create a new 100-ft. by 250-ft. sized lot, consisting of 24,984 sq. ft., or 0.57 acres. This easterly portion of the lot is relatively flat with little to any grade differences, except in the far southerly area of the new lot. The survey also illustrates a similar “Proposed 60’ x 60’ Bldg. Pad” – which is shown with a 30-ft front setback off N. Freeway Rd. and approx. 20-ft along each side yard. The survey does not provide a location of the new driveway. ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.57 acres each, is consistent with and well below the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. Because these properties tend to be smaller and surrounded by established neighborhoods, development would have the potential to dramatically change the environment of the areas in which they are located. The City’s policies for consideration of development in these sensitive areas are noted as follows: o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations. o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties. o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors. o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing. o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a “spot-zoning” pattern. o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design. page 111 Planning Report: Case #2018-02 Page 3  Zoning Requirements Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below based on the attached plan set, the proposed parcels are compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 SF 49,978 sq. ft. (1.15 acres) 24,994 sq. ft. (0.57 acres) 24,984 sq. ft. (0.57 acres) Lot Width 100 ft. 200-ft 100-ft. 100-ft. Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the Code requires the following: 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. The proposed 60’ x 60’ house pads are shown with a setback of 30-ft. The existing dwelling is also shown (at furthest projection point – north corner of attached garage) at the 30-ft. setback line. According to old city survey records, the home next door to the east (670 N. Freeway) has a 46-ft. front setback. The home to the west (owned by the Applicant – Mr. Gergen) was recently built in 2014 and has a 30-ft setback from N. Freeway Road. Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-4.D (Front Yard Requirements), whenever a new home(s) is developed between existing homes along a street, the average of the setbacks between adjoin structures is applied. IN this case the 46-ft. + 30-ft. = 76-ft, or average equates to 38-feet. Because the new house pads are considered a general design” in nature, city staff is recommending the final (new) building setbacks for each lot must be a minimum of 38-feet for both lots. 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 and conditions of approval as noted herein. OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. 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. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: page 112 Planning Report: Case #2018-02 Page 4 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) All grading work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3) The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions. 4) All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on both sites and until each have been properly restored. 5) Front-yard setbacks from North Freeway Road for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be a minimum of 38-feet. 6) The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape and tree replacement plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review. 7) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 8) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 9) The existing home must 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. page 113 Planning Report: Case #2018-02 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for 684 North Freeway Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and additional new housing will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along North Freeway Road. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on North Freeway Road. page 114 HWY 110 DODD RDSOUTH LNWESLEY LN MENDOTA RDLINDEN STMARKET ST HILLTOP RD FREEWAY RD S FREEWAY RD N WILL O W L N VALLEY CURVE RDRIDGE PL MAPLE ST MAIN STOAK STWESLEY CTHWY OAK STHWY 110 Dakota County GIS 684 N. FREEWAY ROADPlanning Case No. 2018-02 City ofMendotaHeights0420 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 1/19/2018 page 115 6666666666 66666666" " ³ ³" * " " " " "66666666666666666666666!!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 (]250200 185 169 50 150 119 125 100248 249249200150 200100 25050 200250200169 250200150 100 684 679 670 697 685693 699 689 679 667 664 667 FREEWAY RD N OAK STHWY OAK ST313'270'303' Dakota County GIS 684 N. FREEWAY ROADPlanning Case No. 2018-02 City ofMendotaHeights080 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 1/19/2018 page 116 684 N. Freeway Rd.04/04/2017page 117 page 118 January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 8 B) PLANNING CASE #2018-02 MARK GERGEN, 684 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was for a lot split request filed by Mr. Mark Gergen. This request requires Planning Commission review and City Council approval. Public hearing notice was printed in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to everyone living within 350 feet of the subject property. One inquiring phone call was received from a neighboring property owner; when he understood what was requested he was very satisfied and had no objections. No other comments or objections were received. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location relative to surrounding homes and streets. The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and there is currently a one-story single family basement walk-out of approximately 2,200 square feet, built in 1971. The subject lot is just over 1.15 acres in size, has 200 feet of frontage and a depth of approximately 250 feet. If the lot split is approved, Parcel A would be 100 feet x 250 feet or 24,995 square feet and Parcel B would be 100 feet x 250 feet or 24,995 square feet. Each lot would be approximately 0.57 acres. Mr. Benetti noted that the survey illustrates a similar ‘proposed 60-foot by 60-foot building pad’. Mr. Benetti then briefly reviewed the analysis of this request, which was included in the packet of information the Commission received prior to the meeting. This analysis included information in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Requirements. Staff recommended approval of this lot split request with conditions. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing pages 2 and 3 of the staff report, noted that the lot acreages identified are different. Mr. Benetti explained that the new lot sizes on page 3 – of 0.57 acres each – is correct and that the sizes noted on page 2 were a misprint. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing the Findings of Fact for Approval, stated that #2 seems unnecessary to her since no changes to the comprehensive plan, the zoning designation, and no variances were requested. She then asked if there was a reason it was included that she or the Commission needed to be aware of. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Mark Gergen was not present. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Catherine Burke, 685 South Freeway Road, lives directly behind the property under review. She asked for clarification on condition #6 which reads “The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape and tree replacement plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review”. She page 119 January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 8 and her family look at those trees, which they like, and wondered how and who determines how many can be removed and how many should remain. Mr. Benetti replied that Mr. Gergen indicated that he has no plans to remove a lot of those trees because he wants to maintain and keep them as well. He may need to remove a few that are dead or diseased. Commissioner Noonan then asked for confirmation that Mr. Benetti would walk the lot with Mr. Gergen as plans advance to satisfy the city that he is seeking to maintain as many mature trees as possible. Mr. Benetti confirmed and noted that staff normally would do that anyway. Mr. Fernando Arellano, who also lives at 685 South Freeway Road, asked for clarification on what exactly is happening – would the lot split result in the current resident being demolished and two new homes being built. It was indicated that this was the purpose of the lot split. Mr. Arellano then asked for a time frame from demolition to rebuild. Mr. Benetti could not provide an answer and wished aloud that Mr. Gergen had been present to answer these types of questions. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-02, LOT SPLIT - SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 3. The proposed subdivision and additional new housing will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along North Freeway Road. 4. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on North Freeway Road. 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. All grading work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3. The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions. 4. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on both sites and until each have been properly restored. 5. Front-yard setbacks from North Freeway Road for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be a minimum of 38-feet. page 120 January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 8 6. The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape and tree replacement plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review. 7. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 8. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 9. The existing home must 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 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, February 7, 2018 meeting. page 121 Request for City Council Action DATE: February 7, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Dakota Broadband Board Member and Alternate Member Introduction The Council is asked to appoint a primary and alternate member to represent the City on the Dakota Broadband Board. Background In connection with the City’s build out and access to the Dakota County fiber ring, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for participation in the fiber ring system (I-Net and C-Net). For purposes of administrative and fiscal oversight of the system, the JPA calls for the creation of a joint powers board, known as the Dakota Broadband Board. As a participant in the JPA, the City Council is asked to appoint a primary and alternate member of its governing body to represent the City on the joint powers board. The terms of each member and alternate member will be defined in the bylaws which will be established and adopted by the Board. In addition to the Board, it is anticipated that the Board will establish an Executive Committee and other ad-hoc committees, as necessary. Committees established will be comprised of administrative and information technology staff from each participant. Mayor Garlock indicates that he would volunteer to serve as the primary member. If that is the case, the Council will need to identify and designate an alternate member to the board. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the appointment of Mayor Neil Garlock as the primary member and designate a Council member as an alternate member to the Dakota Broadband Board. Requested Action If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the appointment of Mayor Neil Garlock as the primary member and designate an alternate member to represent the City on the Dakota Broadband Board. page 122