The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-03-06 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 6, 2018 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of February 20, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approval of February 22, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge January 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes d. Approve Resolution 2018-19 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Ivy Hill Park Pond Improvements e. Approval of Claims List 6. Public Comments *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Rogers Lake Water Quality Report Presentation by Saint Thomas Academy 8. Public Hearing - None 9. New and Unfinished Business a. One Year Review of Domestic Chickens Ordinance and Application Process b. Resolution 2018-20 Approving a Critical Area Permit request for Chris Robichaud of 1991 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2018-03) c. Resolution 2018-21 Denying a Variance request for Shirley Hetherington at 2144 Theresa Street (Planning Case No. 2018-04) d. Resolution 2018-22 Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit request for McDonald’s at 2020 Dodd Road (Planning Case No. 2018-05) e. Resolution 2018-23 Approving a Critical Area Permit request for Precision Homes at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway (Planning Case No. 2018-06) f. Resolution 2018-24 Approving a Critical Area Permit request for Precision Homes at 1224 Wachtler Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-07) g. Resolution 2018-25 Approving a Lot Split (Subdivision) and Variance Request for Patterson Dental Co. & St. Thomas Academy at 1031 & 949 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2018-08) h. Recreation Fee Assistance Program i. Hire of Police Captain Position 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “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. 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.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 20, 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 and Petschel were also present. Councilors Miller and Duggan were absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) 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 e) Approve Resolution 2018-15 Amend Joint Powers Agreement for Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization. a. Approval of February 7, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approval of February 7, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge January 9, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes d. Approval of Temporary Liquor License for Mendota Elementary PTA e. Approve Resolution 2018-15 Amend Joint Powers Agreement for Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization f. Approve Resolution 2018-16 Cooperative Construction Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Highway 149 (Dodd Road) Rehabilitation Project g. Accept Resignation of Mackenzie Leydon and Authorize the Recruitment of a Part-Time Receptionist h. Approval of City Hall Architect Contract Amendment #2 page 3 i. Acknowledge Receipt of January 2018 Fire Synopsis Report j. Acknowledge Receipt of January 2018 Building Activity Report k. Approval of January 2018 Treasurer’s Report l. Approval of Claims List Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2018-15 AMEND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR CHEROKEE HEIGHTS RAVINE STABILIZATION Councilmember Petschel noted that this project received a significant grant from the Lower Mississippi Watershed District (LMWD), so the scope of the project has become larger. She explained this is in the area of the bluff that collapsed several years ago and took the life of a child. Part of the project is going to include a hydrodynamic separator and she asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek to explain more about that. Councilor Petschel noted that this is a joint project with the cities of St. Paul and West St. Paul. Mr. Ruzek stated that the upper ravine is proposed to be stabilized. This ravine would be re-graded, layered with fabric, and then rip-rap installed. Now that the Clean Water Funds from the State of Minnesota, through the LMWD, have been received, the City is going to complete additional stabilization of the upper slopes of this ravine. They are also proposing to install the hydrodynamics separator on the outlet of the two separate storm sewer systems that run into the park located just north of Annapolis and Highway 13, as well as the one that comes from the Fremont neighborhood. Mr. Ruzek continued by explaining that the hydrodynamic separator is basically a manhole that has some extra baffles and a large sump on the bottom of it. As water enters the manhole, it is directed down into a swirling pattern in the middle. That traps all of the sediment in the center of the swirling water. Water can then come up and discharge out of the pipe. The advantage is that they make it easy to collect sediment and then annually the manhole would be cleaned out. Councilor Paper asked how deep it was? Mr. Ruzek replied that the minimum requirement is three feet and that the ravine stabilization will happen after the MnDOT project; likely next November or December. Mayor Garlock noted that there was some previous work done in the last couple of years in this area and asked if that previous work would be impacted. Mr. Ruzek replied that the stormwater pipe that went under Highway 13 used an outlet down a different ravine. MnDOT did extend that pipe and moved it up to that area approximately two years ago versus repairing the old metal pipe that went down the bluff. That was done at no cost to the city. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt Resolution 2018-15 APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, SAINT PAUL, WEST SAINT PAUL AND THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (LMRWMO) REGARDING THE EROSION page 4 STABILIZATION OF THE CHEROKEE HEIGHTS UPPER RAVINE AND INSTALLATION OF TWO HYDRODYNAMIC SEPERATOR STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICES. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Jessica Larson, 850 Cheri Lane, explained that she feels the roads have been plowed wonderfully, however, she expressed concern about the amount of salt being put down on their street. She is concerned about the salt ending up in our waterways. She asked if the City of Mendota Heights needs to revise how they do the clearing of roads. She suggested focusing the salt on the curves and the intersections and not on the straight, flat neighborhood streets. PRESENTATIONS A) OPEN FOR BUSINESS PROGRAM (DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) Community Development Director Tim Benetti introduced Ms. Lisa Alfson, Director of Community and Economic Development with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA); and Ms. Laurie Crow, the Open to Business (OTB) business advisor who has worked in Dakota County since the program launched in 2013. Mr. Benetti explained that this is a Joint Powers Agreement with eleven other Dakota County cities. The participating cities pay a small fee each year and matching funds are contributed by Dakota County. As part of that programming, there is a consultant that helps local businesses with financing, marketing, business plans, etc. The fee for Mendota Heights is $5,150; however, the city pays one-half of this fee, and the CDA provides the other half. Ms. Alfson explained that the program is a free one-on-one confidential business consulting program for entrepreneurs or potential entrepreneurs in the communities. In the last four years. Ms. Crow has consulted with 788 residents throughout Dakota County. Being a part of OTB, the local businesses have access to capital through the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MDDC), a non-profit that runs the OTB program. Councilor Petschel asked for an example of the work done in Mendota Heights in the last year. Ms. Crow replied that one of the loans they helped a client obtain was able to help that business expand. This same client is one that she has been working with for the last 2.5 to 3 years. Councilor Paper asked sbout the size of the loans. Ms. Crow replied that as a micro-lender they do not have a set limit. Typically they provide loans around $25,000 for a new start-up. One of the larger loans they helped a business obtain was for $300,000. The local banks are a partner. This program is open to everyone who lives in or has a business in one of the participating cities. page 5 Councilor Paper asked for the number of Mendota Heights businesses who received some type of assistance in the last year. Ms. Crow replied that there were three businesses in Mendota Heights in 2017 that were provided assistance. There were 25 businesses assisted in the last four years. Councilor Petschel moved to APPROVE THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2018-2020 OPEN TO BUSINESS PROGRAM; authorize funding of not more than $2,755 for each year of the 3- year agreement; and authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into the JPA with Dakota County. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) B) 2017 SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM RESULTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that approximately two years ago the city adopted a more stringent ordinance regarding sump pump regulations. One year ago, the Council awarded a contract to Foth Infrastructure & Environmental to inspect approximately 2,000 homes for sump pump compliance. Mr. Ruzek introduced Mr. Bill Johnson from Foth to present the findings. Councilor Petschel asked Mr. Ruzek to explain why the city took this step. Mr. Ruzek explained that the city owns its sanitary sewer system and the sewage is directed to a treatment plant operated by the Metropolitan Council. The city is billed by the Metropolitan Council for the amount of water that is sent to this treatment plant. There is an estimated flow that the city expects to have from all of the homes; after rain storms there are usually some major spikes due to inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. One of the sources of this infiltration would be through non-compliant sump pumps that are connected to the sanitary sewer system. Part of this inspection program is to look for non-compliant sump pump connections. Staff wants to work with the homeowners to get the non-compliant connections corrected. The city is also making improvements through televising, cleaning, lining, and sewer replacements to reduce some of the inflows though the city’s main lines. Councilor Petschel noted that this was triggered by that extraordinary June where there was approximately 12 inches of rain. Mr. Ruzek confirmed and noted that the city was looking at an approximate $100,000 a year surcharge. The city could have either accepted the surcharge or invested that money into improving the sewer system. Mr. Bill Johnson of Foth Infrastructure & Environmental (Foth) provided a summary of the sump pump inspection program that was performed. There were three areas of the city that were selected for inspection; including approximately 1,954 total households. Mr. Johnson reported that of the 1,954 households who were contacted, 1,793 of the homeowners scheduled appointments. 967 of the households had no sump pump and 768 were found to be page 6 acceptable. This is an 89% compliancy rate. 219 households were found to be non-compliant due to some who did not respond (161 residents did not respond), and 48 households inspected were found to be non-compliant due to improper discharge, non-rigid piping, or bypass valves. Only ten households scheduled but did not keep their appointments. Councilor Petschel also noted that these inspections came in under budget. She clarified that the ordinance and fee schedule include a penalty for those with non-compliant sump pumps. She suggested that the City move forward with enforcing this penalty fee. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2018-12 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION FOR BLUEBILL DRIVE Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the city received a petition to vacate an undeveloped right-of-way that abuts Rogers Lake; this was to be an extension of Bluebill Drive. It was originally platted as part of the 1957 Rogers Lake-Shore Addition, originally as Franzmeier Drive. It was then replatted as Bluebill Drive in 1972 as part of the Rogers Lakeside East Plat. The 60-foot right-of-way currently does have a city storm sewer that is located slightly off from center of the right of way, to the south. Due to the proximity of Rogers Lake, notice was sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; however, a response has not been received as of the time and date of this meeting. Councilor Petschel moved to open the pubic hearing. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Mr. Tim Carlson, 2319 Swan Drive, noted that he was unaware that the property lines did not go to the center of the sewer. In practice, they have always maintained that area as part of their lawn, along with tree maintenance. He believes this to be more of a formality and requested approval of the request. Mr. Don Delich, 2335 Swan Drive, noted that he has lived there for 25 years and has maintained this property. He has seen people use this area without permission. He stated that it would be nice to have more control of people accessing the lake from this right of way. Councilor Petschel moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-12 APPROVING A STREET VACATION OF BLUEBILL DRIVE. Councilor Paper seconded the motion page 7 Aye: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2018-16 STORM WATER UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the city maintains a storm water utility fund. Residents pay $10 per quarter on their utility bills. This fee is used to fund the maintenance of the storm sewer pipes, catch basins, pond inlets and outlets, and the installation of new storm sewers and stream bank erosion projects. It is also used to pay the annual dues to the city’s watershed management organization to support education programs for stormwater management throughout the city. Staff proposed to increase the current $10 per quarter rate to $12 per quarter. This increase is estimated to bring in approximately $30,000 per year into the utility fund. An additional change would be to the golf course and cemeteries currently at $10.15 per acre to increase to $12 per acre. Councilor Paper asked if this was the fund the city could use to help pay for the pond at Ivy Hills Park. Mr. Ruzek replied that this is the fund that is paying for the pond dredging work. Councilor Petschel noted that the purpose of this increase is to keep up with aging infrastructure. Mr. Ruzek confirmed and that it would also go to providing water quality treatment and improvements. Councilor Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-16 AUTHORIZING STORM WATER UTILITY RATE of $12.00 PER QUARTER BEGINNING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2018. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) B) RESOLUTION 2018-17 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that this request was for a rate adjustment for sanitary sewer. It was noted that over 60% of the city’s sanitary sewer costs are paid directly to the Metropolitan Council for sewage treatment. Other expenses are for operating costs, annual cleaning and televising project, annual lining project, and infrastructure costs. The rate increase from the Metropolitan Council to the city was 9.89%. Due to the city needing to reduce the flows, the City is proposing an increase of 5% over the Metropolitan Council increase; an approximate 14.9% increase. Staff looked at increasing the commercial rates at only the meter sizes under 1.5 inches; there are very few properties with the larger meters. Councilor Paper asked if this increase is going to help the city get ahead or just to help the city catch up. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city should be catching up with this increase. Historically, the city has been spending $100,000 per year on sewer lining projects. That number going forward will double to page 8 $200,000 per year and will increase to $250,000 in future years. The lining of the pipes is considered a “best practice”. The city is also looking at applying for a $90,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council that would be paid in 2019 to go towards this repair work. Councilor Paper asked if this would impact the 2019 interceptor line project. Mr. Ruzek replied that based on the numbers provided, this would be budgeted for in 2019. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-17 AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES BEGINNING IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2018. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent 2 (Duggan, Miller) C) 2018-2020 OPERATION OF A MUNICIPAL CLEANUP DAY – AWARD CONTRACT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Mendota Heights holds an annual cleanup day where residents can bring acceptable materials to a central location for recycling and disposal. Staff sent out Request for Proposals to several prospective bidders to have an organized garbage hauler coordinate the event for the city. A single quote was received from Highland Sanitation, which was the same contractor who contracted with the city for this event in 2017. The proposal is similar to what they charged in 2017. Staff recommended entering into a three-year contract with Highland Sanitation for the operation of Cleanup Day. Two potential dates for Clean-Up Day are April 28th or May 5th. Councilor Paper moved to authorize staff to execute the contract with Highland Sanitation for the operation of a municipal cleanup event for the years of 2018, 2019, and 2020. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) By consensus, the Council decided to hold the Mendota Heights Cleanup Day on May 5, 2018. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that an invasive species plant workshop will be held by the Master Gardeners on March 8th at City Hall. No advance registration is necessary COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel stated that she watched Senior Night for Minnehaha Academy’s High School Girls Basketball team, honoring two graduating seniors. She was made aware by the faculty that the girls have page 9 played all of their homes games at St. Thomas this year. Minnehaha Academy teachers said they have been very touched, not only by the efforts of St. Thomas Academy, but also by other institutions in the surrounding community which have opened their buildings and resources to help Minnehaha Academy during this past year. She has also been informed that Minnehaha Academy will be rebuilding a new school building at the old school site in Minneapolis. Councilor Paper reminded residents that there is an upcoming community open house for the School District 197 referendum on March 6 and March 12 at Henry Sibley High School from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Information can be found on District 197’s website. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held February 22, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. Councilmembers Miller, Paper, Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. Others present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director; Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief; Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief; Lorri Smith, City Clerk. DISCUSSION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS Tim Benetti discussed offers received for two city owned parcels known as the Bourne property and the off-leash dog area. It was noted that the off-leash dog area has two years left on the five year commitment to that area being designated for an off-leash dog area. The city received an inquiry from a developer who has an interest to locate an office warehouse on this property. The Council discussed how an office warehouse in this area of historic Pilot Knob would be inappropriate. The Bourne property is currently zoned as B1A, Limited Business and consists of approximately 14.5 acres. A developer has approached the city to consider a holistic care center being located there. The Council discussed having a non-profit locate in this area and the need for more park space. The Councilmembers discussed how having a mixed use development in this location would work well. Staff was directed to continue discussions with Resurrection Cemetery about leasing a portion of their property for temporary ball fields or soccer fields. DISCUSSION OF FIRE STATION REMODEL/ADDITION The City Council discussed the proposed plans and timeline for remodeling the fire station building. A possible timeline indicated that the Council could hold a public hearing on July 17th. If it was decided to move ahead, a design would be ordered to be prepared. Bids could be taken in November-December, and a contract could would be awarded in late January 2019 for the project. Construction would begin in March-April 2019. It is anticipated that construction would take approximately 14 months to complete the addition and the remodel of the existing space. The Councilmembers found the proposed timeline acceptable. Fire Chief Dave Dreelan stated that he will researching a contract with HealthEast Ambulance for use of space at the Fire Station. page 11 OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL It was noted that a committee is working on a memorial for Officer Scott Patrick to be located at the site in West St. Paul. City Administrator McNeill will contact the City of West St. Paul about locating the memorial in their city. PAR 3 and THE VILLAGE PROPETY MAINTENANCE Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson updated the Council on bids for maintenance being taken for maintenance at the Par 3. She also noted that discussions are ongoing with the manager of The Village about the summer concert series and how or if that will run this summer. Councilor Petschel requested that the Council be updated on what property the City actually owns at The Village and how that property is maintained. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 12 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 13 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: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. page 14 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. 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. page 15 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 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. page 16 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. 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. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update A) DRAFT GOALS AND POLICIES PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 2, 2018 MEETING Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a brief review of the Draft copy of the most recent Goals and Policies for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update that was shared informally at the January 2, 2018 City Council meeting. This update also included the proposed (revised) Mission Statement and Vision Statement, which would be made part of the overall planning document. page 17 Mr. Benetti also noted that Planning Consultant Phil Carlson from Stantec intended to come back to the Planning Commission in February 2018 and again in March 2018 to provide further updates, new maps, and other related planning materials for the Commission to consider. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments A) ANNUAL UPDATE OF THE PREVIOUS 2017 PLANNING APPLICATIONS LIST Community Development Director Tim Benetti shared the listing of the planning application cases that were considered last year by the Planning Commission and City Council. This list included the Case Number, Address, Request Type, Applicant Name, Details, and the Action given (approval or denial). Mr. Benetti highlighted Planning Case 2017-14, which was recommended for denial by the Commission and was denied by the City Council. Since that time Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty has filed a lawsuit against the community. Preliminary arguments were head by a Dakota County judge in December 2017; both sides presented their arguments. There is a 90 day review timing; staff is expecting to have an answer within the next few weeks. He highlighted Planning Case 2017-19, the Michael Development. The city is also involved in another lawsuit filed by a citizens group. An early case management hearing was conducted on January 3, 2018 where preliminary arguments and findings were presented. A hearing has been scheduled for February 16, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Benetti will be providing a quick update on that, most likely at the February Planning Commission meeting. He also highlighted Planning Case 2017-22, the Woodspring Hotels, which was approved for the site at Northland and Pilot Knob. The permit was under review by the building official and he came in one day and informed staff that Woodspring Hotels had just been acquired by another firm (Choice Hotels), which is probably the largest conglomerate of hotel companies in the world. According to all of the information he has been able to obtain it appears that Choice Hotels is not making any changes to Woodspring Hotels; staff is still anticipating that Woodspring Hotels would be building in the community. There are currently two hearings planned for the February Planning Commission meeting; a critical area permit for a new garage off of Hunter Lane, and a variance for a new garage addition for a residence off of Theresa Avenue. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:31 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) page 18 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-19 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvement Project (201709) COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-19 accepting bids and awarding a contract for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvement Project. BACKGROUND Council authorized staff to bid the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvement Project at their February 7, 2018 meeting. The proposed plan includes sediment removal, outlet improvements, rip rap, restoration and other appurtenant work. DISCUSSION Nine bids (see below) were received and opened on Friday, March 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements. NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID BKJ Land Company $57,488.50 Sunram Construction $70,543.00 Fratalone Companies $78,315.50 New Look Contracting $79,678.00 G. F. Jedlicki, Inc. $82,920.00 Standard Contracting $89,372.20 Nadeau Companies $92,136.00 Urban Companies $98,250.00 JM Hauling $124,837.50 BKJ Land Company submitted the lowest responsible bid of $57,488.50. Their bid was less than the Engineer's Estimate of $91,86). BKJ Land Company is a contractor with many years of experience with an office in Prior Lake, Minnesota and has completed projects in Eagan in the past and is recommended by the city consultant, Barr Engineering. page 19 BUDGET IMPACT The Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements are proposed to be financed by the storm water utility fund. The total cost for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements is $57,488.50, not including indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. The Storm Sewer CIP identifies $100,000 for Pond Maintenance in 2018. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council accept the bids and award the construction contract to BKJ Land Company for their bid in the amount of $57,488.50. ACTION REQUIRED If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE IVY HILLS PARK POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-19 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE IVY HILLS PARK POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (201709) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the sediment removal, outlet improvements and related appurtenant work for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvement Project, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with said advertisement: NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID BKJ Land Company $57,488.50 Sunram Construction $70,543.00 Fratalone Companies $78,315.50 New Look Contracting $79,678.00 G. F. Jedlicki, Inc. $82,920.00 Standard Contracting $89,372.20 Nadeau Companies $92,136.00 Urban Companies $98,250.00 JM Hauling $124,837.50 and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the lowest responsible bid submitted by BKJ Land Company, Minnesota, be accepted. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the bids for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvement Project are hereby received and accepted. 2. That the bid of BKJ Land Company of Prior Lake, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted. 3. That the contract be awarded to BKJ Land Company of Prior Lake, Minnesota, and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixth day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ___________________________ _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor page 21 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 page 26 page 27 page 28 page 29 page 30 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Water Quality Report Presentation by Saint Thomas Academy COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its meeting of March 6th, the Council will hear a presentation from students at St. Thomas Academy about the water quality of Rogers Lake. BACKGROUND Since the early 1990’s, Saint Thomas Academy Environmental Science Classes have been monitoring several aspects of the water quality present in Rogers Lake. The City Council hears an annual update from the students. The attached historical data on the lakes’ water quality shows a trend of the water quality of Rogers Lake improving over the past several recent years. The overall rating improved in 2017 over the preceding year. DISCUSSION Mr. Tony Kinzley is the Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences Instructor. He has a group of students who have conducted the research and prepared a presentation for Council. Attached is a summary sheet the students which will be presented at the Council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council receive the Rogers Lake Water Quality Report presentation from Saint Thomas Academy. ACTION REQUIRED No Council action is required. For information only. page 31 Rogers Lake Historical Data 2001‐2017 (9 Parameters and Overall Rating)Blank cells indicate that data is not availableBold values indicate data collected using probewareRed values indicate historical recordDissolved OxygenFecal ColiformpHBOD5Δ TemperaturePhosphateNitrateTurbidityTotal SolidsOverallSeason(ppm)(col./100ml)(units)(ppm)(Degrees C)(ppm)(ppm)(JTU)(mg/L)(0‐100)Fall 20016.97.84.61.81.30.740.062.5Spring 20025.98.04.02.02.20.124.168.0Fall 20025.98.23.61.71.71.122.2233.165.1Spring 20036.37.72.70.91.41.021.268.2Fall 20034.87.51.71.41.00.327.2409.664.9Spring 20043.27.62.21.61.10.422.0440.359.0Fall 200469.8Spring 200571.0Fall 20054.937.97.22.41.01.10.411.6307.570.9Spring 2006 2.71.97.61.52.01.20.711.8318.572.8Fall 20067.949.57.62.61.51.11.010.174.6Spring 20077.911.28.22.51.50.70.611.3301.878.4Fall 20077.825.97.62.81.10.60.39.0477.276.7Spring 20088.00.07.64.70.90.50.412.4321.274.3Fall 20086.434.27.93.81.21.10.417.5451.372.1Spring 20098.03.17.02.50.91.00.412.6344.677.9Fall 20097.211.66.22.11.01.00.68.8290.575.6Fall 20106.89.96.22.41.00.90.218.6293.270.8Fall 20118.134.07.54.50.81.00.416.5298.775.5Fall 20127.728.97.73.01.11.00.414.4296.175.9Fall 20137.610.87.62.50.90.80.49.2300.078.6Fall 20147.79.17.51.81.00.50.98.6280.380.8Fall 20157.15.07.72.91.01.00.615.5276.780.2Fall 20169.50.07.71.31.20.90.47.4254.185.1Fall 201710.50.87.72.21.20.91.07.9261.785.9Average6.916.17.52.81.21.00.615.7324.073.4page 32 Which chemical tests were performed? What does each test for? What factors affect the readings? What is an acceptable reading? What were the Fall 2017 readings? Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) The amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. Plant life increases D.O., organic waste inputs (pet waste, grass clippings, leaves) lowers D.O. 5-12 ppm 10.5 ppm (9.5 in 2016) Better / acceptable Fecal Coliform Levels of bacteria associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the water Goose and pet waste. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines. 0 colonies/100ml is safe to drink. 200 colonies/100ml or less is safe for swimming 0.8 col/100ml (0.0 in 2016) Slightly worse / acceptable pH The acidity or basicity of the water Acid rain is the typical cause of acidification of lakes 6.5-8.5 pH units (slightly basic) 7.7 units (7.7 in 2016) Same / acceptable Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) How much oxygen is being used by bacteria in the lake that decompose organic waste put into the water. Organic waste inputs (leaves, grass clippings, or animal waste) and algal blooms from fertilizer runoff 0-3 ppm 2.2 ppm (1.3 in 2016) Worse / acceptable ∆ Temperature (Change In Temp.) The difference in temperature between 2 testing sites on the lake Sun/shade differences, industrial thermal pollution, removal of trees/shade 0-1 °C 1.2 °C (1.2 in 2016) Same / Unacceptable but likely not problematic Nitrate Measure of the amount of Nitrates in the water Animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, fertilizers. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines 0.1-3 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 1.0 ppm (0.4 in 2016) Slightly worse / acceptable Total Phosphates Measure of the amount of various phosphates in the water Soil runoff, animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, some fertilizers. Faulty sewer lines and septic systems. 0.1-1 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.9 ppm (0.9 in 2016) Same / acceptable Turbidity Amount of suspended solids in the water. A measure of water clarity Soil erosion, organic waste input 1-40 JTU 7.9 JTU (7.4 in 2016) Slightly worse / acceptable Total Solids Amount of suspended and dissolved solids in water Road salt, soil erosion, organic waste input. 1-300 mg/L 261.7 mg/L (254.1 in 2016) Slightly worse / acceptable Overall Rating A composite score of all 9 chemical tests. The 9 chemical tests Excellent: 90-100 Good: 70-89.9 Medium: 50-69.9 85.9 (85.1 in 2016) Better / acceptable page 33 Fall 2017 Chemical Assessment of Rogers Lake Performed by Saint Thomas Academy A. P. Environmental Science Program page 34 Thank you for allowing us the time to share our findings with the Mendota Heights City Council. Sixty-six students participated in the program this year and were required to prepare a formal group presentation on Rogers Lake to their class. The winning group will present on Tuesday, March 6. This is a genuine learning opportunity for all sixty-six students, especially the winning group. This document reviews the chemical water quality monitoring program used by the A.P. Environmental Science students at Saint Thomas Academy for the Mayor, Council Members, and Staff. Based on the data taken last fall, Rogers Lake continues to be a very healthy lake. The actual data, analysis of the data, areas in need of improvement, and possible solutions will be further discussed at the council meeting. Please direct any questions to Mr. Tony Kinzley, A.P. Environmental Science Teacher, at tkinzley@cadets.com. page 35 Introduction Program Summary Goal: Maintain Quality Lak 27 Groups Collected Data 13 Dates (Sept— Nov Siteson Rogers Lak verall Rating Large Volume of Data,. Rogers Lake Testing Sites ' ' 1.• II • fit% +4, r , Fall 2016/2017 Average Data Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Improvement? Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 9.5 ppm 10.5 ppm Fecal Coliform o.o col/1oomL o.8 col/soomL pH 7.7 7.7 BODS 1.3 ppm 2.2 ppm Change in Temp 1.2°C 1.2°C Nitrate 0.4 ppm 1.0 ppm Phosphate 0.9 ppm 0.9 ppm Turbidity 7.4 JTU 7.9 JTU Total Solids 254.1 mg/L 261.7 mg/L Overall Water Quality Rating 85.1 85.9 Acce pta b Dissolved Oxygen IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Indicator of Feces a n e: 0-20000I./100m Slight Increase Acceptable Fecal Coliform 1 Acceptable Range: 6.5-8.5 Fall 2016: 7. all 2017: 7.7, II III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III II"'; 01 • 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111141111111 lllllllllllllllllllll 11;;;;111111 Illlllllllllllilllllllll lliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiilllllllllllll111111 1111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIII iiiiiiiiiiillllllllliiiiiiii llllllluuuiuuuui i IIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiIIIIIIdllllllllllllllllll' �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"' �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'lllllllll"""""""""" «««««««««««««« 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I 1111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111 1111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 uiuiaF iaunu, ua �"a. increase Acceptable Change in Temp. III �� I�i�l'ik tj�lUl V2 d(�ill l7l IndicatorofTherma Pollution nacceptable ttttttt t, tztitttttt Fall 20316: 03.4 PP Fall21317; ppm '(.4 .7; _ TO,F14 N itrate Ij III Phosphate ccep a• e Turbidity 11'111, 111111' Total Solids •Slight Increa Acceptable Excellent Good Medium Overall Rating • Improvement • Acceptable / Historical Bes Water Qua 1 bi Rat inR 10 }Xp 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Overall Water Quality Rating of Rogers. Lake in Mendota Heights, MN from 1993 to 2017 • n 4.4 177 Q1 01 i7r 5T .7▪ ' .▪ 7▪ , T 4' t3+ Siy '' 91} = 1 _ M _ • _. _.._ �} �- = 9fi = — sZ = 9d = RS = 947 = 9fi = pi = 9d = = = 9dd = 942 = 9A = C !19 C fq C 9] - _ !Q C - - C r C ^f _ 7 C iq C Q C • C q •C +4 C I¢' C q a Ip C 17 C +4 C +4 C q LL - L ._ • _ e L ..� ▪ L .® - LL • - L .v,,. L - lL - - LL - L n.L - L - LL - LL - LL - LL • - L - L - LL CL L- '1 L C:. Ll L L CL C:. +1 C'Y •CL L •� .3 ,� •o ,o. •� 49 •-1 . �-1 VI 4r} 4+� +,'1 V• �"• 4'1 V� ori 4+� 4iy 49 Time (year' uuuuuuuuuuuuuumi u u iii",^i,",^^uuu,,,......... IIl91YffIllYflllllfffffffffffff '"`�'S}}Y". Positives D.O. Historical;e` 9/1• P.r.m' i s Acceptable* 5 Zo On y Slig t y orse Overall Rating Historical Best Pickup Organics Pet waste Yard Goose Feces Areas of Continued Focus „POI*6 410000,000p Wtadevit.pe, 11111111111111111111111111111111,11,!1 "41111111111101106mellitildeititill1111111111""Prillr qaa IU 1t16"""I'42' *$t""A$kM)*AiAttNtk\it AtMiakrt tiET' "4,V, 111111111;11:Ififff\\NO12:111111 n'imbilinn000 1.11,01111' 1 1 1 ))) onclusion /Q&A MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 508 - Keeping of Domestic Chickens Introduction The City Council is being asked to discuss and consider any possible changes, edits, or updates to City Ordinance No. 508 – Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Chickens in the city. Background On March 7, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 508 – Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Chickens for single-family residential uses throughout the city (attached). This ordinance specifically amended certain sections of City Code Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning. As part of the final deliberations of this ordinance, a friendly motion or request was made by Councilmember Petschel, that if this ordinance is implemented, and after a one year period (from adoption), city staff would come back to the Council and give a general update of the ordinance in progress, and provide a follow-up discussion with City Council in order to make any edits, if necessary. The new ordinance required the creation of a new Domestic Chicken Permit application (attached), along with an agreed upon annual/renewal fee of $25.00 for each permit. Almost immediately after the adoption of Ord. 508, city staff received a number of inquiries (approximately 10 or so) from local residents wishing to apply for the new permits, which resulted in only five (5) new permits being issued. The five permit holders and address/locations are noted in the table below: ADDRESS DATE of APPROVAL 554 Junction Lane March 31, 2017 669 - 4th Avenue April 4, 2017 1327 Delaware Ave. April 5, 2017 540 Junction Lane April 25, 2017 1065 Mary Adele Ave. May 26, 2017 page 36 Since approval of all new permits, city staff has not received or investigated any complaints related to the new chicken coops permits, nor have there been any new requests for permits since last May 2017. On January 26, 2018, Community Development Dir. Benetti personally inspected all five permit holders’ properties. All coops (and chickens) appeared to in good health and condition, well-cared for, coops clean and maintained extremely well, and no violations noted. One permit holder however, did express his displeasure and concern of city staff coming on to their property to do the inspections that day without their permission. Staff spoke and met directly with the concerned property owner/permit holder, and he again expressed his concerns and disputes the “right to inspect” their properties, especially if there have been no complaints raised or filed against his property (on the coop or chickens in particular). Discussion As part of this Ordinance review and update, city staff received an email request from one permit holder that the City Council give added consideration to the following: • Allow composting of chicken waste. o Since I use straw for bedding, this becomes bulky. Chicken waste can actually break down into soil in 17 days, so this would be my preferred method for removal/cleanup • Increase allowed chickens to 6 (only 4 allowed by the ordinance) o I've found that even in my small family of 2, we'd like 2 more chickens so that we can have eggs all the time. • Reduce the permit fee. o Since there have been no complaints and there's really no staff overhead, I'd love to see this fee reduced. Obviously I'd love to see it reduced to nothing, but $5 or $10 seems more reasonable City staff is requesting the City Council give careful consideration of these requested items, and make any new determinations as it deems fit or necessary under this new domestic chickens ordinance. As part of the concern noted above by the property owner/permit holder (regarding site inspection by city staff), we request the City Council make a determination that the right to inspect properties is given or entitled under the new ordinance; or have the City Attorney provide a legal response to this issue, if necessary. For the record, Ordinance 508 included a small amendment to the City Code Title 5- Police Regulations, specifically Title 5-3-7: Impoundment and Redemption Provisions, as follows (yellow highlight text): B. Enforcement Officials Designated; Powers: The city council shall designate the animal warden and may, if it so determines, appoint such additional persons as it may deem necessary to aid and assist the animal warden in the performance of his/her duties hereunder. All references to the animal warden in this chapter shall be deemed to include such assistants. Such persons and the police officers of the city are authorized to cite owners of dogs or other animals for violations of this chapter in addition to their authority to impound dogs as prescribed by subsection C1 of this section. page 37 Title 5-3-9: INVESTIGATIONS; ENTRY POWERS also provides rights (assumed to police officers, staff or other appointed officials) to investigate and enter properties under the following provisions: For the purposes of discharging the duties imposed by this chapter and to enforce its provisions, the animal warden or any police officer of the city is empowered to enter upon the premises upon which a dog is kept or harbored and to demand the exhibition by the owner of such dog and/or the license for such dog. The animal warden or any police officer may enter the premises where any animal is kept in a reportedly cruel or inhumane manner and demand to examine such animal and to take possession of such animal when, in his/her opinion, it requires humane treatment. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) Although this provision appears to extend to “dogs” in general, it may be appropriate for the City Council to determine if this right to investigate, inspect and enter onto properties extends generally to those properties with chicken coops as well; and if not, direct staff or the City Attorney to begin processing an ordinance amendment as needed. An alternative to any ordinance amendment would be to direct staff to make an addition to the Chicken Permit application form, with a perpetual right of entry agreement (or similar) between the City and permit holders, whereby permitees would allow or grant permission to city staff to enter onto their property for periodic inspections of the coops whenever necessary. In the future, Staff will provide ample notice to any permit holder/property owner prior to entering any properties for the expressed purpose of inspecting said coops. Action Required There is no official action to be taken under this presentation and update to Ordinance No. 508. If any changes, edits, or amendments are called for or requested by the Council, we respectfully request you direct staff accordingly to make whatever changes you deem necessary, and forward any new amendments or changes to the Planning Commission for recommendation , and being back to the City Council for final considerations. page 38 page 39 page 40 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 508 ORDINANCE 508 AMENDING PART OF TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows: Title 5-3 is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows: Chapter 3 Domestic Animals Title 5-3-1: Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definition: CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to as domesticated fowl. Title 5-3-7: Impoundment and Redemption Provisions, subparagraph B is hereby amended as follows: B. Enforcement Officials Designated; Powers: The city council shall designate the animal warden and may, if it so determines, appoint such additional persons as it may deem necessary to aid and assist the animal warden in the performance of his/her duties hereunder. All references to the animal warden in this chapter shall be deemed to include such assistants. Such persons and the police officers of the city are authorized to cite owners of dogs or other animals for violations of this chapter in addition to their authority to impound dogs as prescribed by subsection C1 of this section. Title 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub-section 5-3-10 as follows and renumbering the subsequent sub-sections: 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to four female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. page 41 Ord. 508 Page 2 of 5 B. The Animal Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals. 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) 5-3-12: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor, be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003 Code) Section 2. City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows: Title 12-1B-2: Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or egg production for household use only. CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens. CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER: A male chicken. Title 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new paragraph 2 as follows: 2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts a. Number, Size and Building Requirements: 1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this Title. 2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor page 42 Ord. 508 Page 3 of 5 area of the run must have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred and forty-four (144) square feet. B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of ten (10) feet tall, whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten (10) feet tall. C) The coop and run must be set back 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. 3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather- resistant, protective covering material, decay-resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests. D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. E) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: 1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. 2) Roosters are prohibited. 3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. 4) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. 5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. page 43 Ord. 508 Page 4 of 5 6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. 7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor-free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or other pests at all times. 8) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage. 9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. 10) Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by the City Zoning Administrator, Animal Warden or their designee. 11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A) The full name and address of the following persons: a. The applicant signed thereto; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in Section 12-1D-3; E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; page 44 F) If the a plicant is not the fee owner of the remises on which the chickens are sou ht to be kept and for which the ermit would apply, the application shall be si ned bv all fee owners of the premises. G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessarv. 12) A permit granted under this section of the code mav be revoked bv the Zoning Administrator or Animal Warden with a findin in writin to the applicant that a violation of an of these standards has occurred or that there is a threat to public health safety or welfare. Such revocation mav be appealed to the Cit Council whose decision shall be iinal. Title 12-1D-3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub-paragraph 2 as follows: 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: 2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coo and run provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Title 12-1E-3C. Permitted Accessory Uses is hereby amended to add the following use: Keepin of chickens for noncommercial urposes as re ulated in Section 5- 3-10 and in Section 12-1D-3 of this code Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this seventh day of March, 2017. ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS c...Qi.c, 6/J e Neil Garlock, Mayor Ord. 508 Page 5 of S page 45 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit Request Chris Robichaud – 1991 Hunter Lane Planning Case No. 2018-03 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Critical Area Permit request to Mr. Chris Robichaud, for the property located at 1991 Hunter Lane. Background Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. Mr. Robichaud is seeking permission to add a 21’ x 20’ addition to his existing two-car attached garage structure. There is very little, if any impacts to the property or the critical area due to this new garage addition project. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance and the critical area overlay district. At the February 27, 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 neighboring residents, as noted in the meeting minutes. A copy of the 02/27/18 planning report, along with the PC meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on land use requests such as this, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the Critical Area Permit 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. 2018-20 APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1991 HUNTER LANE. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 46 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-20 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1991 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-03) WHEREAS, John Christopher Robichaud (the “Applicant”) applied for a critical area permit to allow the construction of certain building improvements in the Critical Area Overlay District, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-03, located at 1991 Hunter Lane, and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a 21’ x 20’ attached garage addition, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning item at the regular meeting of February 27, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the critical area permit request for the property located at 1991 Hunter Lane, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-03 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. B. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. C. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area. D. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit for 1991 Hunter Lane, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-03 is hereby approved with the following conditions: page 47 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 48 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1991 HUNTER LANE PID: 27-15600-00-050 NORTH 160 FEET OF EAST 43.4 FEET OF LOT 4; NORTH 160 FEET OF LOT 5, BURN HEIGHTS ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA page 49 Planning Staff Report DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-03 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Chris Robichaud PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1991 Hunter Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: March 28, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. John “Chris” Robichaud is seeking a critical area permit to construct a new 20’ x 21’ two car garage addition to an existing attached garage structure. The subject property is located at 1991 Hunter Lane, which is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. BACKGROUND The subject property is located just north of Victoria Curve and Hunter Lane intersection, and immediately across (west) of Beth Jacob Synagogue. Property consists of 0.61 acre of area and contains a 2,240-sq. ft. single story dwelling. The property is a relatively flat and level yard around the perimeter of the home. Property Location – Aerial Map Image (Front) of Dweling page 50 Mr. Robichaud recently purchased the home, and wishes to provide additional interior storage for his vehicles and equipment. No excessive grading or soil disturbance or vegetation removal will occur as part of this project. The new garage will be constructed of very similar/same brick material on the existing home. The new garage will be recessed slightly behind the existing 2-car attached. The driveway surface will be expanded slightly to accommodate the new overhead door opening. New Garage Addition page 51 ANALYSIS Critical Area Overlay District According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is: …to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems… The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: Section 12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses: D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels developed and built upon prior to June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance, and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the exception of the slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or detached structures, provided that: 1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the existing structure. 2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance standards and regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance. 3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site plan review as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter. The existing home is situated approx. 2,450 feet (almost one-half mile) from the Mississippi River, and the new 20’ x 21’ garage structure expansion does not “encroach closer toward the river…” as noted above, and will have no impact upon this critical water feature or any other natural environment feature inside this critical corridor area. The Owner has indicated that an existing evergreen tree that is located in the vicinity of the new garage layout will be saved, unless the new electrical line that is used to serve the home is not affected or needs to be relocated. The existing home/garage sits approx. 43-ft. +/- from the front Hunter Lane ROW line, and approx. 41-ft. from the north lot line. The new garage will have a setback of 20-ft. from the north line when completed. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-9 E. any new grading, filling, excavating or otherwise changing the topography landward of the ordinary high water mark shall not be conducted without a permit. A permit may be issued only if: 1. Earth moving, erosion, vegetative cutting and the destruction of natural amenities is minimized; 2. The smallest amount of ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible; 3. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is planted; 4. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed; and 5. Fill is established to accepted engineering standards. page 52 As is illustrated on the attached Site Plan, the existing property is relatively flat and level, and there are no plans to do very much grading or soil disturbance on the subject site, other than the minimal and typical amount needed to install the new footing and foundation for the new garage addition and the driveway expansion. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) • Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no objections. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 1991 Hunter Lane, which would allow the construction of a new 20’ x 21’ attached garage addition to the existing residential dwelling, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions established by the Planning Commission; OR 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 1991 Hunter Lane based on the findings of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, as determined by the Planning Commission; OR 1. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading plans for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for 1991 Hunter Lane (Alternative 1), which would allow the construction of a new 20’ x 21’ attached garage addition to the existing residential dwelling, based on the attached findings of fact, and with the following conditions to be affirmed or modified by the Planning Commission: 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. page 53 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for 1991 Hunter Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 3. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. page 54 66666666666666666666 66 " " "" "6666666666666666!!2160 87 83 80 70 20022020817 20713 22020816017 1991 1933 11811193 1190 1203 HUNTER LN904902906 90 2 902287.5'282'Dakota County GIS 1991 Hunter LanePlanning Case No. 2018-03 City ofMendotaHeights030 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. 01/29/2018 20'21'page 55 From: robic@comcast.net [mailto:robic@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 10:50 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Re: 1991 Hunter Lane Hey Tim, Here is a short synopsis of my intentions for 1991 hunter lane. To add a two car garage consistent with the architecture of the house. To do this in a way that will add value to the Neighborhood and house. To use the same brick across the front siding and use the same aluminum eaves. The brick from the side of the garage will be be re used on the front. My brick layer assures me the transition from old brick to new brick will be imperceptible. To keep the pine tree in the back if possible after electrical is moved. It is almost certain that the pine tree will stay. Professionally done and architecturally sound in every way. Sent from XFINITY Connect Application page 56 1991 HUNTER LANE (Proposed Two-Car Garage Addition) page 57 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES February 27, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 27, 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, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None City staff present were: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Community Development Director Tim Benetti. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Chair and Vice Chair COMMISSIONER NOONAN NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPOINT MR. LITTON FIELD, JR. AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPOINT MS. MARY MAGNUSON AS THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of January 23, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2018 AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 58 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-03 CHRIS ROBICHAUD, 1991 HUNTER LANE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a Critical Area Permit to construct a 20’ x 21’ two car garage addition to an existing attached garage structure. As the property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor, a Critical Area Permit is required. This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcel, located at 1991 Hunter Lane. One phone call was received; however, staff was unable to contact that caller. Mr. Benetti shared an aerial image of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding street and properties. The property is 0.61 acres in size and currently has a 2,240 square foot single family dwelling. The residence sits well beyond the setback requirements and the proposed attached to the garage would not cause the need for a variance from those setback requirements. The proposed new garage addition would be constructed of very similar brick material as the existing home and garage but would be recessed slightly behind the existing 2-car attached garage. The city’s ordinance allows for an attached garage up to 1,200 square feet. The addition of this new garage space would make their total 969 square feet, well within the ordinance limitations. Mr. Benetti shared City Code Title 12-3-2, which outlined the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition would comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application request and they had no objections. Staff recommended approval of this application. Mr. John “Chris” Robichaud came forward to provide comment and answer questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Noonan commented that he thought it was very helpful to have the proposed elevation that was provided by the applicant. 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. page 59 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-03, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 3. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. page 60 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Variance Request Shirley Hetherington – 2144 Theresa Street Planning Case No. 2018-04 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would deny a Variance request to Mrs. Shirley Hetherington, for the property located at 2144 Theresa Street. Background Mrs. Hetherington wishes to add a 9’ x 22’ (198-sf.) single-stall garage addition next to an existing 528-sf., 2-car attached garage structure. The new garage addition would reduce the setback along the north side of the dwelling down to 7-feet from the north property line. Under the R-1 Zone standards, a 10-ft. side-yard setback is required. At the February 27, 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 objection from neighboring residents at the hearing; and the Applicant provided a petition from her immediate neighboring residents indicating their support of this variance request, a copy of which is included in the planning report. The 02/27/18 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 authority when considering action on land use requests such as this, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial (6-1 vote) of the Variance request under Planning Case No. 2018- 04, with a modified finding of fact that his case did not meet the “practical difficulties” standard when considering a variance. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2144 THERESA STREET. Should the City Council wish to overturn this recommendation, you may amend the same Res. No. 2018-21 accordingly, with the same findings as noted in the attached Planning Staff Report – Case No. 2018-04. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 61 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-21 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACKS FROM SIDE-YARD SETBACKS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2144 THERESA STREET (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-04) WHEREAS, Shirley Hetherington (the “Applicant”) has applied for a Variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-04, for the property located at 2144 Theresa Street, and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as LR- Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 One Family Residential according to the city’s official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking to add a 9’ x 22’ (198-sf.) single-stall garage addition next to an existing 528-sf., 2-car attached garage structure, which would reduce the setback along the north side of the dwelling down to 7-feet from the north property line, and where under the R-1 Zone standards, a 10-ft. side-yard setback is required, which necessitates the consideration of this variance application; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning item at the regular meeting of February 27, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to deny (6-1 vote) the variance request for the property located at 2144 Theresa Street, with modified findings of fact, as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the 3-foot variance to the required 10-foot side-yard setback for the property located at 2144 Theresa Street, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-04, is hereby denied with the following findings of fact: A. The applicant has not demonstrated a ‘practical difficulty’ in proposing a reduced setback BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the recommendation by the Planning Commission determined under the consideration of Planning Case No. 2018-04, is hereby affirmed, and the requested 3-foot variance to the 10-foot side-yard setback for the property located at 2144 Theresa Street, is hereby denied. page 62 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 63 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 2144 Theresa Street, Mendota Heights MN 55120 PID: 27-19150-00-170 Legal Description: Lot 17, CURLEY’S VALLEY VIEW REPLAT, Dakota County, Minnesota page 64 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-04 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Shirley Hetherington PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2144 Theresa Street ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: [Waived by the Applicant] DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants is seeking to build an addition to an existing two car attached garage by adding a third stall area, which would require a variance to the 10-ft. side-yard setback standard under the R-1 District. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. As of preparation and completion of this report, there have been no comments or objections received from neighboring residents. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The subject site is generally located east of Resurrection Cemetery off Lexington Avenue, and just north of the Cullen Avenue & Theresa Street intersection (image – below left). The property consists of 0.24 acres of land; and contains a 2,190 sq. ft., two-story, single family residential dwelling with a 528 sq. ft. 2-car attached garage (image – below right). The home was originally built in 1971. The property has a double- wide concrete driveway coming off Theresa Street. AERIAL / LOCATION MAP GOOGLE STREET IMAGE (LOOKING EAST FROM THERESA ST.) page 65 According to the Owner’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approximately 34-ft. from Theresa Street ROW (front) lot line; 16.06-ft. from the north (side) lot line; approx. 89-ft. from the east (rear) line; and 15.66 ft. from the south (side) lot line. SURVEY / SITE PLAN All properties adjacent to the site and in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The lots in this neighborhood vary in width and shape, but remain consistent as a typical older single-family neighborhood. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant propose to add a 9-ft. wide by 22-ft. deep garage addition next to the existing 2-car attached garage structure. The new addition (at 9-ft. wide) would reduce the setback for the north down to 7-feet. Under the R-1 Zone standards, a 10-ft. side-yard setback is required for all residential uses. The addition will also match in similar exterior materials of the home and garage; and will not extend any farther than what the exiting garage/home exists at today. A driveway expansion is also expected under this plan. page 66 ANALYSIS • Variance When considering a variance in any case, the City is required to find or determine if certain elements or findings have been met or warranted to grant such approval. These standards are noted below, along with follow-up comments by city staff. 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative that they feel the proposed garage addition is reasonable request; and will be in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Moreover, they claim the new garage expansion will be consistent with and in harmony with the general character of the surrounding homes and neighborhood; as provided under the following statement: “The most recent new-build home in the Curley addition is located at 2102 Theresa St. and features a three stall garage, as does most new construction. Half of the homes on Theresa St. south of William Ct. have three stall garages. The intent of the project is to update the home to modern standards and market demand.” The applicant’s desire to construct an addition onto the existing two car garage, which by today’s standards are somewhat small and compacted, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property. The encroachment along this side of the property does not appear to have any negative impacts, either physically or visually with the existing home or even the neighboring residence to the north (2138 Theresa Street). 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. The Applicants provided the following statements: “This home was originally built in 1971, 16 feet from the lot line. Because the new garage will extend the home by nine feet, a three foot setback variance is required. The setback from the home to the property line would still be seven feet which is standard in many communities.” Although staff did not thoroughly research this perspective (i.e. “…standard in many communities…”, previous planning and zoning experience in other suburban communities have shown that side-yard setbacks typically range in the vicinity of 5 to 10-feet. In some cases, cities allow further reduced side yard setback allowances (without a variance) if the structures or additions do not have any openings, such as windows, doors, vents, etc. The purpose of all setbacks is to maintain a safe, fire-resistant separation between structures, and maintain suitable open space (air space) between properties. In this case, the neighboring and adjacent residential home of 2138 Theresa is setback 22.27-ft. from the shared side-yard line (main section) while the 3-season porch addition along its south side is shown with a 10.4 ft. setback. The physical separation between both structures (main-to-main) on each property currently stands at 38.28 feet. With the new garage addition, the separation will be reduced to just under 30-feet (again – main wall to main wall); while the physical separation between the neighbor’s 3-season porch to the closest point of the new garage is estimated at 18.23 feet (see image – next page). page 67 As with most homes built in the periods form 1940’s up to 1980’s, most if not all homes were built with 2- car garages, which were somewhat small and cramped compared to the new home garages being developed today. Families have two or more vehicles; these vehicles tend to be larger; and families have a desire to store miscellaneous equipment and (bikes, toys, recreational vehicles) inside these preferred larger garages. The ability to provide this larger and more convenient garage space along this area of the home would not be possible without the variance. Alternatives exists to enlarge the garage straight back or behind the existing 2-car garage, but this may hamper vehicle movements or make the expansion feel out of character with neighboring properties. Staff feels the Applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty in meeting the required side yard setback in order to construct the existing addition in compliance with applicable codes. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Applicants provided the following statements: “Half of the homes on this section of Theresa St. already have three stall garages. I consulted with an experienced realtor from Edina Realty about the value this would add to the home. He said in Mendota Heights a three stall garage would "add at least $30,000 in resale value" to the home. This request is by no means uncommon for people improving their homes in this neighborhood; the most recent variance I am aware of was approved for 2165 Timmy St. The neighbors I have spoken to have been extremely supportive of the proposal and pleased with the improvement in property values it will bring to the neighborhood.” Staff will stipulate that there was a recent variance granted to the neighboring residence at 2165 Timmy Street (Res. No. 2016-47, adopted June 7, 2016) which provided approval of a reduced side yard setback of 2.5 feet for a new deck. We also confirm that there are a number of homes in this Curly Addition with 3 car garages, but on the same account, there are also a number of residence with 2-car garages very similar to the Applicant as well. The new garage addition represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing 1970’s style designed home into a much nicer and more up-to-date home for new buyers seeking a page 68 home in the community. The new garage addition will be made to match the existing home, and the Applicant intends to make sure the roofline (form new to existing) will match and be consistent to each other. The new garage addition will also match depth of the existing garage condition. The new garage addition will likely prove to be a welcome improvement to the property, which in effect should not or will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3-feet into the required side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2018-04). 2. The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing garage and residential dwelling. 3. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning applications, including Applicant’s Narrative 3. Survey/Site Plan/Floor Plans page 69 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance Request 2144 Theresa Street (S. Hetherington) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the variance request in this case: 1. Construction of the proposed garage addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in compliance with all other applicable codes. 3. The garage addition on the existing single-family dwelling is considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 4. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. Granting of the variance is made in accordance with the standards as indicated under the City Code. page 70 1i01 Victoria Cu rve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone l 651.452.8940 fax wvvw.rne11dota-1iei9hts.r.om PLANNING APPLICATION o .ffic.e u.·· se Only:· .. · ... . . ·.. . . ' '· ' '< .ii 2 ~ ' : ll Case ·#:' . Z OI B' . .._. '1 $> ·'. > ·. .· 1 • -'Fee Paid:·· ~vu 'Appl~c~tio~·9~te: d{ [d ~/ 20 (% . staff Initials: _____ ~---~ ·Applicable ,Ordinance t;:_·_._ .. ·_"· _· _·· _______ Section: ____________ _ . ~xisting Zoning:_·-~-~----.--~--Proposed Zc;ming:~-----.-----~--- E.xisting lJse: .· · · ·· · · ' · Proposed · Use:_· ____________ _ Property Address/Street Location:_2_1_4_4_T_h_e_re_s_a_S_t ______________ _ Applicant Name: Shirley Hetherington Phone:_6_5_1-_4_5_2_-1_8_0_8 _____ _ Applicant E-Mail Address: shetherington6@gmail.com Applicant Mailing Address: 2144 Theresa St. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Property owner Name: Shirley Hetherington Phone:_6_5_1_-4_5_2_-1_8_0_8 _____ _ Property Owner Mailing Address: 2144 Theresa St. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Property ID: 27-19150-00-170 Curley's Valley View Replat Lot 17 Type of Request: D Rezoning D Conditional Use Permit D Interim Use Permit ii Variance D Wetlands Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval D Lot Split/Adjustment 0 Critical Area Permit D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Code Amendment D Appeal D Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the abov~ero erty during daylight hours. , "-LI) ,~ 7 /IV_ ·-c SignatureotAliCant ~ Date ~ ~~~ Sigr?ature of o>Jrier tJ Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 61112016) Page 1of1 page 71 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? ii YES CJ NO Why or why not? 2144 Theresa St. is a single family home built by the owner in 1971. The most recent new-build home in the Curley addition is located at 2102 Theresa St. and features a three stall garage, as does most new construction. Half of the homes on Theresa St. south of William Ct. have three stall garages. The intent of the project is to update the home to modern standards and market demand. This home was originally built in 1971, 16 feet from the lot line. Because the new garage will extend the home by nine feet, a three foot setback variance is required. The setback from the home to the property line would still be seven feet which is standard in many communities. 3. In your op1mon, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? ii YES CJ NO Why or why not? Half of the homes on this section of Theresa St. already have three stall garages. I consulted with an experienced realtor from Edina Realty about the value this would add to the home. He said in Mendota Heights a three stall garage would "add at least $30,000 in resale value" to the home. This request is by no means uncommon for people improving their homes in this neighborhood; the most recent variance I am aware of was approved for 2165 Timmy St. The neighbors I have spoken to have been extremely supportive of the proposal and pleased with the improvement in property values it will bring to the neighborhood. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 41512016) Page 3of3 page 72 2144 THERESA STREET (Planning Case No. 2018-04 S. Hetherington) page 73 THE HETHERINGTON RESIDENCE MA RKD.K E M PER18407 N:\Projects\17220\17220PDF.dwg, 12/27/2017 9:17:04 AMpage 74 ,. I I I I I f ! f 1 I f r ( I I -/o '--'i1-, _, I -,..., ... I I ( I ' I I I I . r . ' ' ~ fxr rl~ ,ot,o-<- 1' ---I --·- page 75 1-11 i f p.o p ()$eJ I f 4 ~ ' I I ~111;.f 13 v /)_A.\" If. f.l., lt1 I l I (l--t #1 /} v&( l I ~ ~tt/I ( \ l I I I I I a l 1 µtvl /;,.;/,j;.,..1 d~ tll-0( 1---1 I !__./ 1----/ '4' ------' ' I I j I I r I f I I l page 76 This petition is in acknowledgement and support of the application for "Setback Variance" through the City of Mendota Heights, for Shirley M . Hetherington. She resides at 2144 Theresa Street and plans to construct a third stall garage on her property. Shirley built the home and has resided there since 1971. We have spoken to her and reviewed her attached pla n provided by her contractor. We understand that Ms. Hetherington requires this variance because the garage will extend 3 feet into the normal 10 foot setback on her side of the lot. This project will not affect any of the residences bordering it, nor does it impinge upon their property setback. We understand that Ms. Hetherington wishes to enhance the look and value of her property at 2144 Theresa Street through this project and we support her in the granting of this variance by the City of Mendota Heights. David & Barbara Odlaug Gregory & Mary Ann Bailey(/..;....:.:_: -f.4.!C..J<~::....4',.1'l<:i.:::~~- Beatrice b/. Langford Michael & Carolyn Pilney Edward R. Sutich Morris Allen & Phyllis Gorin Joy Ostrem Samuel Shepard Robert & Ann Schmidt David & Barbara Ayers Paul & Bridget Glasen Michael Lucente Barry & Diane Bicanich Richard Skrivanek Richard & Yvonn e Dugan 2122 Theresa Street 2132 Theresa Street 2 138 Theresa Street 2154 Th e resa Street 1071 Cullen Avenue 2161 Theresa Street 2151 Theresa Street 2141 Theresa Street 2131 Theresa Street 2121 Theresa Street 2125 Timmy Street 2135 Timmy Street 2145 Timmy Street 2155 Timmy Street 2165 Timmy Street page 77 Property M ap ,, ' u.J I , 1 ILLI 11 . 'I January 3, 2018 Parce ls Dedicated Right of Way 0 0.0175 I I I I I 0 0.03 1:2,257 0.035 I I 0.06 I ' 0.07 mi I I 0.12 km Soun:es: Esri, HERE, DeLoITT1 e , int ermap, ncrement P Cocp., GEBCO, USGS, FAQ, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase , I GN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, MET!, Esri China (Hong Kong1 swis stopo, Mapmyindia , © OpenStreetMap contributors, and lhe GIS User Community Dakota County Dako!a County page 78 B) PLANNING CASE #2018-04 SHIRLEY HETHERINGTON, 2144 THERESA STREET VARIANCE REQUEST Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a Variance Request to build an addition to an existing two car attached garage, which would encroach approximately three feet into the 10-foot side-yard setback standard. This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcel. A mini-petition was also included in the Commission materials. Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding streets and properties. The property consists of 0.24 acres of land with a 2,190 square foot, two-story single family dwelling. The existing two-car garage is approximately 528 square feet with a concrete driveway apron and the proposed addition would not exceed the square foot maximum for an attached garage as outlined in the zoning ordinance. As indicated in the materials, this garage addition would be approximately 18 feet from an existing three-season porch on the southern neighboring residence, the house to the north is also approximately 30 feet away from the garage addition – a very good separate from the proposed garage addition. Mr. Benetti provided an explanation of the findings or determinations that should be met to allow a variance and explained how this request met those standards. Mr. Benetti noted that, as a planner, he really enjoys seeing the full support of a neighborhood like this. According to the survey provided to the surrounding residents, they all seem to be in favor of this request and the mini-petition also supported it. Staff recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Toth, noting a downspout on the side of the existing garage, asked if there would be any drainage issues with the new addition. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not believe there would be because there is currently pretty good drainage between the two properties now and because of the separation of the two properties he did not believe it would be an issue. Commissioner Magnuson asked if staff had explored with the applicant any other construction plans that might reduce the encroachment. Mr. Benetti replied that they looked at doing a tandem style garage as part of the expanded use; however, more and more people want the three-car garage for the usability and the availability. He deferred any other comments to the applicant. Commissioner Noonan asked for an expansion on the analysis with practical difficulties. What the applicant wants and what is convenient may not meet the test of ‘practical difficulties’. Mr. Benetti page 79 replied that the terminology ‘practical difficulties’ can be very subjective. Looking at this from a development standpoint, would it be reasonable to put on a 9-foot addition to make the garage work. They could have just expanded this garage for additional space without being able to pull in a car. The practical difficulty comes into play when trying to add a third stall, which most people would love to have and want. Is that really a practical difficulty – no. However, if this is something that the applicant feels is necessary to get that extra space or make the house a little more marketable or saleable in the future, adding on that 9-foot space may not meet the practical difficulties test; however, Mr. Benetti still felt that this is a reasonable case. Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that an applicant does not have to show hardship. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this has been changed in the ordinance and an owner no longer has to show ‘hardship’ under the State law to obtain a variance. It is a ‘reasonable’ test instead of a ‘hardship’ case. Chair Field, noting that Mr. Benetti was favorability disposed of the petition with all of the neighbors supporting it, asked what his opinion would have been if two of the neighbors did not sign. Mr. Benetti replied that he still would have recommended approval. Ms. Shirley Hetherington, her son-in-law Dr. Bill Simonet, and her daughter Katie Hetherington came forward to address the Commission. Dr. Simonet explained that the proposal is to keep the existing 16-foot garage door, steal two feet from the four foot wide wall on the side of the garage – keeping the two-foot separation needed for the door to function. The new garage door would be nine feet wide with a two-foot separation on the end; totaling an 11-foot addition. They looked at every possible way to not encroach on the setback and found that there was not room to have a standard 9-foot garage door without encroaching a bit. Commissioner Noonan asked how they were proposing to use the additional garage bay. Dr. Simonet replied that it would be used for storage and his mother-in-law wishes to improve her property value for resale. 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 CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Construction of the proposed garage addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. page 80 2. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in compliance with all other applicable codes. 3. The garage addition on the existing single-family dwelling is considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 4. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. Granting of the variance is made in accordance with the standards as indicated under the City Code. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3-feet into the required side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2018- 04). 2. The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing garage and residential dwelling. 3. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a ‘practical difficulty’ in proposing a reduced setback Discussion Commissioner Toth asked if there was a good definition of ‘practical difficulty’. Intuitively this does not feel like a practical difficulty; however, he could be wrong. He continued by asking what would be the purpose of any setback rules if people come in and they are very charming and they have the support of their neighbors; and they wanted to go up to the property line, would the Commission just say yes. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative stating that this is not the case. Variances should always be weighed on what they present and stand on their own individual merits and tests. In this case, if he felt that a 7-foot setback was going to be detrimental to the neighborhood he would not have recommended it. He can see where it would probably be concerning if the property next door had a reduced setback. In retrospect, when looking at the setback shown on the shared image, the neighbor is approximately 18 feet away on one side and 30 feet away on the other – there really is not an issue for him. He did agree that ‘practical difficulty’ is a very wishy-washy standard to really apply a variance on. However, this is what the page 81 city uses. Staff defers to the Commission to decide if this was reasonable and were practical difficulties met in establishing this need for a variance. Commissioner Noonan commented that in the past, when the Commission has wrestled with practical difficulties, certain things have jumped out. For instance, an awkwardly aligned lot line, topography, unusual site conditions, etc. That met the definition fairly easily. In terms of the exhibit shared, to suggest that the city felt comfortable with that because there is a 30-foot separation between the proposed building face and the neighbor, or 18-foot – it sort of transfers the proof onto the adjoining property. There is no guarantee that the 30-foot could not be filled in. That would change the feel of the situation. Zoning ordinances are established for a certain purpose and the standards in there are to be followed to the greatest extent possible. To simply say that we feel comfortable with reducing the 10-foot setback, which is the minimum in the City of Mendota Heights, to seven feet because of the separation with the neighbors just does not feel right. He believed they were throwing the sanctity of the zoning ordinance out for a matter of convenience and a want. Commissioner Noonan continued by saying that the other practical difficulty, and he was not buying it, is the lot has certain dimensions; and there is so much that can be done on a lot. In many cases individuals make have a desire to do more; however, a person can only do so much on a lot in line of the setback requirements. When asked what they wanted to do with the extra space two answers were given. One was for storage – if storage is truly what is needed then punch it out the back of the existing garage. For the desire to seek a variance to enhance the property value, he was not sure that would meet the test. He felt quite strongly that if the Commission goes down the road of being very liberal with respect to the definition of ‘practical difficulties’, the slope gets very steep and very slippery very quickly. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he looks at this in a very different way. Having seen many of these cases in the past, it is sort of the unofficial standard of Mendota Heights for 100-foot lots to have three-stall garages. It is not codified, but it is sort of the unofficial standard. So they look at what the practical difficulty may be that is not caused by the property owner. He then asked for a site plan for the whole site, showing the south end of the house as well. It is not built to the setback line. If the house had been built further to the south they would not need the variance. Had the house been shifted three feet to the south when it was constructed, they would not need the variance for the third stall. Therefore, there is a practical difficulty not caused by the owner in the placement of the house on the lot. Commissioner Toth stated, understanding both comments, he has a hard time accepting Mr. Mazzitello’s explanation on how he came up with the numbers. The City may have that situation in many, many homes within Mendota Heights and many homes in the same situation that have a two-car garage, 10-foot right-of-way, and now they want to go bigger. He was afraid, due to the applicant’s comments on storage and to increase the value of the home, the Commission may be going down the wrong road with many applicants coming forward and opening up a big can of worms. page 82 Commissioner Magnuson stated that she agreed with everything that Commissioner Noonan had said. She liked Commissioner Mazzitello’s argument; however, it just did not do it for her. In her 6.5 years on the Planning Commission they have grappled a lot with these variance and have actually denied garage variances with far less space involved. At least to date, the Commission has always defined practical difficulties in the way Commissioner Noonan has defined them – there has to be something unique about the property that makes it practically difficult to comply with the code. It has always been topography, a unique lot line, or positioning that has made it difficult to comply with the code. She does not see that here. She would be open for the applicant to come back with another application that somehow could meet the standards or some tweaking that would potentially arrive at where they want to go that meets the practical difficulty standard. However, the Commission has been pretty consistently hard and fast on what constitutes practical difficulty. She agreed that if the Commission allowed this to happen they would be opening the floodgates to anybody coming in a saying ‘I want to have this’ rather than coming in saying ‘we cannot comply with the code because there is something unique about our property that does not allow us to’. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. page 83 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit McDonald’s – 2020 Dodd Road Planning Case 2018-05 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit to McDonald’s USA, LLC, for the property located at 2020 Dodd Road. Background Section 12-1F-5-F of the City Code allows “drive-in and fast food restaurants” as a conditional use under the B-4 Shopping Center District, with Section 12-1D-13-4 providing additional requirements related to such uses. City Code Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. McDonald’s is essentially removing and replacing the entire exterior finishes and materials of the restaurant facility, and performing a full remodel of the interior areas, including dining, food preparation/service, and restrooms. Plans call for a small 13’ x 23’ addition to the east side of the building for a new freezer/cooler. The wetlands permit authorizes the work to remove the old drive-thru canopy to the rear. No impacts to the wetland feature is expected with regards to any work inside or outside the restaurant facility. At the February 27, 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, concerns or objections from the general public or neighboring property owners or local businesses. A copy of the 02/27/18 planning report, along with the PC meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for McDonald’s, 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- 22 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2020 DODD ROAD. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 84 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-22 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR McDONALD’S PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2020 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-05) WHEREAS, Landform, acting on behalf of McDonald’s USA, LLC (the “Applicants”) have applied for a Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-05, for the McDonald’s restaurant property located at 2020 Dodd Road, and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as MU- PUD (Mixed Use–Planned Unit Development); is zoned B-4 Shopping Center District; and located adjacent to an established wetland or water feature according to the city’s Wetlands Map; and WHEREAS, Section 12-1F-5-F of the City Code allows “drive-in and fast food restaurants” as a conditional use under the B-4 Shopping Center District, with Section 12-1D-13- 4 providing additional requirements related to such uses; and WHEREAS, Section 12-2-6 of the City Code requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature; and WHEREAS, the Applicants seek permission to remodel the exterior and interior building materials and elements of the existing fast-food restaurant facility, provide a small building addition, and modify/re-stripe the parking areas; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning item at the regular meeting of February 27, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the critical area permit and wetlands permit requests for the property located at 2020 Dodd Road, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the requested Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-05 for the McDonald’s restaurant property located at 2020 Dodd Road, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B- 4 Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further page 85 determined this use to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with the following statements of support: a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and property; b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area; c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local business operating since 1978; and d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities. 2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures. 3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project. 4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including (but not limited to): a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the Wetlands); b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas. 5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit. 6. The proposed exterior treatments of the building are deemed appropriate and acceptable. 7. The existing parking on the Subject Property site of 61 parking spaces is recognized as a legal non-conformity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-05, for the McDonald’s restaurant property located at 2020 Dodd Road, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed project. 2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the new exterior colors of the restaurant building. page 86 3. In order to facilitate a reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment; and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non- conforming status of this fast-food restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway, and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking spaces. 4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure, an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of 90% or more opacity. 5. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions. 6. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site. 7. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 9. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance standards, as required by City Code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 87 EXHIBIT A Legal Description McDonald’s – 2020 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 PID# 27-48400-01-010 LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MENDOTA PLAZA, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA page 88 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: Landform (on behalf of McDonald’s USA, LLC) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: B-4 Shopping Center / MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant Landform, acting on behalf of the property owners McDonald’s USA, LLC, is seeking a conditional use permit and wetlands permit to remodel and construct a new small building addition to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site, located at 2020 Dodd Road. Section 12-1F-1-B of the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for the existing use and any subsequent improvements in the B-4 Shopping Center business district; while Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. 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 parcel. No comments or objections have been received by the city. BACKGROUND City records show the original McDonald’s was approved (under Res. No. 75-82) for a conditional use permit of a new fast food restaurant use in on October 1975. A second CUP was also approved in December 1993 for an outdoor cashier’s booth within the drive-thru area of the restaurant, which does not appear to be present/exists at this time. The subject property is a 2.26-acre parcel with an existing 4,232 sq. ft. McDonald’s restaurant on the site. This McDonald’s site, although adjacent to the Mendota Heights Plaza shopping center, is actually not officially part of the overall Plaza Planned Unit Development, and is not subject to the overall requirements of the MU-PUD zoning of the Plaza. The site is surrounded by other commercial uses, including the BP Gas/Mendota Heights Auto Service station to the west; Walgreen’s/Plaza Center to the south; and The Reserves Apartments to the east. Although addressed off Dodd Road, the restaurant’s main access point is from the main Plaza Center access drive coming off Dodd Road (just south of the BP gas station). McDonald’s redevelopment plan includes replacement of the building’s exterior, adding a small building addition, replacement of site signage, ADA site work to update sidewalk and handicap parking stalls and page 89 new striping of the parking lot. The general or overall placement of the building is not significantly changing under this updated (new) CUP plan. ANALYSIS  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is guided MU-PUD (Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development) under the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously however, the site is not zoned MU-PUD, as opposed to most of the Plaza Center properties, including the new apartment complex under construction. The subject site was left under original underlying B-4 Shopping Center zoning – which is still in effect today. The proposed expansion of the existing use is permitted as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district and the use of the subject property is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan.  CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Title 12-1F-5 F. of the City Code, Drive-in and fast food restaurants are allowed as a conditional use under the B-4 Shopping Center District; and are subject to the added provisions of Sect. 12-1D-13-4. DRIVE-IN AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS: A. Conditional Use Permit Required: All fast food and drive-in restaurants shall require the issuance of a conditional use permit as per section 12-1L-6 of this chapter. Upon issuance, said permit shall be in force on a temporary basis for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) months from the date of issuance. If, during this fifteen (15) month period, construction is not completed, the conditional use permit shall be void. B. Site Requirements: 1. Lot Area: Minimum lot area shall be one acre. 2. Parking and Driveways: a. Parking and driveway areas shall be at least fifteen feet (15') from any exterior property line. b. There shall be required one parking space for each employee per shift in addition to at least one parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area in the building as per subsection 12-1D-16F of this article, entry reading "drive-in and fast food restaurant". 3. Landscaping And Lighting: A landscaping and lighting plan shall be submitted for approval. 4. Screening and Fencing: Where the drive-in or fast food restaurant abuts an R district, a landscaping screen or fence not over six feet (6') nor less than five feet (5') in height shall be constructed along the property line abutting the R district. A fence shall not be required within the front yard. 5. Signs: a. Signs shall be permitted as regulated by the zoning district. b. Banners, pennants and other similar promotional devices shall not be permitted. 6. Exterior Materials of Structures: All structures shall be finished on all exterior walls with the same material. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) The existing McDonald’s site meets the minimum 1-acre lot size, and all other setbacks for the building and parking lot setbacks required under the B-4 District, and including those additional standards of the above-referenced section. The site however, does not appear to meet the required parking of “one space for each 15 sf. of gross floor area of building. The site currently contains 61 parking spaces; however, applying the code standard (B.2.b – above) for fast food restaurant uses, the parking calculates as follows: Bldg. Size = 4,232 sf. / 15 = 283 stalls Staff is unsure if this standard was in effect in 1975 when the first CUP was approved for the new McDonald’s at that time (note: Res. No. 75-82 also allowed a parking lot setback reduction and sign height variance as well). The new plan calls for the re-striping of 61 spaces on the site. page 90 Building Design and Construction The existing building is scheduled to be re-skinned with new exterior finishes, which includes the removal of the upper roof line structure, along with some other minor exterior improvements. Plans also call for a full interior remodeling, with a small addition to the east side of the building to accommodate a new freezer/cooler unit for the restaurant. The drive-thru area will be reconfigured slightly, but no major changes for this service lanes are expected under these plans. The plan also calls for the replacement of the walkway/trail leading from the west edge of the parking lot over to the trail along Dodd Road to the west. Title 12-1D-13-2-C of the City Code requires the following additional requirements for B (Business) and I (Industrial) Districts: 1. Exterior Surfaces, Including Roofs: Buildings shall be finished on all sides with permanent finished materials of a quality consistent with the standards set in the district in which it is located. Exterior wall surfaces shall be any one or more of the following: a. Face brick or natural stone. (1) Professionally designed precast concrete units, if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or (2) Decorative block, if incorporated in a building design which is compatible with other development throughout the district. b. Factory fabricated and finished metal framed modular panel construction, if the panel materials are any of those listed in subsection C1a of this section, glass, prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic used in accordance with the building code requirements. c. No building exterior shall be constructed of sheet aluminum, asbestos, iron, steel, or corrugated aluminum, unless specifically approved by city council. 2. Subsequent Additions and Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. The existing building has a very dated look, with light tan wooden (cedar) vertical exterior siding sitting on top of a small brick wainscoting; and a dark brown dual-sloped “mansard” style roof line with bright yellow (vertical) bands for accent features. The drive-thru lane along also has an extended canopy along the north side over the drive-up windows (see image below). The new exterior materials include wrapping the entire building with a taupe colored Exterior Insulated Finished System (referred to as EIFS), along with some small areas of face brick; aluminum banding/wall page 91 fascia; slightly protruding aluminum canopy system; and a corrugated metal panel near the top line of the building (see image below – and the attached elevation drawings). This new exterior finishes and color schemes appear to be very consistent with the other newly remodeled McDonald’s restaurants throughout the metro area. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation or finding that these new finishes, including the “corrugated metal panels” are acceptable under this CUP review. Titles 12-8-7-C of the City Code require the following: Screening: Garbage and recycling containers shall be either: 1) stored inside a building such that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or adjoining properties; or 2) stored outside but fully screened from view of adjacent public streets or adjoining properties by landscaping or fencing materials. As shown on the Site Plan (see sheet C2.1) a 20’ x 20’ screened enclosure is located near the southeast corner of the site, and appears to be built with a stamped-brick concrete wall systems and solid-wood gates. There are no plans to rebuild or modify the access lane for the enclosure under this plan. Staff assumes McDonald’s will re-paint the structure to blend-in with the new color scheme of the rehabbed building. Landscaping The Applicant provide the following statement in their project narrative: “We are proposing to maintain all the existing landscaping on site. Section 12-1D-13-2(C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires any mechanical equipment, ground-mounted or rooftop, to be screened. The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet on the building that is three feet two inches tall. The site plan shows landscape screening of the ground mechanical equipment located east of the principal structure.” Pursuant to Titles 12-1D-13-2-D-2 of the City Code, a business use landscaping must meet the following standards: a. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. b. At least five percent (5%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The plan also note the existing and proposed pervious and impervious percentages: • Excising Pervious: 53.7% vs. Existing Impervious: 46.3% • Proposed Pervious: 54.2% vs. Existing Impervious: 45.8% These percentages are considered very similar to each other, and any increase should be considered negligible when applying these to the entire 2.26 acre site. The submitted plans did not include any new landscaping plan or specific planting details. The Removals Plan does not indicate the removal of any significant trees on the site, except for the landscaping materials page 92 immediately next to the rear (east side) of the building, and some smaller landscaping in the dual/separated drive-thru entrance area (see image below). The plans do however, call for the trees inside the triangular shaped planting area (west side of the building) to be protected during the construction, and notes provide the following: “Planting Area: Replace in-kind for areas that are disturbed.” Although the plans call for the triangular shaped area to be replanted or landscaped, along with the newly designed island separators for the drive-thru lane entrances, Staff did not review any detailed landscape plan for these areas, and would require such plan be submitted for review/approval by Planning Staff as part of any new (future) building permit submittal, and the Applicant should make sure the 5% standard for landscaping in the parking area is attained as well. Title 12-1D-13-2-E-1-A of the City Code requires the following: Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto shall be buffered from lots used for any residential purpose. As the Planning Commission is aware, The Reserves Apartments are now under construction and are planned for opening/occupancy in June or July of this year. Although the lot for The Reserves does not directly abut the McDonald’s property, it may be appropriate or desirable to ask (require/condition) the McDonald’s to provide some additional landscaping along the narrow strip of lawn near the far east edge of the restaurant site. This recommendation is being made due to the location of the drive-thru lane along this east edge of the site, and help reduce/eliminate sounds that will emanate from the intercom systems used in drive-thru ordering space. City Staff will defer any recommendation or conditions to the Planning Commission if you feel or determine this area needs added landscaping materials for screening this restaurant use from the residential apartment use. Off-street Parking The Applicant also provided the following statement under their narrative: “Section 12-1D-13-4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee per shift in addition to at least one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area in the building. The Zoning Ordinance defines floor area as, “the net usable floor area of the various floors devoted to retail sales, services, office space, processing and fabrication, exclusive of hallways, utility space, and storage areas other than warehousing.” The proposed building addition is going to be used as a cooler and freezer addition that is exempt from the floor area calculation for parking spaces. The current McDonalds restaurant has 61 parking spaces. The ADA improvements to the handicap spaces will slightly modify the parking layout but all 61 parking spaces will remain. The 61 parking spaces have been sufficient parking for the peak hours on the site.” As noted previously in this report, the McDonald’s restaurant was noted to have 61 parking spaces on the site. The plan calls for the same 61 spaces will be restriped and provided on the existing site. This amount of parking does not appear to meet the required parking of “One space for each 15 sf. of gross floor area page 93 of building”. With the size of the building, almost 283 stalls would be required, which is an incredible number or amount of parking required for any use – including a fast food restaurant. For other restaurants, cafes, taverns, etc., - the parking standards are much less: Restaurant, cafe, bar, tavern, nightclub: 1 space for each employee per shift and 1 space for each 3 seats in the facility Title 12-1D-16 further requires parking spaces to be nine feet (9’) wide and twenty feet (20’) in length with access drives of twenty four (24’) feet. The existing site contains 3 handicap spaces located in the row of parking along the front edge of the restaurant, but all are located down and away from the front door entryway, which is not compliant with ADA requirements. The new plan calls for the replacement and reconstruction of this front walkway area with new concrete and ADA compliant walkways, and the 3 handicap spaces are relocated closer to the front (main) entryway. There does not appear to be any plans for the overall removal of the existing parking lot under these plans; McDonald’s is simply restriping all the parking areas and re-establishing the drive-through areas. The front row of parking however, along with the 6 spaces directly across the parking lot, are noted with a 9’ x 18’ dimension with an access drive width of 24.75 ft. In taking measurements off the Existing Conditions Plan (Sheet C1.1), it appears most, if not all, the parking stalls measure out to be 9’ x 18’ dimensions. It is not uncommon for some cities to allow a reduced parking depth (typically no more than 18-ft.) when said parking overhangs open space/boulevard area or an adjacent walkway, which seems to be the case in this restaurant site. Although we found no record of a variance granted for the reduced number of parking spaces or reduce parking space dimensions, the Planning Commission should consider the subject site as a legal, non- conforming use and grandfathered right after all these years serving as a fast food restaurant at this location, including the parking layout and numbers. If the City were to enforce (heavily) the parking standards for required numbers and dimensions under the Zoning Code, the site would need to go through an immense transformation or reconstruction, which would include a much larger area of hard surfacing, resulting in more impervious surfaces and a loss of valuable green spaces, especially in the area near the adjacent waterway/creek feature. City staff is unaware or has not received any complaints that this site does not adequately serve its daily customer needs, including peak hours of service; nor have there been any issues of customers not being able to park on the subject site or using and taking up parking spaces in the neighboring commercial parking areas. As part of this overall CUP review process, City Staff is allowing a recommendation to be considered by the Planning Commission for allowing the continuation of the reduced parking numbers and space dimensions, in order to facilitate a reduction in impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment. The Commission should make a determination or finding that the restaurant site can be remodeled and parking lot reconditioned with only 61 parking spaces, and that the McDonald’s owners affirm that this site will safely and effectively provide for their daily customer parking and traffic needs should this CUP be approved. If the Planning Commission feels or determines otherwise, the alternative would be to have McDonald’s return to the Planning Commission next month, and apply for and process a variance application for these parking standards, and determine if the restaurant site warrants said variances for certain reductions. Lighting Lighting is subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements in the section are that the lights have a maximum glare of 0.2-foot candles when measured at the property line. All exterior lighting fixtures will be installed to meet the Zoning Ordinance standards by using elements on the light fixtures that limit glare and light spillage. page 94 Signage The proposed signage for the site includes wall signs, directional signs, menu boards and additional signs associated with the drive through area. The existing freestanding pylon sign will not be changed. The proposed signage on site will have to meet the standards of Section 12-1D-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section of code relating to signs is silent on individual sign standards for directional signs, wall signs and the signage associated with a drive-through. The bulk standards for a site zoned B-4 allows for a maximum sign size of 100 square feet and allows for the maximum total signage on a site to be equal to two square feet per front foot of building and one square foot per front foot not containing a building. Using the dimensions of the McDonald’s structure and lot, the maximum signage allowed on site is approximately 490 square feet. The plans were absent of any new sign details, except for some directional and height-restriction type signage in or around the drive-through area. Typically, (and as admitted and noted in the site plan notes) all new signs are subject to separate review and approval by Sign Permit Applications, which must be submitted to the City Planning Department and reviewed by the city planner and building official. Any approval(s) granted under this CUP consideration does not extend to any approvals for new signage on the building or lot. Conditional Use Permit Standards According to Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code, the following are to be taken into consideration upon review of a conditional use permit request: • The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; • existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and • the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met (note: responses from the Applicant follow each standard): • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; “The McDonalds restaurant is an existing use at 2020 Dodd Road and has had no negative impacts to the health, safety or general welfare to the surrounding properties or the community. The proposed site improvements will not change the overall use of the property.” • will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; “The McDonalds restaurant has had no known issues with traffic on the site and does not create backups into the right-of-way. As part of the site improvements an additional crosswalk leading to the principal structure and additional traffic directional arrows are being painted. These are both improvements that will lead to safer conditions for automobiles and pedestrians.” • will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and “The proposed site improvements to the McDonalds include replacement of the building exterior to a current brand style that creates an attractive and inviting storefront and a small building addition. Both improvements will improve the visual appeal and value of the property and which will reflect positively on the surrounding commercial area.” • the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. “The proposed site improvements are consistent with the standards outlined in the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. It also meets the intent of the comprehensive plan for redevelopment which is that it, “will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, page 95 drainage, or similar factors and that views of the project emphasizing buildings and open space, rather than parking lots.” In staff’s opinion, the proposed project meets the applicable standards for granting a conditional use permit and improves the overall appearance of the property while supporting growth and success of an existing business.  WETLANDS PERMIT Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100-feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5. Ensure safety from floods. The proposed work on the McDonalds site will need a wetland permit for the removal of a structure within the 100-ft. area; that being the canopy over the drive-through window area. This structure will be removed as part of the site work. Because there is very little (if any) impacts to the nearby wetland/water feature, and due to the plans showing no major disturbances outside the parking lot areas, staff does not have any comments or added conditions for this permit, other than the site must be protected with silt control measures and all work must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance provisions. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no comments or objections. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and wetlands permit, based on the attached findings of fact, with certain conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and wetlands permit, based on specific finding of fact that the request is not compliant with applicable City Code standards. OR 3. Table the request, and direct the Applicant to apply for submit a Variance application to address the reduced parking number and reduced parking space dimensions as per the plans; and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. page 96 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for McDonald’s, located at 2020 Dodd Road, with the following conditions, and based on the attached findings of fact which support said recommendation: 1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed project. 2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the new exterior colors of the restaurant building. 3. [Unless recommended otherwise by the Planning Commission] In order to facilitate a reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment; and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non-conforming status of this fast-food restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway, and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking spaces. 4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure, an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of 90% or more opacity. 5. McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff. 6. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions. 7. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site. 8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 10. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance standards, as required by City Code. Attachments 1. Aerial site map/Wetlands Boundary Map 2. Applicant’s Project Narrative 3. McDonald’s Site Plans 4. McDonald’s Building Elevations and Interior (Floor) Plans page 97 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit & Wetlands Permit McDonald’s Restaurant 2020 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for McDonald’s request in this case: 1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B-4 Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further determined this use to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with the following statements of support: a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and property; b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area; c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local business operating since 1978; and d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities. 2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary. 3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project. 4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including (but not limited to): a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the Wetlands); b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas. 5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit. page 98 305 270229 174481 13 9 117110 7 2 83 295 150254 115 16 8 885452 7 4 2874339505 23 750 2020 2030 HWY 110 DODD RDDakota County GIS McDonald's2020 Dodd Road(Wetlands Boundary Map) 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. 2/22/2018 page 99 Narrative Conditional Use and Wetland Permit page 100 Narrative McDonalds on Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN January 31, 2018 page 101 Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Conditional Use Permit ....................................................................................................................... 3 Wetland Permit .................................................................................................................................. 4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Contact Information ........................................................................................................................... 5 page 102 Introduction On behalf of McDonalds USA, LLC, Landform is pleased to submit this application for approval of a conditional use and wetland permit to allow site improvements to the McDonalds at 2020 Dodd Road. The site is a 2.26-acre parcel with an existing McDonalds. Our redevelopment plan includes replacement of the building exterior, adding a small building addition, replacement of site signage, ADA site work to update sidewalk and handicap parking stalls and new striping of the parking lot. We are excited about the improvements proposed for this site. Site Plan The site plan complies with the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance standards as outlined below: 1. Setbacks The principal structure meets the 100-foot setback from the front lot line and the 60-foot setback from the rear and side lot lines as required by Section 12-1F-5 of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. The site plan shows compliance with the 20-foot parking setback for the front lot line and the 15-foot parking setback from the rear and side lot lines as required by Section 12-1D-16(D) and Section 12-1D-13-4(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Parking Section 12-1D-13-4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee per shift in addition to at least one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area in the building. The Zoning Ordinance defines floor area as, “the net usable floor area of the various floors devoted to retail sales, services, office space, processing and fabrication, exclusive of hallways, utility space, and storage areas other than warehousing.” The proposed building addition is going to be used as a cooler and freezer addition that is exempt from the floor area calculation for parking spaces. The current McDonalds restaurant has 61 parking spaces. The ADA improvements to the handicap spaces will slightly modify the parking layout but all 61 parking spaces will remain. The 61 parking spaces have been sufficient parking for the peak hours on the site. 3. Landscaping and Screening We are proposing to maintain all the existing landscaping on site. Section 12-1D-13-2(C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires any mechanical equipment, ground-mounted or rooftop, to be screened. The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet on the building that is three feet two inches tall. The site plan shows landscape screening of the ground mechanical equipment located East of the principal structure. 4. Lighting Lighting is subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements in the section are that the lights have a maximum glare of 0.2-foot candles when measured at the property line. All exterior lighting fixtures will be installed to meet the Zoning Ordinance standards by using elements on the light fixtures that limit glare and light spillage. page 103 5. Signage The proposed signage for the site includes wall signs, directional signs, menu boards and additional signs associated with the drive through area. The existing freestanding pylon sign will not be changed. The proposed signage on site will meet the standards of Section 12-1D-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section of code relating to signs is silent on individual sign standards for directional signs, wall signs and the signage associated with a drive-through. The bulk standards for a site zoned B-4 allows for a maximum sign size of 100 square feet and allows for the maximum total signage on a site to be equal to two square feet per front foot of building and one square foot per front foot not containing a building. Using the dimensions of the McDonalds structure and lot, the maximum signage allowed on site is 490 square feet. This maximum signage allowed will not be exceeded with the proposed signage. Explanations of the drive-through signage are included below to explain the purpose of each sign and to show the sign sizes will not exceed the 100-square foot maximum. • The proposed menu boards are 29.4 sq. ft., which are smaller than the existing menu boards on site. They have a digital display, but do not cycle images. • The proposed presell boards are a smaller menu board placed prior to the larger menu board and ordering location. It is used to let customers know the promotions that are currently being offered. The presell board has a digital display that cycles through the McDonald’s promotion items every eight seconds. The size of the proposed presell board is 16.4 sq. ft. • The gateway element is 10 ft. 8 in. and is used to inform drivers with large vehicles of the nine-foot clearance height for the drive through. • The order canopies are used to identify the place for customers to order food in the drive through are 11 ft. 10 in. They have a speaker built in to allow for food orders to be taken. • The proposed locations of all the drive through sign elements can be seen on the plan set. Conditional Use Permit Section 12-1L-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a review and recommendation by the Plan Commission and approval by the City Council for alteration of a Conditional Use Permit. Section 12-1L-6(E) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four standards that must be met for approval of a conditional use permit, our plans meet the standards as follows: The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; The McDonalds restaurant is an existing use at 2020 Dodd Road and has had no negative impacts to the health, safety or general welfare to the surrounding properties or the community. The proposed site improvements will not change the overall use of the property. Will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; The McDonalds restaurant has had no known issues with traffic on the site and does not create backups into the right-of-way. As part of the site improvements an additional crosswalk leading to page 104 the principal structure and additional traffic directional arrows are being painted. These are both improvements that will lead to safer conditions for automobiles and pedestrians. Will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; The proposed site improvements to the McDonalds include replacement of the building exterior to a current brand style that creates an attractive and inviting storefront and a small building addition. Both improvements will improve the visual appeal and value of the property and which will reflect positively on the surrounding commercial area. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. The proposed site improvements are consistent with the standards outlined in the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. It also meets the intent of the comprehensive plan for redevelopment which is that it, “will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors and that views of the project emphasizing buildings and open space, rather than parking lots.” Wetland Permit Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a wetland permit for work conducted within 100 ft. of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of a wetland as shown on the Mendota Heights wetland system map. There are nine criteria listed in the ordinance that trigger the need for a wetland permit. The proposed work on the McDonalds site will need a wetland permit for the removal of a structure within the 100-ft. area. The existing McDonalds structure consists of a building overhang on the North side of the structure that covers the drive-through window area. This structure will be removed as part of the site work. Stormwater Summary The proposed project includes disturbing approximately 18,700 sq. ft. of the site. The Mendota Heights City Code requires a stormwater management permit for projects which disturb greater than 5,000 sq. ft. The City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document includes the following stormwater management performance measures for projects requiring a stormwater management permit: 1. Volume reduction/abstraction equivalent to the volume of 0.5 inches of runoff from all new impervious surfaces. 2. Rates of stormwater runoff from the proposed site shall not exceed the existing runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events. McDonalds is proposing to decrease the amount of impervious surface on the site by converting existing paved parking area into greenspace. The following is a summary of the pervious and impervious areas in the existing and proposed conditions: AREA SUMMARY EXISTING: PERVIOUS 52,836 S.F. 53.7% page 105 IMPERVIOUS 45,519 S.F. 46.3% TOTAL (2.26 AC) 98,355 S.F. 100.0% PROPOSED: PERVIOUS 53,231 S.F. 54.2% IMPERVIOUS 45,124 S.F. 45.8% TOTAL (2.26 AC) 98,355 S.F. 100.0% Given that no new impervious surfaces will be created by this project, no volume reduction is required. Furthermore, by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site, the rates of runoff from the site will be reduced from existing conditions. Therefore, we feel the proposed project meets the stormwater management performance measures. Summary We respectfully request approval of the Conditional Use and Wetland Permit to allow site improvements to the existing McDonalds at 2020 Dodd Road. We look forward to being placed on the February 27th Planning Commission and the March 7th City Council Meeting. Contact Information This document was prepared by: Kevin Shay Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kevin Shay at kshay@landform.net or 612.638.0228. page 106 page 107 page 108 page 109 C001MCD179.DWG C0.1 McDONALD'S USA, LLC. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AREA LOCATION MAP ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL EROSION CONTROL SYMBOLS DRAWING SYMBOLS SITE/UTILITY CONTACTS OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTION BENCHMARK 12 2 CITY PLANNER LANDFORM 105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 TEL 612-252-9070 FAX 612-252-9077 CONTACT: SEAN MURPHY PROJECT CONTACTS CIVIL ENGINEER LANDFORM 105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 TEL 612-252-9070 FAX 612-252-9077 CONTACT: ERIC LINDGREN SURVEYOR NEWEXISTING DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO. CIVIL TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION SITE PLAN DRIVE-THRU LAYOUT DRIVE-THRU DETAILS DRIVE-THRU DETAILS DRIVE-THRU DETAILS STRIPING GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING & EROSION CONTROL UTILITIES CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CIVIL SHEET INDEX & REVISION MATRIX C0.1 C1.1 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6 C3.1 C4.1 C7.1 X X X X X X X X X X SHEETS ISSUED BY ISSUE / REVISION DATE XMcDONALD'S USA, LLC. 1650 WEST 82ND STREET #900 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431-9888 TEL (952) 884-4355 FAX (952) 885-4755 CONTACT: VICKY STADTHER 01.30.18NORTH NO SCALE 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® REPRISE 12400 PORTLAND AVE S., SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MN, 55337 TEL 952-252-4042 FAX 952-252-4043 CONTACT: KRISTI DONAHUE ARCHITECT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 35E 110 SITE 149 ELECTRIC UTILITY GAS page 110 C101MCD179.DWG C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DEMOLITION LEGEND DEMOLITION AND CLEARING NOTES 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NO SCALE TREE PROTECTION1 page 111 NOPARKING NOPARKING 5 3A 76 4 18 11 7 SITE PLAN NOTES PARKING SUMMARY C201MCD179.DWG C2.1 SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES AREA SUMMARY ZONING AND SETBACK SUMMARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE NOTES 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NORTH 0 20 40 page 112 NOPARKING NOPARKING C202MCD179.DWG C2.2 GENERAL NOTES DRIVE-THRU CONSTRUCTION NOTES DRIVE-THRU LAYOUT NOTES LEGEND NORTH 0 20 40 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN1 page 113 C203MCD179.DWG C2.3 NO SCALE1 2 NO SCALE NO SCALE DOUBLE GATEWAY FOUNDATION - 100 MPH3ODMB AND PRE-BROWSE FOUNDATION - 90 MPH ORDER HERE CANOPY - 100 MPH 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 page 114 C204MCD179.DWG C2.4TYPICAL LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAILS2 NO SCALE TYPICAL DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOUNDATION & CONNECTION DETAILS - 100 MPH RATING1 NO SCALE AA 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 page 115 C205MCD179.DWG C2.5 CANOPY SCHEMATIC DETAIL1 NO SCALE PULL FORWARD OR MOBILE ORDER PICK UP SIGNS WITH BOLLARD2 NO SCALE 3 NO SCALE DRIVE-THRU WIRING DETAIL 4 NO SCALE DOUBLE GATEWAY SCHEMATIC DETAIL 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 page 116 NOPARKING NOPARKING C206MCD179.DWG C2.6 GENERAL NOTES STRIPING NOTES EXITONLY NO SCALE PAINTED 'DRIVE THRU' WITH ARROW1 NO SCALE PAINTED ARROW2 NO SCALE PAINTED 'THANK YOU'3 NO SCALE TYPICAL PAVEMENT MARKING4 NO SCALE PAINTED 'NO PARKING'5 NO PARKING 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 page 117 NOPARKING NOPARKING C301MCD179.DWG C3.1 GRADING NOTES PAVING NOTES EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES LEGEND 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN3 NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN2 NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN1 page 118 NOPARKING NOPARKING 1. C401MCD179.DWG C4.1 UTILITY NOTES UTILITY CROSSINGS 1.4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 page 119 C701MCD179.DWG C7.14'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NO SCALE CONCRETE CHANNEL8 NO SCALE SILT FENCE1 NO SCALE TEMPORARY COMPOST/BIO LOG2 FRAME INLET PROTECTION NO SCALE3 NO SCALE B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER5 NO SCALE VEHICLE TRACKING PAD4 NO SCALE 12" CONCRETE RIBBON CURB6 NO SCALE CONCRETE CURB TRANSITION7 NO SCALE ASPHALT PAVEMENT TRANSITION9 NO SCALE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESS11 ROUND PIPE BOLLARD AND COVER McDONALD'S NO SCALE12 ROUND BOLLARD W/ ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE MCDONALD'S (MINNESOTA)NO SCALE13 PARKING VEHICLE ID REQUIRED VAN ACCESSIBLE NO PARKING ACCESS AISLE UPT TO $200 FINE FOR VIOLATION NO SCALE THICKENED BITUMINOUS EDGE AND CONCRETE SURFACE10 NO SCALE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER14 page 120 C) PLANNING CASE #2018-05 LANDFORM / MCDONALD’S, 2020 DODD ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Wetlands Permit to remodel and construct anew small building addition to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the existing use and any subsequent improvements in the B-4 Shopping Center business district and the Wetlands Permit is required for any work conducted within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water level of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. This item was presented as a public hearing item; a notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notices were mailed to all owners located within 350 feet of the subject parcel. No objections or comments were received. This facility is located on a 2.26 acre site adjacent to the Mendota Heights Plaza shopping center; however, it actually not officially part of the overall Plaza Planned Unit Development and is not subject to the overall requirements of the MU-PUD zoning of the Plaza. Surrounding businesses include the BP Gas/Mendota Heights Auto Service station, Walgreen’s/Plaza Center, and the Reserves Apartments. The main access point to the restaurant is from the Plaza shopping center, just off of Dodd Road. The building has a very dated look and the plans basically include the re-skinning the whole building, taking out the roof structure and replacing it with a flat-style roof; which appears to be consistent with the other newly remodeled McDonald’s restaurants throughout the metro area. The general placement of the building is not significantly changing under this updated (new) CUP plan. They do plan a small addition on east end to install a new cooler and freezer. All parking is remaining the same except some reconstructed areas along the front edge for handicap parking. Materials in the packet included an explanation of how the subject property is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The analysis of the Conditional Use Permit included the Building Design and Construction, Landscaping, Off-street Parking, Lighting, Signage, and Conditional Use Permit Standards. The Wetlands Permit analysis shared the purpose of the Wetlands Permit and explained that this proposed work has very little, if any, impacts to the nearby wetland/water feature and there are no plans showing major disturbances outside the parking lot areas. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application request and they had no objections. Staff recommended approval of this application. Commissioner Noonan, referring to Condition #5 which reads “McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment page 121 development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff”, noted that the applicant had mentioned the difficulties with a staggered row of new trees and asked if that condition would be updated to be “. . . shall provide a row of new trees and plantings., , ,”, which Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked if Condition #5 would be necessary given Condition #6 (A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions). Mr. Benetti confirmed that they could remove Condition #5 and simply go with Condition #6. Commissioner Corbett asked if the noise complaints about the drive-thru order box came from residents. Mr. Benetti replied that these types of complaints often emanate from these types of uses, not from this particular site. He has not received any complaints specific to this site. Commissioner Magnuson shared that the Findings of Fact #2, which reads “additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary” can either be removed, or at least have the ‘if necessary’ deleted. Mr. Benetti agreed that this could be taken out since there is the requirement to have an approved landscape plan. After discussion it was agreed to leave the finding #2 in but remove the “if necessary”. Commissioner Toth, going back to Condition #5 requiring the staggered row of trees, asked if the plantings were staggered if they would encroach on city property. Mr. Benetti replied that it could be possible. If the plantings were staggered, he doubted if the city would allow plantings on their property due to the question of who would maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing page 4 of the staff report, noted that there was a statement that read “The Planning Commission should make a recommendation or finding that these new finishes, including the “corrugated metal panels” are acceptable under this CUP review” and if this is true, then they should include something in the Findings – at least verbally if not in the written Findings. Mr. Benetti thanked her for the reminder as he had intended to have that reflective recommendation and recommended it be added as Finding #6 to read “The proposed exterior treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable”. Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any chance that, if trees are planted on the McDonald’s property, the City would ever be responsible for upkeep. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Kevin Shay with Landform Professional Services, representing McDonald’s, explained that he was the one who was talking this morning with Mr. Benetti on this application and was the one who explained why the staggered row of trees would not work. They look forward to working with staff on the landscape plan to make something work with the ordinance. He also confirmed that the only changes to parking would be the adjustments for ADA handicap accessibility. Commissioner Toth asked, in the event the single row of trees does not work, what would their Plan B be. Mr. Shay stated that they are open to many types of trees or plantings in that area; whatever would work. McDonald’s is committed to doing something along that edge to provide the screen mentioned by Mr. Benetti. page 122 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 TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B-4 Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further determined this use to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with the following statements of support: a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and property; b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area; c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local business operating since 1978; and d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities. 2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary. 3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project. 4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including (but not limited to): a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the Wetlands); b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas. 5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit. 6. The proposed exterior treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed project. 2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the new exterior colors of the restaurant building. 3. [Unless recommended otherwise by the Planning Commission] In order to facilitate a reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment; page 123 and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non-conforming status of this fast-food restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway, and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking spaces. 4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure, an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of 90% or more opacity. 5. McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff. 6. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions. 7. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site. 8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 10. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance standards, as required by City Code. Discussion Chair Field added that Title 12-1D addresses several legal non-conformities, the Commission has made a big enough issue and it is glaring enough that part of him wants to state in the Findings of Fact that this is a parking arrangement as it relates to the ordinance requirement is a legal non- conformity. Commissioner Noonan as the maker of the motion, and Commissioner Magnuson as the second, approved the addition of #7 to the Findings of Fact as follows: 7. The existing parking on site of 61 parking spaces is recognized as a legal non-conformity. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. page 124 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit Request Precision Homes – 796 Sibley Memorial Highway Planning Case No. 2018-06 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Critical Area Permit request to Precision Homes, for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway. Background Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. Precision Homes seeks permission to construct a new 2,440 sq. ft. (footprint) single family dwelling on the subject lot. Plans are included in the Planning Staff Report. On August 1, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-58, which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to demolish the old residential home on the lot and remove some trees; along with a Conditional Use Permit authorizing grading work in areas with excessive slope gradients. At the February 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented on this item; and a joint public hearing was conducted by the commission. There were no comments or objection from neighboring residents related to this planning case. A copy of the 02/27/18 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 authority when considering action on land use requests such as this, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the Critical Area Permit 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. 2018-23 APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 125 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-23 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-06) WHEREAS , Precision Homes, LLC, acting on behalf of the property owner James R. Hanson, has applied for a critical area permit to allow certain construction activities in the Critical Area Overlay District, as proposed under Planning Case 2018-06, located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and Precision Homes is seeking permission to construct a 2,440 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling on the subject lot, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning item at the regular meeting of February 27, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the critical area permit request for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-06 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2018-06 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees. page 126 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 127 EXHIBIT A Legal Description - 796 Sibley Memorial Highway PID: 27-30700-00-060 Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow, Dakota County, Minnesota page 128 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-06 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Precision Homes, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 796 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Pavel Bodnar, owner of Precision Homes is requesting a Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Hwy, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling on the subject site. The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires city approval before any building permit is issued. 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 parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND Last summer Precision Homes submitted a similar application for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit on the subject property, which at that time consisted of two parcels under single ownership by James R. Hanson. The property contained an existing two-story, 3,432 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which was later demolished late last summer by the developer. On August 1, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-58, which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to develop within the critical corridor area, along with a Conditional Use Permit to authorize new grading work in areas that exceeded 18% but not more than 40% grades in certain parts of the property. Most of this earlier work was to complete the original dwelling removal, tree and vegetation removals, and grading and site prep work for the two new house pads. The subject lot is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08 acres. The westerly half section of subject site is fairly level with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway, but the property begins a dramatic upward slope towards the back half of the property, going form 810 feet to roughly 860 feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with a variety of mature trees, along with a large section of volunteers and nuisance (buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered throughout the site. (See image – next page). page 129 Contour/Elevation Map DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant intends to construct a 2,440 sq. ft. (main floor footprint) single family dwelling. The proposed layout and house plans are noted below or appended to this report. As part of the August 2017 CAP/CUP approvals, the developer has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. page 130 ANALYSIS  Critical Area Permit The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and • Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required. Title 12-3-8: Development Standards: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. • Setbacks. No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the proposed house pads are located approximately 300+ feet from the toe of the bluff line; so the above standard does not apply. All finished grading and any additional land disturbance work will take place in and around the new house pads and driveway areas, so no impacts to the bluff line or areas will occur under this development. The new home setbacks are shown with approx. 100-ft. from Sibley Mem. Hwy ROW; 19.3 ft. from the north (side) lot line; and 13.61-ft. from the south (side) lot line. All setbacks appear to be appropriate and meet Zoning Code. Title 12-3-9-D & 12-3-9-F Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management As part of the August 1, 2017 approvals, the Developer provided a detailed survey identifying a certain number of significant trees that will be saved/protected under the original CAP plan, along with some removals. It was noted in the previous report that “…the two new home will occupy the previously- developed area of the existing house and driveway area.” A number of volunteer trees and invasive species (buckthorn, box elders, and others) were identified for removal under the previous CAP in order to gain more useable yard space. The earlier removal plans identified 43 “high value trees” within the main development area; and of these, 16 were targeted for removal and 27 marked for saving. The plans noted that these trees will be protected during construction page 131 activities; and new tree replacement will take place when new homes are constructed (reviewed at time of building permit review). A condition of approval from the previous CAP/CUP application included the following: 5. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. The Applicant also noted in their Letter of Intent (attached) that “We will not be removing any additional trees and will be adding bushes and trees where the city and future homeowner will agree to.” Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management: The applicable Code section lists six requirements a project in the critical area must meet. The first five are not applicable to the subject property as they deal with septic systems, well draw from local aquafers, contaminated areas, surface water infiltration, and siltation deposits in area wetlands and water bodies. The only applicable requirement states: 6. Development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water. Since the new dwellings will be built essentially over pre-existing built-out or graded areas, and new grades will be established that tie the grades from the new house pad sites to the existing surrounding grades, the new home developments must not substantially alter the runoff rate or quantity from the subject property. The City Engineer has reviewed the survey map of the new home project, and does not have any issues or concerns at this time with surface water runoff or drainage issues. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The site plan was forwarded to Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with Dept. of Natural Resources, and confirmed the development plan appear to show minimal impacts to the bluff area; appeared to be a fairly routine [single-family] development plan; and no additional comments or conditions would be needed from the DNR.  City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Lilydale Regional Park) No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks Dept. on this item.  City of Lilydale No comments were received from the City of Lilydale on this case. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the attached findings of fact and with certain conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan. page 132 OR 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give favorable consideration of this Critical Area Permit, based on the attached findings of fact and following conditions: 1. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent 2. Aerial/Location map 3. Full Site Survey 4. New Home Plans (elevations) page 133 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit 796 Sibley Memorial Highway The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. page 134 page 135 page 136 page 137 page 138 page 139 page 140 page 141 page 142 D) PLANNING CASE #2018-06 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked, since Items D and E were very similar, if he could present both applications together but have separate motions and decisions. Chair Field stated that as long as Mr. Benetti was very clear on which was which, he had no problems hearing both items together. Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Mr. Tim Benetti explained that these requests were for Critical Area Permits (CAP) by Precision Homes, LLC for properties located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. These two properties, at one time, were two separate lots conjointly owned by Mr. Hansen, which Precision Homes has purchased. The single-family dwelling that was located on the site has been removed and the two lots have separate addresses, 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. 796 Sibley Memorial Highway is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and 1224 Wachtler Avenue is legally described at Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres in size, as is Lot 7. In the last Critical Area Permit staff identified that the entire area on the west end of the lot is very level and flat until one were to get to the back end of it, where it starts to slope up against the bluff line. Most of the activity that has occurred so far and is scheduled to take place are located where the previous structure used to stand. Last year, part of the CAP from the resolution approval in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), staff identified an initial site plan and future home pad layout. Staff also knew that this was not going to be the final layout because of the need for two CAP’s for two new lots. As part of that resolution approval, the applicant has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the two properties relative their location to surrounding streets and properties. The new proposed dwelling at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway would irregularly shaped with a side-loading garage and a single point access, the same one off of Sibley Memorial Highway as previously. There are no issues with complying with the setback requirements. page 143 The new proposed dwelling at 1224 Wachtler Avenue would be a 4,005 square foot finished area home (1,797 square feet main floor footprint). They will have access to this property from Wachtler Avenue and they do have permission from Dakota County since Wachtler Avenue is a county road. The utilities will also come from Wachtler Avenue. Again, there are no issues with complying with the setback requirements. As part of the analyses for these applications, Mr. Benetti explained the standards and provision for the Critical Area Overlay District, Site Planning Requirements, Development Standards, Setbacks, Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management, and Surface Water Runoff Management. These items were presented as public hearing items and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcels. In addition, the public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department, and the City of Lilydale. No additional comments or conditions were received from any of these agencies. Staff recommended approval of these applications. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the property at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, and taking note of Conditions #3 (The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone material) and #5 (All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document) asked if Condition #5 was a second step to ensure that the drainage is appropriate and would not cause any impact on the adjacent owner. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then noted that a point was made that in the application package staff looked to the applicant to spell out the architecture and the building materials, yet there is no recommendation that ties back to the building materials. He then asked if an applicant could come forward, notwithstanding what was presented, and change the materials and compose something completely different that the Commission had not seen. Mr. Benetti replied that he would not recommend a developer, applicant, or builder do that. Commissioner Noonan suggested that a condition be added that reads as follows: “A building permit application shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and the architecture included within the package.” Mr. Benetti whole heartedly agreed with adding that condition. Commissioner Magnuson, also referencing the retaining wall, stated that Mr. Benetti said that the retaining wall should help with the drainage issues and that Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek has looked at it and confirmed that would be the case. She then noted that the only thing in the Conditions is that the retaining wall should be made of natural or native stone materials. She then asked if there was some reason that the Commission may want to put in there “and shall provide satisfactory water control measures as satisfied by the City Engineer”. At this point, the retaining wall can be anything as long as it is made of natural stone and does not have to serve any purpose, at least as currently described. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is the condition about meeting the meeting the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. These documents have been made page 144 public in both this Critical Area Permit plus the original lot split. He would not approve a grading plan that does not meet the intent of what Engineering is looking for. However, if the Commission wanted to add a Condition, he would be OK with that. Commissioner Magnuson stated that as long as it is covered in the grading plan she would be fine with it. Chair Field suggested that Conditions #3 and #5 be combined for clarity. At this point (8:10 pm) - Commissioner Mazzitello, having an excused absence, left the meeting. Mr. Pavel Bodnar, 10937 – 93rd Avenue in Maple Grove and the owner of Precision Homes, stated that he spoke with both neighbors on both of the sites and asked them what the problems were before they came in to see how they could make it better. The neighbor on the Wachtler side said that there was a drainage problem. So their purpose is to level the grade and put up the retaining wall so their water would not drain into the neighbor’s yard. The neighbor on the Sibley side was concerned about the height of the new home, but he believes they are good on the height. Commissioner Toth asked, once the retaining wall is installed, where the water would go. Mr. Bodnar replied that they would ensure that the water would drain out to the street. They would do whatever they could to meet the city requirements. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Caruso, 1238 Wachtler Avenue, is located just to the south. He noted that their situation is that several years ago the previous homeowner illegally brought in approximately 50 to 70 dump trucks of dirt. He elevated his yard from the front through the mid part of his yard and, as a result, his yard got flooded. He informed city hall several years ago and they said they would remedy the situation. In the spring and after rainfalls, they typically have a lake in their yard that is approximately 12 or 18 inches deep and approximately 150 to 200 long and 60 to 80 feet wide. Chair Field interjected that the Commission cannot and it is not their job this evening to remedy whatever a previous owner may or may not have done. Mr. Caruso stated that this is not the current owner is not guilty of this. However, what really is required – if he is installing a retaining wall it is almost irrelevant because the retaining wall may be 50 to 100 feet long but the water will go where it will go. He believes that what is required – and what the city said it was going to do back then – is to have a ditch dug along the property line so that when the water goes in that it drains to the street. To do that there needs to be a decrease in elevation so that it slopes to the street. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the city said this would be taken care of; however, there was never an application submitted by the former owner. Mr. Caruso replied that the previous owner said he would dig a ditch along the property line, which he dug a ditch and it did not do anything. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was unfortunate that the former owner did not do what was necessary. However, Mr. Caruso heard the testimony this evening that 1) the retaining wall would be installed to intercept some flow coming north to south and redirect it and 2) the City Engineer said that there would be a grading plan provided so that there would be positive drainage on the site so that it would go from front to back to the street. There is in the page 145 package a survey and engineering plan that shows just that. However, there has not been a detailed grading plan prepared as of yet. Chair Field noted that the Commission is only setting the standard, the City Engineer would deal with the details. However, his concerns have been noted and are part of the record. 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 (Mazzitello) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-06, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted): 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) page 146 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit Request Precision Homes – 1224 Wachtler Avenue Planning Case No. 2018-07 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Critical Area Permit request to Precision Homes, for the property located at 1224 Wachtler Avenue. Background Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. Precision Homes is seeking permission to construct a 1,797 sq. ft. (footprint) single family dwelling on the subject lot. Plans are included in the Planning Staff Report. On August 1, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-58, which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to demolish the old residential home on the lot and remove some trees; along with a Conditional Use Permit authorizing grading work in areas with excessive slope gradients. At the February 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented on this item; and a joint public hearing was conducted by the commission. There was one comment from the neighboring resident to the south (1238 Wachtler Ave.), regarding ongoing drainage issues between the two properties. A copy of the 02/27/18 planning report, along with the PC meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on land use requests such as this, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the Critical Area Permit 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. 2018-24 APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 147 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-24 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-07) WHEREAS , Precision Homes, LLC, acting on behalf of the property owner James R. Hanson, has applied for a critical area permit to allow certain construction activities in the Critical Area Overlay District, as proposed under Planning Case 2018-07, located at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and Precision Homes is seeking permission to construct a 1,797 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling on the subject lot, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning item at the regular meeting of February 27, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the critical area permit request for the property located at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-07 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2018-07 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. page 148 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone materials. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 149 EXHIBIT A Legal Description – 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE PID: 27-30700-00-070 Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow, Dakota County, Minnesota page 150 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-07 Critical Area Permit APPLICANT: Precision Homes, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1224 Wachtler Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Pavel Bodnar, owner of Precision Homes is requesting a Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling on the subject site. The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires city approval before any building permit is issued. 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 parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND Last summer Precision Homes submitted a similar application for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit on the subject property, which at that time consisted of two parcels under single ownership by James R. Hanson. The property contained an existing two-story, 3,432 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which was later demolished late last summer by the developer. On August 1, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-58, which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to develop within the critical corridor area, along with a Conditional Use Permit to authorize new grading work in areas that exceeded 18% but not more than 40% grades in certain parts of the property. Most of this earlier work was to complete the original dwelling removal, tree and vegetation removals, and grading and site prep work for the two new house pads. The subject lot is legally described as Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08 acres. The westerly half section of subject site is fairly level with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway, but the property begins a dramatic upward slope towards the back half of the property, going form 810 feet to roughly 860 feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with a variety of mature trees, along with a large section of volunteers and nuisance (buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered throughout the site. (See image – next page). page 151 Contour/Elevation Map DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant intends to construct a 1,797 sq. ft. (main floor footprint) single family dwelling, with over 4,005 total sq. ft. finished area. The proposed layout and house plans are noted below or appended to this report. As part of the August 2017 CAP/CUP approvals, the developer has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. page 152 ANALYSIS  Critical Area Permit The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and • Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required. Title 12-3-8: Development Standards: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. • Setbacks. No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the proposed house pads are located approximately 300+ feet from the toe of the bluff line; so the above standard does not apply. All finished grading and any additional land disturbance work will take place in and around the new house pads and driveway areas, so no impacts to the bluff line or areas will occur under this development. The new home setbacks are shown with approx. 100-ft. from Sibley Mem. Hwy ROW; 10.0 ft. from the north (side) lot line; and 25.77-ft. from the south (side) lot line. All setbacks appear to be appropriate and meet Zoning Code. Title 12-3-9-D & 12-3-9-F Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management As part of the August 1, 2017 approvals, the Developer provided a detailed survey identifying a certain number of significant trees that will be saved/protected under the original CAP plan, along with some removals. It was noted in the previous report that “…the two new home will occupy the previously- developed area of the existing house and driveway area.” A number of volunteer trees and invasive species (buckthorn, box elders, and others) were identified for removal under the previous CAP in order to gain more useable yard space. The earlier removal plans identified 43 “high value trees” within the main development area; and of these, 16 were targeted for removal and 27 marked for saving. The plans noted that these trees will be protected during construction page 153 activities; and new tree replacement will take place when new homes are constructed (reviewed at time of building permit review). A condition of approval from the previous CAP/CUP application included the following: 5. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. The Applicant also noted in their Letter of Intent (attached) that “We will not be removing any additional trees and will be adding bushes and trees where the city and future homeowner will agree to.” Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management: The applicable Code section lists six requirements a project in the critical area must meet. The first five are not applicable to the subject property as they deal with septic systems, well draw from local aquafers, contaminated areas, surface water infiltration, and siltation deposits in area wetlands and water bodies. The only applicable requirement states: 6. Development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water. Since the new dwellings will be built essentially over pre-existing built-out or graded areas, and new grades will be established that tie the grades from the new house pad sites to the existing surrounding grades, the new home developments must not substantially alter the runoff rate or quantity from the subject property. Plans call for a new 3-ft. high retaining wall approximately 120-ft. in length along the south side of the new home. This wall was originally illustrated in the previous CAP/CUP review of last August 2017. Title 12- 3-9.2.d requires retaining walls in the Critical Area to be constructed of native stone or wood and not exceed 5 feet in height. The previous CAP/CUP included a condition that any retaining wall(s) must be natural or native stone, and is also included as a hold-over condition under this application review. The City Engineer has reviewed the survey map of the new home project, and does not have any issues or concerns at this time with surface water runoff or drainage issues. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The site plan was forwarded to Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with Dept. of Natural Resources, and confirmed the development plan appear to show minimal impacts to the bluff area; appeared to be a fairly routine [single-family] development plan; and no additional comments or conditions would be needed from the DNR.  City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Lilydale Regional Park) No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks Dept. on this item.  City of Lilydale No comments were received from the City of Lilydale on this case. ALTERNATIVES page 154 1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the attached findings of fact and with certain conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give favorable consideration of this Critical Area Permit, based on the attached findings of fact and following conditions: 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone materials. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent 2. Aerial/Location map 3. Full Site Survey 4. New Home Plans (elevations) page 155 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit 1224 Wachtler Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. page 156 page 157 page 158 page 159 page 160 page 161 page 162 D) PLANNING CASE #2018-06 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked, since Items D and E were very similar, if he could present both applications together but have separate motions and decisions. Chair Field stated that as long as Mr. Benetti was very clear on which was which, he had no problems hearing both items together. Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Mr. Tim Benetti explained that these requests were for Critical Area Permits (CAP) by Precision Homes, LLC for properties located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. These two properties, at one time, were two separate lots conjointly owned by Mr. Hansen, which Precision Homes has purchased. The single-family dwelling that was located on the site has been removed and the two lots have separate addresses, 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. 796 Sibley Memorial Highway is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and 1224 Wachtler Avenue is legally described at Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres in size, as is Lot 7. In the last Critical Area Permit staff identified that the entire area on the west end of the lot is very level and flat until one were to get to the back end of it, where it starts to slope up against the bluff line. Most of the activity that has occurred so far and is scheduled to take place are located where the previous structure used to stand. Last year, part of the CAP from the resolution approval in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), staff identified an initial site plan and future home pad layout. Staff also knew that this was not going to be the final layout because of the need for two CAP’s for two new lots. As part of that resolution approval, the applicant has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the two properties relative their location to surrounding streets and properties. The new proposed dwelling at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway would irregularly shaped with a side-loading garage and a single point access, the same one off of Sibley Memorial Highway as previously. There are no issues with complying with the setback requirements. page 163 The new proposed dwelling at 1224 Wachtler Avenue would be a 4,005 square foot finished area home (1,797 square feet main floor footprint). They will have access to this property from Wachtler Avenue and they do have permission from Dakota County since Wachtler Avenue is a county road. The utilities will also come from Wachtler Avenue. Again, there are no issues with complying with the setback requirements. As part of the analyses for these applications, Mr. Benetti explained the standards and provision for the Critical Area Overlay District, Site Planning Requirements, Development Standards, Setbacks, Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management, and Surface Water Runoff Management. These items were presented as public hearing items and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcels. In addition, the public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department, and the City of Lilydale. No additional comments or conditions were received from any of these agencies. Staff recommended approval of these applications. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the property at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, and taking note of Conditions #3 (The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone material) and #5 (All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document) asked if Condition #5 was a second step to ensure that the drainage is appropriate and would not cause any impact on the adjacent owner. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then noted that a point was made that in the application package staff looked to the applicant to spell out the architecture and the building materials, yet there is no recommendation that ties back to the building materials. He then asked if an applicant could come forward, notwithstanding what was presented, and change the materials and compose something completely different that the Commission had not seen. Mr. Benetti replied that he would not recommend a developer, applicant, or builder do that. Commissioner Noonan suggested that a condition be added that reads as follows: “A building permit application shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and the architecture included within the package.” Mr. Benetti whole heartedly agreed with adding that condition. Commissioner Magnuson, also referencing the retaining wall, stated that Mr. Benetti said that the retaining wall should help with the drainage issues and that Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek has looked at it and confirmed that would be the case. She then noted that the only thing in the Conditions is that the retaining wall should be made of natural or native stone materials. She then asked if there was some reason that the Commission may want to put in there “and shall provide satisfactory water control measures as satisfied by the City Engineer”. At this point, the retaining wall can be anything as long as it is made of natural stone and does not have to serve any purpose, at least as currently described. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is the condition about meeting the meeting the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. These documents have been made page 164 public in both this Critical Area Permit plus the original lot split. He would not approve a grading plan that does not meet the intent of what Engineering is looking for. However, if the Commission wanted to add a Condition, he would be OK with that. Commissioner Magnuson stated that as long as it is covered in the grading plan she would be fine with it. Chair Field suggested that Conditions #3 and #5 be combined for clarity. At this point (8:10 pm) - Commissioner Mazzitello, having an excused absence, left the meeting. Mr. Pavel Bodnar, 10937 – 93rd Avenue in Maple Grove and the owner of Precision Homes, stated that he spoke with both neighbors on both of the sites and asked them what the problems were before they came in to see how they could make it better. The neighbor on the Wachtler side said that there was a drainage problem. So their purpose is to level the grade and put up the retaining wall so their water would not drain into the neighbor’s yard. The neighbor on the Sibley side was concerned about the height of the new home, but he believes they are good on the height. Commissioner Toth asked, once the retaining wall is installed, where the water would go. Mr. Bodnar replied that they would ensure that the water would drain out to the street. They would do whatever they could to meet the city requirements. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Caruso, 1238 Wachtler Avenue, is located just to the south. He noted that their situation is that several years ago the previous homeowner illegally brought in approximately 50 to 70 dump trucks of dirt. He elevated his yard from the front through the mid part of his yard and, as a result, his yard got flooded. He informed city hall several years ago and they said they would remedy the situation. In the spring and after rainfalls, they typically have a lake in their yard that is approximately 12 or 18 inches deep and approximately 150 to 200 long and 60 to 80 feet wide. Chair Field interjected that the Commission cannot and it is not their job this evening to remedy whatever a previous owner may or may not have done. Mr. Caruso stated that this is not the current owner is not guilty of this. However, what really is required – if he is installing a retaining wall it is almost irrelevant because the retaining wall may be 50 to 100 feet long but the water will go where it will go. He believes that what is required – and what the city said it was going to do back then – is to have a ditch dug along the property line so that when the water goes in that it drains to the street. To do that there needs to be a decrease in elevation so that it slopes to the street. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the city said this would be taken care of; however, there was never an application submitted by the former owner. Mr. Caruso replied that the previous owner said he would dig a ditch along the property line, which he dug a ditch and it did not do anything. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was unfortunate that the former owner did not do what was necessary. However, Mr. Caruso heard the testimony this evening that 1) the retaining wall would be installed to intercept some flow coming north to south and redirect it and 2) the City Engineer said that there would be a grading plan provided so that there would be positive drainage on the site so that it would go from front to back to the street. There is in the page 165 package a survey and engineering plan that shows just that. However, there has not been a detailed grading plan prepared as of yet. Chair Field noted that the Commission is only setting the standard, the City Engineer would deal with the details. However, his concerns have been noted and are part of the record. 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 (Mazzitello) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-06, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted): 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) page 166 E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-07, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted): 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone materials. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider both of these applications at its March 6, 2018 meeting. page 167 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy Planning Case 2018-08 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance request to Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy, for the properties located at 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road. Background Patterson Dental Company (Patterson) is seeking to adjust a shared property boundary line between their campus property and Saint Thomas Academy’s property to the east. This adjustment will resolve an existing encroachment of the nearby STA ballfield structures and fences. A variance is also being requested to acknowledge and accept a reduced setback to the minimum parking lot setback standards in the B-1A Zone. Pursuant to Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance), owners may request a lot line adjustment provided the resulting lots retain or meet the required zoning standards under the applicable zoning district(s), which in this case is B-1A Business Park and R-1 One Family Residence. The resulting lot line adjustment does not create any new buildable parcel; therefor the lot line adjustments is appropriate. At the February 27, 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, concerns or objections from the general public or neighboring property owners/local businesses. A copy of the 02/27/18 planning report, along with the PC 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 and Variance requests, 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. 2018-25 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 168 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-25 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-08) WHEREAS, Patterson Dental Company, in cooperation with Saint Thomas Academy (the “Applicants”) have applied for a simple lot line adjustment and variance request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-08 for the two properties located at 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road, and legally described and illustrated in the attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Properties”); 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, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the City Council to grant certain relief or allowances from the strict application of the provisions and standards of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-1D-16 of City Code (Off Street Parking and Loading), Subpart (3), where parking exists in any B (Business) District that abuts an R (Residential) district, the parking spaces shall be located at least ten feet (10') from a side lot line; and; WHEREAS, the Applicants seek to adjust and realign the shared lot line between the Subject Properties, resulting in a shift of this shared lot line by 6-feet (in even width), which will resolve an existing encroachment of the nearby Saint Thomas Academy’s ballfield structures and fences, as legally described and illustrated in the attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the resulting lot line adjustment necessitates the granting of a variance to Patterson Dental Company to allow a reduction to the required 10-foot parking lot setback under the B-1A District standards, to an approximate (new) 8-foot setback; 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. WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning item at the regular meeting of February 27, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission page 169 recommended unanimous approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests for the Subject Properties, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requests as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-08 are hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared property boundary line between two separate property owners. C. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment and variance are both appropriate in this case. D. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and long-term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or necessary in this case. E. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requests as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-08 are hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) Appropriate documents indicating the new lot line adjustment shall be recorded with Dakota County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 170 EXHIBIT A Patterson Dental Company: Current Legal Description (Address: 1031 Mendota Heights Road - PID No. 27-56675-01-010): 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 and that part of the adjacent North 15 feet of vacated Eugenia Avenue. Saint Thomas Academy: Current Legal Description (Address: 949 Mendota Heights Road - PID No. 27-03500-51-010): NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 EX N 198 FT OF E 636 FT, SECTION 35 TWN 28 RANGE 23, Dakota County, Minnesota page 171 EXHIBIT B page 172 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-08 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE APPLICANT: Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: B-1A Business Park/LB-Limited Business (Patterson) and R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential (STA) ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 (Variance) June 13, 2018 (Lot Line Adjustment) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Patterson Dental Company (Patterson) is seeking to adjust a shared property boundary line between their main company campus property and Saint Thomas Academy’s (STA) property to the east. This adjustment will resolve an existing encroachment of the nearby STA ballfield structures and fences. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. In addition, the proposed request requires a variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards. 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 parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND The Patterson property is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Patterson Companies Addition, while the neighboring STA property is unplatted lands in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Sect. 35-28-23. From review of the Description Sketch plan and Survey of the property in question, there appears to be a five-foot high ballfield enclosure fence, a small section of bleacher seats, and a concrete pad situated across the joined property boundary line. In order to resolve these physical encroachments, Patterson has agreed to subdivide a 6-foot wide strip of land from their original office parcel, and deed this over to STA. This strip is illustrated on the attached survey. The resulting lot line adjustment does not create any new buildable parcel; therefor the lot line adjustments appropriate application in this case. The resulting line adjustment does however, require a variance for Patterson due to the resulting decreased setback area for their company parking lot. page 173 IMAGE LOOKING NORTH (Patterson Dental – Left and STA Ballfield – Right) ANALYSIS  Lot Line Adjustment 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. The minimum lot standards for any R-1 One Family Residential uses are as follows: R-1 Zoning District Standard Lot Area 15,000 SF Lot Width 100-ft. Front Yard Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: 30-ft. 10-ft. 30-ft. The minimum lot standards for any B-1A Business Park are as follows: B-1A Zoning District Standard Lot Area 3 acres Lot Width 300-ft. Front Yard Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: 100-ft. 50-ft. 60-ft. Based on the attached survey, the proposed lot line adjustment does not create any non-conformities with the applicable lot standards under the B-1A District (for Patterson) or the R-1 District (for STA). Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-16 Off Street Parking and Loading, Subpart (3): In all B and I districts where such district is not across the street from an R district or abutting an R district, the parking spaces shall be located at least twenty feet (20') from a front lot line and ten feet (10') from a side and rear lot line. page 174 The shared lot line between Patterson and STA is considered a side lot line; therefore, the existing parking lot area owned by Patterson needs to maintain a minimum 10-ft. separation, unless a variance is approved to the reduced setback standard. The Patterson parking/drive-aisle is currently situated approx. 14 +/- feet from the side lot line (see image below – red circled area). The 6-foot acquisition strip will essentially shift the east boundary line of Patterson’s closer towards their own drive aisle/parking lot area, resulting in an approximate 8-foot separation. Because of this reduction, a variance is in order for this case.  Variance When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to find that: 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: “The proposed lot split mitigates an encroachment condition historically accepted by the parties. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. The proposed lot split does not increase impervious coverage, and only affects the parking lot setback from the lot line with the adjoining parcel.” The request to adjust an interior property boundary line to address an existing encroachment is reasonable and meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lot line adjustment resolves the “historical encroachment” issue that has apparently existed between both properties for quite some time; and there are no negative impacts in allowing this lot line adjustment – or even the variance- to be considered under this case. The space that exists between the Patterson parking lot and the STA ballfield area should remain unaffected by the split. 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. page 175 The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: “It would not be practical to relocate the existing improvements on the St. Thomas Academy property that encroach upon the six foot strip in question, nor would it be practical or beneficial to occupants and guests of the property to reduce the size of the existing parking lot serving the property. This is a unique situation because the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property is utilized as a baseball field.” City staff would tend to agree and accept his statement as a matter of support for this variance. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: “It helps facilitate the continuance of an existing use on the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property without impacting the existing use of the property.” Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result in the adjustment of lines on a map. Therefore, no changes will be visible to either property and no negative impacts are anticipated to the character of the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, 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 and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the condition that the appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County. Attachments 1. Sketch Map 2. Survey 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials page 176 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment and Variance Planning Case No. 2018-08 Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared property boundary line between two separate property owners. 3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment and variance are both appropriate in this case. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and long- term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or necessary in this case. 5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. page 177 ( February 1, 2018 VIA EMAIL (timb@mendota-heights.com) & U.S. MAIL Tim Berretti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 5 5118 RE: Variance/Lot Line Adjustment Dear Tim: ( Enclosed please find the applications for the lot line adjustment and variance along with a check in the amount of $1,500 to cover each application and the escrow. The purpose of the lot line adjustment and variance request is to mitigate an encroachment condition historically accepted by the Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land currently owned by Patterson Dental Company adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. Sincerely , <;l/11/. ==::s-= Jeffrey J. Serum Direct Dial: 612.492 .7304 Email: jserum@ fredlaw .com JJS:djk Enclosure 63223188.1 Attorneys & Adv i sors main 612 .492.7000 fax 612.492.7077 fred l aw.com MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERV I CES GROUP A Worldwide Network of Professional Service Providers Fredr i kson & Byron, P.A. 200 South S i xth Street, Su i te 4000 Minneapol i s, Minnesota 55402-1425 OFF I CES Minneapo li s I Bismarck I Des Mo i nes I Fargo I St. Pau l I Monterrey, Mexico I S hangha i , China page 178 ( ( 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452 .1850 phone I 651.452 .8940 ta x www.mendula·heighls.com , • n::1 ~,;,;:,'DDT A HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION Office Use Only: Case#: 2 ~18 -0 j: Fee Paid :-IL~~_.c~~..!...L::..:==----~..L!o...l~1 ) Application Date: () i,Zii(/~ Staff Initials: __________ _ Applicable Ordinance #: __________ Section : ____________ _ Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: ___________ _ Existing Use: Proposed Use: ____________ _ Property Address/Street Location : 1031 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights , MN Applicant Name:_H_o_w_a_rd_Ro_s_to_n __________ Phone: (612) 492-7441 Applicant E-MailAddress:_h_ro_~_o_n~_fr_ed_la_w_.c_o_m __________________ _ Applicant Mailing Address: 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Property Owner Name: Patterson Dental Company Phone : __________ _ Property Owner Mailing Address: 1031 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) See enclosed O&E reports . Type of Request D Rezoning I./ I Variance l./I Lot SpliUAdjustment D Code Amendment D Conditional Use Permit D Wetlands Perm .it D Critical Area Permit 0Appeal D Interim Use Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Other _______ _ I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true . I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (.I ) . ·ft~rA"l,u C ((_ /y ,;f;? 1 /.,,iJj J. /or h g Signature of Applicant · 4 bate / 1 • l 7 ' (] 1 f,,yd Gl-(L _!+. IL:--~ I J :J.;{J.. d-C>/-JCI ¥ Signature of Owner >cd·f.c rsc, ;\ Co 1 1~pC1111() Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 61112016) Doc #6 2990048 .1 Page 1of1 page 179 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? ii YES D NO Why or why not? The proposed lot split mitigates an encroachment condition historically accepted by the parties. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. The proposed lot split does not increase impervious coverage, and only affects the parking lot setback from the lot line with the adjoining parcel. 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). It would not be practical to relocate the existing improvements on the St. Thomas Academy property that encroach upon the six foot strip in question, nor would it be practical or beneficial to occupants and guests of the property to reduce the size of the existing parking lot serving the property. This is a unique situation because the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property is utilized as a baseball field. 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? ii YES D NO Why or why not? It helps facilitate the continuance of an existing use on the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property without impacting the existing use of the property. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 41512016) Doc. #62990076.1 Page 3of3 page 180 Patterson Dental / STA (Lot Line Adjustment) Property Information January 8, 2018 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 181 page 182 page 183 F) PLANNING CASE #2018-08 PATTERSON DENTAL COMPANY AND ST. THOMAS ACADEMY 1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this applicant was for a lot line adjustment and Variance request. They are asking for a simple lot line adjustment between the two properties – Patterson Dental Company to the west and Saint Thomas Academy to the east. Patterson Dental would be deeding over a six foot strip of land to Saint Thomas Academy to help adjust or provide relief on some encroachment issues. Based upon this six foot relinquishment to resolve the encroachment issues, Patterson Dental would require a Variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards. Chair Field stated that this sounded like a harmonious clearing up of a long standing case of adverse possession. Staff recommended approval of this request. Ms. Pam Kunkel of St. Thomas Academy came forward but had nothing to add to the staff report. 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 MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-08, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared property boundary line between two separate property owners. 3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title page 184 work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment and variance are both appropriate in this case. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and long term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or necessary in this case. 5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. The appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in light of the Commission’s action earlier and the fact that the Commission is really approving a Variance, she wanted to point out that in this case the applicant did a very nice job explaining what the practical difficulties were and why this action would be something that would be appropriate for a Variance. Clearly it would not be practical to leave bleachers and a variety of other things on Saint Thomas Academy land and she believes that the fact that the statement from the applicant was included in the packet was very helpful and provided the Commission with the basis needed to go forward with this as a Variance. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. page 185 Request for City Council Action DATE: February 20, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Recreation Fee Assistance Program COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve a Mendota Heights Recreation Fee Assistance Program. Background For winter recreational activities, a number of residents asked about financial assistance to help with registration costs. The City of Mendota Heights does not have a fee assistance program or scholarship policy. Previous assistance was provided on a case by case basis, which led to inconsistency from resident to resident. In response to assistance requests, staff researched other city and school district fee assistance programs. At the December 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff recommended a fee assistance program that would enable eligible Mendota Heights’ residents (18 and under) to receive a 15 percent reduction in registration fees. Eligible recipients would be limited to fee assistance of up to $100 per calendar year. Eligible programs which assistance could be applied to include: skating, gymnastics, summer programs, tennis camp and golf programs. The attached memo provides details about eligibility and the process that staff recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission. In its discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission increased the percentage of fee assistance provided by the city to eligible recipients from 15 percent to 85 percent for the first program and a 50 percent for a second program in the same calendar year. After a child had participated in two programs in the same calendar year, additional fee assistance requests would not be considered. The Commission did not recommend a maximum assistance amount. Budget Impact Data on requests from previous years has not been maintained. Staff is unable to predict the level of budget impact that implementation of the program will have at this time. Impact will depend on the number of requests, the program costs and the level of assistance that is decided. page 186 It is recommended that the city place a limit on the total amount of subsidy given in the first year. Staff is recommending a $3,000 total program limit until the full impact on the city budget can be determined. Recommendation The council should discuss and if agreeable to the concept, a recreation fee assistance program. Action Required Council should direct staff on the implantation of a recreation fee assistance program. page 187 DATE: December 11, 2017 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Fee Assistance Program Discussion Background Recently the City of Mendota Heights has seen an influx of residents seeking financial assistance with registration for our recreation programming. During fall registration we had three families seeking financial assistance. The City of Mendota Heights currently does not have a fee assistance program or scholarship policy, which has led to inconsistency from resident to resident. A policy would make the process more clear, fair and easier for staff to administer. Cities surrounding Mendota Heights have fee assistance programs. Staff is proposing a program that would be only available to Mendota Heights residents, who can prove their address as part of the application. The maximum amount a family could receive each calendar year would be $100 per child. Eligible programs would include: skating, gymnastics, summer playgrounds, tennis camp and golf camp. To be eligible for the program, students must be enrolled in the district’s free and reduced lunch program or have a parent who is on active duty in the military. Children under the age of 18 would be eligible for participation in the program. Families would need to apply each year for the program. Eligible applicants will receive a 15% reduction on the course they are applying for. The City of Mendota Heights will require applicants to provide documentation regarding either the district’s free and reduced lunch program or from the government regarding a parent on active duty in the military. Here is a summary of other policies.  City of Edina o Eligible participants receive a Connect Card, which can be used to register for recreation programs. There is a limit of $150 per family, per calendar year. The city uses maximum income levels to determine who is eligible.  City of Eagan o Scholarship program covers 50% of the class fee, with a maximum of $300 yearly for each participant. The city uses gross annual income to determine who was eligible for the program. page 188  City of West Saint Paul o Individuals receive funding for half of the program fee per child. Funding can be used twice during the same year, per child. Funding can be used for the following programs: youth sports day camp, fascinating Fridays, Field Trips, Sports Unlimited Camps, Mayer Theater Camps, and other special events. Eligibility is based on maximum income level.  City of South Saint Paul o A sliding fee schedule is used help those in the community with financial assistance. Each applicant can apply for one program per season (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer) and must fill out a new application each season. There is a $50 annual limit for fee assistance.  Tri-District Community Education o To be eligible, students must be enrolled in the district’s free and reduced lunch program, or have a parent who is on active duty in the military. Free and reduced lunch applicants receive a 15% reduction on the course or activity, military families receive a 25% reduction in the course fee. Scholarships cannot exceed $150 per family a calendar year. Below is a table regrading income and benefits in Mendota Heights (in 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Numbers) Total Households 4,609 Less than $10,000 2.5% $10,000 to $14,999 2.0% $15,000 to $24,999 4.0% $25,000 to $34,999 6.3% $35,000 to $49,999 9.0% $50,000 to $74,999 17.0% $75,000 to $99,999 10.8% $100,000 to $149,999 15.5% $150,000 to $199,999 11.2% $200,000 or more 21.7% Below is the MN Department of Education Data regarding Free & Reduced Lunch for the ISD 197 District. School Name Total Enrollment # of Students on Free Lunch # of Students on Reduced Lunch % of Students on Free & Reduced Lunch Friendly Hills Middle School 721 153 47 27.73% Garlough Environmental Magnet 421 198 41 56.76% Henry Sibley High School 1400 403 124 37.64% page 189 Mendota Elementary 395 51 17 17.21% Moreland Art/Health Science Magnet 394 185 51 58.89% Pilot Knob Stem Magnet School 399 108 43 37.84% Somerset Elementary 396 45 29 18.68% Totals 4,126 1,143 352 36.23364% page 190 Recreation Fee Assistance Program Background Staff researched other city/school district programs Previous assistance was provided on a case by case basis Currently no fee assistance or scholarship program Residents in need of assistance for Recreation programs Staff recommendation to Parks and programs Eligible programs: skating, gymnastics, summer programs, tennis camp, golf Limit of $100 per child each calendar year 15% reduction in registration fees military Must be on free and reduced lunch or have a parent on active duty in the Mendota Heights’ residents (18 and under) Recreation Commission Parks and Recreation Commission programs Eligible programs: skating, gymnastics, summer programs, tennis camps, golf No limitconsideredAfter the second class, additional requests in the same calendar year would not be registration fees for second class (per child, per calendar year) 85% reduction in registration fees for first class and 50% reduction in military Must be on free and reduced lunch or have a parent on active duty in the Mendota Heights’ residents (18 and under)recommendation to City Council Budget impact$3,000 total program limit subsidy given the first year Staff is recommending the city place a limit on the total program amount of decided Depends on number of requests, program costs and level of assistance Unable to predict budget impact at this time Data from previous years has not been maintained  Recommendation/Action Required assistance program Council should direct staff on the implementation of a recreation fee assistance programThe council should discuss and if agreeable to the concept, a recreation fee  Request for City Council Action DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Approve Police Captain Hire COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Wayne Wegener, Jr. for the position of Police Captain. Background In order for the Police Department to continue to improve operational efficiency, the City Council authorized staff to take the steps necessary to fill the Police Captain position. After completion of the recruitment and selection process, it is recommended that Wayne Wegener, Jr. be hired for the position. Mr. Wegener is currently a Public Safety Captain with the City of Lino Lakes. Wayne has a Master’s Degree from Hamline University, is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and holds a certificate from Northwestern University in Supervision of Police Personnel. Throughout his law enforcement career, Wayne has worked in a variety of areas including investigations, training and development, policy implementation, records management and administration. A conditional offer has been extended, contingent upon the successful completion of a background check, pre-employment physical and approval of the City Council. Understanding the need to provide his employer proper notice, a start date has yet to be determined. Budget Impact The Police Captain is a budgeted position. page 191 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Wayne Wegener Jr. as Police Captain with an annual salary of $109,207, which is step 7 of pay grade 16 of the City’s Compensation Plan. In view of his job experience, it is recommended that he be credited with three (3) weeks of vacation “on the books”. Requested Action If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Wayne Wegener, Jr. as Police Captain with the provisions listed above. . page 192