2018-08-07 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 7, 2018 – 8:00 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 July 17, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c. Ordinance 529 Amending City Code Through Streets and Stop Streets
d. Approve Resolution 2018-53 Final Payment-Acceptance of the 2017 Storm Sewer
Improvements Project
e. Approve Reimbursement to Kensington Townhomes Association
f. Approve Collocation and Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless
g. Approve Natural Resources Technician Hire
h. Resolution 2018-60 Accept Bids-Award Project for 2018 Sewer Cleaning-Televising Project
i. Approve 2018 Street and Parking Lot Striping Project
j. Approve a Temporary Liquor License to St. Thomas Academy for Reunion Weekend
September 19-21, 2018
k. Approve the June 2018 Par 3 Financial Report
l. Approval of June 2018 Treasurer’s Report
m. Approval of Claims List
n. Approve Building Activity Report
o. Resolution 2018-54 Approving Comcast Cable Franchise Extension
p. Approve Retirement of Firefighter
q. Approve the Promotion of Eric Hagelee to Police Officer
r. Approve Resolution 2018-62 Formally Accepting Donation Of Equipment
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
7. Public Hearing - none
8. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2018-55 Approve Lot Split and Lot Combination for 1629 Dodd Road & 694
Wentworth Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-18)
b. Ordinance No. 530 Amending Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G to Allow “Dog Training Facility”
as a New Conditional Use in the I-Industrial District (Planning Case No. 2018-13)
c. Resolution 2018-56 Approve a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a New Dog Training Facility
in the Industrial Zone, 1415 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2018-20)
d. Award Contract for Architectural Services to CNH Architects, Inc. for New Construction and
Remodeling of Fire Station
e. Resolution 2018-58 & 2018-59 Ordering Feasibility Report for the Marie Avenue
Rehabilitation and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements
f. Resolution 2018-61 Accept Bids-Award Contract for Marie Park Tennis Court Improvements
g. Approve Purchase Order for Rink Lighting Replacement at Wentworth Park
h. Award Purchase Order for Construction of Warming House at Wentworth Park
9. Community Announcements
10. Council Comments
11. 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, July 17, 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 and Petschel were also present.
Absent: Councilors Paper and Miller.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE—OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK
Mayor Garlock shared the circumstances behind the death of Officer Scott Patrick. A moment of silence
in remembrance of him was observed.
The 2018 Commemoration would include a permanent memorial being dedicated at 12:00 pm Monday,
July 30th, at Market Square Park at The Village of Mendota Heights. The public was invited and
encouraged to attend.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar with the changes Councilor Duggan suggested
to the Renewal of the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Pharmaceutical Drug Disposal
Program and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein.
a. Approval of June 19, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes
b. Approval of July 2, 2018 City Council Minutes
page 3
c. Approval of July 2, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes
d. Approval of May 9, 2018 Joint Council-Parks and Rec Commission
e. Acknowledge June 12, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
f. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License-Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church
g. Approve Bike Racks in City Parks
h. Approve Purchase of Tables for Market Square Park
i. Approve Picnic Table and Shade Structure at Dog Park
j. Approve Resolution 2018-51 Final Payment and Acceptance of the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvements
k. Approve Delivery Order for Wentworth Park Pond Improvements
l. Approve City Clerk Salary Adjustment
m. Authorization to Renew the Contract with MBRB and Continue to Conduct an Annual Limited Deer
Hunt within Mendota Heights
n. Approve Renewal of a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Pharmaceutical Drug
Disposal Program
Councilor Duggan asked, in regards to section 5.1 A, if the language that reads ‘necessary approvals
from the Pollution Control Agency for conducting the program’ should read ‘to conduct the
program’. Staff agreed that it could be changed; however, it was a contract received from Dakota
County. After input from City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom, staff agreed to make the change.
Referencing section 5.1 C., in the second bullet point, Councilor Duggan noted that he did not
understand the phrase ‘appropriate for the waste’. Councilor Petschel stated that her understanding
is that there are appropriate types of containers and packaging for collecting pharmaceuticals and
this packaging must comply with what has been selected by the County and by the Pollution Control
Agency. Upon further clarification, it was agreed that this language would remain as is.
Referencing the fifth bullet point in section 5.1 C., Councilor Duggan noted that the phrase
‘relinquish the collected pharmaceutical drugs’ was an interesting choice of word usage. Councilor
Petschel stated that she believes it reads just fine. Councilor Duggan suggested the word ‘surrender’
rather than ‘relinquish’; however, Counsel Sandstrom believed that ‘relinquish’ was the proper
legal term; although ‘surrender’ was a synonym.
o. Approve the Auction of City Owned Vehicles
p. Approval of Claims List
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
No items scheduled.
page 4
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF TURF MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
FOR THE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained a request to approve the purchase of a
debris blower and a rough mower for the Par 3 Golf Course. The Par 3 maintenance staff uses three
primary pieces of equipment at the course; rough mower, fairway mower, and a greens tee mower.
These pieces of equipment are all maintained by the city.
The current rough mower is a 2002 Groundsmaster 3500D with a 65” mowing deck. It has
approximately 4,200 hours on it, which is equivalent to 250,000 miles. With the large amount of rain
received this summer, the rough needed to be mowed more often due to a lot of clumping of grass. The
machine was being used 24-36 hours a week. Currently, this rough mower overheats after use. Earlier
this spring, the city made approximately $2,000 in repairs to this mower; additional repairs would need
to be completed if a new mower is not purchased.
At the last Council meeting the Council directed staff to obtain quotes to purchase a rough mower and a
debris blower. MTI, a state cooperative purchasing contract holder, submitted an equipment proposal
and recommended a Toro Groundsmaster 4000-D. This model has the width that goes from 62” to 132”
wide. Staff believes they could mow the entire rough in four hours. MTI has offered $3,000 for a trade-
in value for the current mower, bringing the cost of the new mower, including a leaf mulching kit,
sunshade, and 8” foam-filled tires, to $65,989.70.
With the unusually wet season, staff also borrowed a debris blower to reduce the clumping of wet grass.
Staff found this to be a good solution to disperse the clumped grass over the course and made the course
look better. A debris blower is a standard piece of equipment for many golf courses and is used for grass
and leaves. The total cost of a Toro Pro Force Debris Blower is $7,987.50.
Staff did explore the option of leasing the equipment, however the City Administrator and the Finance
Director recommended purchasing the equipment. Unfortunately, the Par 3 budget does not include
funding for the purchase or replacement of mowing equipment. It was noted that these new pieces of
equipment could be used by other City departments if needed.
Mayor Garlock expressed his understanding of the reasons for the request and provided his support.
Councilor Petschel expressed her support of the request and suggested that the Council review how to
fund future capital improvement purchases at the Par 3.
Councilor Petschel moved to authorize staff to purchase a Toro Groundsmaster 4000-D at a cost of
$65,989.70; and a Toro Pro Force Debris Blower at a cost of $7,987.50 for the Par 3.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
page 5
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
B) APPROVE PLANS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR MARIE PARK
TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that staff was requesting approval of the plans and
specifications for the resurfacing of the Marie Park Tennis Courts. Staff applied for a grant from the US
Tennis Association (USTA) and they have asked to see the quotes on this project.
The project would include replacement of the existing chain link fence around the court on the existing
fence posts, removing the entry barrier for ADA compliance, removing and replacing the asphalt
surface, installing new nets and net posts, applying acrylic surfacing/striping, and repairing the low area
in the Marie Park Hockey Rink including restriping of the rink. If approved, the bid opening would be
scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on August 1, 2018.
Councilor Petschel asked for confirmation that the last hockey rink surfacing was at Victoria, not at
Marie Park. Mr. Ruzek confirmed.
Councilor Duggan asked if staff looked at installing a perforated plastic on top of the existing surface.
Mr. Ruzek replied that two tennis courts currently have sport court surfacing and they have received
mixed reviews. At the joint City Council and Parks Commission workshop this past May, it was
determined that the city would replace the next two courts with an asphalt surface.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve the plans and specifications and authorize an advertisement for
bids for the Marie Park Tennis Court Improvements.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the summer concert series continues on July 18, 2018,
at Mendakota Park, starting at 6:30 p.m. The Percolators would be performing. The Cliff Timm Memorial
Fishing Derby will take place on Thursday, July 26, 2018.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Petschel recognized volunteer firefighter Jay Taylor for shepherding the most recent fireworks
display at Mendakota Country Club. With the donation from the city and his fundraising efforts, the city
had one of the nicest fireworks displays in a number of years.
page 6
Councilor Duggan echoed the sentiments on the fireworks display. He also expressed his wish that the
Henry Sibley High School Marching Band had been invited to play the National Anthem or something at
the Scott Patrick Memorial event on July 30, 2018.
Councilor Duggan, referencing Night to Unite, stated that when this started there were approximately five
or six neighborhood events, and now there are approximately 20 neighborhood gatherings in the city. He
also reminded residents that the August 7th City Council meeting would start at 8:00 p.m.
The Fire Department was challenged with the Mendakota Country Club fire and they received help from
the surrounding fire departments. He has been told that the golf course is open for golfers.
Councilor Duggan also noted that he read in The Villager newspaper about the O’Gara family and the
location of their restaurant in St. Paul since 1941. They have now proposed a 170 unit building to be
constructed on that site. They are working with the City of St. Paul’s Planning Commission and the City
Council to come up with something that will work. He encouraged all involved in the process to ‘hurry
slowly’. There is no need to rush it and accept the first proposal presented.
Mayor Garlock commented on the Mendota Parade, also known as the smallest parade in America, which
has typically been 20 minutes long. However, this year, thanks to the Henry Sibley Marching Band who
stopped and performed along the way, the parade was 45 minutes long. It was really great to see the band
display their talent.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Absent: 2
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26,
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
Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Magnuson requested that item 5b be moved to the bottom of the agenda. The
Commission agreed. The revised agenda was approved.
Approval of May 22, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2018.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for some editing of language or clarification be added to the
second bullet point under Mr. Dave Kemp’s comments on page 3 of 5 in the minutes. Also, the
sentence immediately before the bullet points should be past tense.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-12
ERICK SCHMIDT, 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (LARGE GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE)
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Erick Schmidt was requesting to build a new
26’ x 40’ detached garage. City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2 allows for
one detached structure up to 1,000 square feet with an approved conditional use permit.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No objections or other
comments were received as a result of those notices.
page 8
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location in relation to surrounding homes and streets.
The lot is 100’ x 150’, or 0.34 acres in size. The site currently contains a 1,922 square foot, 1.25
story single-family home and a 400 square foot detached garage with a 8’ x 18’ covered/storage
space. Mr. Benetti then shared images of the current garage and covered space.
The current driveway access off of Delaware Avenue will remain as is, as will the remainder of
the driveway and turn-around area. The new garage will be 26 feet by approximately 40 feet, but
due to an off-set of the 3rd stall building line, the overall footprint area of the new garage will be
set at 992 square feet; under the 1,000 square foot limitation.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a conditional use permit and explained how this
request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit request
with conditions.
Mr. Erick Schmidt, 1133 Delaware Avenue, came forward to address any questions from the
Commission, of which there were none. He also had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s presentation
as it felt it was complete and accurate.
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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR LARGER DETACHED GARAGE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent
with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered a
reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the
City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City
Code standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures.
page 9
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or
construction of the new garage addition.
3. 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.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2018-14
MIKE AND MICHELLE BADER, 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE
LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION (LOT COMBINATION)
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mike and Michelle Bader were requesting
approval to subdivide their homestead parcel located at 1673 Delaware Avenue into two separate
parcels. One parcel would retain the existing dwelling and be sold while the remaining vacant
parcel would be retained by the Baders.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. Staff received two
phone calls from concerned neighbors on what was happening.
The subject property is located east of Delaware Avenue, between Wentworth Avenue to the north
and Marie Avenue to the south. The property is located in the R-1A One Family Residential district
and is currently guided RR-Rural Residential. There are no plan to changes to this area. The lot is
just over 10 acres in size, 330’ x 700’. There is currently a 3,265 square foot, two story home on
the property.
The subject property is located inside a geographical area identified as the “Super-Block” or large
lot neighborhood. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the super-block area, bordered by Delaware
Avenue, Wentworth Avenue, part of Dodd and Marie Avenue. Under the R-1A, all single family
lots have to be a minimum of 125’ width and 30,000 square feet.
The report indicated that the parcel would be split between an east parcel and a west parcel. The
east parcel would equate to 4.23 gross acres with 0.23 of that acreage would be assigned to
Delaware Avenue for the right-of-way, resulting in a net acreage of 4.00. The current residence
would remain on the east parcel. The west parcel is to be split off and would create a net parcel of
5.82 acres.
City code requires that all lots have a minimum street frontage of 125 feet. With this split, there
would be no frontage on the west parcel. As part of this request, the applicants are proposing to
attach this to Lot 3, which does contain the frontage off of Foxwood Lane; therefore, the 5.82 acres
page 10
being combined with Lot 3 would result in a 8.32 acre parcel. As part of this lot split, the city is
requiring that the applicant combine these parcels; which is allowed by Dakota County.
Staff determined that this lot split could be approved as once the west parcel is combined with the
third lot, it would no longer be a non-conforming lot. Staff recommended approval of this lot split
with conditions.
Commissioner Noonan requested clarification in that in the beginning of his report, Mr. Benetti
used the term ‘later adjoined to an adjacent lot’; however, he subsequently said that the lot split
and the lot combination would be advanced together and recorded appropriately at Dakota County.
So that there would be a combination and recording if the lot split is approved. Mr. Benetti
confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan then noted that there was mention of a dedication coming off of the east
parcel for Delaware Avenue. He asked if this was a condition of approval. Mr. Benetti replied that
it is part of the easement dedications that they are providing in the documentations. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek could answer more accurately. Mr. Ruzek replied that the County is already
showing an easement line back at that point – the 30-foot mark. The city is requesting an additional
10-foot easement over and above that. However, the County would be able to take prescriptive
rights on that land due to their county road being through the property. The reason the city is
requiring this additional 10 feet is because that is their standard drainage and utility easement per
subdivision requirements.
Commissioner Noonan, in relation to the west parcel, asked for confirmation that this would be a
new lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be a new parcel until it gets combined with the other lot.
Commissioner Noonan then noted that in previous lot splits there was a condition of payment in
lieu of park land. He asked for confirmation that, in this case, they would not be required because
of the addition the west parcel to an existing lot on record. Mr. Benetti confirmed that there would
be no park dedication allowed since this is not a buildable lot. If this was a lot being created with
frontage as a buildable lot, it would require a park dedication and access fees.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this ‘super block’ does not have municipal sanitary sewer so
all of the homes are on septic systems. He asked if it was known if there was enough room on the
east parcel to accommodate the existing system and the installation of a new one should it need to
be upgraded. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant as the septic system was not indicated on the
survey.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were utilities currently running to Lot 3, Foxwood. Mr.
Benetti replied that there is only water at this time; no sewer. She then asked what would happen
with sanitary sewer if a home wants to be built on that particular lot. Mr. Benetti replied that they
would have to provide their own septic. Staff did inform them that, per city policy, if they or
someone else decided to build on that 8.32 acre parcel that they would responsible to bring in
sewer and water services.
page 11
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification; if they were to build a single family residence
the city would not require utilities – only a septic system. However, if they were to build multiple
homes then the city would require full expansion of the utilities. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Mr. Paul McGinley, principle surveyor and vice-president of Loucks Associates, came forward to
address any questions from the Commission. He noted that, per Mr. and Mrs. Bader, the septic is
just off of the pool area in the rear yard and that there was plenty of room for additional system to
the north, if necessary and to the southwest as well.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was any intent to build on the property at the present time.
Mr. McGinley replied that the Baders have not expressed to him any interest in building on it at
this time. They have a buyer for the current residence and they have put money down on another
home elsewhere.
Mr. Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated that the reason for the application is because they
have an offer on the current residence. All three offers received for this property had no desire to
purchase the entire 10 acres, they wanted something smaller. This is something that all of the
neighboring property owners would like to see done. As far as building on the new parcel, they
have no intention of doing so.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted that there are three lots as part of the Foxwood Plat.
She is on Lot 1, the lot that borders Wentworth Avenue. As mentioned earlier, they have been
down this road before about developing. It is worth noticing that there are restrictive covenants on
the lots, which have physical descriptions of each one of the lots. Changing the plat of Lot 3 would
change an existing contract that is on file with the County. If the Baders are wanting to append
that parcel to Lot 3 and agree that it will remain a single family residence, it would not change the
nature. If they find that having a bare lot makes it more desirable for selling and building, etc. then
the other residents would have no objections as long as it stays a single family lot. They would
also ask for an opportunity to come have an agreement to set change to the plat with the covenants
being amended to allow for that parcel but keep it a single family home with no changes to
Foxwood Lane.
She also noted that she lives within 350 feet of Lot 3, Foxwood; however, she was not provided
with a mailed notice of this hearing. She requested that if any hearings on this property were to
occur in the future, that all of the residents on Foxwood Lane to be notified.
For clarity, Chair Field summarized Ms. Lutz comments as wanting an acknowledgment of a
private agreement, which the city, county, and state are not a party to, relating to the third lot in
Foxwood. He then informed Ms. Lutz that the city is not a party to this private agreement and was
in no position to acknowledge or indicate support of said agreement. Ms. Lutz stated that she
understood this but wanted it to be understood that changing the legal description of said lot would
be essentially changing a signed contract. The Commission noted that if the property were to be
developed in a way inconsistent with the signed agreement, then the covenant holders would have
other recourses they could follow to get satisfaction.
page 12
Commissioner Magnuson suggested that someone check with the County to ensure that, if there is
a restrictive covenant that runs with the land that does not pose an impediment to the combination
of Lot 3 with the west parcel. It the city were to impose that as a condition of this subdivision and
it cannot happen, then the subdivision would have to fail. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
replied that the new legal description would still have Lot 3 of the Foxwood Plat as part of the
legal description. It would only add the means and bounds from this adjacent un-platted property.
If they are comfortable with it as far as amending their existing covenants, it sounds like everything
would proceed easily. Mr. Benetti replied that he would check into this.
Mr. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, stated that he was unopposed to the proposed lot split and
annexation of the west parcel of Lot 3, Foxwood provided the following occurs:
• Current and any future owners of Lot 3 would be prohibited from claiming any kind of
hardship on any variance application going forward from the date of approval
• The plat of Foxwood, as well as any records or documents on file with Dakota County, be
updated and amended to reflect the new legal description
• He was not inferring in any way, shape, or form enforcement, he was only inferring
propagation of the information – the County is notified that Foxwood has been replatted
and this is now Lot 3. Any materials in their possession should reflect that new plat
Commissioner Noonan and Commission Mazzitello both noted that this lot is not being ‘replatted’.
What is happening is a lot split and a lot addition, which is a lot less than re-platting. Mr. Benetti
replied that typically when there is a lot combination like this, the County will simply discard the
old PID on Lot 3 and create a new one because it has a new legal description. A new PID will be
assigned to this new parcel. The description would not put Lot 3 in the un-platted area; it will be a
combined legal description with a new PID typically.
Mr. Aune asked if he was correct in assuming that when that happens, the city would communicate
with the County. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would bring the surveys to the County and
they would record them as part of the recordable documents that go with it, including the lot split
combination forms. Also, they bring over the city’s resolution – if the Council approves – to
confirm that the city reviewed and approved. The city would then a copy back from the county.
The city gives the required materials to the applicant and it is their responsibility to have it
recorded. The city does not do that.
In an attempt to further clarify the answer to Mr. Aune, Commissioner Noonan stated that once
the lot split, if approved, and the combination takes place and the materials are presented to Dakota
County for recording, there will be a new title certificate prepared. The new title certificate will
bring forward anything that is currently recorded against any of the pieces of property that are then
combined into the one lot. Mr. Aune stated that he believes this answered his question.
Mr. Aune then stated that it was his wish that, exclusive of the commission as private parties, they
could get unanimous agreement to amend the document themselves to provide clarify and
ambiguity. He understood that the city has no responsibility, let alone interest, in documents
between private parties.
page 13
Ms. Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, stated that her property borders both the west portion of
the Baders property and Foxwood Lot 3. In the past, the Baders have always been looking to
develop the property into three or more lots, which she has objected to. She believes that it would
go against the essential nature of the neighborhood, which is really important to them who live
there.
To the extent that they intend to split the lot and append it to Lot 3; to the extent that the intent to
do that is to just have a single family dwelling with respect to Lot 3 – she has no objection.
However, they will continue to object to any development that is past a single family home. They
would request that the record reflect the recommendations of the staff as they are very important
to maintaining the viability of that single family neighborhood. They also asked that it be
specifically noted that the Baders have stated that they have no plans to develop the property at
this point and that the record reflect that they would have no hardship or practical difficulties as
an argument if somebody in the future wanted to develop that.
Mr. Paul McGinley returned and noted that Lot 3 would remain Lot 3, all of the covenants that
relate to Lot 3 will pass down. If someone were to purchase the now 8.3 acre parcel, they would
receive all of the title information and all of the covenants that go with Lot 3 – that would carry
through with the property so there is no risk of any of those covenants being lost in this process.
Lot 3 and the south parcel would just be combined into one tax parcel, which cannot be subdivided
in the future without full approval. Lot 3 still exists as it is not being re-platted.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the intent at this point is simply to split the lots
that fronts onto Delaware Avenue in two, and then to combine the west parcel with Lot 3, Foxwood
to create one PID and one parcel. Mr. McGinley confirmed.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-14 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION)
AND LOT COMBINATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under
Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified herein
as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any nonconforming
issue or status of the newly created parcel.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
page 14
1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the attached
survey drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be combined with the
existing Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility
easement over the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and utility
easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30-
feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the “East Parcel”, and all must be
denoted on the certificate of survey or recordable document approved by the city and filed
with Dakota County.
3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for
one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full
consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s),
per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and
preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide
a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any future owners of the 8.32
acre parcel (or adjacent lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced
roadway design equal to the existing Foxwood Lane right-of-way.
Commissioner Magnuson asked that the motion be changed from ‘the four recommendations’ to
‘the four conditions’. Commissioner Noonan agreed.
Commissioner Noonan requested the applicant to pay particular attention to Condition #3 and
Condition #4. These clearly states that there is no future consideration or entitlements by virtue of
this application. Commissioner Noonan was very clear in asking the question of the surveyor to
make sure that it was clearly understood for all of those in attendance, that strictly what the
Commission was doing was to split and combine; not providing any further entitlements or rights.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that, if not for the proposed combination of the west parcel and
Lot 3, Foxwood, the lot split would require variances for not having proper frontage and right-of-
way access. Therefore, the west parcel on its own could not be developed. There could not be a
building on the west parcel at all if not for the lot combination. He offered a friendly amendment
to Condition #1 by adding a second sentence stating “No development of the west parcel will be
allowed until the aforementioned lot combination is recorded with Dakota County”.
Commissioner Noonan accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Magnuson.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2018-15
JACKIE AND MIKE CHASE, 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK
page 15
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Jackie and Mike Chase were requesting a
Critical Area Permit to construct a new swimming pool and patio/deck. The property is located in
the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area Permit.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or
objections have been received.
The property is located at the tail end of Mayfield Heights Road, which T’s off of Sibley Memorial
Highway, is a 1.42 acres in size, zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for low density
residential development. In March 2015 the city adopted Resolution 2015-16 approving a critical
area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in order to demolish
an old dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling. The site now contains a 3,400 square
foot single family home.
The proposed location of the pool is a very flat surface area and no part of the boundary or bluff
line would be affected by the construction of said pool. The pool would sit a considerable distance
away from that and would not affect any of that landscaping or tree area; there is also no loss of
trees or vegetation with this construction.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the layout of the existing home, garage, and proposed pool and
patio/deck areas. They wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete
patio-deck around the perimeter and have a new fence around the outer areas. There would be
some new retaining walls along the outer perimeter and a new retention wall to provide for positive
drainage.
The city also invited the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources representatives to review
this application and they had no comments or objections.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a critical area permit and explained how this
request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area Permit request
with conditions.
Ms. Jackie Chase, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission, which there were none. She 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 NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
page 16
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-15 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable
and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general
purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining
wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the
proposed design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative effects upon
the critical area; nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected or altered.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work
commencing on the swimming pools or wall structures.
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.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that under STAFF RECOMMENDATION the first line reads
“Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit and variance requests for the proposed
retaining wall structure . . .” Mr. Benetti replied that his cut/paste skills are not very good and this
was from a previous notation. There is NOT a variance and it is not a proposed retaining wall. It
should read “. . . critical area permit for a proposed swimming pool and patio/deck and fence and
retaining walls.” There are no variances. The conditions are accurate and reflective.
Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Noonan.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
E) PLANNING CASE #2018-16
SARAH & JASON BARRETT / JOHN & DEANNE BENNETT, 754 AND 760 UPPER
COLONIAL DRIVE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION AND VARIANCES
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Sarah & Jason Barrett and John & Deanne
Bennett were requesting a lot line adjustment, lot split-combination and variances for their
properties located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive.
page 17
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or
objections have been received.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the two properties in relation to the location along Upper Colonial
Drive and Wentworth Park. He noted that when the Cherry Hill Addition was approved back in
1960, they created these Outlot A and B. In 1963 the Village of Mendota Heights was granted two
separate certificates of title for Outlot A and B; which were eventually incorporated into what is
now referred to as Wentworth Park.
In 2008 a neighboring parcel asked for a very similar parcel lot line adjustment and received that
approval. In 2015 the Council also approved a similar lot line adjustment between 750 and 754
Upper Colonial Drive. To make this lot conform to requirements, the owners requested that the
city sell off or deed off a part of Wentworth Park. This almost 4,000 square foot parcel was deeded
off to accommodate and ensure this parcel met the area requirements and, more importantly, met
the setback requirement.
The last four houses along Upper Colonial Drive’s foundations were laid in, they were not laid in
properly – probably due to a surveying error in the 1960’s. All of these houses had this lot line
requirement.
This request would move the lot line between the two properties (754 and 760 Upper Colonial
Drive) over by 8.25 feet to eliminate the encroachment on the existing building. Even with the
adjustment, the Bennett lot becomes a little bit bigger but it still does not meet site area setbacks
of 10 feet, would still remain a non-conforming situation; therefore, a variance is required.
To solve the encroachment and to meet the purpose and intent of the city code, even though it is
not fully meeting, it still provides a big relief for homeowners. Under the variance process, if the
Commission were to accept that it still provides a general relief for the current owners and any
future owners.
In September 2017, planning staff was notified by a neighboring resident that a new shed was
being built in the rear yard area of 754 Upper Colonial Drive; owned by the Barrett’s, and appeared
to be located on city-owned park lands. Upon investigation it was determined that this was true
and a “stop-work” order was issued. During this inspection, staff also discovered that the property
at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have had a fence and garden installed outside
their legal property boundary.
The applicants stated that they believed that park land area to be part of their rear yards and were
unaware of the ownership by the city. Since these areas were essentially being unused by the city,
they asked that the city consider deeding over these two wedge-shaped parcels to them. That way,
the garden, fence, and shed encroachments could remain in place, subject to city council approval.
The parcel to be created behind 760 Upper Colonial Drive consists of 5,792 square feet, or 0.133
acres. The parcel behind 754 Upper Colonial Drive is 7,242 square feet, or 0.166 acres. If this part
page 18
of the application were approved, staff would make the necessary changes to the upcoming 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has no objections to this request and noted that no portion of these properties being separated
from the park would be buildable on its own or separated. It has to be combined or joined in the
two subject parcels as part of this approval.
Staff did not have the park land appraised nor any land value determined. The Barrett’s and
Bennett’s submitted a letter of intent, whereby each homeowner offered to pay $500.00 (total of
$1,000) to the city’s general park fund as payment of these parcels. Previously, the owners of 750
Upper Colonial purchased the small parcel of city land for $100.00 plus legal fees.
Staff acknowledges the two owners as having contributed a considerable amount of time, energy,
and expense in preparing the survey documents of these properties and that they have also agreed
to pay for any legal and title fees to complete the transactions. Also, they have maintained that
area of the park land on their own, having believed it to be a portion of their yard. Very little
maintenance, if any, has been provided by the public works department.
The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on June 12, 2018,
listened to staff explanations and reasoning for this lot split and possible transfer of park land to
private property owners, the value of which had not been determined. Two primary concerns were
raised by the Parks and Recreation Commission:
• Are the properties valued properly
• Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land
In the end, the Parks & Recreation Commission elected to recommend approval and let the City
Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine value of the land, by a vote of 3-2.
Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that there was no way to place the lot line between
the two structures that would allow for two compliant setbacks. Mr. Benetti confirmed. The
proposed adjustment would be the minimum needed to get the current lot line off of the structure.
Commissioner Corbett asked what had been investigated with respect to privately handling the
rear lot line issues versus involving the city. Mr. Benetti replied that the private property owner
could fix the encroachments onto the city-owned property. The other alternative would be for the
city to impose upon them a code enforcement action to remove the fencing, garden, and partially
built shed, and then the city would take it over again. However, for all intents and purposes, the
city has not been maintaining or taking care of it.
Commissioner Noonan asked if staff considered the city’s need for the park land parcels; do they
serve any city need. Mr. Benetti replied that at this point, the answer is no. Public Works Director
Ryan Ruzek noted that park staff is highly supportive of this application being approved and this
page 19
land being transferred over to the private land owners. It is a wet area so park staff rarely maintains
it. It is not large enough for any recreational uses.
Commissioner Toth asked if the property owner, who installed the fencing, had come to the city
for a permit. Mr. Benetti replied that he has no record of any permit request.
Commissioner Magnuson recollected that in 2015, when they did the Nordin property, they
discussed much on how that problem occurred and what likely happened; fully recognizing that it
would not be the only lot that would be nonconforming.
Upon being asked by Commissioner Noonan, Mr. Benetti replied that the reason for the variance
request in this situation, rather than a new PID request as in the Bader application, was for
consistency. Since a variance was issued on the neighboring lot in 2015, then a variance was
requested here for setback requirements. The variance could be eliminated as the conditions still
cover the attachment of the Outlots to the parcels.
Commissioner Toth asked if $500 each from the property owners is a fair price because the
addition of these parcels increases their lot size and potentially raise their resell value. Mr. Benetti
replied that he did not know where the $100 value came from in 2015. According to the Council
that $100 value was fair. These property owners are offering five times as much, will pay the legal
fees associated with the transfer of ownership, and have maintained the land as part of their rear
yards. However, it would be better for the Council to determine fair value because they are ones
who did accept the $100 value previously.
Mr. Jason Barrett, 754 Upper Colonial, apologized for not doing his homework to determine if he
was able to build his shed in the location that it is in. Since has no defense, he would be willing to
pay double the fee to obtain a building permit for his shed.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Carol Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, came forward to address the issue of the unused park
land. She stated that Wentworth Park has existed since she moved into Mendota Heights in 1977.
Both of the parcels in question have structures already located on them – the fence being built
approximately 12 years ago. There is a stand of older beautiful trees in the area and the neighbors
do use that area to walk their dogs and the kids play in the woods. It may be unused by the city but
it is used by the neighborhood. The park adds to the serene quiet atmosphere that everyone in
Mendota Heights enjoys. The city does maintain the property adjacent to these two parcels and she
does not understand why they don’t maintain these areas as well. When she walks through there it
does not appear to be a ‘wetland’. Her concern is that deeding these parcels to the private property
owners would be setting a bad precedence within Mendota Heights.
She and her neighbors compiled some recommendations, which she shared with the Commission:
• The neighbors support the Bennett’s and the Barrett’s in their mission to get everything
resolved; however, they should only purchase the park land that is necessary to maintain
their fence, garden, and shed. Leave the rest as open space for the neighborhood to use.
• They would like to ensure that the purchase price is of fair market value
page 20
• She had signatures from 10 people who live on Upper Colonial Drive and Wentworth that
support coming up with some compromise agreement
Chair Field requested that the signed petition be left with staff for the public record.
Commissioner Toth asked if public works was taking care of the property around that area and
included mowing the trail, why were these parcels located on the backside of these homes not
maintained as well. Mr. Ruzek replied that he spoke with the parks lead staff person and he felt
that this part of the property was not usable park land. It could be used as open space; however,
the city would not be maintaining this area. Staff has been looking at, as part of the pollinator
friendly initiative, looking at not maintaining certain areas.
Commissioner Toth expressed his appreciation to the property owners for taking the initiative upon
themselves for taking care of these two parcels.
Ms. Susan Anzion, 766 Upper Colonial Drive, echoed the suggestion made earlier about the desire
to let the property owners keep the pieces they have already been maintaining, just leave the
wooded areas behind as park land. She also recommended that the Commissioners come out and
take a look at the land.
Mr. Stan Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, noted that there is a stream very close to the property
under consideration. The stream runs all of the way through the wetlands, through the
neighborhood, over the hill, and all of the way down to the river. It is nice to have a barrier property
around this that is not being treated by chemicals, there is a lot of wildlife there and he has used it
himself lots of times to walk his dogs. It is a delightful little space.
Mr. Jason Barrett returned and expressed his appreciation for the feedback from the neighbors and
stated that he too value the strip of trees and has no wish to touch them at all. He has no wish to
stop the neighbors from walking their dogs back there.
He did not that the little stream did not appear to be a part of the land under consideration. It is
close; however, it is not on the properties. He has a lot of respect, commitment, and love for the
nature and wildlife, which is why they like this property so much. He would not want to prevent
anyone from using the land as it exists now.
There is a path behind the Bennett’s fence and what he mows as his yard, however, it is not a trail
or anything. He has only seen the Anzion’s using it. He has seen some deer back there as well. It
seems to him that keeping the access to the park would be a good thing.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
page 21
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-16 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,
VARIANCE, AND LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
OF FACT, SUBJECT TO THE DELETION OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE VARIANCE:
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance 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 interior
property boundary line.
3. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and provides a
reasonably relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty in adjusting the
interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard in order to
address the non-conformities created by the encroachment.
4. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the
dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants, which is
deemed impractical.
5. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not
negatively impact the character of the neighborhood.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split/Lot
Combination and related Variance requests:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the
nonconformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once
the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the
neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONDITION
#1, AND THE INSERTION OF THE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE COMMISSION
WOULD DEFER TO CITY COUNCIL THE DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO
BE ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANTS:
1. The Applicants agree to pay $500.00 to the city’s Park Reserve Fund as payment for each
parcel to be transferred to them as part of the lot split approval on the city-owned park land.
2. The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split to their
own respective homestead parcels.
3. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line
adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
4. The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work be done
by them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal documents, title
work, and/or recording documents.
page 22
Commissioner Noonan stated that he listened very carefully to the recommendation and the notion
of bifurcating that park land, the surplus land and the back of the Bennett’s to the fence line, just
narrows it even more and makes less usable. He also wanted to defer to the Parks & Recreation
Commission because they are the stewards of park land within the city. If they have made the
decision that it’s not needed for city purposes and it could be declared surplus, and a conveyance
to the adjoining owners can be made, he would defer to that decision. However, ultimately Council
will have to weigh the recommendations of both the Park & Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 1 (CORBETT)
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2018-13
KRISTIN ELMQUIST (OWNER – FOR THE LOVE OF DOGS)
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – DOG TRAINING IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was being asked to consider a
request from Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs located in Hudson, WI, for an
amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 which would allow dog training or similar uses as a
permitted or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or
objections have been received.
Mr. Benetti stated that since has been working for the city, he has received a number of calls from
various groups, individuals, and businesses wanting to provide a ‘doggie daycare’ service or
business. Almost 90% of them have been looking at the old Laser-Tech building on Lexington
Avenue. Ms. Elmquist also looked at this particular site; however, the deal fell through. She has
tentatively secured a tenant-lease space at 1415 Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Benetti also noted that he has spoken with his colleagues in other communities and attended a
planning seminar; he discovered that doggie daycare type facilities have become very popular with
many trying to incorporate them into their ordinances.
Ms. Elmquist provides for very professional, on-site dog training only, which would include
manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy services.
Also, the facility would contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition.
Mr. Benetti noted that the city code is somewhat silent on what could be allowed for animal care
or animals per se. There are currently two definitions in the city code: Animal Kennel and
page 23
Veterinary. Currently, the B-1 Limited Business District allows for a cat clinic as a Conditional
Use. The B-w Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow Animal Hospital
(Veterinary Clinic) as Conditional Use.
Even though the city identifies animal kennels under the Title 12 Zoning, there are no allowances
for them. Mr. Benetti researched this as far back as 1991 and discovered that it has always been
defined, but it was never listed as a permitted or conditional use under any part of the city’s updated
zoning ordinances.
The City of West St. Paul probably has one of the best description of what a dog training facility
is. Mr. Benetti spoke with their city planner and the use or activity over there is very successful
and it has generated zero complaints.
If the city were to accept this zoning ordinance, they could simply amend Animal Kennels
definition as, “A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal are owned,
boarded, bred, cared-for, trained, or offered for sale”. The intent would be that if anyone wanted
to have a doggie daycare use in the Industrial Zoning or a training facility, it could come under as
a dog kennel and this would cover it.
If the city decided to amend the definition to allow for training activities, then they would need to
decide or determine which zoning district it would be placed in and if it would be a permitted use
or a conditional use. He reminded the commission that by placing this stand-alone use inside a
district, there would be no standards affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended
otherwise.
Mr. Benetti took the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of the same standards
associated with Vet Clinics, and presented his suggestion for the Animal Kennel ordinance
language.
Staff recommended the Commission discuss Animal Kennels or Animal/Dog Training Facility; or
simply amend Animal Kennel or provide Animal Training Facility as a new use, and where that
use should be allowed.
Commissioner Noonan noted that if the city were to keep it as a conditional use it provide the city
with additional flexibility to be more responsive to specific applications. He would be inclined to
go with the conditional use.
Chair Field agreed that this should be a conditional use.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested that the Commission answer the three major questions:
1. Should the proposed use or activities be a conditional use or a permitted use?
2. Should the city limit use to the I-Industrial District or allow into one or more of the
Business Districts?
3. Should the city limit it to a dog training facility and just add one more narrow use in the
code? (If so- the city needs to take this opportunity to clean-up the current Code language,
page 24
follow Bloomington’s lead and change the name to “Pet Care or Pet Service Facility” - as
opposed to a kennel; and incorporate veterinary clinic and animal hospital under these
new defined uses).
Commissioner Magnuson also agreed that it should be a conditional use but she would be agreeable
to having it in the Industrial District or the Business District, or both.
Commissioner Noonan commented that having it in the Industrial District would allow for much
larger facilities than would be permitted in the Business Districts. Chair Field agreed.
Chair Field opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs based out of Hudson, WI, stated that she is
trying to open an additional facility in the Twin Cities Metro area to try and expand her business.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she has no problem with what is being planned; however, this
gives the commission an opportunity to clean up their code a little bit. If this were to take a month
or more, would that have any negative effect upon their application or schedule?
Ms. Elmquist replied that it would kill the deal they have on a potential location. If she is not able
to move on the lease quickly, then the landlord will look elsewhere and they would have to
withdraw their application.
Commissioner Noonan reiterated the comments and ideas made by the commission; however, they
do not have an ordinance in front of them to consider. Ms. Elmquist understood but again,
explained her dilemma of needing to move quickly to obtain the space.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she is not ready to vote on this document at this time; it is not
ready. The commission would probably be looking at reviewing the ordinance at next month’s
meeting at the soonest.
Ms. Elmquist stated that the landlord would like to see them open their doors by September 1,
2018. Much after that then the landlord would pull the plug on the deal. She asked if the
review/adoption of the ordinance and her application for a conditional use permit could happen
simultaneously.
Commissioner Toth noted that tracking and hunting training typically requires overnight stays for
the dogs; however, Ms. Elmquist states that this particular facility would not be kenneling any
dogs. Ms. Elmquist responded that any type of overnight training would take place at the Hudson
facility and not at this facility. This facility would only be for classes where the owner would also
attend and when finished, they would all leave and go home with their owner.
Commissioner Noonan stated that if the city were to consider this amendment, then they would
want to provide broad definitions and not only tailor it to her specific request. He also agreed that
the commission was not in any position to pass an ordinance at this time because they do not have
an ordinance to act upon. The best they could do would be to make a strong recommendation to
page 25
staff, have them bring it back with the necessary homework having been done, and act upon it at
that time.
In response to Ms. Elmquist’s question about submitting her conditional use permit application at
the same time the ordinance was under consideration, Chair Field responded that her application
could be submitted but it would have to be contingent upon the ordinance being passed and her
application being in compliance with that ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that in order to
apply standards to a conditional use permit, he would need to have an ordinance to provide those
standards.
In the interest of brainstorming, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that the commission have
staff craft an ordinance for the July meeting that had a very specific list of permitted uses, and then
they could have the insularly uses as conditional. There would be no secondary process for the
applicants, but the commission could still have a number the varying uses that have been
deliberated under the CUP process.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, that since the commission only makes recommendations, if there
was any reason why the commission could not entertain a conditional use permit application at the
same meeting that they are entertaining an ordinance. In other words, hear and decide on the
ordinance and then hear and decide on the conditional use permit. One of the conditions of the
CUP would be that the ordinance be adopted by the City Council.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the risk of that suggestion would be that the ordinance may
change, making the CUP application void. However, if the applicant were willing help craft the
ordinance, the risk would be less.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he believed either of those options was a good idea, he was just
unsure which one to pursue.
Additional discussions took place regarding an outdoor fenced relief area, kenneling, owners being
present with their dogs at all times, length of time for the classes, and sanitation measures.
Chair Field brought all back to the task at hand, which was to consider an amendment to the City
Code and after listening to everything it appears that the Commission would be in favor. The issue
is on what basis and how and how fast can they make it in respect to Ms. Elmquist’s needs and
balance the city’s needs.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested a recommendation and guidance. It appeared that the
commission had settled on three of the big items; however, they do not know if the City Council
would agree to that. If the Commissioner were to put forth a recommendation saying this is what
they want the ordinance to look like, then they would not have to waste their time crafting an
ordinance that the city council would not ultimately agree with.
Commissioner Noonan, in an attempt to clarify, said the Commission would:
1) Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed];
page 26
2) Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require
a conditional use permit; and
3) Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only.
The Commission requested feedback and direction from the City Council.
Chair Field left the public hearing open.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
MAKE THE ABOVE MENTIONED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
Community Development Director provided the following updates:
Planning Case 2018-11, Wetlands Permit to Sherburne Construction & Hugh Cullen for property
located 1179 Centre Point Circle as passed as Resolution 2018-38.
No decision has been received on the Michael Development case.
The At Home Apartments hosted a tour of their facility with the City Council and other staff
members, along with former Mayor Krebsbach and former Councilmember Norton, which
everyone enjoyed and were impressed with the facility. It is a very nice, well designed project.
There are two items already planned for next month’s Planning Commission meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
page 27
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 529 Through Streets and Stops Streets
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 529 amending City Code; Title 6, Chapter 3
designating through streets and stop streets which is required to be updated due to recent street
name changes.
BACKGROUND
The city Codifiers discovered some required updates that resulted from recent street name
changes. The city recently changed the name of North Freeway Road to Linden Street, South
Freeway Road to Mulberry Lane, and the North Highway 110 frontage is now designated as
Mendota Road.
DISCUSSION
The intersections to be added and deleted are shown on the attached Ordinance. In addition, as
the intersections were being reviewed, some additional intersections that have current stop signs
are being added to the code. A spelling error for Ivy Hill Drive is also corrected.
BUDGET IMPACT
All intersections shown on the attached Ordinance have existing traffic control devices and no
physical replacement will be needed.
RECOMMENDATION
As these current intersections have traffic control, they should be added to the code. Staff
recommends approval of Ordinance 529.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 529, “AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE”. This action
requires a simple majority vote.
page 28
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 529
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows:
The following streets are hereby added to be designated as through streets and Stop streets to Title 6,
Chapter 3, Section 1, Paragraph A of the City Code:
Through Streets and Stop Streets Designated:
Through Streets Stop Streets
Delaware Avenue Abbey Way
Delaware Avenue Dodge Lane
Delaware Avenue Mendota Road
Centre Point Curve Centre Pointe Boulevard
Mendota Road Knob Road
Mendota Road Oak Street
Mendota Road South Lane
Mendota Road Warrior Drive
Oak Street Mulberry Lane
The following streets are hereby deleted as through streets and stop streets from Title 6, Chapter 3,
Section 1, Paragraph A of the City Code:
Through Streets and Stop Streets Deleted:
Through Streets Stop Streets
Highway 110 frontage Centre Pointe Boulevard
Highway 110 frontage Knob Road
Highway 110 frontage South Freeway Road
Highway 110 frontage South Lane
Highway 110 frontage Warrior Drive
The following streets are hereby added to be designated as All-Way Stop Intersections to Title 6,
Chapter 3, Section 1, Paragraph B of the City Code:
Ivy Hill Drive and Maple Park Drive
Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue
page 29
The following streets are hereby deleted as All-Way Stop Intersections from Title 6, Chapter 3, Section
1, Paragraph B of the City Code:
Ivey Hill Drive and Maple Park Drive
The following streets are hereby deleted as through streets and yield intersections from Title 6, Chapter
3, Section 2, of the City Code:
Through Streets Yield Streets
Highway 110 frontage Freeway Road
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 August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST:
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 30
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Final Payment and Acceptance of the 2017 Storm Sewer Improvements Project – Project #201707 COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-53, to accept work and approve the final payment
for project #201707. The contract work for the 2017 Storm Sewer Improvements Project has been
completed, inspected, and approved. The project is ready for final payment. This will start the
one-year guarantee period. All required paperwork needed before final payment has been
submitted.
Background
The City Council awarded the contract to Northdale Construction Company, Inc. at their
September 19, 2017, City Council meeting for their low bid of $108,985.67.
Discussion
The final payment for this contract is $5,576.88. $103,336.13 was previously paid on the contract,
bringing the total amount for the project to $109,213.01
Budget Impact
There are sufficient funds in the Storm Water Utility Fund to cover the final payment.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached Resolution No.
2018-53 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR
PROJECT #201707”
Action Required
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution
No. 2018-53 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL
PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201707”, by simple majority vote.
page 31
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-53
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT
FOR PROJECT #201707
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Mendota Heights on
September 19, 2017, with Northdale Construction Company, Inc., of Albertville, MN, has
satisfactorily completed the improvements for the 2017 Storm Sewer Improvements
Project #201707, in accordance with such contract.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted
and approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby
directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of
$5,876.88, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. The final contract price for the project
totals $109,213.01.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 32
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approve Reimbursement to Kensington Townhome Association
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a reimbursement to the Kensington Townhomes Association.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights rehabilitated and reconstructed the streets in the Kensington Neighborhood in
2017. This project remains open with restoration issues needing to be resolved.
DISCUSSION
Claremont Drive within the Kensington development was scheduled for a complete
reconstruction. As part of this reconstruction, staff tried to design the project so that the
driveway patches were consistent along this street. The driveways paving on Claremont did not
produce the desired results for aesthetics that were expected. In response, staff proposed to
sealcoat the driveways on this street. However, before the details of the arrangement could be
finalized, the townhome association proceeded on its own to have the seal coating done. It
contacted several companies for this work, and selected Jet Black to provide this service.
Jet Black subsequently sealed 25 driveways for $3,049, for which the townhome association is
now seeking reimbursement. It should be noted that another 46 driveways were sealed by the
townhome association, which were done at its own expense.
BUDGET IMPACT
The project budget is capable of absorbing this cost to reach its intended goal of having satisfied
residents and overall improved aesthetics.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving reimbursement of the Jet Black quote for $3,049 to seal the
driveway on Claremont Drive.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing a reimbursement to
the Kensington Townhomes Association for $3,049. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 33
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. – Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Collocation and Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve a Collocation and Lease
Agreement for three small cell wireless facilities.
BACKGROUND
In May 2017, the Minnesota State Legislature adopted a state law relating to siting of small
wireless telecommunication facilities (i.e. cell phone providers such as AT&T, Sprint, and
Verizon) in public rights-of-way. Previously, wireless telecommunication providers were not
allowed to place their facilities in the right-of-way. The new law granted these providers the
ability to locate their facilities as a permitted use in the right-of-way.
Per State Statute 237.162, small cell wireless providers may install certain equipment in public
right-of-way within the following limitations:
• Each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume
or in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all its exposed
elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet.
• All other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility, excluding
electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes,
battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff
switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other
services, and any other equipment concealed from public view within or behind an
existing structure or concealment, is in aggregate no more than 28 cubic feet in
volume.
DISCUSSION
Verizon Wireless is proposing to install three small cell facilities on Northland Drive in the
Industrial Park, the locations are shown on a last attachment. The project will entail removal of
three existing street lights and bases that will be replaced with three new street light bases and
poles that are structurally capable to hold the new equipment.
BUDGET IMPACT
page 34
The lease agreement identifies an annual rent of $150 for the space and $25 per year for
maintenance. There are also electrical charges that would be required to be reimbursed to the
city unless separate meters are installed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the Collocation and Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the
Collocation and Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless.
page 35
1
SMALL-WIRELESS-FACILTY
COLLOCATION AND LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
AND
Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless
Dated: August 7, 2018
This document was drafted by:
Eckberg Lammers, P.C.
1809 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
page 36
2
SMALL-WIRELESS-FACILITY COLLOCATION AND LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS SMALL-WIRELESS-FACILITY COLLOCATION AND LEASE AGREEMENT
(the “Agreement”) is made as of the ___ day of __________, ____ (the “Effective Date”), by and
between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation and
political subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the
“City”), and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the “Registrant”). The City
and the Registrant are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the
“Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City has elected to manage rights of way within its jurisdiction pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.163 (collectively, the “Act”) and the City Code
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, Title 8, Chapter 7 (the “Code”); and,
WHEREAS, the Registrant is seeking permission to install its small wireless facility or
facilities (the “Facility” or “Facilities”) on City-owned wireless support structures within the
City’s right of way; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement governs the particular sites identified in the small wireless
facility permit ("Permit") issued by City in accordance with all of the terms and conditions set
forth below;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
Parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
ARTICLE I
PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and
conditions under which the Registrant will be able to install its Facilities on City owned wireless
support structures in the right of way that is within the jurisdiction of, and managed by, the City.
This Agreement is in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other requirements established by the Act
and the Code.
Section 1.2 Definitions. Any term contained in this Agreement shall have the
meaning given by Section 8-7-3 of the Code. If a term is not defined by said Section, it shall
have the meaning given by the Act.
page 37
3
ARTICLE II
SCOPE AND TERM
Section 2.1 Scope. When applying for a Permit the Registrant shall submit to the
________________, or the __________’s designee (the “Director”) the following materials
applicable to the Permit:
(A) Detailed specifications, construction plans, descriptions of any equipment necessary
for the use, and drawings, of the Facility or Facility's equipment, including the
model/prototype the Registrant intends to install on the City owned wireless support
structure(s);
(B) Map(s) showing the area of the City that the Registrant wants to locate the Facility
or Facilities within; and,
(C) The number of Facilities the Registrant wishes to install on City owned wireless
support structure(s).
The Registrant and the Director shall negotiate in good faith and decide together upon the
specific location of the Facility, whether the Facility will be attached to existing, new, or
replacement support structures, and all other necessary details.
All plans and drawings are attached as Exhibits to this Agreement, and are incorporated
herein by reference. The scope of this Agreement is limited to the specifically agreed upon
proposed installation of, and leasing for, the Facilities in the right of way contained in the
attached Exhibits.
Section 2.2 Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date hereof and shall
continue, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
The term of the small-wireless-facility permit (the “Permit”) shall be upon the issuance of
the Permit and shall remain in effect for the length of time the Facility is in use,
unless lawfully revoked.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Registrant shall have the
right to terminate Registrant’s occupancy provided that 30 days prior notice is given to the City.
ARTICLE III
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Section 3.1 Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the following
representations and warranties:
page 38
4
(A) The City will work with the Registrant in a nondiscriminatory, competitively
neutral, and commercially reasonable manner.
(B) All requests made by the City will be based on reasonable cost, health, safety,
welfare, aesthetic, and all other concerns permitted by law.
Section 3.2 Representations and Warranties of the Registrant. The Registrant makes
the following representations and warranties:
(A) The Registrant will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
ordinances, including all safety standards.
(B) The Registrant shall safely operate at the job site, including during the installation
and continued use of the Facilities.
(C) The Registrant has the requisite training, skills, and experience necessary to install
and maintain the Facilities with reasonable care and skill.
(D) The Registrant is appropriately licensed by all applicable agencies and
governmental entities.
(E) The Registrant will not install any Facilities on City owned structure(s) other than
those approved and permitted by the City in this Agreement and corresponding
Permit.
(F) The Facilities and any other equipment approved and permitted to be installed are
of the type and frequency which will not cause harmful interference to any
equipment of the City, or other registrants’ facilities or equipment, whether on the
wireless support structure or near or in the surrounding premises, which existed or
have been permitted prior to the date the Permit was acquired by the Registrant. The
Registrant’s Facilities or equipment shall not transmit or receive radio waves until
the evaluation required by Section 6.2 of this Agreement has been satisfactorily
completed and approved.
ARTICLE IV
INDEMNIFICATION, WAIVER, AND INSURANCE
Section 4.1 Indemnification. The Registrant shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless City in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Rule 7819.1250.
The Registrant shall implement all measures at the transmission site required by Federal
Communications Commission (the “FCC”) regulations. In the event the Registrant causes the
site to exceed FCC Radio Frequency radiation limits, as measured on the premises, or otherwise
violate FCC standards, the Registrant shall be liable for all such non-compliance.
page 39
5
Section 4.2 Waiver. Except for claims based on indemnity or contribution, neither
party shall be liable to the other for any lost revenue, lost profits, loss of technology, use of rights
or services, incidental, punitive, indirect, special or consequential damages, loss of data, or
interruption or loss of use of service, even if a party has been advised of the possibility of such
damages, whether under theory of contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or
otherwise that is related to, arises out of, flows from or is, in some part, caused by the other
party. The Registrant shall not be liable for or responsible for addressing environmental
conditions that do not result from the activities of Registrant.
Section 4.3 Insurance. The Registrant agrees that at its own cost and expense, it will
maintain:
(A) Commercial general liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence;
$2,000,000 general aggregate;
(B) Workers’ compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the
statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota; and,
(C) Employers’ liability insurance with limits of:
(1) $500,000 for bodily injury by disease per employee;
(2) $500,000 for bodily injury by disease aggregate; and,
(3) $500,000 for bodily injury by accident.
The Registrant shall provide to the City Certificates of Insurance which include The City
of Mendota Heights, including its elected and appointed officials, and employees as an additional
insured as their interest may appear under this agreement on the commercial general liability
insurance.
The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and
umbrella/excess insurance.
The Registrant’s policies shall be primary insurance and non-contributory to any other
valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect to any claim arising out of the
Registrant’s performance under this Agreement.
Upon receipt of notice from its insurer(s) the Registrant shall provide the City with thirty
(30) days’ advanced written notice of cancellation of any coverage required herein.
ARTICLE V
DAMAGE, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE
page 40
6
Section 5.1 Damage. Any damage to the City’s infrastructure, the City’s equipment
thereon, or any element of the City’s right of way caused by the Registrant’s installation or
operation of the Facility shall be repaired or replaced at Registrant’s expense and to the
Director’s reasonable satisfaction.
In the event that such damage cannot be reasonably expected to be repaired within forty-
five (45) days following such event, or if such damage may reasonably be expected to disrupt the
Registrant's operations of the Facility for more than forty-five (45) days, then the Registrant
may, at any time following such casualty, provided the City has not completed the restoration
required to permit the Registrant to resume its operation in the right of way, terminate upon
fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the City as to such location. With any such notice of
termination the Parties shall make an appropriate adjustment, as of such termination date, with
respect to payments due. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the rent shall abate during the period of
repair following such casualty in proportion to the degree to which the Registrant's use of the
right of way is impaired. The City is not liable for any damage to any Facility due to an event of
damage to the wireless support structure or right of way not caused by the City.
Section 5.2 Repair and maintenance. The City will take those actions it determines
are reasonably necessary, to repair, maintain, alter, or improve the right of way in connection
with Registrant’s Facilities.
(A) By the City. Upon request from the City, the Registrant shall disconnect the
power to the Registrant’s Facility within forty-eight (48) hours of such request to facilitate any
maintenance or repair work to the wireless support structure or the right of way. After forty-eight
(48) hours or immediately after an emergency, the City reserves the right to disconnect the power
to the Facility.
Except in cases of emergency, prior to commencing work on a wireless support structure
or right of way where a Facility is installed, the City will provide Registrant with 72-hour prior
notice thereof. Upon receiving such notice; it shall be the sole responsibility of the Registrant to
take adequate measures to remove or otherwise protect Registrant’s Facility from the
consequences of such activities. If reasonably necessary, the City may require Registrant to
remove or power down the affected Facility during the work.
(B) By the Registrant. Registrant shall maintain the Facility in good and safe
condition, at its own cost and expense, and in compliance with applicable fire, health, building,
and other life safety codes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
page 41
7
Section 6.1 Ownership. Any wireless support structure or portion of the right of way
approved by the Director to be used by the Registrant subject to this Agreement shall be the
property of the City and shall not entitle the Registrant to ownership of such wireless support
structure or portion of the right of way. If Registrant’s installation requires a new Wireless
Support Structure to be constructed or an existing Wireless Support Structure to be replaced by
Registrant (the “Replacement Wireless Support Structure”) then, any such Replacement Wireless
Support Structure, shall be deemed to be a fixture on the Property and the Replacement Wireless
Support Structure shall be and remain the property of the City, without further consideration to
or from City. Upon completion of Registrant’s installation, City shall be responsible for any and
all costs relating to the operation, maintenance, repair and disposal of the Replacement Wireless
Support Structure, except to the extent such costs are due to the improper or negligent
installation by Registrant or contractor hired by Registrant. If the Replacement Wireless Support
Structure replaces an existing structure, then also as part of Registrant’s installation, Registrant
shall remove, dispose, salvage and or discard the existing structure at Registrant’s sole
discretion.
Section 6.2 Engineering Studies. If the Registrant seeks to attach a Facility to a
wireless support structure owned by the City, the Registrant must obtain and submit to the
Director a structural engineering study carried out by a qualified structural engineer showing that
each wireless support structure and foundation is able to support the proposed Facility.
The Registrant shall obtain a radio frequency interference study carried out by an
independent professional radio frequency engineer ("RF Engineer") showing that the Registrant's
Facility will not interfere with the City's licensed and unlicensed communications facilities,
which are located on or near the structure.
Section 6.3 Emergency. In the event that the Facility poses an immediate threat of
substantial harm or damage to the health, safety and welfare of the public, any property, City
Employees, and/or the premises, as reasonably determined by the City, the City may take actions
the City determines are reasonably required to protect, the health, safety and welfare of the
Public, or property of the public, from such jeopardy provided that after such emergency, and in
no event later than twenty-four (24) hours afterwards, the City gives notice to Registrant of
City’s emergency actions. If the City reasonably determines that these conditions would be
improved by cessation of Registrant’s operations, the Registrant shall immediately power down
the applicable Facility upon notice from the Director.
Section 6.4 Permit. The Registrant shall obtain from the City a Permit to install,
mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or
adjacent to a wireless support structure that is owned by the City. Additional permits to install
utility services or otherwise excavate the right-of-way may be required. Applicable fees for any
permits shall be borne by the Registrant. The Registrant shall be bound by the requirements of
each permit.
page 42
8
ARTICLE VII
FEES AND COSTS
Section 7.1 Fees purpose. The City will recover its right-of-way management costs
from the Registrant by imposing a fee for registration, a fee for each Permit, or, when
appropriate, a fee applicable to the Registrant when that Registrant causes the City or its
affiliated agencies to incur costs as a result of any actions or inactions of the Registrant.
Fees, or other right-of-way obligations, imposed by the City on this Registrant shall be:
(A) Based on the actual costs incurred by the City and its affiliated agencies in
managing the public right of way;
(B) Based on an allocation among all Registrants and users of the public right of way,
including the City itself and its affiliated agencies, which shall reflect the
proportionate costs imposed on the City and its affiliated agencies by each of the
various types of uses of the public rights of way;
(C) Imposed on a competitively neutral basis; and
(D) Imposed in a manner so that aboveground uses of public rights of way do not bear
costs incurred by the City and its affiliated agencies to regulate underground uses of
public rights of way.
Section 7.2 Site preparation cost. Any initial engineering survey and preparatory
construction work, if performed by the City, associated with the installation of a Facility will be
paid by the Registrant in the form of a onetime, nonrecurring, commercially reasonable,
nondiscriminatory, and competitively neutral charge to recover the costs associated with the
proposed Facility.
Section 7.3 Fees in compliance. Total application fees for the Permit shall comply
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.163, Subdivision 6 with respect to costs related to the
Permit.
Section 7.4 Rent. The Registrant will be charged a fee for each Facility installed on
City owned wireless support structures in the right of way:
(A) $150 per year for rent to occupy the space;
(B) $25 per year for maintenance associated with the space occupied; and
(C) a fee on a monthly basis for the electricity used to operate the Facility, if not
purchased directly from a utility, at the rate of:
(1) $73 per month per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts;
page 43
9
(2) $182 per month per radio node over 100 max watts;
(3) the actual costs of electricity as reasonably estimated by the Director, if the
actual costs exceed the amount in item (1) or (2); or
(4) as otherwise agreed to by the Parties.
Rent, maintenance and electricity fees are in addition to other fees or charges allowed
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.163, Subdivision 6.
Section 7.5 Payment. Rent shall commence on the first day of the month
following the day that Registrant begins installation of the Facility on the premises (the
“Commencement Date”) at which time rent shall be due at a total annual rental of
Dollars ($ ) to be paid in advance annually on the Commencement Date and on each
anniversary of it in advance, to City. The parties agree that they shall acknowledge in writing
the Commencement Date. The parties acknowledge and agree that initial rent payment may not
actually be sent by Registrant until ninety (90) days after Registrant’s receipt of written
acknowledgement confirming the Commencement Date. Upon agreement of the Parties,
Registrant may pay rent by electronic funds transfer and in such event, City agrees to provide to
Registrant bank routing information for such purpose upon request of Registrant. City agrees to
provide Registrant the reasonable documentation required for Registrant to pay all rent payments
due to City, including a completed, most current version of Internal Revenue Service Form W-9.
Rent shall accrue in accordance with this Agreement, but Registrant may not deliver rent
payments for up to 90 days after the requested documentation has been received by Registrant.
City shall, at all times during the term of the Permit, provide electrical and fiber optic service
access within the premises. [Choose one: Registrant shall furnish and install an electrical meter
at the premises for the measurement of electrical power used by Registrant's installation. OR In
consideration for electrical service, $______ per year shall be paid with the annual rent due
under this Agreement.]
ARTICLE VIII
DEFAULT AND BREACH, TERMINATION, AND REMOVAL
Section 8.1 Default and breach. If the Registrant materially fails to comply with the
terms of the Permit, this Agreement, or governing federal, state, local law or ordinance, the City
shall provide written notice to the Registrant of such failure to comply. If the Registrant fails to
cure the default on or before the sixtieth (60) day after receipt of the notice, the City may revoke
the Permits.
Section 8.2 Termination. The Parties may voluntarily terminate this Agreement at any
time by mutual agreement.
Section 8.3 Removal. It is the Registrant’s responsibility to confirm and appropriately
test that their Facility or other equipment will not cause harmful interference before pursuing
approval from the City.
page 44
10
The Registrant shall immediately begin the removal of its Facility and all other
equipment after termination of the Registrant's Permit for violations of the terms of the Permit.
Unless the Director grants an extension of time, the Registrant shall have sixty (60) days after the
effective date of termination to complete removal.
After termination of a Registrant's Permit, the Registrant must comply with the terms of
this Agreement until its Facility and all other associated equipment are removed.
ARTICLE IX
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Section 9.1 Dispute resolution. The Parties shall cooperate and use their best efforts
to ensure that the various provisions of this Agreement are fulfilled. The Parties agree to act in
good faith to undertake resolution of disputes, in an equitable and timely manner and in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except for interference issues, if disputes
cannot be resolved informally by the Parties, the following procedures shall be used:
(A) Whenever there is a failure between the Parties to resolve a dispute on their own,
the Parties shall first attempt to mediate the dispute. The Parties shall agree upon a
mediator, or if they cannot agree, shall obtain a list of court-approved mediators
from the Dakota County District Court Administrator and select a mediator by
alternately striking names until one remains. The City shall strike the first name
followed by the Registrant, and shall continue in that order until one name remains.
(B) If the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days after the end of the mediation
proceedings, the Parties may pursue any legal or equitable remedy.
ARTICLE X
GENERAL TERMS
Section 10.1 Entire agreement. This Agreement, its attachments and exhibits, and its
corresponding permit application(s) and permit(s), represent the entire agreement. No other oral
representations may be considered.
Section 10.2 Assignment. The Registrant may not assign this Agreement to any other
person unless written consent is obtained from the City.
Section 10.3 Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall
require a written agreement signed by both Parties.
page 45
11
Section 10.4 Nondiscrimination. The Registrant shall not discriminate against any
person by reason of any characteristic or classification protected by federal or state law.
Section 10.5 Governing law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement does not limit any rights
Registrant may have in accordance with applicable laws to install its own wireless support
structures in the right of way or to attach its equipment to third-party wireless support structures
located in the right of way. This Agreement shall in no way limit or waive either party’s present
or future rights under applicable laws. If, after the date of this Agreement, the rights or
obligations of either Party are materially altered, preempted, or superseded by changes in
applicable laws, the parties agree to amend the Agreement to reflect the change.
Section 10.6 Venue. All proceedings arising from this Agreement shall be venued in
Dakota County, Minnesota.
Section 10.7 Ownership of documents. All reports, plans, specifications, data, maps,
and other documents prepared by the City under this Agreement shall be the property of the City.
The Registrant understands that all such documents are subject to the Minnesota Data Practices
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other applicable state or federal laws, rules,
regulations, or orders pertaining to public data, privacy and/or confidentiality.
Section 10.8 Waiver. The waiver by either Party of any breach or failure to comply
with any provision of this Agreement by the other Party shall not be construed as, or constitute a
continuing waiver of such provision or a waiver of any other breach of or failure to comply with
any other provision of this Agreement.
Section 10.9 Notice. All notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed
validly given if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested or by commercial courier,
provided the courier's regular business is delivery service and provided further that it guarantees
delivery to the addressee by the end of the next business day following the courier's receipt from
the sender. Notice shall be effective upon actual receipt or refusal as shown on the receipt
obtained pursuant to the foregoing.
(A) Notices to the City will be sent by certified mail to:
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(B) Notices to the Registrant will be sent to the address given in the application or such
other address as the Registrant shall designate in writing pursuant to the notice
provisions of this paragraph.
Section 10.10 Force majeure. Neither Party shall be liable to the other or deemed in
default under this Agreement, if and to the extent that Party’s performance is prevented by
reason of force majeure. “Force majeure” includes war, an act of terrorism, fire, earthquake,
page 46
12
flood and other circumstances which are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence
of the Party affected and which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the Party affected was
unable to prevent.
Section 10.11 Severability. If any court finds any portion of this Agreement to be
contrary to law, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement will remain in full
force and effect.
[The remainder of this page is left intentionally blank. Signature page to follow]
page 47
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed by their
duly authorized representatives, and effective as of the Effective Date written above.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA
By: ______________________________________
Its: Mayor
By: ______________________________________
Its: City Administrator
[Signature page to the Collocation and Lease Agreement between
the City of Mendota Heights and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless]
page 48
14
Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon
Wireless
__________________________________________
By: ______________________________________
Name: ____________________________________
Its: ______________________________________
Date: _____________________________________
[Signature page to the Collocation and Lease Agreement between
the City of Mendota Heights and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless]
4012648v3
page 49
page 50
page 51
DATE: May 16, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council
City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approve Natural Resources Technician Hire
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Krista Spreiter for the position of Natural
Resources Technician.
Background
The hiring of a Natural Resource Technician was approved by the City Council at its June 5, 2018
meeting. Staff has completed the recruitment process and received 47 applications for the position.
Staff is pleased to recommend the hiring of Krista Spreiter for the position.
Krista comes to the City with 11 years of experience as a Natural Resource Technician for the City
of Chanhassen. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Studies and Geography
from Gustavus Adolphus College. She holds certifications as a Wetland Delineator and a Tree
Inspector through the University of Minnesota. Her experience includes natural resources
management, planning, design and implementation in areas such as land restoration, surface water
management, storm water treatment, and natural resources restoration.
A conditional offer has been extended, contingent upon the successful completion of a background
check, pre-employment drug screen and approval of the City Council. At this time Ms. Spreiter’s
start date has yet to be determined.
Budget Impact
The 2018 budget included funding for GIS/Engineering Technician. Budgeted funds for the
GIS/Engineering Technician will be used to fund the Natural Resources Technician position.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the hiring of Krista Spreiter as the Natural
Resources Technician with an hourly salary of $28.03, which is step four (the midpoint) of pay
grade seven of the City’s Compensation Plan.
page 52
Action Requested
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Krista Spreiter as Natural
Resources Technician, with the pay provisions listed above.
page 53
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-60 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the 2018 Sanitary Sewer
Cleaning and Televising Project (City Project #201804)
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to accept bids and award a contract for the 2018 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning
and Televising Project.
BACKGROUND
The City’s sanitary sewer system is aging. Many its pipes are 60 years old and will soon be in need
of repair. Cleaning the sewer system on a regular cycle will help extend the life of the pipes.
Televising of the system will show where immediate repairs are needed. Lining pipes in need of
repair with cured-in-place-pipe will extend the life of our system.
DISCUSSION
The City of Mendota Heights maintains 74 miles of sanitary sewer pipe. Currently one full time
Public Works employee, along with one seasonal employee, clean approximately 10 miles of pipe
per year. The proposed project is for the cleaning of approximately 4 miles of the City’s sanitary
sewer system and televising approximately 11.7 miles of the City’s sanitary sewer system. At our
current rate, we are cleaning the system every 6 years.
BUDGET IMPACT
Five proposals (see attached resolution) were received and opened on Wednesday, August 1, 2018
for the Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning Project. Pipe Services Corporation submitted the
low bid of $53,254.20. Their bid was lower than the Engineer’s Estimate of $54,218.84.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the contract to Pipe Services
Corporation for their bid in the amount of $53,254.20.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2018
SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND TELEVISING (PROJECT #201804). This action
requires a simple majority vote.
page 54
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-60
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2018
SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND TELEVISING PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed cleaning and televising
of sanitary sewers to serve the area referred to as 2018 Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning
Project (City Project No. 201804), 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
Pipe Services Corporation $53,254.20
Vortech Hydro Vac $78,119.25
Hydro Klean, LLC $90,713.60
Diversified Infrastructure Services $102,552.65
American Environmental. LLC $103,558.00
and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has recommended that the low bid submitted by
Pipe Services Corporation of Shakopee, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted.
2. That the bid of Pipe Services Corporation of Shakopee, Minnesota, submitted for the
cleaning and televising of the above described project be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Pipe Services Corporation of Shakopee, 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 seventh day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 55
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. – Public Works Director
SUBJECT: 2018 Street and Parking Lot Striping
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council award a project for the 2018 Street and
Parking Lot Striping Project.
BACKGROUND
Funding for street striping is included in the Public Works Street Cleaning and Striping Budget.
Following completion of the street sweeping operations, any remaining budget is allocated to
paint striping or markings on city streets. The costs for the spring sweeping were higher this
year due to the material being brought to a landfill ($5,000). The remaining budget after the
spring street sweeping for 2018 is approximately $11,000. Staff estimates that a fall sweeping
will cost approximately $5,000, leaving only $6,000 for street striping. Additional funds are
used from the storm water utility due to the fall sweeping keeping organic matter from entering
city ponds.
Funding for city facilities and parks has not been previously included in budgets or has been
billed to general maintenance of parks or the respective building.
DISCUSSION
City Council has approved the use of epoxy enamel marking paint, which lasts two to four times
longer than the paints previously used. This product is extensively used by Dakota County and
MnDOT. Mendota Heights is able to secure bids for this service through the JPA with the City
of Burnsville. Sir Lines-A-Lot was granted the service through the JPA and submitted a quote of
$30,086 for the striping project.
The project includes striping to the following areas:
Streets $14,834.00
Wagon Wheel Trail 8,884.90
Decorah Lane - 3,899.30
Concord Way 640.00
Copperfield Drive 186.40
Chippewa Avenue 1,223.20
Parks $7,188
page 56
Friendly Hills Park 3,218.90
Ivy Hills Park 1,314.40
Hagstrom-King Park 478.40
Victoria Highlands Park 632.30
Valley Park 1,544.30
Facilities $8,064
City Hall 4,296
Public Works 1,922
Par 3 1,846
The Fire Department is not included due to proposed site improvements. Wentworth Park and
Mendakota Park are not included due to needed pavement replacement. It was also decided to
delay striping of Rogers Lake Park, Marie Park and Kensington Park to spread out future
maintenance. The pavement condition is deteriorated at city hall and public works.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is approximately $6,000 available in the street budget for striping. It is proposed to fund
the balance of the striping project with city reserve funds, which will amount to $24,086.30. It is
possible that the City Hall portion could come from a separate maintenance line item for that
building; the Par 3 striping of $1846 should be charged to that account.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the striping project and awarding this project to Sir Lines-A-
Lot.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the 2018
Street and Parking Lot Striping Project and awarding the project to Sir Lines-A-Lot.
page 57
DATE: August 7, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to State Statutes and the City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first
having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses can be granted only to clubs and
charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations. The licenses are subject to final approval by the
Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, is planning to hold their annual
reunion weekend activities on September 19 – 21, 2018. The events will take place as follows:
• Wednesday, Sept 19, Honor Awards and Benefactor Dinner in the Ciresi Atrium and
Sjoberg Flynn Arena
• Thursday, Sept 20, Senior Alumni Dinner in Sjoberg Flynn Athletic Arena
• Friday, Sept 21, Class Reunion and Athletic Hall of Fame Ceremony in the Sjoberg Flynn
Athletic Arena
They have requested a temporary on-sale liquor license to allow for the sale of alcoholic
beverages at these events. St. Thomas Academy has submitted an application and a certificate of
insurance showing liquor liability coverage.
It should be noted that temporary on-sale liquor licenses have been issued in the past to St.
Thomas Academy and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with
no incidents or negative reports.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for St. Thomas
Academy for September 19. 20, 21, 2018, subject to approval of the Director of Alcohol and
Gambling Enforcement.
page 58
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: June Par 3 Update and Financial Report
COMMENT:
Background
Attached is the June Par 3 Financial Report. During the month of June, the course had a total of
1,674 rounds of golf played. The total monthly revenue for June was $24,034, which includes
greens fees, recreation programs and concessions. The year-to-date revenue total is $71,149
(months of May and June).
June expenditures totaled $25,033. The year-to-date expenditure total is $73,416. The course
currently has a loss of $2,267 for the 2018 season. Notable expenses that have been incurred are
related to repairs and maintenance of golf course equipment. The current total for the year in the
repairs and maintenance line item is $18,108, which is 25 percent more than the 2018 budgeted
amount. Staff is aware that additional maintenance and repairs are needed to existing equipment
and anticipates additional expenses to be incurred.
At the July 17 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the purchase of a new rough
mower and debris blower. This equipment has been purchased and delivered. The new equipment
is being used and is enabling staff to mow more frequently to decrease clumping on the course.
page 59
MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
June 2018 (50% OF YEAR)
REVENUES JUNE YTD YTD
BUDGET 2018 2018 %
GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $110,000 $17,585 $35,433 32.21%
RECREATION PROGRAMS $38,000 $2,481 $28,887 76.02%
CONCESSIONS $20,000 $3,932 $6,793 33.97%
SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $36 $36 #DIV/0!
INTEREST $250 $0 $0 0.00%
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $168,250 $24,034 $71,149 42.29%
EXPENDITURES JUNE YTD YTD
BUDGET 2018 2018 %
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $30,000 $7,577 $9,111 30.37%
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $21,579 $2,558 $8,250 38.23%
FICA/PERA $9,267 $1,427 $2,777 29.97%
MEDICAL INSURANCE $6,336 $528 $3,168 50.00%
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $1,892 $0 $2,286 120.81%
RENTALS $2,500 $1,238 $1,838 73.50%
UTILITIES $12,400 $1,213 $5,157 41.59%
PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,500 $1,580 $1,580 63.19%
PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $350 $0 $0 0.00%
PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $4,000 $0 $3,455 86.38%
PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $19,000 $3,683 $6,701 35.27%
PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $2,000 $0 $0 0.00%
ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $149 37.16%
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $3,200 $0 $3,290 102.81%
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $6,000 $934 $3,086 51.43%
FUEL $1,300 $274 $855 65.81%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $14,500 $2,029 $18,108 124.88%
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $2,800 $1,339 $1,947 69.54%
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $3,600 $653 $1,659 0.00%
PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $143,624 $25,033 $73,416 51.12%
8/1/2018
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
7/16/2018 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
June 1, 2018 thru June 30, 2018 January 1, 2018 thru June 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru June 30, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2016
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 2 1,020,423.00$ $11,580.53 SFD 7 3,738,348.00$ $41,844.43 SFD 5 2,520,000.00$ $27,866.45 SFD 4 1,822,850.00$ 20,971.81$
Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ $158,402.65 Apartment 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 12 2,568,365.00$ $27,537.75 Townhouse 6 1,340,000.00$ $13,475.51 Townhouse 12 2,805,000.00$ 29,642.93$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 72 782,918.04$ 12,111.67$ Misc 271 3,702,626.73$ 55,083.21$ Misc 303 3,626,702.53$ 53,717.36$ Misc 312 4,038,366.88$ 57,442.69$
Commercial 3 53,499.00$ $2,326.75 Commercial 9 6,412,959.00$ $47,562.64 Commercial 15 3,998,800.00$ $40,109.09 Commercial 12 1,396,255.00$ 15,038.59$
Sub Total 77 1,856,840.04$ 26,018.95$ Sub Total 299 16,422,298.73$ 172,028.03$ Sub Total 331 34,507,502.53$ 293,571.06$ Sub Total 340 10,062,471.88$ 123,096.02$
Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
Plumbing 17 $1,933.09 Plumbing 125 $17,059.55 Plumbing 86 $7,579.40 Plumbing 118 10,570.73$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 2 20.00$
Sewer 3 $225.00 Sewer 29 $2,175.00 Sewer 20 $1,513.00 Sewer 19 1,425.00$
Mechanical 55 $4,955.64 Mechanical 271 397.00$ $27,260.07 Mechanical 177 $26,739.80 Mechanical 179 16,203.11$
Sub Total 75 7,113.73$ Sub Total 425 46,494.62$ Sub Total 283 $35,832.20 Sub Total 318 28,218.84$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 21 $1,050.00 Contractor 245 $12,250.00 Contractor 246 $12,300.00 Contractor 231 11,550.00$
Total 173 1,856,840.04$ 34,182.68$ Total 969 16,422,298.73$ 230,772.65$ Total 860 34,507,502.53$ 341,703.26$ Total 889 10,062,471.88$ 162,864.86$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 78
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Comcast Cable Franchise Extension
Date: August 7, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council is asked to extend the franchise agreement with Comcast for the provision of
cable television service to Mendota Heights.
BACKGROUND:
The current 15-year franchise between the NDC4 member cities and Comcast was granted in
January, 2000. It has been extended four times, the most recent of which was through July 31,
2018. Please seen the attached memo from the NDC4 Executive Director for further details.
Negotiations on a new franchise are continuing, but there needs to be an extension of the current
agreement. The NDC4 Board has recommended that each of the NDC4 member cites extend the
current franchise term through March 31, 2019.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that the City Council extend the current franchise agreement with Comcast
through March 31, 2019. The attached resolution should be approved.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs, it should, by simple motion, approve the following resolution:
Resolution 2018-
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 79
MEMORANDUM
TO: NDC4 Member Cities
FROM: Jodie Miller, NDC4 Executive Director
SUBJECT: Comcast Franchise Renewal – Northern Dakota County Cable Communications
Commission (NDC4)
DATE: July 18, 2018
The Existing Franchise
In January of 2000, the NDC4 Member Cities granted nearly identical nonexclusive cable
franchise agreements to Comcast, each with 15-year franchise terms. In the summer of 2012
Comcast requested renewal of the franchises in accordance with the federal Cable Act.
Needs Assessment Process
In 2013 and 2014, NDC4 conducted a detailed and comprehensive needs assessment process
for the purpose of identifying the future cable-related community needs and interests of the
NDC4 Member Cities and reviewing the performance of Comcast under the Franchise.
Transfer Request and CenturyLink Franchise
In June of 2014, Comcast requested to transfer the cable system to a new entity, however, that
request was terminated by Comcast in April 2015. In February 2015 NDC4 and its Member
Cities received a request for a competing cable franchise from CenturyLink. NDC4 processed
CenturyLink’s request for a franchise, and in March 2016 each of the seven NDC4 Member
Cities granted a competitive cable franchise to CenturyLink.
Extensions of Comcast Franchise
In 2015 the NDC4 Member Cities each granted an extension of Comcast’s existing franchise
term through March 31, 2016. Since that time three (3) additional extensions of Comcast’s
existing franchise term were granted: 1) through March 31, 2017; 2) through December 31,
2017; and 3) through July 31, 2018.
Status of Renewal Process
Despite numerous meetings, the NDC4 staff and Comcast representatives have been unable to
reach agreement on several significant issues. Therefore, at the NDC4 Full Commission meeting
page 80
on February 7, 2018, the NDC4 staff was directed to begin preparation of formal renewal
documents required under the Cable Act. At its April 4, 2018, meeting the NDC4 Commission
approved the Formal Needs Assessment Report and Request for Formal Renewal Proposal,
which established a deadline of July 16, 2018, for Comcast to provide its response to the formal
renewal request. On June 28, 2018, Comcast requested a 30-day extension to provide its
response to the formal renewal request, and on June 29, 2018, NDC4 granted Comcast’s
extension. The new deadline for Comcast’s response to the formal renewal request is August
15, 2018.
NDC4 Staff Recommendation
The NDC4 staff recommends another extension of Comcast’s existing franchise term through
and including March 31, 2019. We are recommending the end of the first quarter of 2019 as
the extension date in order to allow sufficient time for the parties to complete the renewal
process. It is certainly possible that the parties could complete informal renewal prior to that
date, but if the parties are unsuccessful, further extensions of the franchise could become
necessary to facilitate completion of the formal renewal process.
Please feel free to call me or e-mail me if you need further information or would like me or our
legal counsel to attend a briefing, work session, or council meeting. We have provided a draft
Resolution for each Member City’s consideration.
Thank you for your ongoing support and participation in the NDC4 Cable Commission!
page 81
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018 - 54
GRANTING COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC., A FRANCHISE
EXTENSION TO MARCH 31, 2019
WHEREAS, on or about April 1, 2000, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (“City”)
granted a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance (“Franchise”) which is currently held by Comcast
of St. Paul, Inc. (“Comcast”); and
WHEREAS, Comcast has requested renewal of the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the initial term of the Franchise was extended by the City on March 3, 2015
when the City adopted Resolution 2015-20, which extended the term of the Franchise until March
31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Comcast executed Resolution 2015-20 and agreed to continue complying
with the Franchise, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was extended by the City on March 3, 2016 when the City
adopted Resolution 2016-19, which extended the term of the Franchise until March 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, Comcast executed Resolution 2016-19 and agreed to continue complying
with the Franchise, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was extended by the City on March 21, 2017 when the City
adopted Resolution 2017-23, which extended the term of the Franchise until December 31, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, Comcast executed Resolution 2017-23 and agreed to continue complying
with the Franchise, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was extended by the City on December 19, 2017 when the City adopted
Resolution 2017-115, which extended the term of the Franchise until July 31, 2018; and
WHEREAS, Comcast executed Resolution 2017-115 and agreed to continue complying
with the Franchise, as amended; and
WHEREAS, both the City and Comcast desire to reserve all of their respective rights
under state and federal law regarding the franchise renewal process, specifically all rights provided
by 47 U.S.C. § 546.
page 82
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Mendota Height, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows:
1. The Franchise is hereby amended by extending the term of the Franchise from August
1, 2018 through and including March 31, 2019, unless earlier renewed by the parties.
2. Except as specifically modified hereby, the Franchise shall remain in full force and
effect.
3. The City and Comcast hereby agree that neither party waives any rights either may
have under the Franchise or applicable law.
4. This Resolution shall become effective upon the occurrence of both of the following
conditions: (1) The Resolution being passed and adopted by the City; and (2)
Comcast’s acceptance of this Resolution.
Adopted by the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this 7th day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 83
ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT
Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. hereby accepts this Resolution 2018-54 (“Resolution”)
and hereby accepts the terms, provisions and recitals of the Resolution and agrees to be
bound by the Franchise.
Dated this day of , 2018.
COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC.
By:
Its:
SWORN TO BEFORE ME this
___ day of ________________, 2018.
NOTARY PUBLIC
page 84
Date: August 7, 2018
To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Re: Firefighter Retirement
BACKGROUND
Firefighter Steve Abrahamson has announced his retirement from the Fire Department effective
July 31, 2018. Steve become a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department on July
16, 2003.
During his 15 years of service to the department and citizens, Steve has been an active member
of the Department.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the City Council accept the retirement of Steve Abrahamson effective July 31,
2018. If the City council concurs with my recommendation, they should formally thank Steve
and his family for this 15 years of service to our community as a Mendota Heights Firefighter.
page 85
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Personnel Action Item Promotion of Eric Hagelee to Police Officer
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
Council is asked to formally promote Eric Hagelee from Community Service Officer to Sworn
Police Officer pending the successful completion of his psychological and medical exams.
BACKGROUND
On November1, 2016, Eric Hagelee was hired as a Community Service Officer (CSO). During his
time as a CSO, Eric proved himself to be a valuable asset to the organization. In May, Eric
graduated from the University of St. Thomas with a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice and
completed the skills component July 13th. Eric passed his licensing test on July 24th, and his
background investigation was completed on July 25th.
BUDGET IMPACT
This a budgeted position that was included in the 2018 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
If Council desires to implement the recommendation, it should pass a motion promoting Eric
Hagelee to the position of police officer, upon notice of successful completion of his
psychological and medical exams.
page 86
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION 2018-62 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF
EQUIPMENT
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to formally accept a donation of equipment from the Mendota Heights
Community Criminal Apprehension Fund.
BACKGROUND
The City Auditor has advised that Minnesota State Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”
requires all donations be acknowledged by Resolution. This memo meets Minnesota State
Statutory requirements by having the City Council formally accept the gift and recognizing the
donor.
The Mendota Heights Community Criminal Apprehension Fund (MHCCAF) facilitated the
donation of two Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) monocles and an electronic movement
indicator.
The FLIR monocles will be used to assist in the tracking of missing, endangered, or dangerous
persons. The electronic movement indicator will be placed on items that are prone to theft and will
alert officers when moved.
A thank you letter will be sent along with a copy of the signed resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATION
If Council desires to implement the recommendation, a motion will need to be passed adopting
RESOLUTION 2018-62 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF EQUIPMENT.
page 87
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2018-62
A RESOLUTION
FORMALLY ACCEPTING A DONATION OF EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities” requires a
resolution to be approved by the governing body to accept gifts to municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has previously acknowledged gifts by
resolution as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights encourages and supports citizens and
organizations who wish to participate in government; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this
matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their
donations.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights hereby gratefully accepts the donation of two FLIR monocles and an
electronic movement indicator from the Mendota Heights Community Criminal Apprehension
Fund.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 88
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split (Subdivision) & Combination Request
Robbie & Courtney Bluhm – 1629 Dodd Road [Planning Case 2018-18]
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Lot Split and Lot
Combination request from Robbie & Courtney Bluhm, for their properties located at 1629 Dodd Road and
694 Wentworth Avenue.
Background
Mr. & Mrs. Bluhm requests approval to subdivide their property located at 1629 Dodd Road into two (2)
separate parcels; one of which keeps the existing dwelling and will be sold-off; while the remaining parcel
will be retained by the Bluhm’s and combined with their adjacent lot located at 694 Wentworth Avenue.
Pursuant to Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations), individuals may request the simple
subdivision of parcels provided the resulting lots are compliant with the underlying zoning district. The
easterly parcel created by this split meets the R-1 zone standards. However, the westerly parcel does not
meet general R-1 standards, due to no frontage on a public street. To eliminate this potential nonconformity,
the Owners have agreed to combine the west parcel with their abutting property, which they will keep and
maintain as a larger, single-family lot for future development.
At the July 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a
public hearing was conducted. A copy of the 07/24/18 planning report, along with the Planning
Commission meeting minutes (excerpts) are appended to this memo.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative and quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision requests
and has limited discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot Split/Combination request with
conditions and findings of fact. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion
to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-55 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND COMBINATION FOR
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1629 DODD ROAD AND 694 WENTWORTH AVENUE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 89
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-55
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) AND LOT
COMBINATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1629 DODD ROAD
AND 694 WENTWORTH AVENUE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-18)
WHEREAS, Robbie and Courtney Bluhm, (as “Applicant” and “Owner”) applied for a
Lot Split (Subdivision) and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-
18, for the properties located at 1629 Dodd Road and 694 Wentworth Avenue, and legally
described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision
of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants seek to subdivide the existing 1.26 acre parcel located at 1629
Dodd Road into two separate legal parcels, which would create a new “easterly parcel” of 16,839
sq. ft. or 0.39 acres in size; and a “westerly parcel” consisting of 38,045 sq. ft., or 0.87 acres in
size; all legally described and illustrated on the survey of attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants intend to sell-off the easterly 0.39 acre parcel containing the
existing single-family dwelling; while the westerly 0.87 acre parcel will be combined and legally
joined to the 0.42 acre property addressed as 694 Wentworth Avenue, thereby creating a new
combined lot area of 56,191 sq. ft. or 1.29 acres, to be owned and retained by the Applicant/Owners
and which is legally described and illustrated on attached Exhibit B: and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 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 (7-0 vote)
page 90
of the Lot Split and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-18, with
certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Lot Split and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-18, and for the
property located at 1629 Dodd Road and 694 Wentworth Avenue can be approved based on the
following findings of fact:
A. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City
Code under Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to
the surrounding uses or neighborhood.
C. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels eliminates
any nonconforming issue or status of the westerly parcel created by the original
split.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split
and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-18, and for the property
located at 1629 Dodd Road and 694 Wentworth Avenue, is hereby approved with the following
conditions:
1. The westerly parcel to be created from the split of the 1629 Dodd Road parcel ((PID
No. 27-03800-37-113) shall be combined with the existing 694 Wentworth Avenue
Parcel (PID No. 27-03800-37-020.
2. The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on
the certificate of survey prepared by Bohlen Surveying & Associates, dated March
11, 2018 or a recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota
County.
3. The new 1.29 acre parcel to be created after the lot split and lot combination process
can only be used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development per
City Zoning Code; unless the Owner receives full consideration and approval by
the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City Code Title 11
– Subdivision Regulations. No new development can take place on the new 1.29
acre westerly (combined) parcel until after the two parcels are officially joined.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and made by their own
action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in
any way provide a future hardship or allowances for reduced standards related to
platting, street/right-of-way designs, or any other subdivision or zoning standards
adopted at that time, should the owners elect to further subdivide this parcel in the
future.
page 91
5. The existing shed on the newly created westerly parcel must be removed within one
year of this approval date, or a building permit must be applied for on the new
created lot to maintain the shed’s existence.
6. Because there appears to be a “gap” of some sorts acknowledged on the Applicant’s
survey, the new westerly combined 1.29 acre lot must be a continuous lot or parcel
of record with no gaps.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 92
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions – Subject Properties
Existing Parcels
1629 DODD ROAD - PID No. 27-03800-37-113
THE SOUTH 94.00 FEET OF LOT 37, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3, MENDOTA, DAKOTA
COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING EAST OF THE WEST 700.00 FEET THEREOF, AND NORTH 94.00
FEET OF THE SOUTH 188.00 FEET OF THE EAST 215.00 FEET OF THE WEST 915.00 FEET OF SAID
LOT 37.
Abstract property
694 WENTWORTH AVENUE - PID No. 27-03800-37-020
THE NORTH 150.00 FEET OF THE EAST 121.00 FEET OF THE WEST 821.00 FEET OF LOT 37,
AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3, MENDOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Abstract property
page 93
EXHIBIT B
Legal Descriptions – Proposed Parcels
Proposed Easterly Described Parcel
THE SOUTH 94.00 FEET OF LOT 37, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING EAST OF THE WEST 890 FEET THEREOF.
SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE
WEST AND SOUTHEASTERLY 10.00 FEET AND THE SOUTH 5.00 FEET AND THE NORTH 4.00 FEET
OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
ALSO SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR TRAIL PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE
SOUTHEASTERLY 20.00 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
Proposed Westerly (Combined) Parcel
THE EAST 121.00 FEET OF THE WEST 821.00 FEET OF LOT 37, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 3,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND THE SOUTH 188.00 FEET OF
THE EAST 94.00 FEET OF THE WEST 915.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 37. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 94.00 FEET
OF SAID LOT 37 LYING EAST OF THE WEST 890.00 FEET THEREOF.
SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE
NORTH AND SOUTH 10.00 FEET AND THE EAST AND WEST 5.00 FEET OF THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
page 94
EXHIBIT B
page 95
Planning Report
DATE: June 24, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-18
Lot Split Subdivision (Lot Combination)
APPLICANT: Robbie Bluhm
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1629 Dodd Road / 694 Wentworth Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 20, 2018 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358)
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Mr. Robbie Bluhm are requesting approval to subdivide his single-family residential property located at
1629 Dodd Road into two (2) separate parcels. The split will provide a smaller sized parcel for the existing
residential dwelling at 1629 Dodd Road; while the resulting parcel to the rear will be combined with the
adjacent property located at 694 Wentworth Avenue, also owned by Robbie and Courtney Bluhm.
This type of request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded
with Dakota County. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice
of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were
mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels.
BACKGROUND
The 1629 Dodd Road property is generally located on the west side of Dodd Road, and south of the
Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road intersection. The “flag-shaped” parcel consists of 1.26 acres of area,
and measures approx. 350-ft. in depth, with 101.27-ft. in width (along Dodd Road frontage) and expands
to approx. 188-ft. of width in the back lot area. The property contains a 1,453 sq. ft. one-story residential
dwelling with an attached 3-car garage (refer to the attached Location/Aerial Map).
The Bluhm’s also own the adjacent 0.42 acre (18,150-sf.) parcel located addressed as 694 Wentworth
Avenue. This vacant lot abuts the back one-half of the main 1629 Dodd Road property.
Both properties are situated in the R-1 One Family Residential district. Single family homes are permitted
uses on lots with a minimum width of 100-ft. and lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. in area. Also, setback standards
are noted as follows:
page 96
Height
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Front
Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
1 and 2
stories
15,000
sq. ft.
100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 of the height of the
structure contiguous to the side yard,
whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15'
30' or 20% of the
average lot depth,
whichever is greater
ANALYSIS
Lot Split
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 Applicants propose to split the existing 1.26 acre property into two separate legal parcels. The easterly
parcel will consist of 16,839 (0.39 acres) in lot area, and will retain the existing dwelling and address off
Dodd Road. The remaining 38,045 sq. ft. of land area will be joined or legally combined with the current
694 Wentworth Avenue parcel, thus creating a new 56,191 sq. ft. or 1.29 acre parcel (refer to attached
survey).
The existing dwelling will maintain a 74.8-ft. setback from Dodd Road; 47.4-ft. from the south line; 39.7-
ft. from the newly established rear or west line; and 4.2-ft. from the north line. The new rear yard setback
for the dwelling is determined by the average lot depth (197.53’ + 160.73’ = 358.26 / 2) of 179.13-ft. @
20%, which means a minimum of 35.83-ft. is needed.
As evident by the survey, the existing dwelling’s 4.2-ft. setback from the north line does not meet the
minimum 10-ft. setback requirement. The existing driveway does not appear to meet the required 5-ft.
property line setback as well. Since these “encroachments” are pre-existing and there are no plans to
remove or alter this structure, the dwelling will remain as a legal, nonconforming use in the R-1 zone.
The Planning Commission will note the westerly parcel will not or does not have any direct access on to
Dodd Road as a result of this lot split. Normally, a lot split of this type (and on its own) would not be
allowed, as City Code Sect. 11-3-2.D requires all lots to have a minimum 100-ft. frontage as required by
the underlying R-1 zoning district standards.
By approving this lot split, the new parcel would technically be considered a non-conforming parcel due to
the lack of frontage on a “city approved street”. The division of such parcels raises only the concern that
property owners understand that no new building rights are granted as a result of the subdivision, unless the
parcel has some form of legal street frontage for access. To help ensure that this is made clear, it will be a
requirement and condition of approval that the new parcel created by this subdivision action is immediately
combined with other adjoining property at 694 Wentworth Avenue.
This newly created 1.29 acre lot will remain in the ownership of the Bluhm’s. At this time, the owners
have not indicated to staff what their future plans are for the lot; or if they plan to develop it themselves or
by others. In any event, only one single-family residential dwelling will be allowed or permitted to be
developed on the lot once the parcel combination is filed.
Combination Process
The Subdivision Ordinance permits the approval of such subdivisions by metes and bounds descriptions as
proposed, rather than full plat. Where no new building site is being specifically created, the minor
subdivision can be considered provided it is consistent with the requirements of the City’s subdivision and
development regulations.
page 97
Dakota County Recorder’s office has provided to the city lot combination forms, which need to be
completed by the Applicants and filed with the survey and city resolution of approval.
Easements
The Owner has agreed to provide new 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear
yard areas of both parcels; plus 5-foot wide easements along the interior/side parcel boundaries. The
exception will be a 4-foot wide easement along the north line of the easterly (homestead) parcel.
The city also requested the Owners to dedicate a 20-foot wide “Trail Easement” along the front edge of
Dodd Road, which is also shown on the attached survey.
The Public Works Director has found these easements to be dedicated (and shown on the survey) as
acceptable.
Additional Background & Future Development Opportunities
As was presented in the previous month’s lot split/lot combination request by Mike Bader under Planning
Case No. 2018-14, the City of Mendota Heights is noting that since this application is entirely initiated by
the Applicant and due to their own action and preference, that any approval of this lot split (and lot
combination) does not in any way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant, or
any future owners of the 1.29 acre parcel, to allow this area to be subdivided in the future with a reduced
roadway design or any other variations to city code standards.
By combining these properties, the Applicants will be restricted from subdividing the combined properties
in the future without full consideration and approval by City of Mendota Heights.
Furthermore, in conjunction with City Code Section 12-1D-12, Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems, it is the
general policy of the city that there be no future development in the city that is not served by the municipal
sanitary sewer and water distribution systems. In this case, future development of this enlarged parcel
requires full utilities be extended or served from Wentworth Avenue to the north.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the lot split (and lot combination) based on the attached findings of
fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; or
2. Recommend DENIAL of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; or
3. TABLE the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot split as submitted by Robbie and Courtney Bluhm of 1629 Dodd Road and
694 Wentworth Avenue, with the following conditions:
1. The westerly parcel to be created by the split of the 1629 Dodd Road parcel ((PID No. 27-03800-
37-113) shall be combined with the existing 694 Wentworth Avenue Parcel (PID No. 27-03800-
37-020.
2. The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of
survey prepared by Bohlen Surveying & Associates, dated March 11, 2018 or a recordable
document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
page 98
3. The new 1.29 acre parcel to be created after the lot split and lot combination process can only be
used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full
consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City
Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and made by their own action and
preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide a future
hardship or allowances for reduced standards related to platting, street/right-of-way designs, or any
other subdivision or zoning standards adopted at that time, should the owners elect to further
subdivide this parcel in the future.
Attachments
1) Location/Aerial GIS Map
2) Survey
3) Site Photos
page 99
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Split (Subdivision) and Lot Combination Request
for
1629 Dodd Road & 694 Wentworth Avenue
(Planning Case No. 2018-18)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under Title
11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding
uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels eliminates any
nonconforming issue or status of the westerly parcel created by the original split.
page 100
REAR of RESIDENTIAL DWELLING/GARAGE
LOOKING EASTERLY - TOWARDS DODD ROAD/DRIVEWAY
LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS REAR LOT LINE
LOOKING WESTERLY- TOWARDS REAR OF LOT
page 101
?
?
G!.G!.6666*
*66666666666666!!2
!!2!!2!!2!!2
1629
1635
1603
702
688694
1623
1638
1630
1620
709
670
DODD RDWENTWORTH AVE W
357'321.4'206.6'115'173.6'175.2'
8''16''0''0''Dakota County GIS
City ofMendotaHeights080
SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/9/2018
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.
1629 Dodd Rd. & 694 Wentworth Ave.(Robbie & Courtney Bluhm)
page 102
page 103
page 104
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 24, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 24,
2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 PM.
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
Moment of Silence
Chair Field called for a moment of silence in remembrance of Commissioner Doug Hennes, who
served on the Planning Commission through December 2017 and passed away earlier this week.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 26, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2018, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-18
ROBBIE AND COURTNEY BLUHM, 1629 DODD ROAD / 694 WENTWORTH AVE.
LOT SPLIT (LOT COMBINATION)
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Robbie and Courtney Bluhm requested approval
to subdivide their single-family residential property into two separate parcels. This item requires
City Council approval and was being heard under a public hearing at the Planning Commission
meeting. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice
letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. No comments or
objections were received as of the date of this meeting.
The main parcel, 1629 Dodd Road, is a flag-shaped lot consisting of 1.26 acres. It is approximately
350 feet in depth with 101.27 feet in width along Dodd Road; it then expands to approximately
188 feet of width in the back lot area. The property contains a 1,453 square foot one-story
page 105
residential home with an attached tuck-under 3-car garage. Abutting this main parcel, in the rear,
is the 0.42 acre (18,150 square feet) lot located at 694 Wentworth Avenue, which Mr. and Mrs.
Bluhm also own. There is an existing shed on the Dodd Road parcel. If this lot split/combination
were approved, that shed would be located on the newly created Wentworth parcel, which is not
permitted by city code. Therefore, a condition should be added that this stand-alone shed must be
removed within one year of this approval; or a building permit must be applied for on the new
created lot to maintain that shed’s existence.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject parcels in relation to their location near surrounding
homes and streets, pointing out the area of the Dodd Road parcel they would like to split off and
combine with the Wentworth parcel.
The easterly parcel would retain the existing residential home and address off of Dodd Road. The
remaining would be joined or legally combined with the Wentworth parcel, thus creating a new
56,191 square foot or 1.29 acre parcel. Until the legal combination occurs, the parcel being split
from the main lot would be considered a non-conforming parcel due to its lack of frontage on a
city approved street. The property owners know and understand that no new building rights will
be granted unless the parcel has some form of legal street frontage for access. Therefore, a
condition and requirement of approval is that the new parcel created by this subdivision action is
immediately combined with the other adjoining property along Wentworth Avenue.
Once the split is approved, the easterly lot (along Dodd Road) would not meet the city’s rear yard
setback requirements nor would the existing driveway; however, since these encroachments are
pre- existing, the dwelling will remain as a legal, nonconforming use in the R-1 zone.
The applicants have agreed to provide the city with the necessary drainage and utility easements
along the front and rear yard area of both parcels; plus easements along the interior/side parcel
boundaries. The only exception would be an easement along the north line of the easterly parcel.
The city has also requested a 20-foot wide trail easement along the front edge of the Dodd Road
parcel. The Public Works Director has found the easement dedications to be acceptable.
Mr. Benetti also noted that since this application is entirely initiated by the applicants and due to
their own action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any
way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the applicant, or any future owners of the
1.29 acre parcel, to allow this area to be subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design
or any other variations to city code standards.
Mr. Robbie Bluhm, 647 Manomin Avenue in St. Paul, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. Mr. Bluhm had nothing new to add to the staff report.
Commissioner Corbett asked how Mr. Bluhm came up with the sizes for the two lots, the boundary
locations. Mr. Bluhm replied that the newly created lot is the one where he and his wife intend to
build a home on and the ratio of the division allows him more land for his own use.
Chair Field asked, since it was not in the initial staff report, if Mr. Bluhm had any questions or
concerns on the added condition #5. Mr. Bluhm asked if there would be a chance that the keeping
page 106
of the shed could be extended to a longer amount of time. Commissioner Noonan stated that he
believed that if Mr. Bluhm made a bona fide effort to obtain a building permit and an issue came
up where it would not be made available within one year, that he could work with staff to obtain
an extension. Mr. Benetti replied that this is something that could be handled administratively if
the extension was for a short amount of time.
Commissioner Magnuson, noting that the address provided was different than the Dodd Road
address, asked if anyone was living in the existing house right now. Mr. Bluhm replied that at this
time no one was living in the house as the tenants moved out at the end of May. It is now on the
market for sale. When questioned he noted that he has a few items in the shed.
Commissioner Toth asked for the current condition of the shed. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not
walk back to the shed; however, the applicant could answer. Mr. Bluhm replied that it was in a
stable condition and that he sees no reason why anyone would consider it an eyesore or in need of
being razed. It has been well maintained.
Commissioner Corbett asked how the current home is being marketed in respect to this application.
Mr. Bluhm replied that the survey provided to the Commission is being made available to any
potential buyers so they are aware of the subdivision of the property.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matt Ziemer, who lives next to the lot, expressed his concern and asked for confirmation that
on the newly created lot only one residence could be built and that it could not be subdivided in
the future – or would that have to come back to the commission. Chair Field replied that any further
splitting of the lot would have to come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, since the newly created lot only has 121 feet of frontage – and
the minimum allowable is 100 feet of frontage – is it necessary to have condition #3 since the only
thing that could be built on the lot is a single family residential home. Mr. Benetti replied that this
case is almost identical, although smaller, than the Mike Bader request heard last month. There is
the possibility that someone could put in a cul-de-sac on the 121 x 464 foot lot. The intent of the
split today is to combine it and if there were any other subsequent action, it all has to come back
through another entitlement process on its own merits and also meet all of the requirements of the
code. So condition #3 was put in there as more of a belt and suspender condition because the
zoning ordinance is the overriding factor for doing anything in future years.
Commissioner Toth, referencing past lot splits where the split was right down an existing building,
asked if the city requires the destruction of the building prior to granting the lot split or is that dealt
with at the time of sale of that lot. Staff confirmed that the shed is not bordering or lying on the lot
line once this split occurs. The reason for discussion of the shed being removed is because the city
code does not allow the existence of a secondary structure on a lot without a primary structure.
Commissioner Toth asked for clarification on whether or not the city requires the bringing of a
property into compliance every time the city grants a lot split. Mr. Benetti provided an example of
a lot split where the current home would have been straddling the lot line and there was a condition
page 107
that this home be removed. Also, the intent of that lot split was to allow for the construction of two
new homes.
Ms. Dianne Berfelz, 688 W. Wentworth, shared an image of the lots that she received from the
county a number of years ago. She pointed out her property and the surrounding properties and
asked how much will the city allow Mr. Bluhm to fill up the new lot, how far back can he set his
new home, and could he potentially build another house towards the back of the lot without an
access point. Chair Field replied, that based on the current proposal, there could be one house
placed on that entire property. How large of a home depends upon how big of a house he submits
for a building permit. Flag shaped lots are not permitted in Mendota Heights and if a case came in
requesting a flag lot, it would have a long shot of being approved.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-18, LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION
(LOT COMBINATION) BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under
Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels eliminates any
nonconforming issue or status of the westerly parcel created by the original split.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The westerly parcel to be created by the split of the 1629 Dodd Road parcel ((PID No. 27-
03800-37-113) shall be combined with the existing 694 Wentworth Avenue Parcel (PID
No. 27-03800-37-020.
2. The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the
certificate of survey prepared by Bohlen Surveying & Associates, dated March 11, 2018
or a recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
3. The new 1.29 acre parcel to be created after the lot split and lot combination process can
only be used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner
receives full consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate
application(s), per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and made by their own action
and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way
provide a future hardship or allowances for reduced standards related to platting,
street/right-of-way designs, or any other subdivision or zoning standards adopted at that
time, should the owners elect to further subdivide this parcel in the future.
page 108
5. The existing shed on the newly created westerly parcel must be removed within one year
of this approval date, or a building permit must be applied for on the new created lot to
maintain that shed’s existence.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if Condition #3 be edited to read “The new 1.29 acre parcel to be
created after the lot split and lot combination process can only be used for one (1) single-family
residential dwelling development per City Zoning Code; . . .” Both the motioner and the seconder
of the motion agreed to this amendment.
Commissioner Mazzitello also asked if language could be inserted about development taking place
on the new westerly lot after the split, where it is stated that ‘no development can take place on the
westerly lot until after the two lots are jointed’. Both commissioners of the original motion agreed
to this amendment and it was agreed that this language would be added to the end of Condition #3.
Commissioner Mazzitello then proposed adding Condition #6 that the combined joined lot be one
continuous lot with no gaps; there being a gap identified on the survey; to clean up the survey.
Again both commissioners of the original motion agreed to this additional condition.
Chair Field noted for the record that his mother lives just across Wentworth Avenue so he received
a notice letter regarding this application; however, he perceives no conflict of interest.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2018 meeting.
page 109
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 530 - an Ordinance Amending Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G to
allow “Dog Training Facility” as a new conditional use in the I-Industrial District
(Planning Case No. 2018-13)
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “Dog
Training Facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district. The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist,
owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility currently located in Hudson, WI.
Background
This item was originally presented for initial review and consideration before the Planning Commission at
the regular June 26th meeting. At this meeting, the Commission elected to table the item, and asked for
direction from the city council, with the intent to having this item presented back to them at the July 24th
meeting for further consideration.
At the July 2, 2018 regular City Council meeting, staff presented the June 26th report and information related
to the proposed new use, and after discussion with staff and the applicant, it was determined to focus solely
on the needs of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a conditional use permit in the Industrial Zone.
The council also supported Ms. Elmquist’s request to pursue a “tentative” conditional use permit under the
concept a proposed ordinance must be approved to allow such use; with the understanding that this use
would not be guaranteed (or approved) if the ordinance was not approved.
Immediately following consideration of this ordinance, the city council will be asked to give official
consideration of Ms. Elmquist’s request for a conditional use permit to allow a new dog training facility
under this new ordinance, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road.
Recommendation
At the July 24, 2018 regular Planning Commission meeting, the commission modified the draft Ordinance
No. 529 (re-numbered to 530) language, with a new definition and new standards to apply to such use. The
Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 530 as presented
herein.
Action Required
The City Council may adopt Ordinance No. 530 – an Ordinance Amending Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G
to allow “Dog Training Facility” as a new conditional use in the I-Industrial District.
page 110
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 530
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY
AS A CONDITIONAL USE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1B-2: DEFINITIONS is hereby amended as follows:
DOG TRAINING FACILITY: An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training
and care of dogs.
Section 2.
Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Dog Training Facility, provided that:
A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved
screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property
boundary lines.
B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the
boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted.
C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air.
D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open shall be approved by
the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate
outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility,
page 111
including any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four
feet in height, or all dogs utilizing an outdoor area shall be leashed at all times. No
animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at
all times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated
waste containers and in a sanitary manner.
H. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator.
I. The overnight boarding of dogs shall not be permitted.
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 7th day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter)
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 112
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-13
Zoning Code Amendment – Dog Training in the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “dog training facility” uses as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district. The applicant is Ms.
Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility currently located in
Hudson, WI.
This item was originally presented for initial review and consideration before the Planning Commission at
the regular June 26th meeting; whereby a planning report with related information was provided for review;
and after fruitful discussion and feedback from the commission and the Applicant, a motion was made with
the following suggestions for City Council consideration:
1. Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed];
2. Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require
a conditional use permit; and
3. Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only.
The Commission further requested follow-up feedback and direction from the City Council; and the Chair
deemed the item tabled, but left the hearing open for the later planning commission meeting date.
City Council Consideration:
At the July 2, 2018 regular City Council meeting, staff presented the June 26th planning report and
information related to the proposed new use related to dog training and animal/pet service uses. The initial
recommendation and request for direction from the Planning Commission was also presented to the council
for their consideration.
Discussions revolved around the specific dog-training use; and the possible expansion or additional
allowances of activities under this or similar animal related uses, such as day-care service,
overnight/extended kenneling services, breeding or selling of dogs and animals, clinic care, etc.
page 113
After continued discussion with city staff and Ms. Elmquist, it was determined to focus solely on the needs
of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a conditional use permit in the Industrial Zone. The council
felt that if other businesses or interested parties wanted to allow other “animal related” activities, the city
should consider them under separate application review process.
The council was also supportive of allowing Ms. Elmquist the opportunity to pursue a “tentative”
conditional use permit under the guise of a proposed ordinance; provided however she accepts the fact that
since no ordinance is officially adopted at this time, the CUP would be at risk of being tabled, withdrawn
or must be denied if said ordinance is not adopted by the city.
Excerpt minutes from this July 2nd meeting are appended to this report.
Planning Commission Follow-up Consideration:
Following the consideration of this item, the Planning Commission will be asked to review and give
consideration of a separate planning application (Planning Case No. 2018-20) of the proposed conditional
use permit for dog training facility, based on the new standards or regulations being offered under the
proposed Ordinance No. 529, presented herein.
The Applicant (Kristin Elmquist) fully understands and accepts the risk of applying for this CUP, which
may entail the item being tabled, denied or withdrawn from further consideration should this draft ordinance
be delayed or denied for any reason.
For the commission’s continued review and information, the initial planning report from the June 26th
regular meeting (related to this item) is also appended to this report.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
Following the re-opening of the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may
consider the following alternatives for action:
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the draft Ordinance No. 529 as presented (or amended as needed);
2. Recommend DENIAL of the draft Ordinance No. 529 with certain findings for denial; or
3. TABLE the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and
direction to city staff to make certain added revisions as needed before final consideration is given
on this zoning code amendment item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the request for “Dog
Training Facility” use as a new conditional use in the I-Industrial Distrcit, as presented under the draft
Ordinance No. 529 as presented herein (Alternative No. 1).
Attachments
1) Draft Ordinance No. 529
2) 07/02/18 City Council Meeting minutes (excerpts)
3) 07/26/18 Planning Report
page 114
1
2
3
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 4
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 5
6
ORDINANCE NO. 529 7
8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. 9
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY 10
AS A CONDITIONAL USE 11
12
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 13
14
Section 1. 15
16
Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows: 17
18
Dog Training Facility, provided that: 19
20
A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved 21
screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property 22
boundary lines. 23
B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the 24
boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. 25
C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or 26
organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. 27
D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open shall be approved by 28
the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 29
E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms. 30
F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate 31
outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, 32
including any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four 33
feet in height. No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas. 34
G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at 35
all times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated 36
waste containers and in a sanitary manner. 37
H. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning 38
Administrator. 39
40
page 115
41
Section 2. 42
43
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 44
45
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 7th day of August, 2018. 46
47
CITY COUNCIL 48
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 49
50
51
52
Neil Garlock, Mayor 53
ATTEST 54
55
56
___________________________ 57
Lorri Smith, City Clerk 58
59
60
61
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter) 62
63
64
65
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 66
1101 Victoria Curve 67
Mendota Heights, MN 55118 68
page 116
A) 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 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 definition 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.
page 117
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.
page 118
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-13
Zoning Code Amendment – Dog Training in the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “dog training” or similar uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district.
The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility
currently located in Hudson, WI.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Elmquist originally approached city planning staff a number of months ago, seeking to provide dog
training services in the old Laser-Tech building, located at 2500 Lexington Avenue. Negotiations for that
site fell through, and they have tentatively secured a tenant-lease space for the property located at 1415
Mendota Heights Road.
Prior to (and after) Ms. Elmquist’s inquiries, staff received a number of similar requests or met with various
interested parties requesting to provide doggie-day-care or pet boarding uses within the city, particularly
within the industrial and commercial zoned areas of the city.
Ms. Elmquist is seeking the ability to provide personalized and professional on-site training for dogs only;
which will include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy
services. The facility will also contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition events. The
site Ms. Elmquist has chosen is located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, which is a multi-tenant industrial
use building located within the Industrial zone district.
The Applicant provided a list of businesses and cities that allow or permit such uses similar to her own
request; and city staff found a list of other similar businesses in other cities as well (attached Exhibit –A).
page 119
ANALYSIS
According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA), a National Pet Survey conducted from 2017-
2018 found that over 68% of U.S. households, or about 85 million families, own a pet. This is up from
56% of U.S. households in 1988, the first year the survey was conducted (source: Insurance Information
Institute). Of the approximate 145 million households that own pets (i.e. dogs, cats, fish, birds, horses and
reptiles), almost 61 million or 42% are dogs, followed by 47 million (or 32.5%) with cats. Another statistic
depicts that the number of dogs in the United States from 2000 to 2017 jumped from 68 million to almost
90 million in 2017, a 32% increase (source: Statista). The total pet industry expenditures has increased
from $41.2 billion in 2007 to almost $70 billion in 2017, nearly a 70% increase in 10 years.
As a testament to these increased numbers/percentages of pets or dog ownership statistics, city staff will
acknowledge and attest to the numerous calls or personal inquiries from residents, realtors, property
managers and business owners seeking to provide some form of animal use activity, such as doggie-day-
care, kennels, or in this case, a dog training use within the City of Mendota Heights.
City Code however, is somewhat silent on identifying or providing specific standards related to dog
[animal] training, boarding or similar activities. City Code Title 12-1B-2 [Definitions] provides the
following definitions related to animals:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
VETERINARY: Those uses concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, medical care of animals, as well as
storage and disposal of dead animals, including animal or pet hospitals.
The B-1 Limited Business District also provides the following as a conditional use:
CAT CLINIC:
1. As used hereunder, the term "cat clinic" shall be deemed to mean a facility for the diagnosis,
treatment and medical care of domestic cats only, in which all professional services are conducted
within an enclosed building and which includes the temporary boarding of such animals while they
are under treatment.
2. Any conditional use permit for a cat clinic shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries
of the lot on which the use is conducted.
b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may be
required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash.
c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage and
disposal of dead animals in accordance with professional standards.
d. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and
landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the
R district.
e. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving
and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
f. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio required
for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading: "Office
page 120
building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space for each
two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building.
The B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow the following as conditional
use:
ANIMAL HOSPITAL (VETERINARY CLINIC).
1. A s used hereunder, the term "animal hospital or veterinary clinic" shall be deemed to mean a
facility for the diagnosis, treatment and medical care of small animals, in which all
professional services are conducted within an enclosed building and which includes the
kenneling of such animals.
2. Any conditional use permit for an animal hospital (veterinary clinic) shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the
boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility
shall be of masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and
with a precast concrete roof.
b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may
be required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash.
c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage
and disposal of dead animals off the premises.
d. Large Dog Facilities: Large dog facilities for indoor exercise of such animals shall be
provided. No outside pens shall be permitted.
e. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening
and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that
abut the R district.
f. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the
receiving and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
g. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio
required for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading
"Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space
for each two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building.
h. Live In Facility: An animal hospital may include a live in facility to permit a staff member
to be on the premises twenty four (24) hours per day. Such facility shall be limited to six
hundred twenty (620) square feet of floor space and shall not be designed to serve as a
single-family residence as hereinbefore defined in this chapter.
At this time, there is only one animal [care] type use in the city, the Mendakota Animal Hospital located in
The Village at 1938 Dodd Road. There is also the Parkview Cat Clinic located at 837 Sibley Memorial
Hwy. (River Bluffs Center) in Lilydale (which we assume will be closing as part of the expected
redevelopment of this commercial site).
Interestingly, even though the city defines “Animal Kennels” under the Title 12 – Zoning, there are no
allowances or provisions for such use in any of the various zoning districts. In fact, going back to the 1991
Zoning Code and other updates since that time, the use was identified/defined as well, but not allowed or
provided for in any zoning distrcit. Staff was unable to find if “kennels” were ever allowed in certain
zoning districts; or when or why they were removed from Zoning Code.
page 121
The term “kennel” does appear in a few places under Title 5 – Police Regulations, Ch. 3 Domestic Animals
section of City Code. However, most of these terms are related to impoundment of animals due to specific
instances or conditions.
In researching other metro community ordinances, there appears to be a number of cities that allow for
various animal use activities, such as kennels, vet clinics, pet care (boarding) centers, and some training
facilities. In some cases, cities that allow or permit “kennel” type uses also include the term “training” as
part of an allowed activity under such uses (refer to attached Exhibit – B)
The Applicant stated they are only interested in offering training services for dogs (with massage therapy),
and are not interested in providing boarding, grooming, vet clinic care or other services.
The City of West Saint Paul provides the most descriptive definition and standards for a “Dog Training
Facility”, along with a related “Pet Care Facility” for their community. The definition and standards are
noted below:
DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of
domestic dogs.
Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met.
(1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property
line of residentially zoned property.
(2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
(3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a
fence that is at least four feet in height.
(4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste
material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
(6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
(7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
(9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area.
(10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time.
If the city were to accept the Applicant’s request to provide only a new dog training use, then this definition
and standards of West St. Paul are clearly the ones to use or apply in this zoning code amendment case.
When cities view or consider any new use within the community (or zoning districts), there is nothing that
prohibits the allowance of other uses or activities as part of the overall review of a single-use. In this case,
the Planning Commission may wish to consider allowing “Animal Kennels” as either a permitted or
conditional use in the city; and consider “[dog] training” as an identified or allowable activity under the
general kennel use definition/description; or provide a new definition and allowance specifically for “Dog-
Training Facility” similar to West St. Paul’s ordinance.
In other words, since the City already has Animal Kennel defined under Sect. 12-1B-2, a suggestion would
be to simply modify this definition:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred, cared-for, trained or offered for sale.
page 122
In this case, the amended (definition) use would provide or allow for training activities, but the city still
must decide or determine which zoning district(s) to place the “Animal Kennel” use; and whether or not
the use should be a permitted use or conditional use under said district. The commission should note that
by placing this stand-alone use inside a district, say the I-Industrial district, there would be no standards
affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended otherwise.
For example, the Animal Hospital (veterinary clinic) use as noted above are listed as a conditional use in
the B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business district, with certain standards noted underneath
the use heading. If the city applied the same concept to Animal Kennel, or allowed Animal/Dog Training
Facilities, the amended text could be presented as follows:
12-1F-3: B-2 Neighborhood Business District
12-1F-4: B-3 General Business District
B. Conditional Uses: Within any B-2 neighborhood business district/ B-3 general business district, no
structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Animal Kennel / Animal-Dog Training Facility.
1. Any conditional use permit for an animal kennel / animal training facility shall be subject to the
following conditions:
A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and
landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the
R district.
B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries
of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility shall be of
masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and with a precast
concrete roof.
C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning
or specialized ventilation system may be required.
D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving
and pick-up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate
outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, including
any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height.
No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all
times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated waste
containers and in a sanitary manner.
H. Lighting. Any outdoor lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
I. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator.
As the Commission can see, Staff slightly modified the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of
the same standards associated with Vet Clinics from our own Code. The Planning Commission should
page 123
review, discuss and determine if these standards are appropriate, amendable and acceptable for this Zoning
Code Amendment request; determine the appropriate zoning district for such uses; and discern if the use
should be listed as a either a Permitted Use or Conditional Use.
Please note if the city wanted to make one or both of these activities a straight-on permitted use, there is
nothing that would prohibit the addition of standards below the use, similar to those noted above.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of only amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2
(Definitions) and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in the one or more of
the commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or
2. Recommend approval of only adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific
standards, and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in one or more of the
commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or
3. Recommend approval of amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2
(Definitions) and adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific standards,
and allow such uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the commercial-business and/or
industrial district(s); or
4. Recommend denial of the Applicant’s request to amend the City Zoning Code with “Dog Training”
or any similar/related uses, with certain findings; or
5. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggest the Commission discuss and determine if this type of use, either the “Animal Kennel” or
“Animal/Dog Training Facility” (or both) would fit better in the industrial, commercial or both zoning
districts.
In examining other communities, it appears the industrial zones are where kennels or dog training facilities
are primarily located. To be consistent with other metro cities ordinances, staff suggests the Planning
Commission consider allowing “Animal Kennel”- [amended] and/or “Animal Training Facility” - [new]
uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone only.
The Commission should also discuss on whether or not one or both of these uses should be allowed in the
commercial B-2 Neighborhood Business and/or B-3 General Business districts as well.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Planning application, including supporting materials
2. Exhibit – A List of Animal Kennel/Animal Training Businesses throughout Metro Area
3. Exhibit – B List of Metro Cities Definitions/Standards/Allowed Zones related to Animal Uses
page 124
LIST OF DOG/PET TRAINING or BOARDING BUSINESSES
LIST PROVIDED by APPLICANT LIST COMPILED by CITY STAFF
Think Pawsitive
2485 S Commerce Dr
New Berlin, WI 53151
SwimDog Wellness Center
5530 Neubert Rd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
The Paw
1741 Premier Dr
Mankato, MN 56001
Twin Cities Obedience Training Club
2101 Broadway St. NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
St Paul Dog Training
219 13th Avenue South
South St. Paul, Minnesota, 55075
On The Run Dog Training
13835 Aberdeen St NE
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Fusion Pet Retreat
14901 Minnetonka Industrial Rd
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Animal Inn Training
8633 34th St N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Canine Coach (multiple Locations)
6500 W Lake St
St Louis Park, MN 55426
and
1700 Marthaler Ln
West St Paul, MN 55118
Woof Dah! Inc.
12250 Portland Ave.
Burnsville, MN 55337
Tails Up Dog Training
680 Travelers Trail East
Burnsville, MN
American Boarding Kennels
1102 Highway 13 East
Burnsville, MN 55337
Four Paws Pet Resort
4020 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy.
Eagan, Dakota, Minnesota 55122
Wagging Tails Pet Resort
3275 Sun Drive
Eagan, MN 55121
Lucky Dog Pet Lodge
1067 American Boulevard East
Bloomington, MN 55420
Bloomington Obedience Training Club
8127 Pleasant Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Crystal Clear Canine Training
209 N Main Street
River Falls WI 54022
A New Leash Dog Training Ctr.
7393 Bush Lake Rd,
Edina, MN 55439
page 125
The following includes a list of metro-wide community definitions related to various levels or types of
animal care uses; and identifies certain zoning districts that allow said uses (either as permitted or
conditional use), along with some specific standards associated with said uses:
MANKATO
Def. Kennel. An establishment licensed to operate a facility housing dogs, cats or other
household pets and where grooming, breeding, boarding, training, or selling of animals is
conducted as a business or commercial use.
• B-1 Community Business and B-2 General Business – (Permitted Use)
MINNEAPOLIS
Use: Animal Boarding and Vet Clinics
• All Commercial Districts and I-2 Medium Industrial District – (Permitted Use)
HAM LAKE
Def. Public Dog Kennels: A “public dog kennel” means a kennel where dogs owned by others are
boarded for a fee.
• CD-2 Commercial Development 2 District –(Permitted Use)
• R-A Residential-Agriculture - (CUP)
Standard of Operation
a. Health and Safety Standards All public dog kennels must conform to the statutes and regulations
of any State or County agency having jurisdiction over such matters as fire control, cleanliness,
temperature control, waste disposal, diet and animal treatment. Waste shall not be permitted
to accumulate so as to create any odor detectable by adjoining property owners.
b. Noise Control all public dog kennels shall be housed in masonry buildings, constructed in such a
manner that animal noise cannot be heard from adjoining properties.
c. Lot Size and Setback No public dog kennel shall be permitted on any lot containing less than 10
acres. All buildings and runways comprising the public dog kennel shall be constructed at a
distance of at least 300 feet from adjoining property owners’ dwellings or occupied business
structures.
d. Outside Runways Outside runways must be completely screened by an attractive solid fence at
least six feet in height. The kennel operator shall not permit noise to be emitted from outside
runways which can be heard by adjoining property owners.
page 126
WEST ST. PAUL
Def. PET CARE FACILITY. Any premises where four or more domestic animals over four months of age
are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
• I-1 Light Industrial District – (CUP)
Def. DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of
domestic dogs.
• I-1 Light Industrial & I-2 General Industrial – (CUP)
Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met.
(1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property
line of residentially zoned property.
(2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
(3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a
fence that is at least four feet in height.
(4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste
material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
(6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
(7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
(9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area.
(10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time.
ST. LOUIS PARK
Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows:
a. No animals shall be kept outside the building, or be otherwise located, which cause
offensive odor discernible at the property line of the lot on which the activity is conducted.
b. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied
institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and
community centers.
• C-2 General Commercial - (CUP)
• I-G General Industrial (Permitted with Conditions – Not CUP)
page 127
Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows:
a. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an
occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions,
and community centers.
BURNSVILLE
Def. KENNEL, COMMERCIAL: Any place where six (6) or more dogs over four (4) months of age, or
more than ten (10) cats over four (4) months of age, or more than ten (10) ferrets over four (4) months of
age, or any combination thereof, not including offspring under seven (7) months of age, are commercially
kept, boarded, trained or offered for sale except when located in a pet shop or veterinary clinic/hospital.
A kennel may include secured outdoor runs and/or play areas.
Standards: Commercial kennels are subject to the following standards:
1. Related ancillary services including training, grooming and food and accessory sales
may be conducted or provided at the facility. When located in an industrial district,
these services are subject to section 10-23-2 of this code.
2. An enclosed exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising
of animals boarded at the facility. Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced to a
minimum height of four feet (4'), must have a three foot (3') vegetative buffer, must
be cleaned regularly, and animal waste shall not be allowed to enter a stormwater
pond or storm sewer.
3. In a multi-tenant building, the kennel facility must have a ventilation system that
prohibits the transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays. The
ventilation system must be capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of
1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space per area dedicated for the keeping of animals
exclusive of offices pursuant to chapter 1346 of the Minnesota state building code,
as may be amended, these requirements can be met by the submission of an air
exchange analysis, acceptable to the city from a Minnesota licensed contractor or
engineer confirming compliance with said standards, otherwise, the facility
ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant
space within the building. Facility air temperature must be maintained between
sixty degrees (60°) and eighty degrees Fahrenheit (80°F).
4. A sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the facility areas shall be provided to
adequately separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals.
5. Wall finish materials below forty eight inches (48") in height shall be impervious,
washable materials such as sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glass board, or marlite.
Floor finish shall be sealed concrete or other approved impervious surface. Liquid
tight curbing, at least six inches (6") high, shall be installed along shared walls for
sanitary confinement and water wash down cleaning.
6. Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned up with solid wastes being enclosed in
a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and organisms.
• B-3 General Business District - CUP
• B-4 Highway Commercial Dist. - (Permitted Use)
• I-1 Industrial Park District - CUP
page 128
EAGAN
Def. Kennel: means any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon a total
of four or more dogs or cats or combination, over six months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or
boarded.
Standards: Kennel premises and facilities. All licensed kennels must meet the following
requirements:
A. All animal housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair.
B. All animals must be housed in an indoor facility maintained at a temperature of not less than
50 degrees Fahrenheit. Animals may be provided temporary access to outdoor runs and
exercise areas when appropriate for the species, breed, and weather conditions.
C. All housing facilities must have at least eight hours of illumination, either natural or artificial,
sufficient to permit routine inspection and cleaning.
D. All housing facilities must be adequately ventilated. Drafts, odors, and moisture
condensation must be minimized. Auxiliary ventilation, such as exhaust fans, vents, and air
conditioning, must be used when the ambient temperature exceeds 85 degrees Fahrenheit
at the floor level.
E. Carcass and garbage disposal facilities must be provided and managed to minimize vermin
infestation, odors, and disease hazards.
F. Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided and managed to protect food supplies
against contamination and deterioration. Open bags of food must be stored in vermin-proof
containers.
G. The premises, housing facilities, exercise areas, and confinement areas must be cleaned and
disinfected as often as necessary to maintain a clean and sanitary condition. Animal
confinement areas must be cleaned at least once daily. Measures must be taken to protect
animals from being splattered with water or feces and from exposure to harmful chemicals
during cleaning. Bedding, if used, must be kept clean and dry. Outdoor runs and exercise
areas must be kept clean and soiled base material must be replaced as necessary.
H. Confinement areas must be of sufficient size to allow each dog or cat to turn about fully and to
stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable, normal position. The confinement area must be
constructed so as to prevent injury to the dog or cat. Interior surfaces of indoor confinement
areas must be constructed and maintained so that they are substantially impervious to
moisture, provide for rapid drainage, and may be readily cleaned.
• GB-General Business District – (CUP for Kennels)
• I-1 Limited Industrial Dist. – (CUP – Kennels with outside runs and subject to regulations
in chapter 6.
page 129
BLOOMINGTON
PET SERVICES FACILITY. A business establishment that provides any of the following services or retail
activity either individually or in combination, for pets and domestic animals as defined in § 12.91: sales,
animal sales, veterinary care, animal hospital, short-term daily care, training classes, boarding and
grooming.
• B-2 Gen Business, B-4 Neighborhood Commercial; C-2 Freeway Comm; and C-3 Freeway Comm
Center; I-3 General Industry CUP in the
HUDSON, WI
Animals, Commercial Training
Kennels, Commercial
• AR Ag-Residential Zone –(CUP)
• B-4 Central Business Zone – (CUP)
• PS Plan Study Zone – (CUP)
page 130
C) PLANNING CASE #2018-13
KRISTIN ELMQUIST (OWNER – FOR THE LOVE OF DOGS)
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – DOG TRAINING IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Kristin Elmquist was returning to ask that
the city consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “dog training
facility” uses as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district.
This item was originally presented at the Commission’s regular meeting on June 26, 2018 where
the public hearing was held over and the motion was made to make suggestions for City Council
consideration. At the July 2, 2018 City Council meeting, discussions were had that revolved around
the specific dog-training use; and the possible expansion or additional allowances under this or
similar animal related uses. After continued discussion the Council determined to focus only on
the needs of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial
Zone. If any other businesses or interested parties wanted to allow other animal related activities,
the city would consider them under a separate application review process.
Mr. Benetti presented proposed Ordinance No. 529 (note: revised to Ordinance No. 530 per City
Clerk) and noted that the language provided was just the language that centered on Dog Training
Facility; which were very consistent with what was discussed at the June 26, 2018 Planning
Commission meeting and also consistent with the West St. Paul ordinances that staff felt was a
very ideal ordinance to utilize as a guide.
Staff recommended approval of this draft ordinance.
Commissioner Noonan, understanding the directions from the City Council, asked for
confirmation that a kennel is only permitted in the Business District as opposed to the Industrial
District. Mr. Benetti replied that no kennels are allowed in the city currently. There is a definition
of a kennel in the zoning code; however, there are no permitted uses identified in any of the city’s
zoning districts. The only similar use is an animal hospital; and that is only in the Business District.
Commissioner Noonan also noted that the proposed ordinance has Dog Training Facility; however,
there is no definition provided. He suggested that this be fleshed out.
Commissioner Magnuson echoed the same concern as Commissioner Noonan. She also noted that
there is nothing in the ordinance that expressly forbids dogs from staying overnight.
Chair Field agreed that without a definition, all kinds of unintended consequences could occur.
Mr. Benetti pointed out the definition of a Dog Training Facility that was included in the original
request presented at the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and asked if that would be
an acceptable definition. After discussion, it was agreed that the definition was acceptable;
however, provisions for accessory services need to be spelled out (i.e. dog massage, dog grooming,
not including boarding, etc.).
page 131
Commissioner Noonan asked if Condition H was really necessary (Parking. Adequate off-street
parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator) since there are parking
standards within the Industrial zone. Mr. Benetti replied that, knowing the extent of Ms. Elmquist’s
proposed activities, he wanted the ability to limit the amount of parking to what would be available
on the site. Upon being asked, Commissioner Mazzitello opinioned that typically in the zoning
code, the parking determination is done by facility usage. He did not believe there was anything
in the code that talks about parking requirements for a dog training facility. If they are in a
traditional industrial building, they are going to have part of their facility be an office. Square
footage would be used to determine parking based on the office area; the indoor training area could
be considered as industrial or warehouse space and a parking calculation based on that square
footage could be added, and see if that fits what the tenant of the building needs to have parking
for their business. If it is not adequate, then that would be the reason for Condition H to be listed;
the zoning administrator would have discretion to differentiate from those calculations in code to
allow for a parking ratio that works for the user that is still reasonably close to what is codified.
Ms. Kristin Elmquist came forward to answer any questions the Commission would have and to
add comment to the staff report.
Chair Field asked what services she would be offering that would be consistent with a ‘day training
facility’. Ms. Elmquist replied that her facility caters to not only family pets but to performance
dogs and; therefore, she provides massages or chiropractic services that are performed by trained
staff. Something like day care really has nothing to do with the training classes and the services
provided so it is not something she is interested in. She may occasionally have ancillary things like
photographers that show up at events, but that is not a regularly occurring thing. Grooming is not
something she is looking at. Although performance dogs need grooming, that is not her primary
focus. Chair Field asked if she could theoretically groom a dog before a competition. Ms. Elmquist
replied that if it were confirmation, then yes that would be correct. However, she is not training
for confirmation and she does not hold confirmation shows.
Commissioner Noonan asked if she were to reconsider, for the organized training of domestic
animals, is that broad enough to cover the athletic training of the dogs she spoke about in terms of
the training, nutritional guidance, chiropractic, and massage therapy – is ‘training’ broad enough
to cover all that she would think of doing. Chair Field suggested ‘training and care of’.
Commissioner Magnuson, indicating that they are dealing with performance animals, noted that
these animals require a different level of care or training. If the city had something that said that
an indoor or outdoor facility used exclusive for the organized training of domestic and performance
dogs. Part of the performance dog notion may be that performance dogs do have some additional
requirements, much like elite athletes. Then the city would not need to deal with ‘ancillary
services’.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there was an advantage to defining it extremely narrowly versus
it being slightly broad and avoiding services like kennels and boarding and basically allowing any
dog service. Commissioner Magnuson replied that the City Council said they wanted to limit it to
training facilities.
page 132
Commissioner Noonan noted that this is why he liked the suggestion ‘and care of’, knowing full
well that they are not looking to kennel.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to Condition F, noted that the suggestion from the City
Council that outdoor areas ‘be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height’.
He then asked how that would affect training in an outdoor area if they were let off of their leash
in a fenced area. Ms. Elmquist replied that this was one of the things that she would like to have
removed. In her opinion, when a fence is set up it encourages owners to unsnap that leash. She
does not want any dog loose and that is not the intent of the potty area; she wants dogs to go out,
do their business, and come back in. Having a fenced in area, even with signs saying no dogs
allowed off their leash, it happens. Then there is the issue of people opening gates and dogs get
loose, and all of those things that come with an area like that. This is not a play area, it is not an
exercise area, and it is just for going potty. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation that
she requires dogs to be leashed at all times. Ms. Elmquist confirmed; except when they are
competing inside the building.
Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that Condition F be modified by adding that the fence could
be exempted if the operator requires animals to be on a leash at all times in outdoor areas.
Commissioner Toth asked if the owner of the dog must be present at all times or could they drop
the dog off and have it be trained without them. Ms. Elmquist replied that at this facility the owner,
or responsible party, must be present with the dog at all times and take the dog with them when
they leave. No dog is allowed to stay overnight. An owner / responsible party can have multiple
dogs on site.
Commissioner Noonan asked what the capacity was on the proposed facility. Ms. Elmquist replied
that would depend on the type of class being held. Obedience classes are typically limited to six
or eight puppies; nose-work classes are typically four to six; dog diving classes are typically four
to six; all are relatively small class sizes. Some classes are run concurrently.
Commissioner Noonan asked how many parking spaces are available on the site. Ms. Elmquist
replied that there are approximately 13 spaces in front of the building and approximately 20 spaces
up on top. She believes that would be sufficient for her needs.
Commissioner Toth asked about waste removal and the practice for that. Ms. Elmquist replied that
in the outdoor relief area they plan to have a waste container with bag dispenser, similar to what
is available in the parks. That waste container would be emptied every night, into the garbage
dumpster.
Commissioner Toth asked about ventilation and sanitary measures as there may be times when a
dog relieves themselves inside the building. Ms. Elmquist replied that since this is not a boarding
facility, she does not anticipate that dogs would regularly be relieving themselves inside. As
accidents do happen, a clean-up station will be provided inside as well. A kennel disinfectant is
used in the water for those accidents that happen.
page 133
Chair Field reminded the Commission that the item before them is an ordinance to allow a dog
training facility as a conditional use in the industrial zone. The specific questions that have been
brought up should be during the conditional use permit application, which follows.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, if they were to define a dog training facility the way they have
been discussing, would that be satisfactory to Ms. Elmquist. She indicated that she would be
satisfied with that definition.
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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-13, ORDINANCE NO. 529 530
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G, INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
1. The zoning ordinance include in the Definition Section the definition of Dog Training
Facility as “An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training and care of
dogs”
2. In the body of the provision, include Provision F a clause that says “. . . shall be completely
enclosed with a fence . . . or require that all dogs utilizing the outdoor facility be leashed
at all times”
3. Add Provision I that reads “The overnight boarding of dogs shall not be permitted”
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2018 meeting.
page 134
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Dog Training Facility in the
I-Industrial District – 1415 Mendota Heights Road [Planning Case No. 2018-12]
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a request from Kristin
Elmquist for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new Dog Training Facility in the Industrial Zone, located
at 1415 Mendota Heights Road.
Background
The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to provide a new “dog training facility” use in a vacant
space within an existing multi-tenant building, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The property is
generally located at the northwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road, and is in the I-
Industrial district. The property is owned by Lamar, LLC.
This proposed use is subject to the City Council approval of Ordinance No. 530, which includes new
language allowing “Dog Training Facility” as a new conditional use in the I-Industrial distrcit (Title 12-
1G-2); and provides for certain regulations and standards for said use. Should this ordinance fail to be
adopted, modified or tabled, then this planning case item must be denied, modified or tabled accordingly.
At the July 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a
public hearing was conducted. There were no comments from the public. A copy of the 07/24/18 planning
report, along with the planning commission meeting minutes (excerpts) are appended to this memo.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a conditional use 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 with
findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make
a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-56 APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A DOG TRAINING FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1415 MENDOTA
HEIGHTS ROAD.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 135
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-56
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-20)
WHEREAS, Kristin Elmquist (the "Applicant") requests approval for a conditional use
permit to allow a new Dog Training Facility use in the I-Industrial District, as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2018-20, and for the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, and
legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is also considering adopting Ordinance No.
530 (the “Ordinance”), an Ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G to allow “Dog
Training Facility” as a conditional use with certain regulations and standards in the I-Industrial
District; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the Ordinance; and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimous
(7-0 vote) approval of said Ordinance, which would allow the Applicant to proceed with an official
request for conditional use permit related to this proposed new use in the Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a
separate public hearing on this conditional use permit application, whereby a planning 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 (by 7-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit to allow a
new Dog Training Facility at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, with certain findings of fact and
conditions noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit to allow a Dog Training Facility in the I-Industrial District, as proposed
under Planning Case No. 2018-20 and for the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road,
can be approved based on the following findings of fact:
page 136
A. The proposed use will be compliant with the proposed city zoning code amendment
to be considered under Ordinance No. 530.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit to allow a Dog Training Facility in the I-Industrial District, as proposed
under Planning Case No. 2018-20 and for the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road,
is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. All standards and regulations adopted or amended under proposed Ordinance No.
530 shall be complied with during the operations of this dog training facility on the
subject property.
2. All training activities and events shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed
building.
3. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited.
4. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage
on the subject parcel/building. No banner or temporary signs will be allowed.
5. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or tenant
space improvements.
6. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday; and
7:00 am to 10 pm weekends or special events.
7. The Owner of the training facility shall notify all other building space tenants at
least 14-days in advance of any planned weekend events; and must ensure that all
parking for clients and guests for said events are accommodated on the subject site.
No on-street parking or blocking of loading areas is allowed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 137
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 1415 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights MN 55120
PID: 27-03300-78-070
Legal Description:
THE NORTH 430.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1,750 FEET OF THE EAST 660 FEET OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 1 & 2, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 40 FEET, SECTION 33 TOWNSHIP 28
RANGE 23, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA; AND EXCLUDING PARCEL NO. 46D OF
MINNESOTA DOT R/W MAP 19-93.
[Abstract Property]
page 138
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-20
Conditional Use Permit – Dog Training Facility
APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1415 Mendota Heights Road
ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I Industrial
ACTION DEADLINE: September 11, 2018
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Ms. Kristin Elmquist, the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to provide a new “dog training
facility” use in a vacant space within an existing multi-tenant building, located at 1415 Mendota Heights
Road. The property is generally located at the northwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob
Road (see GIS image – below); and is in the I-Industrial district. This property is owned by Lamar, LLC.
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; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property.
page 139
BACKGROUND
As was reported at last month’s Planning Commission meeting of June 26th, staff indicated that Ms.
Elmquist approached city staff a number of months ago seeking to provide dog training services in the city;
and she has now secured a tenant-space on the subject property.
The subject property consists of 5.85 acres in size, and has a 66,242 sq. ft. multi-tenant office/industrial
building - listed as the “Airport Industrial Center”. The site contains three access drives coming off
Mendota Hts. Road to the south and one access point off Pilot Knob Road to the east. The site contains 65
parking spaces located on the west and northwesterly (rear) areas of the building, and 13 spaces located on
the east edge of the building with 6 additional spaces located in the front yard.
There are a number of over-head door loading bays to the rear (north) portion of the building. The site also
contains a small, unstriped parking lot area near the northeast corner of the site, which is used for temporary
parking of truck trailers.
Ms. Elmquist is seeking the CUP in order to provide personalized and professional on-site training for dogs
only; which will include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage
therapy services. The facility will also contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition
events. The dog training use will occupy the far-east end of the building, which consists of 10,706 sq. ft.
of floor space (see blue shaded image – below).
page 140
The mix office/warehouse building is currently occupied by Lancer Hospitality on the west end; while “For
the Love of Dogs will occupy the east end. The middle section is currently vacant.
SCOPE of ACTIVITIES
The new use will take place entirely indoors, at the end-tenant space of 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The
Applicant has provide a diagram (below) that shows the areas of parking, overflow and event parking (when
or if needed); and the dog relief or “potty” area in the front yard space of the building.
Ms. Elmquist has presented the following information or services they provide as part of the proposed
professional dog training facility:
Training / Discipline classes
• 18-20, one-hour classes per week, with 6-10 students per class
• Types: AKC Scent Work, Barn Hunt, Dog Ball, K9 Nose Work, Manners, Rally Obedience,
Tracking, Tricks, Agility, AKC Tricks, WAGS Dog Sports, and Dock Diving
• Open ring time
Pool
• 2-3 1 hr classes per week, 4-6 students per class
• Open pool time
No dogs left in building without owner present
No dogs left over night
No boarding or day care
All classes held indoors
Events
• 1-2 weekends per month for full day competitions and workshops; weekends only.
o 30-50 participants and volunteers
o 75-80% live in MN but will drive 1+ hrs. to attend; 20%-25% live out of state
• 2-4 days per month for short events
o Weekdays/nights or weekends
o Typically 2-4 hours
o 20-40 participants and volunteers
page 141
o 80-85% live in metro area
o 15-20% non-metro or out of state
Site Info
• 15 parking spots out front can accommodate class parking
• Overflow parking to the north provide additional spaces on event weekends.
• Dog relief/potty area on grass to the south of the building.
o Dogs will be required to be on leash at all times outside.
o We will supply a doggie poop station for owner pick up.
o Grounds will be patrolled daily.
o Poop station will be emptied daily.
o Lime will be regularly spread to maintain good curb appeal.
The proposed use will have hours limited to 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday – Friday; and 7:00 am to 10 pm
weekends or special events. Based on 18-20, one hour classes with 6-10 students per class and the proposed
hours of operation, ample parking should exist to satisfy the proposed business use’s demands.
Directly related to this conditional use permit, but under separate review and consideration, is a draft
Ordinance No. 529, which includes a proposal to allow “dog-training facility” as a new conditional use
under the I-Industrial zone. This draft ordinance is being presented and considered prior to this item, in
order for the Planning Commission to consider, recommend and approve new standards or regulations
specifically related to this dog training use.
These new regulations and standards are noted in the following analysis section of this report.
ANALYSIS of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
As is noted under the planning report for Planning Case No. 2018-13, the draft Ord. No. 529 includes new
language allowing “Dog Training Facility” as a new conditional use under the I-Industrial distrcit (Title 12-
1G-2). The ordinance [tentatively] provides for the following standards related to this use:
Dog Training Facility, provided that:
A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and landscaping
plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines.
B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries of the lot on
which the use is conducted.
C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or organisms will spread
between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air.
D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open shall be approved by the city council to
ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief
area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, including any relief areas, shall be
completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height. No animals shall remain unattended in
outdoor areas.
G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid
waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated waste containers and in a sanitary
manner.
H. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
page 142
Staff interprets the use as qualifying for a conditional use permit under the proposed new “Dog Training
Facility” use being considered under Ordinance No. 529; and that all proposed standards or regulations to
be considered under this new use are attainable or can be met by the Applicant at the subject property.
There are no abutting residential zones or uses, so no screening or additional landscaping is needed. The
building is made of concrete block and tip-up panels, and staff assumes all tenant separated spaces are
adequately constructed or will provide noise attenuation if needed.
The Applicants will be making some interior tenant improvements to the site, and staff (including the
Building Official and Fire Marshal) will ensure that adequate ventilation, air circulation, and restroom
facilities will be in place before a certificate of occupancy is granted. Waste removal bags and receptacles
will be located inside and outside the facility, and the owner will be responsible for the daily removal and
clean-up as needed.
The only outdoor area has been identified on the plan as the “potty area”, which is located in the front yard
area along Mendota Heights Road. The new standards requires this area to be fenced off with a minimum
4-ft. high fence. The Applicant has requested that this area not be fenced off, as they will have strict rules
and requirements that any dog that is led outside must be leashed and attended to at all time by the owners.
No animals will be allowed to run freely in or around the property site. The Planning Commission may
wish to discuss if this standard can be waived under this request.
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains specific standards for reviewing a conditional use permit
request; and the following are to be taken into consideration:
• 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:
• The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
• will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
• will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
• the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
Staff believes the proposed dog training use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the community, including the neighboring businesses near the subject location, provided that all
standards or regulations as contained in the Ord. No. 529 are met or exceeded under this CUP request.
The Applicant intends to limit the class sizes; and any special or competition events will take place on
weekends, so any potential impacts to traffic or parking should be limited or minimal on the site or in this
area. Staff does not believe the proposed use would or will seriously depreciate surrounding property
values, provided the operators of the business and animal owners safely care-for and maintain all dogs on
the site, and there are no noise or odor complaints generated by the business.
Staff also believes the proposed use can be considered to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the City Code and comprehensive plan; and that there is no reason to believe that the proposed use will
be contrary to the standard of review for conditional use permits listed above; and should be compatible
with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
page 143
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
use will be and must be compliant with the standards and regulations of the newly proposed “Dog
Training Facility Use”, proposed under Ordinance No. 529, with conditions; or
2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact(s)
determined by the Planning Commission, that the Conditional Use Permit requested herein does not
meet certain regulations or standards under the proposed Ord. No. 529; or
3. TABLE the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and
direct city staff to make certain revisions before final consideration is given on this planning item; with
direction to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota
State Statute.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Commission must be aware that should the proposed Ordinance No. 529 be tabled, then this item too
must be tabled; or similarly if the ordinance is recommended for denial or amended, then this CUP must be
recommended for denial or amended with any new standards or regulations deemed necessary.
Ms. Elmquist fully understands and accepts the risks of applying for this CUP while the ordinance is subject
to separate consideration and approvals; and that this conditional use permit cannot be approved without an
approved or adopted ordinance that establishes the foundation or allowance for this specific use.
Nevertheless, city staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed “Dog
Training Facility” use in the I-Industrial District, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use will be
compliant with the proposed City Zoning Code Amendment to be considered under Ordinance No. 529,
with the following conditions:
1. All standards and regulations adopted or amended under proposed Ordinance No. 529 shall be
complied with during the operations of this dog training facility on the subject property.
2. All training activities and events shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building.
3. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited.
4. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the subject
parcel/building. No banner or temporary signs will be allowed.
5. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or tenant space
improvements.
6. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday; and 7:00 am to 10
pm weekends or special events.
7. The Owner of the training facility shall notify all other building space tenants at least 14-days in
advance of any planned weekend events; and must ensure that all parking for clients and guests for
said events are accommodated on the subject site. No on-street parking or blocking of loading
areas is allowed.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial/Location Site Map
2. Letter of Intent- with Site Plan
3. Subject Site Photos
page 144
LOOKING N’ WESTERLY – TOWARDS TENANT SPACE/PARKING
LOOKING NORTHWARD – ENTRANCE OFF MENDOTA HTS. RD.
LOOING WESTERLY – REAR LOADING AREA OF BUILDING
LOOKING NORTHWARD – OVERFLOW/TRUCK PARKING AREA
LOOKING SOUTHWARD – TOWARDS TENANT SPACE
LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARDS FRONT PARKING AREA
page 145
(((???
?
?
?
G!.
G!.G!.G!.66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666 66
66666 6 66666666666666!
!
!!
!
"
"
*
³!
³
³
!
³
*
"
³""
""
"
"
""
""
*
"
*
*
*
*
*6666666666 666666
666666
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2!!2!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
1415
2515
2411 2411
1415
2515
1385
1455
2506 PILOT KNOB RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD 323'274'268'324'162'238'12''8''0''
8''0''12''0''Dakota County GIS
City of
Mendota
Heights0100
SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/20/2018
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.
1415 Mendota Hts. Rd.(Elmquist - For The Love of Dogs)
page 146
Company Overview: For the Love of Dogs is based out of Hudson, WI and is doing business as
an LLC, owned by Kristin Elmquist since 2005. Kristin has 32 years of dog training and showing
experience. She is a mentor trainer for the Animal Behavioral Collage, a Canine Sports Message
Therapist (CSMT), a Certified K9 Nose Work Instructor (CNWI) a Canine Good Citizen Evaluator
and a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) and the International Association
of Animal Message & Bodywork (IAAMA). This company has a partnership with The Dog Tank,
LLC to provide dog dock diving in the Twin Cities area.
Target Market: Our core market is the family dog owner/ dog enthusiast looking for fun
activates to do with their dog in a positive training environment. Our programs specializes in
training for owners that are struggling with their dog training due to time constraints and other
outside commitments.
Services: For the Love of Dogs offers weekday and weekend classes in dog training and
weekend trials. At no time are dogs left at our facility. We do not provide boarding or day care
service.
Dog training discipline includes the following class roster.
• Manners class
• K9 Nose Work
• AKC Scent Work
• Agility
• AKC Tricks
• WAGS Dog Sports
• ABC Nose work games
• Rally Obedience
• Barn Hunt
• Tracking
• Dog Ball
• Dock Diving
Canine Sports massage is an ancillary offering, currently conducted at various locations in the
metro area. This service would be moved to the new location in Mendota Heights.
This location would allow us to host weekend trials that bring in competitors from around the
country. This in turn supports the other local business since they utilize gas stations, hotels and
restaurants.
page 147
We feel that a new building in Mendota Heights would give us a permanent access facility. This
location offers great access to the freeway and the twin cities airport and the industrial zoning
is perfect for a dog training business.
The Market: The ASPCA estimates that 48% of all households in the US have a dog and more
and more of these households treat their dogs like a family member. American pet spending
has continued to rise every single year since 1994 – even during the 2007-2009 recession –
reaching an estimated $69.36 billion in 2017.
Specifically, the pet services arena, dog training and pet care expenditures have been increasing
with double-digit year-over-year growth.
https://vimeo.com/orangetreeps/review/214716969/38f274fe6d
Competitive Advantages: There are several dog training schools in the Twin Cities Metro area,
with three competitive schools in the east metro offering some but not all of the same services.
Many of our instructors are certified in their area of specialty, which is not commonly found in
most dog training schools. We currently offer more, and different types, of K9 Nosework classes
than any other schools in the arena. For the Love of Dogs is the only school in the east and
south metro area to offer doggie boot camp, AKC tricks class, WAGS dog sports, Barn Hunt,
tracking, Dog ball and ABC Nose work games.
For the Love of Dogs has exclusive rights to hold NADD dock diving trials and K9 ABC games
within 100 miles’ radius.
page 148
page 149
D) PLANNING CASE #2018-20
KRISTIN ELMQUIST, 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – DOG TRAINING FACILITY
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Kristin Elmquist has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit to provide a new “dog training facility” use in a vacant space within an
existing multi-tenant building located in the I-Industrial district.
A notice of the public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the site. No comments or objections were
received as of the date of this meeting.
The subject property, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, is approximately 5.85 acres in size
and the building itself is just over 66,000 square feet. The dog training facility would occupy the
far-east end of the building, consisting of 10,706 square feet of floor space.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the building, highlighting the area to be occupied by the dog
training facility.
Activities and services to be provided include training / discipline classes, pool, competitions, and
workshops. The pool would be used for dock diving training and competitions. The hours of
operation would be 8:00 a.m. – 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. on
weekends or during special events.
Now that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of draft Ordinance 529 530, they
can proceed with this Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Benetti shared the standards to be
met when considering a Conditional Use Permit and explained how this application meets those
standards. Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing Condition #7, asked if on-street parking was permitted for
the public on Pilot Knob Road or on Mendota Heights Road at this time. Public Works Director
Ryan Ruzek replied that he did not believe that on-street parking was permitted in the immediate
vicinity of this area. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that if it is prohibited by ordinance, then there
is no need to say it in the condition. Mr. Benetti replied that he wanted it as part of the condition
to ensure that the applicant is clear that, if an event is being held that they need to self-manage the
parking themselves instead of the police being called.
Commissioner Corbett, in reference to the loading areas, asked if any discussions had taken place
with the building owner. Mr. Benetti replied that the owner was asked if the adjacent tenant would
be able to have continuous loading and unloading to their facility. The owner indicated that he
believed they could with this use being in the building.
Ms. Kristin Elmquist returned to answer questions or provide comment. In reference to the
question about the loading dock, she indicated that one of those would be hers. She also indicated
that the entrance and exit to the potty area is on the potty area side, away from the loading dock.
page 150
The loading dock is really just an elevated garage door with no stairs or any way for dogs or people
to come out that side of the building.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if she would see any need to utilize on-street parking at any time.
Ms. Elmquist replied in the negative and noted that the site has the ability to hold a lot of cars if
really needed to.
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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-20, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT – DOG TRAINING FACILITY BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE
PROPOSED USE WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THE PROPOSED CITY ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 529 530;
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. All standards and regulations adopted or amended under proposed Ordinance No. 529 530
shall be complied with during the operations of this dog training facility on the subject
property.
2. All training activities and events shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building.
3. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited.
4. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the
subject parcel/building. No banner or temporary signs will be allowed.
5. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or tenant space
improvements.
6. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday; and 7:00 am
to 10 pm weekends or special events.
7. The Owner of the training facility shall notify all other building space tenants at least 14-
days in advance of any planned weekend events; and must ensure that all parking for clients
and guests for said events are accommodated on the subject site. No on-street parking or
blocking of loading areas is allowed.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they needed to include a condition that the Conditional Use
Permit is subject to the Adoption of Ordinance 529 530 by the City Council. The reply was that if
the City Council were to deny the adoption of the ordinance, then this request would not be a
permitted use.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 151
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Fire Station Architectural Agreement
Date: August 7, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council is asked to approve an agreement for architectural services with CNH Architects, Inc. of
Apple Valley for the design of an addition to, and the remodeling of the City’s Fire Station.
BACKGROUND:
On July 2nd, the City Council held a Public Hearing regarding the direct issuance of bonds that would
finance the construction of a remodeling/addition to the Mendota Heights Fire Station, which is located at
2121 Dodd Road. This would be a two-phase addition and remodeling project, resulting in a building of
approximately 20,000 square feet.
Action taken by the City Council following that Public Hearing started a 30 day time period. During that
time, if a petition calling for a referendum had been submitted, the City Council would have had to either
submit the question to a referendum, or withdraw the bond issuance from consideration. The petition
would have had to be had to be signed by a minimum of 5% of the voters in the most recent general
election.
By the close of business on August 1st—the end of the 30 day time period—no petition had been received.
At this time, there is no formal action necessary to be taken by the Council to acknowledge that and move
the project forward. The next vote would be when plans and specifications are to be adopted, and go to
bid authorized.
However, in order to produce the plans and specifications, the City must enter into a contract with an
architect. CNH Architects, Inc. is the firm that the Council authorized to perform preliminary concept
design and cost estimating. A proposed contract to complete the design and subsequent actions is
attached.
page 152
The contract is a standard document from the American Institute of Architect (AIA), and spells out
expectations, requirement, and other details. It has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
Construction Manager: In discussions with CNH, it is our recommendation that a Construction Manager
(CM) be hired by the City to oversee the project on its behalf. The standard language in the AIA
document provides that the architect will visit the site on a weekly basis. However, given the complexity
of this project (involving both new construction and a remodeling), having someone on site to oversee the
project who is working on the City’s behalf is seen as a benefit. The CM is typically going to be the first
line of quality control, and will reject work and set expectations. However, ultimately, the architect will
have the power to accept or reject work, so the CM and architect will work together closely.
The Construction Manager would be hired by the City, and would be chosen after interviews are
conducted by a panel which would be made up of the architect and City staff (which will include Fire
Department representatives). The CM will be responsible for conducting the competitive bidding that is
required of the City, coordinating the contracts, and seeing to the day to day efficiencies.
See the attached memorandum from CNH regarding this concept.
Project Timing: Discussions with the architect in February of this year indicated that the project timing
would be for bids to be opened in December, with the expectation that that would be the best time to lock
in a builder for a spring, 2019 start. However, since that time the architect has reached out to a couple of
prospective bidders, and has found that a bid opening in December has not yielded good results—many
potential bidders are on vacation, or their companies are shut down for end of the year issues. It therefore
appears that a bid opening in late January or early February may generate better bid results. This change
should not delay the spring start.
BUDGET IMPACT:
CNH has proposed to perform the architectural services for a flat amount of $323,800. As an alternative,
the architect could base its fees on a percentage of the overall project cost. However, City staff agrees
with the flat amount fee proposal, as it feels that the flat rate method is fair to both sides. It also
eliminates any financial incentive not to seek to most cost efficient solution to providing the project. For
reference, the flat fee which is proposed by CNH equates to approximately 6% of the estimated project
construction cost.
As shown in the CNH memo, the CM is a separate cost, but that the CM fee should prove to be cost
neutral due to greater efficiencies and a reduced possibility of change orders.
Overall, CNH’s earlier cost estimate provided of $5.4 million remains for the project. The architects fees
and costs for CM are in addition to that, and were included in the soft costs previously presented at the
Public Hearing. The estimate for bond sale discussed at that time was $6.125 million.
Note that once the architect proceeds with drawing up plans and specifications, their billing will
commence. Those bills will amount to approximately $235,000 before the City would receive proceeds
from a bond sale. Those payments will therefore be made from the City’s reserves, but will be
reimbursed once the bond proceeds are available.
page 153
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council desires to proceed with the Fire Station remodeling and addition project, it should enter
into the agreement that is attached.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, enter into AIA Document B101-2017 by and between the
City of Mendota Heights, and CNH Architects, Inc. of Apple Valley, for architectural services to provide
for a two phase addition and remodeling to the Mendota Heights fire Station.
Dave Dreelan Mark McNeill
Fire Chief City Administrator
Cc: Scott Goldenstein
page 154
P:\PROJECTS\2017\17113\2 - DESIGN\PROJECT NARRATIVE.DOCX
7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431 - 4433
August 2, 2018
Benefits of Construction Manager Approach
The use of a Construction Manager (CM) in building and remodeling public projects is a common option
as an alternative to a General Contractor, particularly for publicly bid projects. CNH Architects has done
many projects with both delivery methods and we are comfortable recommending a CM approach for the
Mendota Heights Fire Station – Addition and Remodeling project.
First of all, in the efforts to provide a quality construction result the CM approach has the direct benefit of
having the CM team specifically looking out for the best benefit of the City of Mendota Heights. These
benefits include having the Superintendent from the CM be the on-site at all times - directing the
contractors, answering questions, and reviewing quality of work. While CNH Architects will be on site
weekly and will likewise review the work for quality, correctness, and timeliness; working together as a
team with the CM provides significantly greater opportunity to ensure value to the City.
Since a CM contract is for a professional service, the selection and hiring can be done as an invited
proposal followed by an interview process with both fee and expertise can be used in the selection
process unlike the requirement for publicly advertised low-bid General Contractor selection required by
competitive bidding laws. This approach gives the City the opportunity to select a CM with experience in
fire station construction and with a good reputation with past clients who will them represent their best
interests in the construction process.
The CM fee varies by what the assigned tasks are and when they start. For full CM from design through
closeout the range is 4-6% of construction costs. Since the schematic design is complete for this project
prior to CM involvement, the range would be a bit lower. Some Owners request CM set their fees as a
percent of construction costs. We do not like this approach as a good CM should know the number of
hours to do the work and for the Owner’s benefit can set it up as a not-to-exceed sum maximizing the
potential savings to the City. This is a very similar cost to what the GC would include in their bids for
their project manager and superintendent costs.
In lieu of the General Contractor’s Superintendent and Project Manager you would have the CM’s
Superintendent and Project Manager. Maybe not a significant cost savings, but a good CM provides a
neutral approach to the process whereas the GC’s bottom line is making additional money. Unlike the
typical low-bid GC, the CM will keep the Owner’s interest as a priority.
Further, there are cost savings with the CM approach that provide additional benefit to the City. In a
typical bid the GC would include profit on the work ranging anywhere from 3-10% depending on the
work and market place. Under the CM approach there is no GC profit. The CM approach includes profit
in our hourly rate and are competitive with the cost of the GC’s superintendent.
page 155
P:\PROJECTS\2017\17113\2 - DESIGN\PROJECT NARRATIVE.DOCX
Depending on bid market the GC typically includes a contingency of 2-6% to cover scope that may be
missed in the bids, or other costs incurred but not planned for. Under the CM approach the Owner would
have the contingency and would control it. If not used it is a direct savings for the Owner, not added
profit for the GC.
Finally, markups on change orders are another area of cost savings for the CM approach. By not having a
GC you eliminate one level of markup and other costs such as general conditions, supervision, insurance,
with the rate typically at least 5%. On a $5M job averaging 2% change orders the markup savings alone
could be $5k.
If you have additional questions regarding comparing the Construction Management approach to the
traditional General Contractor, please let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
Quinn Hutson, AIA, LEED AP
Principal
CNH Architects, Inc.
page 156
page 157
page 158
page 159
page 160
page 161
page 162
page 163
page 164
page 165
page 166
page 167
page 168
page 169
page 170
page 171
page 172
page 173
page 174
page 175
page 176
page 177
page 178
page 179
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-58 & 2018-59 – Order Preparation of Feasibility Report for
Marie Avenue Rehabilitation and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve resolution 2018-58 & 2018-59 Ordering Preparation of
Feasibility Reports for Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements.
BACKGROUND
The Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements have been identified in the
2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). These streets currently have failing bituminous
surfaces and are in need of repair.
DISCUSSION
Marie Avenue – This project proposes to rehabilitate Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to
Dodd Road.
Wesley Neighborhood – This project proposes to rehabilitate Mager Court, Spring Creek Circle,
Wesley Court, Wesley Lane, and South Lane from Linden Street to the end.
Treatment methods and improvements will be further identified in the feasibility process.
BUDGET IMPACT
The CIP identifies construction costs of $1,450,000 for the Marie Avenue Project and $517,000
for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements. The costs will be refined during the feasibility
process. The projects are proposed to be funded by special assessments, municipal state aid,
municipal bonds, utility funds, Dakota County participation, and St. Paul Regional Water
participation. This overall project is larger and more costly than a typical Mendota Heights street
project, however due to funding from other governmental agencies and MSA funds this project is
expected to utilize municipal bonding at the current or reduced. The bonding is currently
estimated at approximately $750,000, this figure will be refined during the feasibility process.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolutions authorizing the preparation of feasibility
reports for Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements.
page 180
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff’s recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201805);
and
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201805).
These actions require a simple majority vote.
page 181
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-58
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. 201805)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Marie Avenue (from
Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road) in Mendota Heights including the construction of reclaimed
aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, storm sewer repair, trail
improvements, pedestrian box culvert, water main replacement, ADA improvements and
appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City’s 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the Public Works Director for study and that he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective and
feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other
improvements, and the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 182
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-59
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. 201805)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements to the Wesley Neighborhood
(Mager Court, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Lane, Wesley Court, and South from Linden Street
to the end) in Mendota Heights including the construction of reclaimed aggregate base, concrete
curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, storm sewer repair, , ADA improvements and appurtenant
work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City’s 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the Public Works Director for study and that he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective and
feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other
improvements, and the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 183
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-61 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Marie Park Tennis
Court Improvement Project
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to accept bids and award a contract for the Marie Park Tennis Court
Improvement Project
BACKGROUND
The City’s park facilities are aging. Many of the park courts were constructed under a referendum
in 1989. Maintenance or replacements are needed at many of the city parks. The Marie Park
tennis court has been identified as needing to be replaced.
Staff began a grant application process with USTA in the Fall of 2018.
DISCUSSION
Due to the grant requirements, a fully engineered set of plans needed to be developed. The plan
was drafted by city staff and reviewed by the USTA. Per grant requirements, the city needs to
award the project to a contractor before a grant acceptance letter can be issued. The USTA grant
is estimated to be approximately $20,000.
Staff bid the project in late July and opened bids on August 1st per Statute requirements. Three
bids were submitted for this project. The low bid was provided by Bituminous Roadways of
Mendota Heights, MN for a cost of $81,669.45. The bids were higher than the staff estimate of
$60,000, due mostly to the chain link fencing costs and this being a new type of project for which
staff did not have accurate pricing history.
BUDGET IMPACT
This project is eligible to utilize Special Park Funds for its funding source. Staff anticipates
receiving the maximum grant amount of $20,000. The Fund has an adequate balance for this
improvement with or without the grant assistance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the contract to Bituminous
Roadways for their bid in the amount of $81,669.45.
page 184
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE MARIE
PARK TENNIS COURT REHABILITATION PROJECT (PROJECT #201710). This action
requires a simple majority vote.
page 185
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-61
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE MARIE
PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed Marie Park Tennis
Court Improvement Project (City Project No. 201710), 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
Bituminous Roadway, Inc. $81,669.45
Barber Construction, Inc. $88,705.00
Urban Companies $115,812.00
and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has recommended that the low bid submitted by
Bituminous Roadways of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted.
2. That the bid of Bituminous Roadways of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, submitted for the
above described project be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Bituminous Roadways of Mendota Heights, 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 seventh day of August, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 186
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for Lighting Replacement of the Wentworth Park
Hockey Rink
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to replace the lighting fixtures and wiring at
Wentworth Park hockey rink.
BACKGROUND
The existing wiring at the hockey rink has become brittle causing periodic outages. The lights
are also metal halide which uses higher amounts of energy compared to newer LED fixtures. The
parks were installed in 1988.
DISCUSSION
Staff has collected quotes from three vendors for this replacement. The quotes are as follows:
Mid Northern Services $51,300
Wallraff Electric Company $52,600
Merit Electric $57,510
BUDGET IMPACT
The costs of this replacement and installation are proposed to be paid for out of City Reserves.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the lighting replacement to Mid
Northern Services.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to
Mid Northern Services. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 187
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Wentworth Park Warming House Replacement
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to replace the warming house at Wentworth
Park.
BACKGROUND
The existing warming house is currently in a state of disrepair and in need of maintenance if it is
to be used this winter. The existing building is much smaller than the warming houses in the
other parks.
DISCUSSION
Staff has collected quotes from three vendors for this replacement:
Kirchner Contracting $46,250
Paper Brothers Construction $48,910
D.T. Meisinger Dev, Inc. $79,554
Kirschner has done work previously for the City. Kirschner indicates that they will be able to
construct this building in time for it to be used during the upcoming winter.
BUDGET IMPACT
The costs of this replacement and installation are proposed to be paid for out of City Reserves.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the proposal from Kirschner Contracting be accepted.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should accept the quote of Kirschner Contracting to construct the
warning house at Wentworth Park, for an amount not to exceed $46,250. The authorization to
proceed with this project will require a simple majority vote.
page 188