Loading...
2018-07-02 Council MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 2, 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 Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any documents, pulling items b.) Approve Orchard Place Boulevard Repair; c.) Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements; f.) Authorization to Place Officer Scott Patrick Memorial in Market Square Park; and i.) Approval of Claims List. a. Approval of June 19, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approve Orchard Place Boulevard Repair c. Accept Bids, Award Contract for Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements d. Approve Part-time Communication Coordinator Hire e. Authorization to Receive Price Quotes for Replacement and Purchase of Par 3 Equipment f. Authorization to Place Officer Scott Patrick Memorial in Market Square Park g. Acknowledge Building Activity Report from May 2018 h. Approval of May 2018 Treasurer's Report i. Approval of Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B) APPROVE ORCHARD PLACE BOULEVARD REPAIR Councilor Duggan stated the report states `satisfactory soluble salt levels', and wondered if that was bad or good. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the salt levels are within tolerance so staff is not thinking that the die -off was contributed by any excess deicing materials. That is a good thing. Councilor Duggan noted that under Budget Impact it talks about the project being finalized so an alternate funding source will need to be utilized. Mr. Ruzek explained that a street project is open for a year after completion in case something has to be repaired. In this case, the project has been closed, so the funding source is not available. Funding for this repair would need to come from an alternate source. Councilor Duggan moved to authorize the Public Works Director to issue a `not -to -exceed' purchase order in the amount of $4,920 to Nice Yard from Cologne, MN. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS & MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Councilor Petschel asked for some background information on the vendor. Mr. Ruzek noted that the low bidder, Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC, is a company that has been around since 1968. He checked the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) list and the company has never been barred from bidding on projects through the State of Minnesota. On the contractor's website, they list a number of projects that they have received awards for. They are currently doing two jobs in the City of Edina and the inspector from that city said the project is on time and on budget, with no complaints received. Councilor Paper asked if Mendakota Court was not going to be repaved. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would not be repaved at this time. The Mendakota Court / Mendakota Drive intersection will be done, but the street in front of the residential properties will not be disturbed during this project. Councilor Petschel moved to approve RESOLUTION 2018-48 ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS AND MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 F) AUTHORIZATION TO PLACE OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL IN MARKET SQUARE PARK Mayor Garlock stated that the Officer Scott Patrick Memorial Committee has done a lot of work for this memorial site and monument. The panel members include City Administrator Mark McNeill, Councilor Petschel, Mayor Garlock, Michelle Patrick, and Officer John Larrive. Mrs. Patrick preferred the site to be at Smith and Dodd. The committee tried to negotiate that with the City of West St. Paul, but because July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 15 there are plans to redesign that intersection, this location was not feasible. The Market Square Park site has a lot of visibility. The monument has arrived and some concrete work will be completed at the site. There are plans for a ceremony for July 30, 2018 at 12:00 pm. Councilor Petschel stated that the monument has exceeded the committee's expectations. Michelle Patrick hopes that the monument is going to help her family work through that terrible grief and shock. Councilor Duggan stated that this is sadly a wonderful thing they are doing in the sense that it is memorializing someone who was killed in the line of duty. He suggested that parking spaces be reserved for the family and other higher level participants in the ceremony on July 30th. He suggested that all of the businesses in the area be notified so they can accommodate the large turnout. Councilor Petschel noted that most of the costs have been paid for through private donations. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the request to place the memorial stone, plaque, and flag pole at the southeastern corner location of Market Square Park. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 I) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Councilor Duggan, referring to the Barr Engineering — Ivy Hills Pond Improvements payment in the amount of $4,430.62 and the BKJ Land Company — Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements payment in the amount of $65,162.18, asked for a breakdown of the expenses. Also, referring to the Institute Environmental Assessment — Playground Safety Inspection, noted that he has not seen or heard of a report on what that safety inspection found. Councilor Petschel moved to approve the list of claims. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilmember Duggan noted that the Henry Sibley High School marching band left yesterday for Washington DC, representing Minnesota in the Independence Day Parade. Watch for them on July 4th He also noted the fireworks display is scheduled for the 4th. Donation information can be found on the city's website. Mr. Jonathan Zagel, 2230 Copperfield Road, stated that he had spoken previously about transparency and putting the audit on the website, which has been done. He thanked the Council for that. Traditionally, the audit is coupled with a management letter which would speak to any significant audit findings, as well as any internal control issues. He asked if that could be added to the website. July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 15 Also, some of the comments made during the presentation of the audit said to keep an eye on some of the funds, and he believes that updated financials and the past quarterly statements should be made available. PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2018-50 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE OF FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that this public hearing was for the proposed improvements to the fire station. In 2015, the city began researching improvements needed to update the fire station at 2121 Dodd Road. This facility was first constructed in 1984 and is lacking many safety and technology features necessary to provide the protections needed in a modern suburban community. Information provided included a summary of the process for issuing the bonds needed to finance the project, the financial impact on property taxpayers, and information prepared by the City's Financial Consultant, Ehlers and Associates. Mayor Garlock moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Fire Chief Dave Dreelan discussed the need and the solutions for the improvements to the station. The initial focus of the study was to make an accurate assessment of the building's physical condition and identify the operational issues. That process identified the following issues: • Overcrowding in the apparatus bay, the administrative space, and storage areas • Air quality issues related to the diesel exhaust in the apparatus bay • Lack of appropriate training facilities • Unable to support current ambulance operations • Building systems are beyond their useful life and not upgradeable • Design and operational issues as it relates to firefighter parking and emergency response • Facility is void of any technology system expected for a modern building of today The committee explored various options to solve the problems. With the help of two architectural firms, the committee presented a total of five plans to City Council. The plans ranged from basic upgrades of the building systems and fixtures, with an estimated price tag of $1.5M -$2.0M, up to the process of completely tearing down the existing station and rebuilding a new station with a price tag of $9.0M - $10.0M. Ultimately, the Council agreed that the design submitted by CNH Architects addressed the major deficiencies outlined. The project, which is estimated to cost $5.4M, addresses the operational issues by adding onto the existing station, and remodeling the operating parts of the current station. This plan captures the value that is to be had in the existing building and allows full operation during the construction process. Fire Chief Dreelan shared images of the overall site plan. Councilor Petschel pointed out that the city has never had a formal emergency operation center. In response to those who ask if a city the size of Mendota Heights requires one, she mentioned various July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 15 emergencies that have happened in Mendota Heights. The possibility that this space would be utilized as community meeting space is a positive. Mayor Garlock asked for information on the importance of the HealthEast Ambulance space. Chief Dreelan stated that the relationship with HealthEast goes back has far has he can remember. The HealthEast model has changed over the years; the crews are not necessarily sleeping overnight and there is a lot more rotation of crews. The space that was originally designed to have two paramedics sometimes now has six or eight paramedics and two or three ambulances running outside. The ambulances need to be climate controlled. The committee's focus was to make sure they solved the department's issues first. In doing so, they effectively added a garage to the back so those ambulances could be kept in a heated, climate controlled, and secure environment. Councilor Paper asked what kind of formal agreement the city has with HealthEast to ensure a certain level of service. Chief Dreelan replied that HealthEast is granted a license through the Minnesota Emergency Services Board to provide medical services to our geographical area. HealthEast Ambulance has a PSA (Public Safety Agreement) with the Minnesota EMSRV Board to provide coverage in a relatively large area (Rosemount to West St. Paul, South St. Paul), so the contract for them to provide medical coverage to our citizens is actually not with the City of Mendota Heights. With this plan, if Council wanted to look at ways to recoup some of the costs, the city would have specific square footage that they could allot in terms of electrical use, water use, and could charge per square foot. Most of the contracts that he has seen between other fire departments and ambulance providers, is typically titled Mutual Agreement of Understanding. We will have you at our station, which provides a huge benefit to our residents, we will not charge you; however, we want you to help with our EMS training, help split the cost of new pieces of equipment, etc. They are usually willing to do those types of things. Councilor Paper asked if their garage space would have a separate electric meter or gas meter. The answer was that it was not currently in the plans. Councilor Paper asked, in terms of the meeting room being used as a community space, if there would be a door directly to the exterior, and what measures would be in place to keep the area secure. Chief Dreelan replied that the entryway would remain available to the public and two restrooms. The rest of the facility would be locked. The public would have access to restrooms and the entryway and, if need be, a pass-through window for someone to provide direction to anyone coming in. Councilor Paper asked if parking would be available adjacent to the building or further out. Chief Dreelan shared the image of the proposed building and suggested parking areas. Councilor Miller noted that seconds matter in an emergency and having HealthEast located within the city is imperative to the health and well being of the residents. Councilor Petschel noted there was some concern when the availability of sleeping rooms for the HealthEast personnel was previously discussed. However, if there was inclement weather, ambulance personnel have resorted to sleeping in their rigs with the engine running She believes that the city could provide better accommodations than that. July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 15 Councilor Paper asked how the first open house was attended. Chief Dreelan replied that there were three firefighter retirees and four members of the general public in attendance. A second open house scheduled for July 9, 2018. Councilor Duggan encouraged all residents to attend the open house. City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded the Council that this is a public hearing and explained that this is a major project. For cities, a bond sale enables them to fund large projects. One of the components of this bond sale is for the Council to adopt a Capital Improvements Program (CIP), separate from the 5 - year CIP that is adopted as part of the city's annual operating budget. Ehlers and Associates has prepared the documentation and Ms. Stacie Kvilvang came forward to explain. Ms. Kvilvang explained that in 2003 the legislature changed the bonding laws and authority to allow cities to issue bonds for fire stations, police stations, city halls, and public works facilities. These are considered as essential public facilities for a city. One of the caveats is the Reverse Referendum opportunity. After the public hearing, if the Council receives a petition signed by 5% of the voters from the last general election stating they do not want the city to finance the fire station this way, then it would go to a referendum or the city would need to look at an alternate financing mechanism. The CIP before the Council was a bond amount of up to $7 million, much more than what is needed per the estimates of the fire station costs. The reasoning is to allow flexibility as prices continue to go up, especially considering the fact that bids would not be sought for another four to five months. The CIP also included some public purpose findings, related to the condition of the facility, and detailed two reports in the council packet; the demand for this facility and the estimated costs. These types of bonds have two restrictions on them: • They count against the city's debt limit, which is 3% of the taxable market value • The annual principal and interest cannot exceed .16% of the taxable market value of the city The public hearing is on the adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan only; not whether to build the facility or not. Councilor Duggan asked if there was any idea of the average cost to Mendota Heights for this bond payment in relation to home values. Administrator McNeill replied that there is a number of ways to view these bonds. The estimated market value of homes in Mendota Heights is $356,000; making the annual property tax increase approximately $91/year; commercial property would be approximately $155.55/year — assuming a 15 year straight repayment, starting in 2019. Councilor Paper, referring to the commercial building value, asked where those figures came from. Administrator McNeill replied that there were three examples that Ehlers provided. Ms. Kvilvang explained that residential properties are taxed at 1% of their marketability and for commercial, the first $150,000 is at 1.5% and everything above $200,000 is at 2.0%. Administrator McNeill, reviewed the timing of the project. Comments from the public included: Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, speaking on behalf of the Mendota Heights Community Resource Association, stated the group believes this is a necessary improvement to the fire facility. The group July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 15 toured the facility and met with the chief and the assistant chief. He and his wife have had the benefit of the service provided by the firefighters. The city has a professional volunteer fire department and they need all of the tools that the city can provide them. He is in favor of the ambulance facilities needed. Councilor Petschel, seeing no one else wishing to speak, moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-50 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2018 THROUGH 2022. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2018-44 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-12) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Erick Schmidt, 1133 Delaware Avenue, requested a Conditional Use Permit approving a 992 square foot detached garage. Mr. Benetti shared the City Code (Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C.2) stating the reasoning behind the need for a Conditional Use Permit. The property is 100 feet wide by 150 feet in length; 0.34 acres. The lot currently has a 1,922 square foot 1.25 story residence with a 20 -foot x 20 -foot detached garage with an 8 -foot x 8 -foot lean-to storage shed on the backside. The existing garage sits approximately 34 feet from the south property line and 24 feet from the rear property line. The new garage footprint would be 18.2 feet from the south property line and 30 feet from the rear property line; well within the setback standards for a detached garage. There are no plans to change the driveway. The current garage and lean-to would be removed. Mr. Benetti made it clear that even though the report indicated that this new garage would be 26 feet by 40 feet, with the off -set of the third parking stall, the overall footprint area of the new garage would be 992 square feet. Councilor Duggan asked what the impact would be on the impervious surface measurements in relation to the addition of this larger garage. He noted that there should be a restriction on the amount of impervious surface allowed on residential properties. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the city does have regulations for industrial and commercial properties; however, he was not aware of regulations for residential homes. However, looking at the photos of the property, it appears that more than 50% of the lot is green space. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-44 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OVERSIZED DETACHED GARAGE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-12). July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 15 Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) RESOLUTION 2018-45 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND LOT COMBINATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, FOXWOOD ADDITION (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-14) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mike and Michelle Bader were seeking approval for a Lot Split and Lot Combination for the property located at 1673 Delaware Avenue. The intent is to split their property located at 1673 Delaware Avenue into two separate parcels, one of which keeps the existing dwelling and will be sold to a third party, while the remaining parcel would be retained by the Baders and be combined with a lot on Foxwood Lane. The lot on Foxwood Lane is known as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood Addition. City code requires that anytime a parcel is split, there has to be frontage with it. In this case, per the R-1 standards, it is 125 feet of frontage. By approving the lot split, the lot would become non -conforming due to its lack of frontage. However, the Bader's have agreed to attach this split off parcel with Lot 3, which has frontage on Foxwood Lane; thus removing the nonconforming situation. Mr. Bader has no plans to subdivide this large parcel at this time. Councilor Miller asked if Foxwood Lane was a public street. Mr. Benetti replied that it is actually a private road in a public right-of-way easement. When Foxwood Addition was platted, Foxwood Lane was created with a narrow 50 -foot width right-of-way; which, by today's standards, would not be acceptable as the city now requires a 60 -foot width. This was dedicated as part of a plat for Foxwood Addition, so the roadway itself is privately maintained by the residents. Councilor Miller stated that if the parcel being split off is not adjacent to a public road, then the city could not approve this request. He also asked if the lot combination should take place before the lot split. Mr. Benetti replied that this was an option that was discussed, however, Mr. Bader has requested the lot split to accommodate the sale of the home right away. As part of the conditions, he must attach the new parcel with Lot 3, Foxwood Addition. Councilor Miller stated that the wish of Mr. Bader to rush the sale of the homes instead of doing things in the proper order is not a good reason to do so. However, the main concern was the status of the road. Councilor Petschel, in an effort to clarify, indicated that this is an irregular status. It was approved for development with a non-standard road and is a unique situation. Councilor Miller noted that he drove down Foxwood Lane and it appears that it is an extension of the property owner's driveway next to Lot 3. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that the subdivision regulations state that every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a 'city approved street' other than an alley. He questioned what a 'city approved street' was since there is no definition in the regulations. Looking at the county GIS records of Foxwood, it certainly shows that there is a right-of-way there. The city could make an argument that it is a city approved street. On the other side, it appears to be privately maintained. If taken too literally, then the other properties on Foxwood do not have frontage access either. July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 15 Speaking to the order of consolidation or split, there is nothing in the regulations that requires one order over the other. The application was for a certain order but the Council could switch that around. Councilor Duggan noted that, historically, the people that bought into a developed area did so with a private road so they would be able to maintain it The lots were primarily 10 acres each. As things started to fill in, they were concerned about protecting their investment. The people wanted to have control of the private road. As Ms. Lutz stated at the Planning Commission meeting, they have all of these restrictive covenants in place. It is true that the city is not technically connected to these covenants; however, because they are legal the city really is connected to them. The city and the county both need to pay attention to those and work with Mr. Bader in trying to develop a plan that works. The key seems to be that the new created lot to the west side will only have one eventual residence on it. Councilor Duggan continued by stating that he would like to have compelling language in there that the residents in the area will be guaranteed that will be only one additional house in that area. Councilor Petschel pointed out condition number three, which reads "The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for one single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application, per City Code Title 11— Subdivision Regulations" and explained that this is not a recommendation, but a condition of approval. Councilor Miller asked for an explanation of the long-term liability of condition number three. City Attorney Pratt replied that to have a development agreement as a condition to the lot split would be a way for that to be a long-term condition. It could be added as a brief sentence that a contractual development agreement be drawn up and everyone would sign it so it is memorialized going forward. Councilor Petschel asked if the Council were looking to approve this tonight if that sentence could be added to the conditions. Attorney Pratt replied in the affirmative. Councilor Petschel stated that she was impressed with Mr. Rune's statements at the Planning Commission meeting and asked Attorney Pratt and Mr. Benetti to clarify for her that his statement was that as soon as the new lot lines are drawn up for the west lot, the covenants that are being enforced do not change. Mr. Benetti replied that since Lot 3 and the other two lots have current covenants and restrictions on them, by combining this added land to Lot 3 — Lot 3 restriction do not change. Councilor Duggan asked to hear from the applicant and the other residents around the area. Mr. Paul McGinley, principle surveyor and vice-president of Loucks Associates, noted that he has worked on this project for years. He stated in regards to the city's concern about the sequence of events, that as a consultant, it makes no difference to the outcome. If the Council were to approve the lot split, then there is a form that the Bader's have to fill out to combine the west parcel with Lot 3. He suggested that the city hold the resolution, and get the combination form from the Baders and the city controls the recording of both so that they are convinced that it has taken place. He also pointed out that the resulting 8.32 acre west parcel would only be a single family home parcel. It would be combined on the tax statement. There is a state statute requiring that if anyone wants to take that parcel and subdivide it in any way, the process has to go through the city process for subdivision. Once the combination takes place, the city is protected by that statute. July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 15 Councilor Miller asked the City Attorney on how the city could avoid another situation like what is happening on the Orchard property where there were 13 acres now being platted into small lots. Are the covenants that are in place as iron -clad as the language the Council wants. Attorney Pratt replied any future subdivisions or developments have to go through a planning process with the city. Normally, if all of the underlying zoning requirements and planning requirements could be met, then yes the development moves forward. In this case, the upgrading of Foxwood Lane to a public road would have to happen, and that would only happen if the residents that live on Foxwood would agree to it. Councilor Paper asked why the property line that is currently running north/south has a jog in it. Mr. Bader explained that a neighboring buyer wanted less than four acres and this seemed to be the smart way of accomplishing that. Mr. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, stated that he was in favor of this approval if the conditions listed remain intact, and if the residents of the adjacent properties are given copies of the resolution. He understands that the city is not a parry to any private contract; however, they do exist and this resolution would remove some of the ambiguity. He requested that the city ensure that the recording process is thorough. He stated that the Bader's desire to monetize their lot is a reasonable one and rational. Ms. Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, stated that her property borders the Baders on the west as well as Foxwood Lot 3. In the past she objected to the Bader's requests to subdivide their property. However, she understands this proposal and asked the Council to clarify that the covenants that currently exist with Lot 3 would apply to what would now be the new Lot 3. She was also in support of adding language that would only allow for one single family home to avoid further time, money, and effort by the Council and the neighbors fighting this battle again. She also supports the Baders being allowed to immediately split the lot with all of the conditions. Councilor Paper asked if there would be one house with one septic and the remaining homes tie into the city sewer. Mr. Benetti replied that, per city policy, any new subdivision has to be hooked into city services. If one house is built on that 8.32 acres, a septic system would be allowed because it supports one unit. If it were to go beyond that, then they need to have full city utility connections. Councilor Paper asked what constitutes a development. Mr. Benetti replied that most developers would create more than two lots. If this were to be considered, conceptually for five new lots, policy states the lots need to be connected to city utilities. How they make those connections is the burden of the developer. Councilor Petschel clarified that the Council does not enforce neighborhood's covenants, however she expects that Lot 3 would still be covered by covenants. City Attorney Pratt confirmed. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-45 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) AND LOT COMBINATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-14) with the addition to condition number three that this condition shall run with the land and to all future ownership of said parcel, and a requirement that all final materials be disseminated to the Foxwood neighbors. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 15 Councilor Paper asked for confirmation that the city was ensuring in their language that this will be a new Lot 3 and would support one single family residential home — no hardships in place. This was confirmed. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) RESOLUTION 2018-46 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-15) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Jackie and Mike Chase were seeking a Critical Area Permit to allow for the construction of a new swimming pool and patio/deck on their property located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor area and a critical area permit is required. The plat is a 1.42 acre parcel, just under 62,000 square feet and is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. On March 3, 2018, the City Council approved a critical area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in order to demolish an old dwelling and a new home was built in its place. Mr. Benetti shared images of the location for the proposed new pool and patio/deck. He also showed images of the footprint of the current dwelling and the proposed pool and patio/deck. New retaining walls are planned to help with drainage issues; however, not a lot of grading work will need to be completed. The plan calls for a 16 -foot by 38 -foot in -ground swimming pool, with a concrete patio/deck around the perimeter. They also plan to install a new fence around the outer areas, as required by City Code. Boulder -style retaining walls would be integrated along the outer edges of the pool patio/deck. Mr. Benetti explained the standards and provisions that need to be met when considering a Critical Area Permit, which this application meets. He also explained that, as with all Critical Area Permit requests, materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review and comment. They had no comments or issues with the proposed improvements. Councilor Petschel asked if the retaining walls would create a problem for the neighbors. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he was unaware of any drainage problems going towards the north off of this property. There is a city pond just west of this property and most of the stormwater from this property is draining into that area. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-46 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE 2018-15). Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) RESOLUTION 2018-47 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCES AND LOT SPLIT - LOT COMBINATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 754 AND 760 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE AND PART OF WENTWORTH PARK LAND PROPERTIES (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-16) July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 15 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Jason & Sarah Barrett of 754 Upper Colonial Drive [Parcel B] and John & Deanne Bennett of 760 Upper Colonial Drive [Parcel A] were seeking approval of a lot line adjustment with a variance and lot split and combination of city -owned lands. This joint project is a lot line adjustment between the two properties and also a lot -split of city park land on the back side of their properties. The two properties are located at the end of Upper Colonial Drive. The properties are located adjacent to Wentworth Park. When the Cherry Hill Addition was approved in 1960, there were two outlots created that were identified as low wet -ground areas. In January 1963, the city received certificates of title that passed ownership of these low wet -ground areas to the Village of Mendota Heights. Eventually these lots were incorporated into Wentworth Park. The last four houses along Upper Colonial were misplaced — the foundations were misjudged within the lot boundaries. In 2008, 766 Upper Colonial Drive realized they had a problem with the lot line going right up to a house or almost over. The owners then acquired a portion of the Bennett property (760 Upper Colonial Drive) to help alleviate that lot line encroachment. In 2015, between 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive, a lot line adjustment was made. To alleviate an existing driveway encroachment, the city sold off a piece of Wentworth Park. Councilor Petschel, for clarification purposes, stated that the city did not sell the piece of Wentworth Park property. The property owner found out that his driveway was platted in Wentworth Park. His house was platted incorrectly, which set up a domino affect on the houses down the line as they were all miss -platted. The city ceded the little piece of Wentworth Park and it became incorporated into his lot for $100. Mr. Benetti continued by explaining that the Barrett's and the Bennett's have agreed to adjust the lot line between their two properties. The current property line runs right on the building edge of the Bennett's home. The Barrett's have agreed to give up whatever they could so that it would not cloud up any more title work on their properties. This adjustment, however, will not bring the properties into compliance with the required side -yard setbacks or minimum lot size standards. Therefore, they must be processed under the related variance review. Earlier this year, the city was notified of a shed being built within city -owned land. Upon investigation it was discovered that this was city park land and it was noticed that the property on the other side had fencing and a garden area within city park land. Staff met with the homeowners and a suggestion was made that the city sell off that portion of the park land. The Public Works Department determined that this area of Wentworth Park was not being used, has not been used for a while, and staff directed the applicants to provide a survey to show not only the lot line adjustment but the two parcel descriptions. They came up with 5,792 square feet for Parcel A and 7,242 square feet for Parcel B. Mr. Benetti shared photos of the city park land areas being used as back yard space by the property owners. The city did not have the park land appraised or any values determined. The Bennett's and the Barrett's have offered to pay $500 each for these parcels; which would be contributed to the city's general park fund. Councilor Miller stated that he sees this application as two separate issues. The issue of the lot line adjustment, something that the city should correct. The other is the issue of the city park land being July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 15 encroached upon and the property owners asking to have that deeded to them. He stated he does not believe that the city should be selling off parts of parkland. He understands that there is language in the resolution that says it does not set a precedence; but the sheer act of doing this could give residents the mindset that if they live next to a park and it appears that no one uses it, they can put up a shed or a fence or install a garden and see what happens. He also stated that he believes $500 is a low figure. Councilor Paper, in regards to an appraisal, asked why the city could not take the square footage and figure out what the county is already charging for this, per square foot of land. He also believes that $500 is too low. Councilor Duggan, noting that the two lots consist of 5,792 square feet and 7,242 square feet, stated that he views them as being one-third of a minimum lot size. He does not want to get bogged down in the monetary values as he does not believe this is the right direction to go. He believes the Council should remember that this is public land. Councilor Petschel noted that there have been two incidents recently. One was the CDA property that was being encroached upon by the residents in Friendly Hills. Another was the Dodge Nature Center property. People had landscaped and hardscaped into that area and the nature center came through and put up their boundaries and everyone had to remove what they had done. The concern was that if they had let it remain, when would it become their property. Councilor Petschel has no issue with the lot line adjustment; however, she is really troubled by the issue of the park. She asked if this request could be handled in two parts instead of a single resolution. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed it could be. Mr. John Bennett, 760 Upper Colonial Drive, stated when they acquired the property the fence was already in place. They took privileges they thought were their own. Councilor Petschel replied that the Council is not viewing them in a negative light and understands there are issues here that precede them. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-47 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCES AT 754 AND 760 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Petschel moved the table the consideration of the park encroachment until a future date when all parties can be consulted and other solutions can be suggested. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 E) CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION IN PREPARING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 — ZONING TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING AND/OR PET CARE FACILITIES IN THE I -INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs, was looking at providing some type of specialized dog training facility within the city. Dog July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 15 and pet uses are becoming more popular. A lot of cities are allowing some types of activities. Most of them are on the doggie daycare type uses. Ms. Elmquist is looking to open a dog training use, which would include an indoor pool for dock diving competitions. The city's code is silent on identifying types of animal training. However, the city does have a definition for animal kennels and veterinary offices. They also have, under the B-1 Limited Business District, an allowance for cat clinics as a conditional use. The B-2 and B-3 districts also allow for animal hospitals and veterinary clinics. Even though animal kennels are defined, there are no allowances or provisions. Ms. Elmquist provided a list of other communities that allow for dog training uses. Staff discovered that the City of West St. Paul has a definition of a dog training facility and some new standards. The center they have is very popular and has been very well received with zero complaints. Councilor Petschel noted that the City of Eagan had conditions in their ordinance. She liked West St. Paul's definition but she liked the provisos that were in the Eagan document as they were very thorough. Councilor Duggan asked if the city already had an ordinance that permitted kennels in homes. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative and stated that there is a defmition for animal kennels; however, there are no allowances or provisions. Councilor Duggan disagreed and stated that the Council worked on an ordinance to house dogs and cats in homes in Mendota Heights. If there is no record of this; that is very interesting and disappointing. He recommended the Council go out and view some of these facilities. Councilor Petschel stated that she is concerned about breeding being included. She does not believe that the city wants to have a dog breeding business. That is fraught with policing and oversight challenges. Councilor Duggan also stated that the city should not get involved with the selling of animals. Mr. Benetti stated that the ordinance could limit the conditions of approval to not include breeding or selling of pets but could possibly allow for the Doggie Day Care type of use. Discussions continued on the possible uses that could be allowed under this ordinance and the conditions for it — no overnight stays, owner must be present at all times, limited to the I -Industrial District only, etc. It was determined to focus on the needs of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a conditional use permit in the Industrial Zone. Mr. Benetti explained that Ms. Elmquist is under a very tight timeframe and asked if the Council would be supportive of providing her with a tentative conditional use permit under the guise of a proposed ordinance. City Attorney Andrew Pratt noted that this option had been discussed with him and he is very comfortable with it given that in this conditional use permit application, there would be a statement saying that the city recognizes there is no ordinance right now but there will be one proposed. There is risk, as the city may decide to not adopt the ordinance COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded the public of the fireworks display planned for July 4th. The fund is still $2,000 short of being fully funded. July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 15 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel wished everyone a happy and safe 4th of July. She is looking forward to the July 30th Memorial for Officer Scott Patrick. Councilor Paper wished best of luck to the Henry Sibley marching band in the national parade and wished everyone a Happy 4th of July. Councilor Duggan noted that there will be a meeting on July 11 at Wesley Church. The topic is `traffic issues' and he encouraged everyone to attend. Councilor Duggan noted a small pond that flows into a little creek in Wentworth Park. The bridge over the creek needs repair and he suggested the public works department take a look at it. He stated that he and his neighbors cleaned up a little island near his home. It has been cleared of debris, weeds, and dead trees. He encouraged everyone to get together with their neighbors and clean up areas in their neighborhoods. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Neil Garlock Mayor TTES Lorri Smith City Clerk July 2, 2018 Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 of 15