Loading...
2019-05-07 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 7, 2019 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approve the April 16, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the March 26, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes c. Acknowledge the April 15, 2019 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes d. Acknowledge the March 12, 2019 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes e. Approve Resolution 2019-32 Updating 2019 City Depositories of Funds f. Approve Resolution 2019-33 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2019 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning & Televising Project g. Approve Resolution 2019-34 Approving Cooperative Agreement for the Valley Park Pollinator Corridor Project h. Approve the Saint Paul Regional Water Invoice for Watermain Offset on Dodd Road i. Authorize City Hall to be Closed for Business on Friday, July 5, 2019 j. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 7. Public Hearing – none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Ordinance No. 538 to Allow Personal Self-Storage Uses as a Conditional Use in the I- Industrial District (Planning Case No. 2019-01) b. Resolution 2019-29 Deny [or Approve] a Variance for property located at 1751 James Road (Planning Case No. 2019-05) c. Resolution 2019-30 Approve [or Deny] a Variance for property located at 916 Adeline Court (Planning Case No. 2019-08) d. Resolution 2019-31 Approve a Wetlands Permit for property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court (Planning Case No. 2019-09) e. Authorize Legal Services Request for Proposals f. Set City Council W ork Session Date for Comprehensive Plan Discussion 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, April 16, 2019 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 7:10 p.m. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel requested that the presentation of the Jerry Murphy Award be moved up prior to the Consent Agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PRESENTATION A) GAROLD MURPHY COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD Councilor Petschel explained the purpose of the Garold Murphy Community Service Award. She shared the background of Mr. Garold “Jerry” Murphy and the many contributions he made to the community. The recipient of the award for 2019 was presented in memoriam to the family of Mr. Bert McKasy, who passed away on February 11, 2019. Councilor Petschel provided a brief background on Mr. McKasy. Former Mendota Heights City Councilor Steve Norton shared Mr. McKasy’s work with the Mendota Heights Criminal Apprehension Fund. Former Mayor Sandra Krebsbach shared his involvement with the Mendota Heights Foundation and his enthusiasm for the project. Councilor Petschel read the award and Ms. Marilyn Murphy presented the award to the McKasy family. page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents. a. Approve April 2, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Accept Police Officer Resignation and Authorization to Begin Police Officer Recruitment c. Approve Resolution 2019-28 Administrative Critical Area Permit for 647 Sibley Memorial Highway d. Approve 2019 Workers Compensation Insurance Renewal e. Approve Resolution 2019-27 Adopting Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy for Tax- exempt and Tax-advantaged Government Bonds f. Approve the March Building Activity Report g. Acknowledge March 2019 Fire Synopsis h. Approve the February 2019 Treasurer’s Report i. Approve the Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) FIRE STATION REMODEL/EXPANSION FINANCING City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced Mr. Jason Aarsvold from Ehlers, Inc. to share the results of the bond sale. Mr. Aarsvold explained the pre-sale recommendation that was made to the City Council on April 2, 2019 and the AAA bond rating that was reaffirmed by Standard & Poor’s. They received eight bids for this bond issuance and the low bidder was a true interest cost of 2.52% - a tremendous bid and lower than the pre-sale estimate of 3.1%. The low bidder was Piper Jaffray, a local investment banking company. page 4 Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-26 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $7,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2019A, AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock moved to approve Ehlers as the Investment Manager for the 2019A bond issue. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) B) PRESENTATION OF DAKOTA COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICES Mr. Murray Wilson, Head Librarian of the Wentworth Library in West St. Paul, provided an update on services and activities with the Dakota County Library System. Mr. Wilson shared a brief history by noting that the first library in this part of the county was opened in 1960 in the old Dodd School. The county rented the facility for $1.00/month. Dakota County Library System will be observing its 50th anniversary by having an Open House at Wentworth Library from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 18. Mr. Wilson explained how the Dakota County Library System is a community partner, it reaches as many segments of the community, and it promotes a sense of community. The Dakota County Library System had approximately 217,000 visits in the last year and loaned approximately 394,000 items. 20% of cardholders registered at the Wentworth Library are Mendota Heights residents. The number of hours that people physically spent on a computer at the Dakota County Library System and on the wireless access was approximately 98,000. Mr. Wilson explained three new services being provided, including a teen internship, student library cards, and a summer meals program. Recently, the county funded extensive upgrades and remodels to the libraries in Lakeville, Apple Valley, and Hastings. The county intends to remodel the library located in West St. Paul in the next four or five years. Councilor Paper asked if the 3D printer was popular. Mr. Wilson replied that it is very popular. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS page 5 City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the city is looking for volunteers for a parks cleanup event taking place on April 27th. On this day, there will also be a tree planting event in Mendakota Park. Mr. McNeill reminded residents that the Par 3 Golf Course is now open. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Miller wished everyone safe travels over the upcoming Easter weekend. He stated that April 22nd is Earth Day and encouraged everyone to help clean up a park, their own backyard, or any other place in the community. Councilor Paper wished everyone a Happy Easter and a Happy Passover. He congratulated the family of Bert McKasy; he said that that was a wonderful legacy. Councilor Petschel stated how important the city’s AAA bond rating is. She stated that she observed people fishing at the culvert on Rogers Lake, the skate park was full of participants, and for the first time that she can remember, there are swans on Copperfield Pond and on the lake in the Dodge Nature Center. Mayor Garlock reminded everyone of the upcoming Parks Celebration and the 5K walk/run on June 1st. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. ________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 6 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 26, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Commissioner Katz publically expressed his appreciation to Community Development Director Tim Benetti who conducted his orientation before he began his term on the Planning Commission. The time spent with him, especially on where the city is with the Comprehensive Plan, was greatly appreciated. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 26, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-05 NICK AND LIZ BANOVETZ, 1751 JAMES ROAD VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE-YARD SETBACK Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Nick and Liz Banovetz had requested a Variance to the side yard setback for their property located at 1751 James Road. The property is located at the centered part of what is known as the James and Douglas Road split. It is a 0.34 acre parcel with a two-story 3,594 square foot single family residence built in 1958. Mr. and Mrs. Banovetz are requesting to build an 11.5’ x 14.5’ addition off of the east side of their home. This would be a single story addition to accommodate a new living room. The current dwelling sits 35.4 feet off of the front lot line, 37.8 feet from the west lot line, 52 feet from the rear line, and 19.2 feet from the east line. The addition to the east side would encroach 2.13 feet into page 7 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 20 the 10-foot side-yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property relative to its location within the neighborhood, images of the property itself, and the location of the proposed addition. Mr. Benetti explained that the reason for the proposed addition to not be on the rear of the home was due to an existing canopy patio and open patio space in the already limited back yard. Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide justification for any variance request: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff. Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road, were available for questions. Mr. Banovetz clarified that the request was for a dining room addition. When they purchased the property it was pretty much in disrepair. However, they fixed it up and fell in love with Mendota Heights. They would like to make this their permanent home for years to come. They received nine letters of support from neighbors, one of whom is a real estate appraiser. They also had two emails from real estate agents confirming that this addition would be an enhancement for the neighborhood and positively affect property values. Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the criteria to be met to approve a variance was that the request was not a convenience, but would meet a practical difficulty. In looking at the shape and dimensions of the proposed addition, he asked for an explanation of the practical difficulties associated with the request. Mr. Banovetz replied that there were several practical difficulties:  They are working with an award winning architect in the Twin Cities and have gone through many reiterations of trying to plan out the main living space. The common areas of the house only amount to 559 square feet. While the total square footage is high, most of it focused on bedrooms or living space that is below grade.  They would like to fit a dining table and buffet into the new dining room. If they cannot have the variance it would affect where they could put windows, and they may end up not putting any windows on the street facing side of the addition if that is where they have to put the buffet. page 8 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 20  There is currently 34 feet between their home and the neighbor’s garage; the placement of the addition would narrow that space down to 20 feet. If each property owner complied strictly with the 10-foot side-yard setback, it would result in a 20-foot separation between homes.  The topography of the land and the shallowness of the backyard also creates a practical difficulty in placing the addition at the rear of the property. Commissioner Noonan stated that it appears as if the architect had advanced various alternatives that would respect the side-yard setback; and the decision to go with the alternative presented today is just a matter of what is more suited to this family’s desire. Mr. Banovetz replied that the architect has not provided any alternatives and not believe that anything else would work. All other reiterations of the architectural design would still encroach the setback by 2 feet. Commissioner Corbett remarked that he appreciated all of the letters of support that were shared, and he believed one was from the neighbor to the opposite side. He then asked if there was a letter of support from the neighbor on the east, whose property would be encroached upon. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was included in the packet. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that they feel that the dining room expansion could not be made 9’ 2” inches. Mr. Banovetz replied in the negative, he did not feel that the expansion could be made smaller. He then asked if they had installed the patio or was it already there when they moved in. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was a little bit of both; there was a patio there and they fixed it up. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-05 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the page 9 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 20 variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Commissioner Toth explained that he agreed with Commissioner Noonan statements due to the 10.5 feet; the Commission has not been given a reason why they need that 10.5 feet as a practical difficulty. They have not heard why a shorter distance of 8 feet would not work. He would like to see something, if it could be worked out, like 8.5 feet or 9.5 feet by 16.5 feet, or similar. Commissioner Mazzitello said, realizing that every variance request stands on its own and that actions of the Commission or the Council with respect to these applications do not set precedence, there was a case similar to this where someone’s addition was going to go into the side-yard setback and one of the findings of fact used for the Council’s ultimate approval of the request, was that the structure itself was not placed properly on the lot. Similar to this case, there is over 39 feet from the corner on the other side of the house. He would never advocate for someone to build a dining room on the other side of a garage so they have to pass through the garage to get to the dining room. However, that finding of fact was used. To throw all of the information on the table for the Commissions consideration, this very similar type of variance has been approved by the City Council in the past, against the Commission’s recommendation. Commissioner Petschel asked if Commissioner Mazzitello was proposing to use the center of mass relative to the center of the lot line as an indicator to the variance. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that the only thing he was saying was that the indicator was used once in the past; not saying that it should be a standard. Commissioner Noonan that this argument, if there were no alternatives for the placement or the size of the addition; the addition could be spread out to give the square footage as well. There are alternatives which provide for what the property owners want. He heard justifications for convenience sake as opposed to a practical difficulty. There are alternatives that exist that would allow the property owners to get the addition. It may not be what they ultimately desire, but it would still respect the setbacks – which are important. If setbacks were not important, then they would not be there. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would be for a mitigating circumstance. For example, if this were a non-conforming lot size where the rules were written for a 15,000 square foot lots and someone walks in with 9,000 or 10,000 square foot lot and the house is already practically violating page 10 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 20 the setback rules. Commissioner Noonan agreed that this would be a good example. However, in this case there is not a non-conforming use. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2019-06 CHARLIE CO. DESIGN (JOHN & THERESA COSGRIFF) CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND VARIANCE - 1875 HUNTER LANE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Charlie and Co. Design, on behalf of John and Theresa Cosgriff, were requesting a Critical Area Permit to remove an existing dwelling and rebuild on the site. The property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane, just within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. For any new improvements, demolition, or heavy removals or grading projects a Critical Area Permit is required. The request also includes a Variance to the average bluff line setbacks as required under the critical area ordinance. Notices were published in the local newspaper and notices were mailed out. The Cosgriff’s have received a number of letters expressing support of this project. Notices and application materials were also sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), who acknowledged receipt of the materials. They provided no follow-up comments or objections to the Critical Area permit and Variance applications. The subject property is located in the mid-block of Hunter lane, is approximately 1.5 acres in size, and there is currently a 4,322 square foot home on the lot with a backyard swimming pool and garden area. The home was originally built in 1948. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property with the current footprint of the dwelling, and a highlighted overlay of the proposed new structure. Essentially, the footprint would remain the same except for the addition of a three-car garage on the north side of the home. This new home would be an approximately 6,500 square foot, four bedroom, six bath home. The pool, instead of being at an angle, would be parallel to the back of the house. Critical Area Permit The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:  Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource  Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas;  Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems page 11 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 20 The standards to be met for a Critical Area Permit, as described by Mr. Benetti and noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District, are:  Site Planning Requirements  Development Standards  Structure Setbacks (the Variance request relates to this standard)  Height Limits  Retaining Walls  Standards for Grading/Filling  Standards for Vegetation Management  Surface Water Runoff Management Variance Request Mr. Benetti explained that whenever someone is building in a new lot or tear down between two other houses, the setback is averaged for the new home equal to their neighbors. For a Critical Area Property, this string-line rule comes into play on the backside with the bluff line. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property that included a line of the where the average setback would be between the houses to the north and the house to the south. If this setback were adhered to, the new home would be located behind the line and closer to the bluff line. Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide justification for any variance request: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff. Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Commissioner Petschel asked if the ordinance, in respect to the string rule, only consider the adjoining two houses. Mr. Benetti replied that the ordinance states ‘the immediately adjacent properties’. He then asked if that couldn’t include the next houses over, and the reason for his question is he was looking at the aerial photo of the three properties adjacent – and it’s a mess. They homes are all over the place. If the rule were applied, the house next to the adjacent property would not be conforming either. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, the rule applies when building a new house and then only to the adjacent properties. page 12 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 20 Commissioner Petschel noted that the ordinance does not say anything about the curvature or land features. He then provided a hypothetical example of his concern – let’s say there is a cul-de-sac and someone had the deepest lot in the cul-de-sac, clearly the string rule is not going to work because the house at the top is going to have a further setback than the two adjoining lots. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if these should be heard as two separate motions or could they be motioned together. Mr. Benetti suggested they be motioned together as they are integral to each other. Mr. Colby Mattson, Principal/Designer with Charlie & Co. made a few additional points:  They had the neighbors over from the surrounding community to present the project and to make sure they were clear on what the clients were intending to do. They had very good support and letters were provided in the packet.  The Cosgriff’s purchased this lot and property with the idea of potentially remodeling it. The lower level has 7-foot ceilings. After working with a contractor it was determined that the best course of action to get the home they were looking for ways to go to the new home concept.  If they were to abide by the string rule, it would push the new home location back approximately 47.5 feet. With that, significant excavation and retaining walls would be necessary. They plan was to minimize the impact to the lot and change no conditions for the neighbors (site lines and proximity). Commissioner Petschel asked if it would be physically possible to build a house that would conform to the rear string rule and also conform to the adjoining property’s front yard setbacks. Mr. Mattson replied that it would be a very small home. He and Mr. Benetti looked at that early on. Looking at the bluff line and looking at the era in which a lot of the homes were built, some of them are very close to the bluff line and do not necessarily abide by the rule. When looking at the feasibility of the properties, if they were to pull the home back behind the string rule line, the house to the north – based on the location of the house to their north – would have to move back approximately 20 feet, creating a trickle down affect. Chair Magnuson asked how far forward towards the road the home would have to come in order to abide by the string rule. Mr. Mattson replied that it would have to come back approximately 20 feet. The house two properties north is even further back due to the curvature of the bluff line. That house would end up having to be pulled back if it was every rebuilt as well. Mr. Mattson continued by explaining that the idea the clients were asking for – they did not want to ask for more than what is currently there. They are trying to improve upon every aspect based on the site conditions. Commissioner Magnuson stated that this was not built has a walk-out in 1948, it was actually created to be a walk-out approximately 20 years ago by two previous owners. She asked, given what has been done in the past with the excavation, if they were forced to move this house up to 47 feet and do further excavation, what kind of issue would that create in terms of dealing with what was previously excavated and try to conform that in and would that be possible to do without page 13 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 20 creating some adverse effects close to the bluff line. Mr. Mattson replied that part of it would that, as they move further away from the bluff line, the house would presumably want to be climbing up the hill that is there. Based on one of the ordinances saying that they cannot take the first floor any higher than 12 inches above the existing first floor, would put a lot of pressure on to the lower level. In their opinion it would not be possible to be a walk-out based on the grading; or having to use significantly tall retaining walls, which are also not allowed. Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on using the current foundation or hole of the existing house. Mr. Mattson replied that the idea was that when the house was demolished there would be a little disturbance to the surrounding area as possible. They were not planning on using the existing foundation itself. It is not in great shape. The idea was to use the west face of the property as a benchmark. Generally speaking there would be a small amount of excavation just to get the proper soils for footings and everything else. The majority of the existing basement hold would be used. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, made a general comment about the critical area by pointing out that some native species are not beloved – cottonwood, box elder, sumac – but they are native and belong in the critical area. When the Commission is considering these generic comments – removal of invasive species – they should be more specific about what is meant by invasive species. Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Pilgrim if they were to reword that condition, what verbiage would she recommend. She replied that the MnDNR would have the official list of what is considered invasive. She would say that anything that is native is not by definition invasive. Commissioner Katz noted that the staff report and the narrative from the applicants says that they are not planning on removing any of trees and would be protective of the existing trees. They are planning on planting at least 50 new trees and some shrubs on the site. They also have a very good runoff management plan, including a rain garden right near the critical bluff line. John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1837 Summit Lane, reinforced that they have been very mindful of the critical area rules in designing both the house and the landscaping; the runoff controls that they have been very mindful of the intent of that rule. They hoped that what they were trying to do would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 14 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 20 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-06 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND RELATED VARIANCE FOR SETBACK STANDARDS REQUEST, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three –part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i. the proposed new single-family home is a reasonable use of the property; ii. the subject property was pre-developed with an existing home closer to the bluff line than what the neighboring (adjacent) properties have today; and the Applicants are matching closely the location of the new home with the old home. iii. approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area and bluff lines will not be affected by th e approval of the Variance; and iv. the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable new home on the subject property and well beyond the required minimum setbacks established in the Critical Area Overlay District standards, and as such, keeps the rear yard space open and intact a it was prior to e new development. The variance is also determined to not be solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 1875 Hunter Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-06, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: page 15 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 20 i. Building and grading permits shall be approved by city staff prior to any demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of the new dwelling. ii. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed new dwelling within one (1) year form date of city council approval. iii. 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. iv. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the Public Works Director. v. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. vi. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities vii. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. Weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. G. The effort made by the applicant to respect the Critical Area and to implement enhancements to the Critical Area Commissioner Petschel asked if they would have a front yard string rule evaluation as well. Mr. Benetti replied that he only looked at the back line. Commissioner Petschel asked, in general if someone came to do new construction on a lot, they would have a front yard string rule evaluation. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Petschel then asked if there weren’t competing rules in this case. Mr. Benetti again replied in the affirmative because in the critical area, this rule is applicable to the bluff. Commissioner Petschel commented that to further the discussion of uniqueness that seems to be plaguing the Commission, the nature of the setback of the surrounding properties is erratic and creates a fairly clear burden on the property owner. Commissioner Noonan commented that he was coming to the same thing; the practical difficulties are the competing setbacks, string rules, and where the property is located. If they layered the rear string rule and the front string rule, they would be creating a non-developable lot. Even a manufactured house would not fit. Also, the applicant is not really changing the nature of the home; the footprint, as was pursued by Commissioner Magnuson’s question, was the same except for the garage addition. They are improving the situation, enhancing, and respecting the bluff areas. This is a testament to the applicant and to their professionals. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019 meeting. page 16 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 20 Unfinished Business A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Chair Magnuson explained that the plan this evening was to hold, what they hoped would be, the final Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan at the Planning Commission level. Once the Comprehensive Plan moves from the Commission, it would go to the City Council and they may choose to hear additional comments on it. Community Development Director Tim Benetti would review the draft Comprehensive Plan chapter by chapter, allowing the Commissioners to make any comments they have or any changes they would want to propose. At the close of each chapter, the Commission would ask if there were any public testimony on that particular chapter. If anyone wished to testify, they were asked to keep their comments to a particular item in the chapter that was being discussed. 1) INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 2) LAND USE Commissioner Mazzitello, in light of a case they just heard, asked if the Commission would consider adding Goal 2.2, Policy 2.2.8 Low density residential development or redevelopment should avoid the creation of new flag lots, where the flag lot has less than the standard 100 feet of frontage. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the workshop meeting identified a trail that was missing on the Community Facilities & Features Map (Figure 2-1); the trail gap that was close to Highway 13, between the Summit and Lilydale Road. He requested that staff ensure that trail was added to the map. Commissioner Noonan, referencing Table 2-1: 2017 Existing Land Use, stated that at the workshop he had requested that some language be added to explain how they go from Gross Acres to Net Acres. He again requested a modest explanation be included; this would apply to Table 2- 2: 2040 Future Land Use as well. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that she had previously spoken to the Commission about the 32 blanket changes to land uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight she only wished to speak to one aspect of these changes. At the previous meetings and workshop a number of residents from Augusta Shores, Lemay Shores, and Victoria Highlands spoke against changing the land use from LR – Low Residential to MR – Medium Residential. A large part of the discussion at the workshop speculated that the net density in Augusta Shores was over the 2.9 units per acre allowed in LR. She subsequently learned that County records show that the lots in Augusta Shores have a collective net density of 2.7 units per acre. Another part of the rationale for the change to MR focused on Twin Homes not being allowed in LR. Changing the land use to a higher page 17 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 20 density than what is already there and originally approved, because of the Twin Home issue, is but one solution to addressing this discrepancy. Another possible, and likely more acceptable, solution is to amend the R-1 zoning to accommodate Twin Homes with a Conditional Use and remove these areas from the blanket changes. This would preserve the single-family character of these neighborhoods but by accommodating one shared wall between the homes. They were not aware of the rationales for initially approving these developments in LR and R-1 with Twin Homes; the answer is likely in the City minutes of these approval processes. However, she urged the Commission to consider this or other more appropriate solutions for these neighborhoods; as well as other potentially less drastic changes to land uses for other properties. Ms. Smith continued by stating that the proposed changes in density – MR from 4 units per acres to 8 units per acre, and High Density Residential from 8 units per acre to 25 units per acre – is an even more drastic change and without the transparent notification and rationale to all affected residents. These potential changes in land uses could dramatically change the character of neighborhoods and ultimately the city. She requested the Commission to consider the implications and seek a less drastic solution. Commissioner Petschel asked where the change to High Density was located. Ms. Smith replied that the change was in the general classification of HR going from 8 units per acres to 25 units per acre. Chair Magnuson asked for clarification that what she was requesting was for the Commission to allow Twin Homes in a low density residential area by a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Smith confirmed. Ms. Pat Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive, has comments very similar to Ms. Smith’s. She is concerned about the land use change in Augusta Shores from Low Density to Medium Density. When she first moved there several years ago they understood that it was zoned R-1 Low Density. She just recently discovered that, according to the ordinances, that Twin Homes must be zoned as Medium Density. She did not understand why the zoning was not changed when the development was first built. She assumed there was a Conditional Use Permit that allowed for that in the Low Density. She looked at each individual property on line, on the Dakota County records, calculated the gross square footage minus the wet land square footage, to determine what the overall square footage was. She came up with an average of approximately 2.7 units per acre. This did not include the outlots. In her mind, this is low density. Her concern was that in the future those houses could become almost double or triple the number of units that are in there today. Her second concern was the change in the definition of Medium Density and High Density; the Medium Density going from 4.35 units per acres and almost doubling to 8 units per acre, and then High Density almost tripling from 8.54 units per acre to 25 units per acre. She could not find any rationale or any explanation why that was being recommended and how it would fit into the character of the city. page 18 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 20 Mr. Keith Ostrosky, 1680 Lexington Avenue South, was confused as to why the city has been asking for open transparency and ascribed for that, but his project had gone from a 6-0 vote in favor to 6-0 against in 24 hours. Commissioner Noonan replied that this was not true. Mr. Ostrosky requested an explanation of where he is on his project. Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr. Ostrosky had filed an application for a development. Mr. Ostrosky replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Noonan noted that the only thing the Commission was considering was the land use designation. Currently, Mr. Ostrosky’s property is Low Density Single-Family. There had been discussion amongst the Commission to alter that to Medium Density. The discussion that took place at the workshop posed the question as to whether or not they wanted to continue to advance the recommendations that had been talked about before or to go back to the status quo. By a divided vote, the recommendation was to take it back to the status quo and have Mr. Ostrosky come forward with a specific application. Mr. Ostrosky stated that he would like to stay in the 20-year Comprehensive Plan because that was what, he believed, the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) had asked for; to correct all of these issues, Variances, and re-zonings so they would not have to hear about them anymore. Commissioner Noonan replied that he did not believe that the Met Council has anything to say whether or not it’s Low Density, Medium Density, or High Density. In Mr. Ostrosky’s particular case, he is zoned for Low Density. There are no problems that Commissioner Noonan was aware of other than that the Low Density designation does not allow him to advance a Medium Density development. Mr. Ostrosky noted that he is a single-family home surrounded by Medium and High Density buildings. He thought one of the goals was to make properties conform into the neighborhood and to fit in. His single family home does not fit into his neighborhood of 408 condominiums. Ms. Talaia Bowen, 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, has been working with Mr. Ostrosky and they submitted their application together since they are both on the same page. The process was put to them that if they participated in the Comprehensive Plan it would help to avoid these individual approaches and applicants and have a true sincere goal; to re-guide their own properties. That is why she and Mr. Ostrosky took the approach to really considering joining the Comprehensive Plan. If there is now a different direction they should be taking or a suggestion for them to do individual applications, they are not really getting a lot of information. The letter they received says things like ‘considered for re-guiding under the overall Comprehensive Plan’. This is totally different than what Commissioner Noonan just shared. They really need to know the next steps if they are not going to be included in the Comprehensive Plan, they need that information in writing. They placed an application in writing and paid their dues and fees to be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan and requested the Commission provide that response or direction to them. Commissioner Petschel asked when the 6-0 vote in favor of his project took place. Mr. Ostrosky replied that it was in the summer of 2017. Commissioner Petschel continued by stating that he was not at the workshop and could not speak to what happened. His own personal feedback was, while he agreed with the project and what he was trying to do given the scope of the surrounding properties, it would be inappropriate to try to re-litigate with the City Council through the Comprehensive Plan on this particular property. As an individual property, he would like to see it back before the Commission and he would like to see Mr. Ostrosky be able to do what he wants page 19 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 20 to do. Commissioner Petschel was unaware of any money being provided or an application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benetti clarified that Mr. Ostrosky and Ms. Bowen made an application in early 2017 via th e Comprehensive Plan. That is the only application that the city has received. It was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment only. That was prior to starting the official work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. At this point, staff cannot accept an application for a new individual Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the new plan is adopted. The Met Council will not consider any individual Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications until the city officially adopts the Final 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bowen explained that this type of circular discussion is the main issue that she and Mr. Ostrosky were in attendance. Mr. Ostrosky has been doing this for over 2 years and she has been in it for a year. It is tiresome for them to keep spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops. Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification of when Mr. Ostrosky originally applied for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was denied. The reply was it was at least 2 years ago. Commissioner Corbett continued by stating that he believed this was given the due process 2 years ago, and that it was denied such that revisiting this under the scope of the Comprehensive Plan does not give it the attention it deserves or the people who denied it the chance to say why they would now approve it – if it were approved. That should be required; doing anything through the Comprehensive Plan would just cloud up the transparency of why it was denied and now approved, or denied and denied again. Ms. Bowen explained that what they are requesting is something in writing, distinct detailed information they are not getting, so they can understand what remedies they should provide. Chair Magnuson, in an attempt at clarify, explained that Mr. Ostrosky brought forth an application two years ago to the Planning Commission. The Commission voted in favor of his application at that time. However, it went to the City Council and they denied the application. There was a considerable amount of opposition voiced by many of the non-Mendota Heights neighbors. Now, there was an opportunity to try to reguide the property through the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Commission included it initially in the draft Comprehensive Plan for reguiding. Again, there was a lot of opposition raised with respect to that inclusion in the plan. Given the fact that there was opposition, given the fact that the City Council previously denied it, at the workshop the Commission concluded that this proposal probably should get an independent review. That does not preclude Mr. Ostrosky from coming forward at a later date with an application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, once it has been completed, and the Commission could consider it on its own merits and fully discuss the issues before them once again. The Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council and they have no idea what the City Council will do with it. However, the Commission did not think it appropriate to try to sort of shove this through in the Comprehensive Plan when they knew that the City Council had previously denied it. page 20 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 20 Mr. Bob Janecek, 1665 Lexington Avenue, is a 35-year resident, lives directly across the street from Mr. Ostrosky, and fully supports what he is trying to do. He explained that what we have is a bunch of deteriorating woods that look terrible. This last winter storm has caused it to deteriorate even more. In the past two years he has spent $12,000 in taking out dead trees on the back of his lots. Mr. Ostrosky has the same problem. They are the only area that is not developed on those corners. He understands all of the people in Lilydale who oppose anything being done. In the future he is going to stop maintaining the properties beyond his; he has been maintaining it for 30 years and all they tell him is that they do not have the money. For instance, one year he had a $900 water bill watering the grass on their property. Basically, he approves any kind of development in this area. He is now too old to properly maintain his own property and that is why he is going to do the same thing Mr. Ostrosky is. He is going to try to redevelop his property. Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, voiced her opposition to allowing Twin Homes on single- family lots. Mr. Carol Crockett, 4890 Cook Drive, White Bear Lake was in attendance to speak on behalf of her personal opinion. Seven years ago she drove up into the driveway of 1680 Lexington Avenue, Mr. Ostrosky’s property, and wondered why he was there surrounded by condominiums as it did not fit the characteristic of the neighborhood. Speaking as a non-resident, they are not looking at taking away from the unique gem, they are looking at preserving the beautiful surroundings and allowing other to have the opportunity to live there; possibly has a condominium or town home, enjoying the unique gem. The city is lacking affordable housing to transition from a single family to a multi-leveled dwelling. Some families that have lived in Mendota and other communities, like herself, find a comfort knowing that they can stay in their neighborhood and community and possibly enjoy city living on an acreage setting. She has sat in on other meetings and several Lilydale residents have come in opposition of the property becoming medium density. Yet they live with High Density being within a couple hundred feet of this unique gem. If one were to do an aerial view of the residence, it is one house sitting with a condominium next to it with a huge driveway that someone could walk down and practically touch his. They are not looking to blocking the views, they are just looking at fitting into the characteristic of the neighborhood. Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, stated that she is not for allowing twin homes in Low Density residential. She also lives near an area that is being re-guided from Low Density to Medium Density and is concerned about the increased density in the Medium and High Density areas. She reiterated comments she has made before; changing and updating the densities and having the designations she has no problem with. However, she asked for a different solution, something like different levels of Medium and High Density so that it is capped out to what is currently on the ground. Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Johnson if she had a chance to review Policy 2.2.7 under Goal 2.2. She replied in the affirmative and stated that she believed it came about at the workshop. Commissioner Mazzitello read Policy 2.2.7 “Redevelopment of exis ting MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density page 21 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 20 than currently exists.” Ms. Johnson stated that as long as this is legally binding in the Comprehensive Plan and City Code that is satisfactory. 3) TRANSPORTATION For the sake of expediting the meeting, Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he had no comments on the Comprehensive Plan until Chapter 10. There were no other comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 4) PARKS AND TRAILS Ms. Cindy Johnson returned and explained that she had sent an email to the Commission and staff indicating that some of the things in Chapter 4 had not been corrected. Table 4-1: there are no trails at Marie Park; there is a pond on park property at Victoria Highland Park. She was also confused by a comment on page 4-8 that reads “Mendota Heights analyzed 2.8 miles of the corridor between Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue and between Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road” – Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue are perpendicular or are they saying from that corner to Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road – when those two roads do not intersect. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he had done some investigation when she questioned him about this: Delaware and Dodd do meet all of the way up on the north end of the city – Delaware, all of the way south on Dodd, to Marie is what that is referring to. During the Highway 149 reconstruction design phase, there was a lot of talk about pedestrian facilities along that corridor. Mr. Jonathan Ehrlich, 1044 Douglas Road, referenced figure 4-2 Bicycle Facilities and Plan Map, noted that there is a green line indicating an existing paved trail along Highway 13, between Victoria and Lexington. Most of this trail has signs along it saying that bicycles are prohibited. 5) HOUSING There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience page 22 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 20 6) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. Jonathan Ehrlich returned to make a general comment about the Comprehensive Plan in regards to Economic Development. He stated that Economic Development of the city really is, in some ways, dependent on the ability of people to be able to afford living in the city and to be able to expand the number of people living here. He has heard people commenting that they want more restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in the city and he wanted to point out that these types of developments cannot happen without population. Has lived in Mendota Heights for 19 years, for which he is grateful because he knows that, despite for the fact that his income has increased substantially over that time, he could never afford a home in Mendota Heights any more. The value of land has increased in part because of the incredible restrictions on density and development in the city. The resistance towards multi-family development, the resistance towards lot splits, the resistance towards any increase in density in the city overall is hamstringing the quality of life within the city, hamstringing the ability for the city to develop on the public amenities that residents actually want; and locking people out of the ability to afford homes in the city. He hoped the Commission would keep these under consideration as they develop the Comprehensive Plan. 7) NATURAL RESOURCES There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 8) RESILIENCE There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 9) CRITICAL AREA Commissioner Noonan made the observation that staff did a good job in terms of picking up the discussions had at the workshop and many of the items that they spent 3-hours talking about at the workshop were picked up and incorporated into the first nine chapters. 10) IMPLEMENTATION Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the Implementation chapter is divided into sections based on the preceding chapters. So each chapter in the Comprehensive Plan has its own two page write-up in the Implementation chapter. He noted that the write-ups for Chapters 2-7, the Implementation goals do not match the goals that are in the individual chapters. The Implementation summaries for chapters 8 and 9 do match the goals that are in those respective chapters. He suggested that Mr. Benetti simply copy the chapters into the tables and go from there. Mr. Benetti replied that he could do that very easily. Mr. Benetti asked if they had any comments about the priority levels or the timeframes in any of the tables. Commissioner Noonan noted that some of the actions listed to not relate to the goals; for example, 2.1 narrowly talks about updating the zoning code. page 23 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 20 Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out that Goal 2.1 in the Implementation chapter should read “The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights”; however, it currently reads “The City will update the zoning code to conform to the land use plan.” To talk about a timeframe or a priority level for one of the policies that supports that goal is not serving the goal properly. He suggested that the Council meets one more time – close the public hearing, have one more workshop to update these tables, and move it on to the City Council. Or they could leave the public hearing open if they wanted to take public testimony on priorities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti and City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that with one Councilor being out of state, the Commission has time to have another workshop meeting to nail down everything, to make sure all of the maps are clear and cut to where they need to be, all of the tables are set up, and add the narrative language that Commissioner Noonan requested. Staff would like to make sure that the recommendation settled and to the Council as soon as possible. Mr. Benetti suggested a workshop meeting sometime around May 1, 2019 when the Councilor returns. Chair Magnuson clarified that what she was hearing was that the Commission could do a workshop, discuss the priorities and the goals and the implementation plan; take this up one last time at their April 2019 meeting; possibly take public testimony on Chapter 10 only; and then move it on to the City Council. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Mr. Benetti stated that if the Commission had any other additions or changes they wanted to make, they could still make those later on, at the workshop, or at the following public hearing (if they continue it over) – yes, it could be done easily. Commissioner Katz expressed his agreement; as he was reviewing the tables he was counting up how many of the priority levels were actually on each table and what type of timeframe was given. Given the fact that the Commission is going to move some of the goals and update those with the action items that it would be a good idea to actually evaluate all the tables together. Commissioner Noonan, looking at the Transportation Implementation Table, noted that there was a real disconnect between the Action Item and the Goals. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE APRIL 23, 2019 MEETING, AND BETWEEN NOW AND THE APRIL 23, 2019 MEETING THE COMMISSION MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION TO DISCUSSION CHAPTER 10 AND HAVE CHAPTER 10 PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE IN SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. Ms. Kate Christensen returned and asked that the public have more time to look through these updates to that the Commission can get good clear input from the public. She also noted that the Implementation Plan should be actionable. For instance, the Chapter 8 Implementation Table is a one-for-one Goal, to Implementation, to Action and she was unsure that was what the public meant – it should not be the exact same copy from goal  implementation  goal  action. Mr. Benetti replied that under the chapter statements, one of the goals has the policy statement which kind of page 24 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 20 give the actions of what they plan to do. The Implementation table is more of an implementation for staff, Commission, and Council to enact on or rely upon. It is more of a high level work plan. It is not supposed to be specific, the Comprehensive Policies provide specifics. For example, in the Natural Resources Chapter one of the recommendations is to ‘recommend the establishment of a commission’. The work of the commission would be to prepare the Natural Resources Plan. It would be premature and inappropriate for the Commission to dictate what that Natural Resources Plan should be, since that is the charge being given to them. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal review: Planning Case 2019-01 Metro Storage LLC Zoning Code Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1  The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request  City Council elected to table with the idea that they would have a tour of a facility so they could go and look at Planning Case 2019-02 ISD #197 Variance to exceed building height standards in the R-1 district  The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request  City Council also approved this request with a secondary recommendation by the Council to send the site plan back to the Planning Commission to discuss or give a recommendation on the access point onto Huber Drive Planning Case 2091-03 Julie Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter lane Lot Adjustment and Variance  The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request  City Council reversed this decision and approved the request Mr. Bruce Bobbitt, 2455 Hampshire Court, asked what kind of traffic study the school was doing for their access point onto Huber Drive. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that cameras have been set up to collect data about the existing traffic movements. Then from there they will move the passenger vehicles over to Huber Drive, show whether they would go north or south, and projecting all of the turning movements at the intersection of Huber and Mendota Heights Road, as well as the entrances in and out of the school. page 25 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 20 Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:54 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL 15, 2019 A workshop meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 15, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 6:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Also Present: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, City Administrator Mark McNeill DISCUSS UPDATES TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 10 Implementation Chair Magnussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Mr. Noonan noted the Commissioners’ receipt of the written comments which had been provided by Ultan Duggan. He said that those comments should be referred to staff, and that the City Council could consider them. Mr. Ruzek then began a discussion of the implementation steps for each chapter, as summarized in Chapter 10. Chapter 1—Introduction--No comments Chapter 2—Land Use--Mr. Noonan asked of the Commission was to provide feedback on Timeframe and Priority Levels. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative, but noted that prioritization would be subject to the resources available to the City. Mr. Katz said that he had counted 23 “high” priorities, 22 “medium”, and only 3 that were “low”. He said that there may not always need to be an action step that needed to be assigned to keep it as a high priority. Mr. Corbett asked if there was progress reported on those items which have action steps. He also asked if the Airport Noise implementation had measurable goals. It was noted that the Airport Noise issues had items which were out of the City’s control; however, the City’s Airport Relations Commission monitored noise complaints and trends. Chair Magnussen said there the draft Comprehensive Plan document presented a “tension”—the previous draft listed action steps which didn’t always correspond with goals. She said that this page 27 version added goals, but had fewer implementation steps. She felt that if there was too much implementation, the process would have to start over. Mr. Mazzitello said that these goals were not in rank order of importance. Mr. Ruzek agreed, and said that this was a comprehensive plan, and not a work plan. He said that the Comp Plan should focus on policy, and that individual work plans would address implementation specifics. Mr. Katz asked that periods as punctuations be made consistent throughout the document. He also questioned if the airport noise issues should be reprioritized as “low”, given the City’s lack of ability to change airport policy. Mr. Mazzitello said that, given the number of people in Mendota Heights who view airport noise as a concern, he felt that it should stay as “medium”. The Commissioners agreed. Chapter 3—Transportation—Commissioners agreed to change the timeframe in 3.3 (airport noise impacts) “on-going”, instead of “long term”. In “Bonus Goal 1”, the term “near-term” was eliminated from roadway projects. Chapter 4—Parks and Trails—Mr. Mazzitello asked if “short term” for 4.1 was accurate. The consensus was to change that to “on-going”. Mr. Noonan suggested combining two of the bonus goals. Mr. Ruzek removed the bonus goal under 4.3. Chapter 5—Housing—Mr. Mazzitello suggested changing the bonus goal regarding the creation of 23 affordable housing units to “long term”. The Commissioners agreed. Chapter 6—Economic Development—Mr. Mazzitello recommended changing the priority of 6.3 (economic development tools) from “high” to “low”. The Commissioners agreed. Chair Magnussen questioned whether Goal 6.5 and Bonus Goal 2 were the same. It was agreed to drop Bonus Goal 2, adding the term “Industrial District”, and making it a “medium” priority. Mr. Mazzitello asked that “and redevelop” be added to 6.4. Mr. Noonan asked that Tim Benetti be asked whether “develop” and “redevelop” should be added to 6.4 and 6.5. Chapter 7—Natural Resources—The Commissioners discussed whether the timeframes for 7.1 should be changed to “medium” or “short term”; whether 7.2 should be “ongoing”; and 7.5 should instead be “medium” or “long term”. There was no consensus. The Commissioners also discussed whether a future advisory body for Natural Resources should be a Committee or Commission? Chair Magnussen noted that having a Commission was important to many people who have commented. The consensus was that the narrative in Chapter 7 would reference any Natural Resources advisory body as being a committee, which could evolve into a Commission, and that the Implementation Goals, Policies, and Tables would all reference “Commission”. Chapter 8—Resilience—Mr. Noonan stated that Goal 8.2 referencing weather and climate issues should be a “long term” timeframe, rather than “medium term”. page 28 Priorities were discussed. Mr. Mazzitello felt 8.1 (infrastructure) should be a “high”, rather than “medium”. Mr. Noonan recommended changing food production (8.7) from “high”, to “low”. Mr. Petschel recommended changing 8.5 from “high”, to “low”; Chair Magnussen said that the City by itself can’t change climate change, but it can make small contributions. Mr. Noonan suggested making 8.5 (climate change goals and greenhouse gasses) “ongoing” in timeframe, and a “medium” priority. Mr. Petschel asked the same treatment for 8.4 (solar energy). Chapter 9—Critical Area—No comments from the Commissioners. Other Comments: Chair Magnussen asked for other comments. Mr. Mazzitello suggested adding an eighth policy as 2.2.8, which would read, “LR development and redevelopment should avoid the creation of new “flag lots”, where the “flag lots” has less than the standard 100 feet of frontage”. Chair Magnussen called for other comments. Audience member Leslie Pilgrim asked for clarification on the flag lot discussion, which was answered by Mr. Mazzitello. Audience member Sue Light asked for a definition between a committee and commission. Concerns were expressed that a Committee might not have the same impact as a Commission. The discussion referenced the earlier-referenced proposed language in Chapter 7. Audience member Cindy Johnson said that she had attended a meeting the previous weekend, and reported that of the 26 cities represented, there was a wide variety of ways in which Natural Resources advisory groups were structured. Costs of the two alternatives were discussed. It was decided that the Planning Commissioners didn’t need to make a recommendation that evening, but were in concurrence that a Natural Resources advisory group should be referred to as a Commission in the goals, but be a committee which might evolve, in the narrative. Audience member Jill Smith asked for clarification on density in 2.8. She said there should be a Low Density PUD, and asked why densities have increased—MR going from 4 to 8 units per acres, and HR from 8.5 units, to up to 25 units per acre. Mr. Mazzitello responded that all of the H R designations had developed at a higher rate, and increasing the number of units more accurately reflected what had actually been developed. He noted that Summit, and Eagle Ridge ae greater than 8 units per acre. Chair Magnussen recommended to change the MR to “not to exceed” 8 units per acre. Ms. Smith stated that 8, and 25 units per acre were not much of a limitation. ADJOURN There being no further discussion, Chair Magnussen adjourned the meeting at 7:42 PM Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill City Administrator page 29 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING March 12, 2019 The March meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Vice-chair Bob Klepperich, Commissioners Ira Kipp, Stephanie Meyer, David Miller, and Dan Sherer. Commissioner Pat Hinderscheid was absent. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. 3. Approval of Agenda Chair Goldade pointed out new items added to the agenda, as well as its reordering of topics. Motion Klepperich / second Meyer to approve the agenda as presented AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 4. Approval of Minutes from February 12, 2019 Motion Klepperich / second Meyer to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 5. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *There were no citizen comments. 6. Acknowledgement of Reports 6.a Par 3 Update 6.b Recreation Update Motion Klepperich / second Miller to accept the Par 3 Update and the Recreation Update as provided in the packet. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 7. Unfinished Business 7.a Park & Trail Benches Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared a map showing park benches throughout the city, including bus stops (9), donated benches (9), park benches (43), and picnic tables (55). Commissioner Kipp asked if there was some way to systematize this to show the distance between the benches to determine how far people on the trails or the paths need to walk to get to the next bench. Mr. Ruzek replied that the map provided was to scale; 1 inch = 1/2 mile. page 30 Commissioner Sherer asked, if there was any interest in adding some benches and if there was a documented bus route for some of the ISD 197 stops as it could be advantageous to co-locate a bench at some of those bus stops. Chair Goldade noted that bus stops could change depending on where students are located; however, he would have to double check. Commissioner Kipp stated that it seemed to him that there is a lack of priority on where benches should be put. Chair Goldade asked when was the last time that the city purchased benches and is there a standard program where the city is purchasing replacement benches. Mr. Ruzek replied that city benches appear to be only in city parks; it does not appear that the city provides benches along the trail systems. The ones on the trails were installed as part of the park bench donation program, MTC, or third-party bus stops. Chair Goldade stated that his interest in this was around the idea of increasing the number of bench donations and having a wish list of preferred locations; although most residents who donate a bench have an idea of where they would like that bench located. He then asked who a resident would contact if they were interested in donating a bench. Mr. Ruzek replied that the resident could contact him, the Recreation Program Coordinator, or any staff member. There is a topic later on in the agenda to discuss promoting the bench donation program. 7.b Wentworth Park Playground Improvements – Subcommittee Recommendation Chair Goldade expressed his appreciation to the subcommittee, who worked on bringing this topic before the Commission. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the subcommittee had a final meeting on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 and made final recommendations for the playground replacement at Wentworth Park. They reviewed the plans submitted by the vendors; the vendors were not in attendance at that meeting. The recommendation from the committee was to proceed with the layout provided by Flagship Recreation, who specializes in Landscape Structure Equipment. They proposed a climbing net structure, glass fiber reinforced concrete climbing wall, 4-person teeter totter unit, ground- mounted spring rider, free-spinning unit, replacement of the swing sets to include a companion swing, rehabilitation of the existing diggers, and utilizing the existing 2 to 5-year old equipment. Total cost is estimated to be $148,936.49, the budgeted amount was $140,000. Staff is looking to do some modifications to the site work, which would save approximately $4,339.70. Flagship Recreation has included in the cost performance and payment bonds, which the city may waive the requirement, thereby saving an additional $4,393.83. These two cost savings would bring the total cost down right to the estimated budget amount. Vice-chair Klepperich commended the work done by the subcommittee. He stated that it was really nice to see a final product that the residents of Mendota Heights could be proud of. Commissioner Kipp asked for clarification as it appeared that the border is made of concrete. Mr. Ruzek replied that the border was not changed as part of this plan. The existing border is a synthetic rubber product that looks like railroad ties and is in good shape. The digger material will remain sand. Commissioner Kipp expressed his concern about the hard border if part of the plan was to provide softer surfaces to prevent harm to the children. Mr. Ruzek replied that all of the page 31 equipment is required to have a certain clear zone around them. No concrete barrier would be allowed in that clear zone area. Motion Sherer / second Meyer to recommend that City Council consider the playground improvements as proposed by Flagship Recreation for Wentworth Park Playground AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 7.c Hagstrom King Park Playground Improvements – Subcommittee Recommendation Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the subcommittee had a final meeting on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 and made final recommendations for the playground replacement at Hagstrom King Park. They reviewed the plans submitted by the vendors; the vendors were not in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Ruzek continued by explaining that both MN-WI Playground and Flagship Recreation had very competitive designs and this was a very challenging decision for the subcommittee. The subcommittee did recommend the layout provided by MN-WI Playground; who specialize in the Game Time Equipment. The budget provided was $160,000 and the estimated cost is $160,000. They were provided a larger budget due to the addition of new equipment (dual Zipline structure) and additional site work required (replacement of the container system and surfacing material). The proposed equipment includes a two-way Zipline, spinning structure, arc-type structure with a tire-type swing, replacement of the swing sets with a companion swing, and salvaging and re- installment of the 2 to 5-year old equipment. The city is looking at moving the entire container system approximately 10-15 feet to the west to utilize two existing trees for shade. They also may look at adding a tree within the structure as long as they can stay outside of the clear zone areas. Commissioner Sherer stated that, as he remembered, each vendor was to provide a parallel or pull-up bar at each park, and a pull-bar was provided at Wentworth but the parallel bar considered for Hagstrom King is not shown. He asked if it was still in the consideration. Mr. Ruzek replied that he did not believe that this vendor provided that on either of their renderings. Staff could work with MN-WI Playground to add a parallel bar in the location where staff was looking to install a tree. In regards to the concrete structure surrounding the playground, Mr. Ruzek noted that it was best for maintenance. The playground equipment would be placed far enough away from the border to be contained within the safety zone. Commissioner Kipp expressed his unhappiness with the concrete border and asked if there are any other options that would be softer and still aid in maintenance. Mr. Ruzek asked for suggestions and when asked, noted that concrete is a pretty standard material used in other parks. Motion Miller / second Klepperich to recommend that City Council consider the playground improvements as proposed by MN-WI Playground for Hagstrom King Park Playground AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 8. New Business page 32 8.a Programming Ideas for Wentworth Chair Goldade reminded the Commission that at the last meeting, they asked Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence to provide some possibilities of recreational programs that could be held in the newly proposed Wentworth Park Warming House. Ms. Lawrence noted that Wentworth Park is not one where recreational programs are currently being held. She met with the city’s Natural Resource Technician last week and they came up with some possible plans that they have been looking at for the future in programming. This list was provided in the Commission packet. Chair Goldade asked if she was looking for program ideas only or would they be talking more about the warming house itself now. Ms. Lawrence replied she brought the ideas for programming only; it may take time to digest them and think about the size. However, in the conversation if the Commission had recommendations for the warming house Mr. Ruzek could take them as he is in charge of the warming house project. Commissioner Meyer expressed her appreciation for the wonderful list of ideas provided; and then added the following:  Mushrooms and foraging classes  Building birdhouses or bat houses  Beekeeping Commissioner Sherer reiterated the expressions of appreciation not only for the list provided but also for the hard work done and being done on the warming house. He asked, based on the construction schedule, if it would be most likely that these programs would not be scheduled until 2020. Ms. Lawrence replied that this would be correct. The summer programs for 2019 have already been planned out. The playground program will take place this summer at Mendakota Park. Commissioner Kipp noted that in the past they had been able to share some of the tennis courts with the school district. He then asked if it wouldn’t be more advantag eous financially to share some of their school space rather than building a new structure. Ms. Lawrence replied that the city does have a partnership with all of the schools in the district and they do utilize space from them at this time (tennis courts and gym space); however, it is nice for the city to have their own facilities for events and to have access when wanted. This warming house would be more than just an event or class space. The Commission and the Council is looking at utilizing it as a warming house. Commissioner Kipp asked if the Par 3 Golf Course building was used. Ms. Lawrence replied that the city tries to keep the Par 3 building only for golf during the season. The events being considered for the warming house would be in the summer, during golf season. Chair Goldade asked Student Representative Matthew Boland to do a little bit of brainstorming on what 12 to 17-year olds might like to see. He then asked Ms. Lawrence if there would be the possibility of renting the facility during the ice season for possible hockey events. Ms. Lawrence replied that this would depend on the size. page 33 Student Commissioner Boland replied that Ping Pong or Ice Hockey or other indoor games could be a good way to get the age group mentioned into the area and to meet others they might not otherwise get a chance to meet. Chair Goldade added that if they started seeing the new warming house as a 12-month structure, he would start thinking about lighting inside. In regards to the warming house in general, Commissioner Meyer asked for the timeline and costs as it appears they are working on a larger footprint and size of this potential building. He tried to get the cost estimate for the last meeting. Council has reviewed the footprint and is very comfortable with it. They are not looking for a larger structure. Also, Council has made it clear that $150,000 is the cap for this building. 8.b Promotion of the Park Bench Program Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reminded the Commission that they had asked for information on how the city could better promote the Park Bench Program. She provided ideas in the Commission Packet. Commissioner Klepperich suggested that this be kept simple and that nothing more than what was on the list provided needed to be done at this time. Commissioner Miller stated that it seemed to him that the donations tend to be memorials for people who have passed away. He then wondered if it would be possible to notify churches, synagogues, etc. in the area of this program so they could include it in their bulletins or pass the information along when a funeral is coming up. Commissioner Kipp suggested promotional literature for corporations and businesses in the community. Chair Goldade stated that if he had to pick three from the list, he would pick the Park Celebration flyers; quarterly Friday News; and on the Commission’s agenda twice a year. 8.c Research on Nordic Skiing Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence again reminded the Commission of their request of staff to research Nordic skiing and the costs associated with it. After their research, staff determined that the cost to groom a Nordic skiing area would be approximately $18,000. The city does not own the necessary equipment to groom the skiing area. She noted two other things to be considered:  Staffing costs and availability o Assumed that city staff would groom the skiing area; they also plow the streets and take care of the rinks  Use of the Par 3 in the Winter o The Clubhouse currently is not staff during the Winter. Residents are currently permitted to snowshoe or Nordic skiing on the course, it is just not groomed specifically for those uses. The Par 3 Clubhouse is not opened during this time. page 34 Commissioner Kipp commented that for many years Rogers Lake was used as a cross country skiing area by St. Thomas Academy. Ms. Lawrence noted replied St. Thomas is still utilizing Rogers Lake as a practice location; as well as their school grounds. Chair Goldade asked if the new public works position would only be for winter or would it be a 12-month position. Ms. Lawrence replied that it is a full-time position, year round. It was noted that streets are a priority in the winter. Commissioner Kipp asked what the advantages would be of using the Par 3 rather than Rogers Lake and St. Thomas grounds. Ms. Lawrence replied that St. Thomas’ grounds are private property so the city could not promote them, unless they partnered with St. Thomas somehow. Rogers Lake is something that could be considered. The use of the Par 3 is what the Commission had asked her to look into. Commissioner Kipp asked if there would be any problems with the turf if they used the Par 3. Ms. Lawrence answered that she believed both Somerset and Mendakota allow Nordic skiing on their facilities during the winter. They do not groom the grounds and they do not publicize it. Somerset stated that they do not see any issues with the turf; it depends on the amount of snow. It was suggested that the greens be fenced off to prevent damage to them. Chair Goldade summarized their two options:  Consider dropping and be done with the discussion  Continue discussion o Look at possible partnership with St. Thomas Academy, especially on the use of the lake o Use of the cross country ski trail on Rogers Lake o The use of the Par 3 Clubhouse o Staffing and costs Motion Klepperich / second Sherer to shelf the idea of Nordic Skiing for the time being with the understanding that it could be brought up again at a future date AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 8.d Par 3 Marketing Ideas Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reminded the Commission that they had asked for ideas on promoting the Par 3. She provided a list of ideas in the Commission Packet. Commissioner Klepperich noted that in the past he worked for a municipality where they did a family night on Sunday night. He believed it was one base price for an adult and then the kids could golf for free. Commissioner Sherer stated that he was thinking of something along the same lines as Commissioner Klepperich. It would be an attractive way to get families to the course. Commissioner Kipp noted that there are hundreds of cars that go up and down Highway 62 every day; many of those people do not know about the wonderful Par 3 Golf Course. He asked if it would be possible to get some kind of temporary signage or billboard on Highway 62 to promote the course. Ms. Lawrence replied that she could look into that; however, staff has set page 35 their marketing budget much smaller than in years past. They are trying to use more free marketing that would still attract people. Commissioner Miller stated that a few years ago, a student had volunteered from the business school at the University of Minnesota – a marketing student – and for reasons that he did not know the city did not accept that student’s help. He suggested that if the business school had students looking for marketing projects, and are willing to volunteer to do this for free, it may be an additional venue. He also noted that there is a program called “The First Tee” and Highland Golf Course has a program set up to attract urban youth. It may be valuable to hook up with The First Tee for very young kids to learn. Commissioner Sherer also suggested marketing the fact that this is a Par 3 course – only nine holes – that could be completed in 70 to 90 minutes, with refreshments available at the end. Commissioner Kipp suggested promoting this at the Cliff Timm Fishing Derby. Commissioner Meyer suggested having some kind of contest-type thing; it would be a good one-time event – involving city leaders. 8.e Community Engagement Ideas Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that community engagement has been an item that has been discussed by the Commission over the last few months; a survey has been something that has been discussed. Currently, the City Council has met to consider goals for their Goal Setting Workshop and a survey was not something that was budgeted for this year but could be something the Commission could suggest for the 2020 budget. Upon research, staff believes a scientific study would cost between $20,000 and $30,000 to conduct. Staff contacted local colleges to see if a research class that would be interested in taking this project on. They have not heard back from these local colleges yet. If the Commission is interested in doing a non-scientific study that could be an option at this time; something similar to Survey Monkey. However, these types of studies are hard to monitor and it would be impossible to determine if someone from another city was taking the survey or to determine if someone took the survey more than once in hopes of getting something they want. Last year, the Commission went to the Park Celebration and spoke to residents about what they wanted to see in the parks and received some good ideas. The Commission also met with the City Council in May of 2018 and prioritized a list of those items; which provided the Commission with a roadmap of where they wanted to start for park improvements. Chair Goldade asked about Polco. Ms. Lawrence deferred to Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, who replied that they spoke a little bit at the last meeting about Polco; a community engagement tool that the city is now participating in and working on implementing. It is a question tool, a way to put a link on the city’s website with maybe one question or two questions page 36 – very brief, and people can respond to it. It’s an Opt -In feedback tool that residents or anyone else who signs up for that tool could respond to. Commissioner Sherer asked if the Polco link could be integrated with the Friday News distribution or are the limitations on that. Ms. Jacobson replied that they could tell people about it through the Friday News, but they have to Opt-In; the user would have to go to the link and set up their account. As questions are released they would get an email notification. Commissioner Meyer suggested contacting the Neighborhood Watch organizations in the area and maybe attending one of their meetings to obtain feedback from the residents. 9. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence made the following announcement:  Warming Houses are closed for the season  Registration for summer programs is available; the new registration system is working well  Still hoping to fill a few more positions for the summer; they are posted on the city’s website 10. Student Representative Update Student Representative Matthew Boland stated that last week several of his classmates presented a study on Rogers Lake’s water quality to the City Council. They have found that the water quality of Rogers Lake gets better each year; this was record year for a lot of different kinds of tests. He suggested, for a summer program, a Footgolf or Frisbee golf tournament. 11. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Kipp  Rogers Lake is buried in 20 feet of snow  He encouraged everyone to be very careful because of the rain on top of the ice Commissioner Sherer  Hagstrom King is in a similar situation as Rogers Lake; the basketball backboard is not in good condition and due for replacement; he suggested obtaining one from Friendly Hills Middle School which is undergoing renovations to the outdoor court  Friendly Hills - not much to report; pretty good sled tracks  Hockey rink lights are still coming on due to the timers. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence announced they were officially turned off this AM Vice-Chair Klepperich  Had the opportunity to hear the presentation from St. Thomas Academy; it was truly fantastic; he was impressed with the presentation and the information  No baseball this week at the Civic Center Baseball Field  He drove by Mendakota and noted that, after the snow had been plowed off of the streets, the walking path has been plowed page 37 Commissioner Meyer  Marie Park and Kensington Park are looking good; very snowy  She asked if the parking lot at Kensington Park was plowed. Mr. Ruzek replied that he was unaware of the city plowing any of the park parking lots. Marie Park is plowed because of the rink. Commissioner Miller  No comments to add about Victoria Highland Park  As a perspective, he noted that the majority of the time that he has been on the Park Commission, they probably had less money in the Park Reserve Fund than they recommended to spend on two parks this evening. With the money coming in from the tax increment of new buildings, etc. it was extremely pleasing to see that they actually have money to spend, that there is a committee that worked very hard on it, they received very good information from the city staff, and they actually have a way to do updates that are very first class, very well thought out, and it is extremely pleasing as a Park Board Member to see that they can actually do some things now that are very worthwhile. Chair Goldade  Items to be covered at the April meeting: o Wentworth Warming House Discussion o Start planning for the June 1, 2019 Parks Celebration; specifically a schedule for commissioners to volunteer at their table; review objectives to be met there o Starting in July they will be doing park visits for the meetings; discussions on where to start o Community Engagement; discussions around Polco, CivicRec, and possibly attending Neighborhood Watch meetings o Suggestions for topics should be emailed to Chair Goldade and Ms. Lawrence  He noted the wonderful Spring/Summer Programs Update included in the packet and expressed his appreciation to Ms. Lawrence and her team  Tree Program is coming up, updates and information available in the Friday News and on the city’s website 12. Adjourn Motion Klepperich / Second Kipp to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 PM AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Minutes Taken By: C. Darlene Oehlke Independent Contractor page 38 DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2019 Depositories Update INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an addition to the list of approved places for the deposit of City funds for investments. BACKGROUND Each year the City designates institutions that are approved for city funds to be deposited. At the April 16, 2019 City Council meeting, Council approved Ehlers to act as our investment manager for the fire station bonds that were approved for issuance. The proceeds from the bond issue will be deposited with TD Ameritrade. This was not an institution that was listed on the original resolution approved in January 2019 I have attached an updated resolution that has TD Ameritrade listed as approved for the depository of city funds. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 201-32 Resolution Updating 2019 City Depositories of Funds. This action requires a majority vote of the city council. page 39 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019 - 32 RESOLUTION UPDATING 2019 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Mendota Heights that the following institutions be designated as depositories for city funds and securities for 2019: Deerwood Bank Wells Fargo Bank Cherokee State Bank Gateway Bank U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray & Co. TCF National Bank Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. TD Ameritrade BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that investments of city funds be in any securities authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.04 and 427.02. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS __________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 40 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-33 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the 2019 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project (City Project #201904) COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to accept bids and award a contract for the 2019 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project. BACKGROUND Our sanitary sewer system is aging. Many of our pipes are 60 years old and will soon be in need of repair. Cleaning our 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, Rich Burrows along with one seasonal employee, clean approximately 10 miles of pipe per year. The proposed project is for the cleaning of approximately 3.2 miles of the City’s sanitary sewer system and televising approximately 12.9 miles of the City’s sanitary sewer system. At our current rate, we are cleaning the system every 6 years. BUDGET IMPACT Three proposals (see attached resolution) were received and opened on Wednesday, April 17, 2019 for the Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning Project. Diversified Infrastructure Services, Inc. submitted the low bid of $110,254.89. Their bid was higher than the Engineer’s estimate of $75,565.79. Staff is proposing that the project scope be reduced after awarding of the project. The proposed reduction in the project scope would include removal of a portion of the sanitary sewer interceptor through Valley Park. This section of the interceptor receives high sewage flows which keeps the pipe relatively clean. The contract amount, with the interceptor omitted, will be $86,681.49. The sanitary sewer fund can support the additional expense of this project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the contract to Diversified Infrastructure Services, Inc. for their bid in the amount of $110,254.89. page 41 ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2019 SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND TELEVISING (PROJECT #201904). This action requires a simple majority vote. page 42 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-33 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2019 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 2019 Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning Project (City Project No. 201904), 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 Diversified Infrastructure Services $110,254.89 American Environmental. LLC $132,935.00 Pipetek Infrastructure Services $299,247.00 and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the low bid submitted by Diversified Infrastructure Services of Woodbury, 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 Diversified Infrastructure Services of Woodbury, 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 Diversified Infrastructure Services of Woodbury, 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 May, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 43 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening and Xcel Energy for a Pollinator Habitat Improvement Project at Valley Park COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening and Xcel Energy for a pollinator planting project within the power line corridor of Valley Park. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights has been working with Great River Greening on invasive species management and native plantings in Valley Park for several years. Great River Greening and Mendota Heights are recipients of a 2018 Outdoor Heritage Fund grant in the amount of $29,550. The grant was applied for due to ongoing conversations with Xcel Energy on revegetating this corridor. DISCUSSION The proposed project will include removal of undesired and invasive vegetation, establishment of native prairie grasses, shrubs, and forbs, and coordination of planting maintenance and vegetation control. This new habitat will require a commitment from the City to ensure its success for a period of 10 years. BUDGET IMPACT City Council has annually included funding in city budgets for ‘Control of Invasive Plants’ in City Parks . Mendota Heights is asked to contribute $3,500 towards the implementation of this project over a 3 year period. Xcel Energy is providing in-kind services for removal of the existing vegetation (estimated at $30,000) and matching the Mendota Heights contribution of $3,500. Great River Greening will provide the $29,550 grant funds and project oversight. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening and Xcel Energy for the Valley Park Pollinator Corridor Project. page 44 ACTION REQUIRED If the Council agrees with the staff recommendation, they should make a motion adopting resolution 2019-34 A RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH GREAT RIVER GREENING AND XCEL ENERGY FOR THE VALLEY PARK POLLINATOR CORRIDOR PROJECT. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 45 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-34 A RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH GREAT RIVER GREENING AND XCEL ENERGY FOR THE VALLEY PARK POLLINATOR CORRIDOR PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to improve habitat and remove invasive species in Valley Park and has been working with Great River Greening on these efforts, and WHEREAS, a grant has been obtained from the State Heritage Fund of $29,550 towards a pollinator corridor improvement project through Great River Greening, and WHEREAS, Xcel Energy has also committed to a partnership of improving the Valley Park pollinator corridor. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council: 1. The Council authorizes and directs the City Clerk and City Administrator to execute the Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening and Xcel Energy. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of May, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 46 GREAT RIVER GREENING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS GREAT RIVER GREENING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”, is made on the 24th day of April, 2019, by and between the Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation d/b/a Xcel Energy, hereinafter referred to as “NSPM”; City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter referred to as “City”; and GREAT RIVER GREENING, hereinafter referred to as “Greening”. RECITALS: Greening is a non-profit 501 (c)(3) conservation organization based in St. Paul, Minnesota organized for the purpose of restoring natural areas and open spaces through community engagement; and Greening has received as an appropriation under Minn. Laws 2018, Regular Session, Chapter 208, Section 2, Subd 5(a) Metro Big Rivers Phase VIII, $700,000 is from the fund to the commissioner of natural resources for an agreement to acquire land in fee and permanent conservation easements and to restore and enhance natural systems associated with the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers in the metropolitan area and as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.026. As a recipient of this funding, NSPM and City are subject to the terms as described in Exhibit A; and Whereas, all parties seek to enter into an agreement for the purpose of enhancing the Valley Park Pollinator Corridor; and Greening desires to contribute $29,550 towards the partnership project; NSPM desires to contribute $3,500.00 towards the partnership project; and City desires to contribute $3,500.00 towards the partnership project, and seek to enter into an agreement with Greening for the purpose of detailing partnership contributions and the provision of Technical Services in support of the Valley Park Pollinator Corridor project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements contained within this Agreement, City and NSPM and Greening hereby agree as follows: SCOPE OF AGREEMENT: The scope of services is outlined below in the following text, and is further expanded upon in Exhibit B, Scope of Services. Greening agrees to provide the following list of services for the enhancement of Valley Park Pollinator Corridor: • Project management turnkey services. • Writing of management plan. • Act as fiscal agent. • Implementation of one volunteer event. • Grant management and reporting. • Site monitoring and reporting. • Coordination of outreach and communication. NSPM agrees to provide the following list of services for the enhancement of Valley Park Pollinator Corridor: • Cash match. • In-kind services: o Initial vegetation preparation on the full project area (including two oak knobs (consisting of mowing, spraying, and other removal activities. o Establishment mowing once or twice for each of the first two years after installation. o Mowing maintenance for every four years. page 47 o Outreach and communication in coordination with Greening and the City. • Submit maintenance schedule before project begins, and coordinate same with Greening and City. • Provide a list of NSPM contacts including name, title, role, phone, and email. • Review of management plan in a timely manner. • Provide summary and contact info on other regional corridor projects to Greening and City. • Agree to long term management of the enhancement project as required by grant funding. City agrees to provide the following list of services for the enhancement of Valley Park Pollinator Corridor: • Cash match. • In-kind services: o Outreach and communication in coordination with Greening and NSPM. o Lead local Stakeholder communications. • Review of management plan in a timely manner. • Agree to long term management of the enhancement project as required by grant funding. COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT: Compensation The Parties agree that Greening will complete or arrange for services to be completed under this Agreement. The cost of such services will be funded by joint contributions of the parties. NSPM and City contributions/compensation under this agreement shall be paid to Greening on the basis of performance milestones for services shown in Exhibit B attached herein, plus expenses and construction costs necessary to complete the project described in Exhibit B Scope of Services of this contract. Greening shall contribute $29,550 over the course of the project. After NSPM and City contributions, Greening shall assume fiscal responsibility for all services completed under this Agreement. Greening’s financial obligation, as set out above, shall be in accordance with the 2018 Outdoor Heritage Fund Metro Big Rivers Phase 8 which is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and may be met through actual payment for services to a third party or calculation of the value, on an hourly basis, for “in-kind” services provided. Terms of Payment NSPM agrees to contribute $3,500.00 of match where Greening will invoice NSPM according to Greening billing schedule but not more often than monthly. City agrees to contribute $3,500.00 of match where Greening will invoice City according to Greening billing schedule but not more often than monthly. EFFECTIVE DATE OF CONTRACT This Agreement shall be effective on the date of signature. TERM OF CONTRACT This Agreement shall remain in effect until June 15, 2023, or until all obligations set forth in this Agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled or unless earlier terminated as provided, whichever occurs first. NOTICES City and NSPM shall appoint an authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this Agreement. Greening is notified of the authorized agent of City and NSPM as follows: page 48 PARTNER PARTNER PARTNER City of Mendota Heights Northern States Power Company Great River Greening Authorized Contact Authorized Contact Authorized Contact Ryan Ruzek Jake Sedlacek Wiley Buck Address Address Address 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 3000 Maxwell Ave. Newport, MN 55055 251 Starkey Street, Suite 2200 St Paul, MN 55107 Contact Phone Number Contact Phone Number Contact Phone Number (651) 255-1152 (651) 458-1228 (651) 272-3981 Email Address Email Address Email Address ryanr@mendota-heights.com jake.sedlacek@xcelenergy.com wbuck@greatrivergreening.org PARTNER AND STATE AUDIT Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 16C.05, Subd. 5, as it may be further amended and supplemented, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Greening relative to this Agreement shall be subject to examination by City and NSPM and the State Auditor. Complete and accurate records of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be kept by Greening for a minimum of six (6) years following termination of this Agreement for such auditing purposes. The retention period shall be automatically extended during the course of any administrative or judicial action involving City and NSPM regarding matters to which the records are relevant. The retention period shall be automatically extended until the administrative or judicial action is finally completed or until the authorized agent of City and NSPM notifies Greening in writing that the records need no longer be kept. INDEMNITY City, NSPM, and Greening agree to defend, indemnify, and hold one another, its employees and officials harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses resulting directly or indirectly from any negligent act or omission on the part of any other party, or its subcontractors, partners or independent contractors or any of their agents or employees, in the performance of or with relation to any of the work or services to be performed or furnished by the vendor or the subcontractors, partners or independent contractors or any of their agents or employees under this Agreement. Greening shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all services furnished by Greening under this Agreement. Greening shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in Greening's final reports and services. SUBCONTRACTS Greening shall ensure and require that any subcontractor agrees to and complies with all of the terms of this Agreement. Any subcontractor of Greening used to perform any portion of this Agreement shall report to and bill Greening directly. Greening shall be solely responsible for the breach, performance or nonperformance of any subcontractor. FORCE MAJEURE City, NSPM, and Greening agree that Greening shall not be liable for any delay or inability to perform this Agreement, directly or indirectly caused by, or resulting from, strikes, labor troubles, accidents, fire, flood, breakdowns, war, riot, civil commotion, lack of material, delays of transportation, acts of God or other cause beyond reasonable control of Greening. DATA PRACTICES Greening, its agents, employees and any subcontractors of Greening, in providing all services hereunder, agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as amended, and Minn. Rules promulgated pursuant to Ch. 13. Greening understands that it must comply with these provisions as if it were a government entity. Greening agrees to indemnify and hold City and NSPM, its officers, page 49 department heads and employees harmless from any claims resulting from Greening’s unlawful disclosure, failure to disclose or use of data protected under state and federal laws. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party, with or without cause upon 30 days written notice to Greening or the Authorized Agent of City and NSPM. This Agreement may also be terminated by Greening upon seven-day written notice to City and NSPM in the event that Project funding is disrupted or terminated. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Greening and its employees, agents, subcontractors, and representatives shall not be considered employees, agents or representatives of City and NSPM. Except as otherwise provided herein, Greening shall maintain, in all respects, its present control over the means and personnel by which this Agreement is performed. From any amounts due Greening, there shall be no deduction for federal income tax, FICA payments, state income tax, or for any other purposes which are associated with an employer/employee relationship unless otherwise required by law. Payment of federal income tax, FICA payments, state income tax, unemployment compensation taxes, and other payroll deductions and taxes are the sole responsibility of Greening. 1 . Insurance Greening shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has obtained, at its own cost and expense, all insurance required herein. All insurance coverage is subject to approval of City and NSPM and shall be maintained by Greening until final completion of the work. a. Workers' Compensation 1) State: Minnesota – Statutory 2) Employer's Liability with minimum limits of: Bodily Injury by Accident: $100,000 each Accident Bodily Injury by Disease: $100,000 each Employee Bodily Injury by Disease: $500,000 policy limit 3) Benefits required by union labor contracts: as applicable In the event Greening is a sole proprietor and has not elected to provide workers' compensation insurance, Greening shall be required to execute and submit an affidavit of sole proprietorship in a form satisfactory to City and NSPM before entering into the work to be done under this Agreement. b. Commercial General Liability Including Premises, Operations, Products, Completed Operations, Advertising, and Personal Injury Liability, with the following minimum limits of liability: $2,000,000 Aggregate $2,000,000 Products & Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 Personal Injury & Advertising Injury $1,000,000 Occurrence $ 100,000 Fire Damage Limit $ 5,000 Medical Expense Policy should be written on an occurrence basis and include explosion, collapse and underground. c. Commercial Auto Liability Automobile Liability should include Hired and Non-Owned, and City and NSPM should be named as an additional insured. page 50 Minimum limits of liability shall be: If split limits: $1,000,000 each person/$1,000,000 each occurrence for Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each occurrence for Property Damage If combined single limit: $1,000,000 per occurrence 2. Notices Any notices to be given under this Agreement shall be given by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, addressed to Greening at its address stated herein, and to the authorized agent of City and NSPM at the address stated herein. 3. Controlling Law The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement, the legal relations between the parties and performance under the Agreement. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. 4. Successors and Assigns City and NSPM and Greening, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither City and NSPM nor Greening shall assign, sublet, or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. 5. Equal Employment and Americans with Disabilities In connection with the work under this Agreement, Greening agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of state and federal equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination statutes and regulations. In addition, upon entering into this Agreement, Greening certifies that it has been made fully aware of the City’s and/or NSPM’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Americans with Disabilities Act Policy, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A through both oral and written communications, that it supports this policy and that it will conduct its own employment practices in accordance therewith. Failure on the part of the Greening to conduct its own employment practices in accordance with City and NSPM Policy may result in the withholding of all or part of regular payments by the City and/or NSPM due under this Agreement unless or until Greening complies with the aforementioned policy, and/or suspension or termination of this Agreement. 6. Changes The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, or any attachments hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and made part of this Agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as for the original execution of this Agreement. 7. Severability In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties unless such invalidity or non-enforceability would cause the Agreement to fail its purpose. One or more waivers by either party of any provision, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the other party. page 51 8. Entire Agreement It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between City and NSPM and Greening relating to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. page 52 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS: BY: ___________________________ NAME: ___________________________ TITLE: ___________________________ DATE: ___________________________ BY: ___________________________ NAME: ___________________________ TITLE: ___________________________ DATE: ___________________________ NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY BY: ___________________________ NAME: Pamela Jo Rasmussen_______________ TITLE: Sr. Manager, Siting & Land Rights DATE: ___________________________ GREAT RIVER GREENING: BY: ___________________________ NAME: ___________________________ TITLE: ___________________________ DATE: ___________________________ GRANT MANAGER INT: _____TR________ FINANCIAL OFFICER INT: ____HN_______ OPERATIONS DIRECTOR INT: __TR_____ page 53 Exhibit A: Grant Specific Information or Agreement State of Minnesota – 2018 Outdoor Heritage Fund Metro Big Rivers Habitat – Phase 8 Grantee Landowner Limited Use Partner Great River Greening City of Mendota Heights Northern States Power Company 251 Starkey St., Suite 2200 1101 Victoria Curve 3000 Maxwell Ave. Saint Paul, MN 55107 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Newport, MN 55055 (651) 665-9500 (651) 452-1850 651-458-1228 Great River Greening has received as an appropriation under Minn. Laws 2018, Regular Session, Chapter 208, Section 2, Subd 5(a) Metro Big Rivers Phase VIII, $700,000 is from the fund to the commissioner of natural resources for an agreement to acquire land in fee and permanent conservation easements and to restore and enhance natural systems associated with the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers in the metropolitan area and as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.026. As a recipient of this funding, the Landowner and Limited Use Partner are subject to the terms below: COMPLIANCE The Landowner and Limited Use Partner acknowledge that these funds are proceeds from the State of Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund which is subject to certain legal restrictions and requirements, including Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116P. The Landowner and Limited Use Partner are responsible for compliance with this and all other relevant state and federal laws and regulations in the fulfillment of the Project. LIABILITY The Landowner must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant agreement by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant agreement. ACCESS AND MONITORING The Landowner and Limited Use Partner agrees to allow the Grantee and the State access at any time to conduct periodic site visits and inspections to ensure work progress in accordance with this grant agreement, including a final inspection upon program completion. At least one monitoring visit per grant period on all state grants of over $50,000 will be conducted and at least annual monitoring visits on grants of over $250,000. Following closure of the program, the State’s authorized representatives shall be allowed to conduct post- completion inspections of the site to ensure that the site is being properly operated and maintained and that no conversion of use has occurred. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND ENDORSEMENT Acknowledgment. The Landowner and Limited Use Partner must acknowledge financial support from the Outdoor Heritage Fund in program publications, signage and other public communication and outreach related to work completed using the appropriation. Acknowledgment may occur, as appropriate, through use of the fund logo or inclusion of language attributing support from the fund. Endorsement. The Landowner must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. ECOLOGICAL AND RESTORATION PLAN page 54 For all restorations, the Grantee in coordination with the Landowner and Limited Use Partner must prepare and retain an ecological restoration and management plan that, to the degree practicable, is consistent with current conservation science and ecological goals for the restoration site. Consideration should be given to soil, geology, topography, and other relevant factors that would provide the best chance for long-term success and durability of the restoration. The plan must include the proposed timetable for implementing the restoration, including, but not limited to, site preparation, establishment of diverse plant species, maintenance, and additional enhancement to establish the restoration; identify long-term maintenance and management needs of the restoration and how the maintenance, management, and enhancement will be financed; and use current conservation science to achieve the best restoration. INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION The DNR requires active steps to prevent or limit the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species during contracted work. The contractor shall prevent invasive species from entering into or spreading within a project site by cleaning equipment prior to arriving at the project site. If the equipment, vehicles, gear, or clothing arrives at the project site with soil, aggregate material, mulch, vegetation (including seeds) or animals, it shall be cleaned by contractor furnished tool or equipment (brush/broom, compressed air or pressure washer) at the staging area. The contractor shall dispose of material cleaned from equipment and clothing at a location determined by the DNR Contract Administrator. If the material cannot be disposed of onsite, secure material prior to transport (sealed container, covered truck, or wrap with tarp) and legally dispose of offsite. The contractor shall ensure that all equipment and clothing used for work in infested waters has been adequately decontaminated for invasive species (ex. zebra mussels) prior to being used in non-infested waters. All equipment and clothing including but not limited to waders, tracked vehicles, barges, boats, turbidity curtain, sheet pile, and pumps that comes in contact with any infested waters must be thoroughly decontaminated. POLLINATOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Habitat restorations and enhancements conducted on DNR lands and prairie restorations on state lands or on any lands using state funds are subject to pollinator best management practices and habitat restoration guidelines pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 84.973. Practices and guidelines ensure an appropriate diversity of native species to provide habitat for pollinators through the growing season. Current specific practices and guidelines to be followed for contract and grant work can be found here: Link to December 2014 version (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/npc/bmp_contract_language.pdf). LONG TERM MANAGEMENT As a partner with Great River Greening, the Landowner and Limited Use Partner commit to maintaining the investment put forward over time. page 55 Exhibit B: Scope of Services Enhance 9 acres to a pollinator habitat corridor using native species (see Exhibit C for maps with delineated management units). Management Unit South -  Removal of undesired and invasive vegetation.  Establishment of native prairie grasses and forbs.  Coordination of plantings maintenance and continuing vegetation control. Management Unit Central -  Removal of undesired and invasive vegetation.  Establishment of native prairie grasses and native pollinator shrubs.  Coordination of plantings maintenance and continuing vegetation control. Management Unit North -  Removal of undesired and invasive vegetation.  Establishment of native prairie grasses and forbs.  Coordination of plantings maintenance and continuing vegetation control. Management Unit Oak Knobs -  Removal of invasive shrub and encroaching woody vegetation. Project oversight by GRG staff ecologist. Facilitation of one volunteer event. Coordination with City and NSPM staff to minimize the impact of enhancement activities on trail users and utility access. Development of a management plan. Management and reporting to the State of Minnesota on outcomes related to the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund grant. page 56 Exhibit C: Maps Figure 1: Valley Park Pollinator Corridor Management Units page 57 Figure 2: South 4.4 and Oak Units page 58 Figure 3: Central 1.8 Unit, North 2.4 and Oak Units page 59 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Saint Paul Regional Water Invoice - Dodd Road Rehabilitation Watermain Offset COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this item is to provide an update and authorization for the watermain work that was necessary for MnDOT to complete its storm sewer improvements on Dodd Road (Highway 149). BACKGROUND The Minnesota State Department of Transportation (MnDOT) have been working on State Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road), which had impacts to city owned infrastructure in the State right-of- way. The City of Mendota Heights owns a sanitary sewer collection system located in State right-of-way, and is responsible for adjustments to a watermain also located in the same right-of- way. The Highway 149 (Dodd Road) rehabilitation project required adjustments to 24 sanitary sewer manholes, 60 water valves, and adding a casing pipe over other sections of watermain for protection from the weight of the new storm sewer structures. This work was performed by the contractor on the project. DISCUSSION The new storm sewer that was installed included larger diameter manholes which would be over the watermain. There was concern that these manholes could cause a failure to the watermain and make repairs difficult. Two sections of watermain near Emerson Avenue were removed and replaced, offsetting the alignment away from the storm sewer. Two other sections of watermain near Coleshire Lane were placed in a casing pipe to protect from the additional weight. Mendota Heights received an invoice from St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) for a portion of the work that occurred at Emerson Avenue. I met with representatives from SPRWS to discuss this invoice as field staff from SPRWS had indicated that the work was considered main replacement, meaning Mendota Heights would not be billed. A memo to City Council in December of 2018 highlighted this understanding. page 60 Additionally, staff feels that this issue could have been identified in the design stage of the project which may have provided opportunities to work with MnDOT on alternative storm sewer designs that would not be in conflict with the watermain. The existing agreement with SPRWS does commit the city to a financial responsibility for this type of work. Staff feels the process of performing this type of work can be improved. BUDGET IMPACT The costs are proposed to be allocated to the respective Water Utility Fund. This fund has an adequate balance for this work. The city is being invoiced $58,091.23 for the work. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the invoice for a watermain offset and valve relocation authorizing payment to SPRWS for this work on Dodd Road. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council agrees with the staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing payment of the invoice for watermain offset and valve relocation on Dodd Road. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 61 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: City Hall—July 5th Date: May 7, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to authorize Mendota Heights City Hall to be closed for business on Friday, July 5th. Background: Because July 4th falls on a Thursday this year, it would leave July 5th as a day for which City Hall will be difficult to staff. Several employees have already asked for the day off, so that they might be able to enjoy a four day weekend. We anticipate that it would be a slow business day if the building were to be open, due to what will likely be a long holiday weekend for many people. The desire to have the day off is compounded by the fact that, with the new summer hours at City Hall, the building would be open only 7:30 to 11:30 AM under normal circumstances. We ask that the Council authorize that City Hall be closed all day on Friday, July 5th. If approved, employees would be responsible for making up the time, or taking vacation or personal hours to compensate for the time off. Those who wish to work would be allowed to do so, but it would be with the building being closed. This would apply to City Hall; the Police Department records staff will also be authorized to take time off in a similar manner if desired. Public Works will work regular summer hours. Recommendation: I recommend that City Hall be authorized to be closed on Friday, July 5th. If approved by the Council, notification will be made through the City’s normal communications channels. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize City Hall to be closed for business on Friday, July 5th, with the understanding that any time not worked be made up by the affected employees. 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 page 78 page 79 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance No. 538 – an Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 to allow “Personal Self-Storage Facility” in the I-Industrial District (Planning Case No. 2019-01) Introduction The City Council is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “Personal Self-Storage Facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial District. The applicant is Metro Storage, LLC. Background City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business or industrial zones. City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 includes a list of prohibited uses within the Industrial District, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses. At the January 22, 2019 planning commission meeting, a draft ordinance was initially presented to the commission, which was later tabled by the commission in order to allow staff to research and explain how or why “self-storage uses” were included in the list of prohibited use in the Industrial zone. At the follow-up February 26, 2019 planning commission meeting, staff presented additional information, which included no concrete discussions or reasons for including storage uses in the prohibited list. After re-opening and closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended (by 6-1 vote) that the proposed Ordinance No. 538 be denied, based on the following findings: 1. The Planning Commission feels the proposed Ordinance to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 and 12-1G-2-2- would be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which speaks of encouraging employment generating uses. 2. The Planning Commission further determines, and based on previous testimony from the Applicant, that the number of employees who would be associated with such use(s) is minimal, and is not fitting with goals and objectives of the city’s Industrial Park Study of 2016. 3. The Planning Commission feels they have not heard any convincing evidence, justification, rationale or reasons to alter the list, which was recently presented and adopted by the City Council establishing the list of prohibited uses, including self-storage uses. At the March 19, 2019 city council meeting, this recommendation and proposed Draft Ord. No. 538 was presented to the council for first consideration. After some deliberation, the amendment application was page 80 tabled, to allow for further study of this matter, and permit the Applicant time to schedule and conduct a site visit by the councilmembers of similar self-storage facilities in the metro area. On April 23rd, Mayor Garlock and Councilmember Miller participated in the site tour with City Administrator McNeill in attendance. The Applicant provided additional information for the council to consider, including an overview statement of self-storage uses and various property tax valuations/benefits from other communities. This information, along with the draft Ordinance No. 538, and the previous planning report information are once again appended to this memo report. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a zoning code amendment request and has broad discretion, provided said action is constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Action Required The City Council may choose to affirm the recommendation made by the Planning Commission from the February 26th meeting, and make a motion to deny the proposed Ordinance No. 538 as presented; or the Council may choose to reverse the Planning Commission’s recommendation and adopt Ordinance No. 538 as presented herein (or with modifications as the Council deems fit). Final action on this item requires a simple-majority vote of the council. page 81 D R A F T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows: Personal self-storage facility, provided that: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. Maintenance and servicing of vehicles stored on site is prohibited, except for minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery replacement. C. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. D. Facility shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential use and/or zone. E. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. F. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not directly face a public highway or major collector. G. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. H. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area Section 2. Title 12-1G-2-2: Prohibited Uses is hereby amended as follows: Personal self-storage facility page 82 D R A F T 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 _____ day of March, 2019. 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 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 Planning Report (Supplemental) MEETING DATE: February 26, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in the I-Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: (extended to April 25, 2019) INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL). This item was officially presented under a public hearing item at the January 22, 2019 regular meeting; and after initial discussion, a motion was made to table the matter and leave the hearing open until the next regular scheduled meeting. DISCUSSION At the January 22, 2019 regular meeting, staff presented a planning report and analysis (dated 01/22/19 – attached hereto); and after the presentation, questions were raised by commissioners on the issue of why “personal self-storage” uses were listed as a prohibited use in the I-Industrial district regulations. Staff did not have any information or answers to report; and was directed to do more research and provide additional information for further consideration. Staff was able to find additional information, and has prepared for you the following information and chain- of-events related to this request:  January 4, 2016: City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation strategies of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan (adopted by the City Council - January 2016). As part of this discussion, staff was directed to proceed with exploring potential page 87 Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 3 revision and additions to the uses in the Industrial District. The staff memo and minutes from this workshop meeting are appended as Exhibit-A.  January 26, 2016: city staff presented a planning commission report of proposed Zoning Code Amendment to the Industrial District Uses. This report provided an initial draft Ordinance No. 491 for consideration, with certain uses added, revised, or struck from the city Zoning Code. The PC elected to table the matter in order for staff to provide additional information, compare other city ordinances, and bring the matter back to the next meeting. The report and minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibit –B.1 and B.2.  February 23, 2016: city staff presented a follow-up report with additional information; including an updated Ord. No. 491, but with two different options for the PC to choose. Option No. 1 does not make any reference or identification of “self-storage” or similar uses, nor does it have a list of prohibited uses. Option No. 2 however, did provide a list of prohibited uses, which included “personal self-storage facility”. The PC eventually determined Option 2 as the preferred choice to present to the Council. Minutes from that meeting reflect little, if any discussion points on how or why they chose Option 2 or reasoning for including the list of prohibited uses. The report and minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibit C.1 and C.2.  March 3, 2016: City Council takes up the recommendation from the PC on Ord. No. 491 (Option 2). The planner’s report included a statement: “Title 12-1G-2-2 is established. As proposed, most manufacturing uses would still be allowed under the proposed permitted use category, as long as they are compliant with the existing definition. Therefore, staff recommends that the Industrial District be amended to include "prohibited uses." The proposed list came from reviewing example ordinances, but can certainly be expanded.” As the minutes from the city council meeting reflect, comments appear to have focused on “trade schools, colleges, and universities” and “massage therapy services” – but apparently no comments or input on prohibited uses was given, either to the list itself or to any specific uses. The report and minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibits D.1 and D.2 . On March 3, 2016, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 491, which officially amended Article G. Industrial District zoning standards, and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under Title 12-1G-2-2. Speaking with the former city planner at the time the Industrial District standards and Ordinance 491 were being researched and considered, he does not recall any discernible comments, objections, or support for this list of prohibited uses, nor any extended discussion related to personal self-storage uses. For all intents and purposes, the former staff member suggested he may have simply added another city’s list of prohibited uses, and offered them up for consideration to the Planning Commission, which was eventually accepted or made part of the overall recommendations, and later adopted by the City Council. As for recorded evidence or video of these previous meetings, the city unfortunately retains video records (CD’s) of all televised meetings for one year (per city retention policies), and Town Square Television does not retain video of meetings beyond one year as well. Since there apparently is no “hard proof” or written/recorded evidence of why or how personal self-storage uses became a prohibited use in the Code, the Planning Commission must decide on whether or not this use or activity should be removed from the list; and if so, does the Commission support the allowance of such uses in the community. The draft Ordinance No. 538 (included herein) provides language for such allowance, but only as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with specific certain site standards. The Commission may choose to accept this draft ordinance as presented, or modify accordingly. Conversely, page 88 Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 3 if the Commission feels this use should remain a prohibited use or not allowed as this time, a recommendation of denial is in order, with findings (or statements) supporting such a recommendation. Please note the Applicants are requesting the commission consider additional information for consideration in this matter. Included in this report is a narrative, which explains the process for calculating demand and predicting future demand(s) for self-storage uses in certain markets (see attached Exhibit E). ALTERNATIVES for ACTION The Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented (or with revisions), which amends Zoning Code Title 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as a conditional use with certain site standards in the I-Industrial district, and amending Title 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under said section; or 2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment, and make no changes to Title 12- 1G-1 (Industrial District) or Title 12-1G-2-2, with findings to support such recommendation; or 3. Table the request, and direct city staff to provide additional information for further consideration by the Planning Commission, and present this information at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Re-open the public hearing; allow for additional public comments as needed; discuss with city staff and/or the Applicant the request for zoning code amendment; make a motion to either approve the request as presented by recommending favorably on the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented herein; or deny the request with certain findings to support such denial. If the Planning Commission wishes to delay this matter once again, you should provide reasonable justifications for tabling, and make a motion accordingly. Attachments 1) Exhibit –A: 01/04/16 Council Report Memo and 01/04/16 Council Workshop minutes 2) Exhibit –B: 01/26/16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes 3) Exhibit –C: 02/23//16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes 4) Exhibit –D: 03/03/16 Council Report Memo & City Council Mtg. minutes 5) Exhibit –E: Supplemental Narrative from Applicant 6) 01/22/19 Planning Staff Report (Complete) with Draft Ordinance No. 538 page 89 page 90 February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01 METRO STORAGE LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 12-1G-1 Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this was a zoning code amendment from Metro Storage LLC who were seeking a new ordinance to the industrial category in the Industrial District to allow for personal self-storage facility. Currently, personal self-storage facilities are considered on a list of prohibited uses in the Industrial zone. Metro Storage was seeking the opportunity to place a new 80,000 square foot indoor only self-storage facility in the community. This item was presented at the January 22, 2019 meeting. With the public hearing, this item was tabled for more information, this is now a continuation of that public hearing. The City Code does not identify any allowances for self-storage facilities in either the Business or the Industrial zone. Under Code 12-1G-2-2, there is a list of prohibited uses and within that list is enclosed personal self-storage facilities. During the January 22, 2019 the Commission asked how that had become a part of the prohibited list. During their research, staff discovered and presented the following:  January 4, 2016 – City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation strategies of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and instructed staff to proceed with exploring potential revision and additions to the uses.  January 26, 2016 – Draft Ordinance 491 was presented to the Planning Commission with certain uses added, revised, or struck from the Zoning Code. This matter was tabled in order for staff to gather additional information.  February 23, 2016 – Follow-up report was presented to the Planning Commission with two different options for them to choose from. Option 1 did not include a list of prohibited uses; however, Option 2 did – including ‘personal self-storage facility’. No explanation for that decision was evident in the minutes.  March 3, 2016 – City Council took up the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted Ordinance 491, which officially amended Article G, Industrial District zoning standards and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under Title 12-1G-2-2 Mr. Benetti continued by stating that he spoke with the former city planner and he did not recall any discernible comments, objections, or support for the list of prohibited uses. He also noted that recorded evidence of the meetings have been destroyed, based on the city’s one-year retention policy. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake Forest, IL make himself available should the Commission have questions. Chair Magnuson re-opened the public hearing. Ms. Belina Reisman, a resident of Mendota Heights, asked if this was to open up the zoning or the ordinance to this type of business. Chair Magnuson explained that this would be an amendment to Title 12-1G-2 of the City Code. This amendment would do two things: 1. Delete ‘personal storage facilities’ from the prohibited use provisions 2. It would permit these ‘personal storage facilities’ as a conditional use within the Industrial Zone only, subject to the criteria that were formally listed Chair Magnuson continued by noting that the Commission currently does not have a proposal in front of them for a storage unit and they are not looking at any particular storage unit at this time. The applicant page 91 February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT would like to place a storage unit in the Industrial District, but tonight the Commission is looking only at the possibility of amending the ordinance to permit that type of personal storage unit to be located within the Industrial Zone. Mr. Thomas Smith, Hampshire Drive, expressed his opposition to the idea of providing a conditional use for the storage facility based the provisions as he understood them; basically a three-story unit. Chair Magnuson replied that there is not a specific proposal under consideration. The Commission has seen some schematics provided in terms of the type of facility that they are hoping to propose, with approximately 800 particular storage units within there; however, that is something that has not yet been discussed or proposed, and the Commission does not have anything like that in front of them. Mr. Smith stated that if the design ultimately is put before the Commission advocates a three story facility, he would speak out against it. The current buildings in the Industrial Park are all two story. A three story facility would be out of character and inappropriate. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-01 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE for the following reasons: 1. The Planning Commission feels the proposed Ordinance to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 and 12-1G-2-2- would be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which speaks of encouraging employment generating uses. 2. The Planning Commission further determines (and based on previous testimony from the Applicant), that the number of employees who would be associated with such use(s) is minimal and is not fitting with goals and objectives of the city’s Industrial Park Study from 2016. 3. The Planning Commission feels they have not heard any convincing evidence, justification, rationale or reasons to alter the list, which was recently presented and adopted by the City Council establishing the list of prohibited uses, including self-storage uses. COUNCILMEMBER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that he brought up at the previous meeting where this was heard of how some of the past actions Commission and the Council have taken to amend zoning code with respect to allowed and permitted and conditional uses where they have tailored conditions within the code specifically to address one site so that the permitted or conditional nature of the use would not be an prevalent through the entire zoning district. There is not a specific proposal at this time; however, the applicant has informed the Commission in their narrative letter where they are thinking of developing this facility. It is a vacant lot on the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Trunk Highway 55. This site has been vacant since the inception of the Industrial Park (approximately 40 years) and has not been developed. If there were an employment generating use consistent with the desire of the Comprehensive Plan and the Industrial Park, that lot would have been built by now. page 92 February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT One of the reasons it has not been developed is access. An employment generating business, use, or activity is going to have employees/customers/truck traffic challenged to get into and out of the site. Commissioner Petschel asked for a map view of the area being discussed. He also noted that the Commission should be very specific and should not consider an individual location. The Commission should not distract anyone with the notion that they are only considering it on this particular location. Commissioner Mazzitello concluded that if the Commission were to consider this application in the same spirit in which they have considered other use changes in the past; such as beekeeping, dog training, vehicles sales, trampoline park, indoor athletic facilities – the Commission could consider this ordinance with additional conditions for that in order for a self-storage unit to be eligible for a Conditional Use Permit it must be abutting a State Trunk Highway and within 1,500 feet of an Interstate. Then there would be only one site within the Industrial Zone eligible for that Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Noonan asked this wouldn’t be spot zoning, to which Commissioner Mazzitello replied that it would still be in the Industrial Zone. It would be an Industrial use surrounded by other Industrial uses – it has been done before. Commissioner Noonan expressed his disagreement and stated that the way the Commission treated other zoning applications were on the basis of the merits and the fact in support of the policy. In this case, there were some fairly substantial hurdles to clear: 1. Contrary policy in the Comprehensive Plan 2. There is a prohibition, which he has not heard a reason why there is merit in terms of eliminating the prohibition, other than it is a matter of convenience. There was extensive discussion and the decision made in 2016 was well-reasoned and supported by Council. He did not want to get caught up in thinking about a location and thinking about the difficulty of this particular location. If it is difficult for employees and clients, it sure will be difficult for the public pulling stuff in to provide for storage. Commissioner Petschel stated that he is sympathetic and cheers argument; he also appreciates and would like to support the property owners in the Industrial District to maximize the value for their property; if it is an empty lot that could be best served as a storage facility – great. But then again, he is extremely sympathetic to the notion that it’s not that lot that he is worried about – it’s when other businesses or other facilities that do employ people are then converted into storage facilities. He does see them being converted back into places of greater employment. He is also against the Commission referring where certain businesses go; no matter that this was a brilliant proposal on how to potentially legally do it. It did not know if that was a wise venture. The whole prohibited businesses list is problematic because there are some very clear prohibitions – such as an asphalt production facility. It still speaks for itself. Chair Magnuson called for the vote. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. page 93 Planning Report MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in the I-Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: February 25, 2019 INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL). Metro Storage is seeking the opportunity to place a new 80,000 sq. ft., indoor only, self-storage facility in the community. This item (request) was originally introduced at the November 27, 2018 regular meeting, whereby the applicant’s representatives asked the Planning Commission to provide preliminary feedback and comments on whether or not such use (indoor self-storage) would be given favorable consideration. The excerpt minutes from the 11/27/18 meeting are appended to this report for the Commissioner’s review. 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. ANALYSIS City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business districts (B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4), nor the I-Industrial zone. Moreover, Section 12-1G-2-2 provides a list of prohibited uses within the Industrial zone, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses. Zoning Code Sect. 12-1G-1 does allow warehousing as a permitted use in the Industrial zone; with warehousing defined as follows: “WAREHOUSING: The storage of materials or equipment within an enclosed building.” page 94 Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 5 In staff’s professional opinion, “warehousing” [in general] is not the same as self-storage or similar uses, and should be considered a use or activity limited to or associated with wares, goods and products services stored or distributed from a permitted use within the district. A comment made at the 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting is noted below: “This type of use would be somewhat inconsistent with the industrial study that the city commissioned, where they did a look at what the industrial park wanted to be. It is quite clear that the city desired it to be a robust employment generator that supported the economic development aspirations of the city. This section in the Comprehensive Plan currently under discussion certainly supports that notion. A use like this, which one could suggest is rather sterile in the sense that it does not have a larger plant base or the activity that would be associated with the activity in the industrial area, would be out of character. That may have been one of the reasons why it was prohibited originally and has nothing to do with whether the storage is outside or inside.” The “industrial study” noted above is in reference to the Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016. As a follow-up to this comment, staff is presenting an excerpted (reduced) version of this study, including trends, which are highlighted below: Trend 1: Large warehousing facilities are needed. Trend 2: Flexibility is critical. Trend 3: Sustainability is key. Trend 4: Telecommuting and transit. Trend 5: New technology. Trend 6: Decline and reuse. The study also provide a list of recommendations, some of which are noted in the partial list below: 1) Keep the area guided and zoned for office, industrial and related uses; don’t make significant changes that would interfere with its success as a business park. 2) Explore potential revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the park by scrutinizing and revising if necessary the list of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning code. 10) Stay current on changes in the requirements of industrial and office uses generally and adjust the city’s policies and regulations as needed to respond to new developments. 11) Promote the opportunity for Industrial land use on the City-owned Bourne Lane site, and only encourage other uses if the market warrants it. 12) Continue to work cooperatively with Industrial Park owners, managers and tenants to keep the park successful. 15) Explore ways to communicate, brand, and promote the Industrial District. As was communicated by staff at the Nov. 27th meeting, there has been a number of inquiries from different real estate management groups or self-storage user groups (including the applicant) searching for a site within the City of Mendota Heights. A number of metro cities have embraced or allowed similar indoor (only) self-storage facilities within their own communities. The following table provides a list of surrounding communities that allow self-storage, warehousing or similar uses/activities: page 95 Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 5 METRO-NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES - COMPARISON MATRIX CITY USE or ACTIVITY PERMITTED or CONDITIONAL USE ZONING Eagan Storage facilities w/n Enclosed Building Permitted G-B General Bus. Dist. West St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted I-1 and I-2 Zones South St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted CUP I-Ind. Dist. Exterior storage w/ permitted warehouse use Inver Grove Heights Self-Storage (mini-storage) CUP B-3 Gen. Business I-1 Limited Industry Burnsville Mini-Storage Uses Permitted B-4 Highway Comm. I-3 Office-Industrial Park Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted Gateway Ind. Heavy; Gateway Ind. Medium Blaine Mini-Storage w/o Outdoor Storage CUP B-2 Community Comm. B-3 Regional Comm.; I-1 Light Industrial I-2 Heavy Industrial Brooklyn Center Warehousing and Storage (inside) Special Use Permit I-1 Industrial Park Brooklyn Park Self-Storage facility CUP B-3; B-4; I-Industrial Cottage Grove Self-Storage Facility CUP B-2 Retail Bus.; B-3 Gen. Bus.; P-B Planned Business Park St. Louis Park Warehousing and Storage Permitted CUP Ind. Park Dist.; Gen Industrial Dist. Business Park Dist. Apple Valley Self-Storage Facility w/n Enclosed Building Permitted GB-General Business Woodbury Self-storage Use CUP BC-Business Campus Dist. Of all the communities listed, only one (Cottage Grove) offered the following or added conditions as part of any self-storage facility use: page 96 Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 4 of 5 Self-storage facilities [Cottage Grove] are subject to the following conditions: A. Shall not allow maintenance of any vehicles on site, except for minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery replacement. B. Shall have a security system adequate to limit access to person s renting a storage site. C. Shall screen all storage, consistent with the requirements of this code. D. Shall be screened from all public right of way and residential use and/or zone, with an opaque fence, wall or berm not to exceed eight feet (8') in height, constructed of new materials (chain- link with slats is not an acceptable screening material), and maintained in good condition. E. Exterior storage is prohibited. F. Shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential use and/or zone. G. All drive aisles and parking surfaces are surfaced with asphalt or concrete. H. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not directly face a public street or adjoining property. I. An accessory caretaker residence may be permitted with a storage facility, provided it is only used for resident security and management purposes and the exterior building materials match those of the principal and accessory storage facility structures. J. The hours of operation of the self-service storage facility shall be restricted to between the hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. K. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. L. Common parking space available to all storage units shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. (Ord. 904, 5 -16-2012 As the Commission can see, the matrix identifies a number of cities that allow indoor warehousing and self- storage uses in the commercial / business districts only, the industrial districts only; or a combination of both business/industrial zones. The matrix also shows the ratio of cities that allow storage type uses is almost 50/50 as either a permitted use vs. conditional use in the respective cities. At the Nov. 27th meeting discussion, it appears some Commissioners would consider or support such uses, but only in the I-Industrial district, and with certain or special conditions. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance for the Commission to consider, which would allow such use, along with some suggested conditions (modified from Cottage Grove’s ordinance). T he Commission may choose to add or modify these conditions accordingly. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION The Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self- storage facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-1 or 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district; or page 97 Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 5 of 5 2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment to remove “Personal self-storage facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and make no amendments to Section 12-1G-1, with certain findings; or 3. 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 Open the public hearing; allow for public comments; and discuss with city staff and/or the Applicant the request for zoning code amendment. Following the public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with certain condition as presented under the draft Ordinance No. 538, presented and attached hereto. Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 538 2) 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts) 3) MH Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016 4) Proposed Self Storage Development Concept Plans and Information page 98 Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights, Minnesota  An important indicator for calculating existing demand and predicting future demand for self‐storage  product in various submarkets is to utilize the supply ratio.  The supply ratio is calculated by taking all  rentable square footage (“RSF”) within the market (typically, a 3 mile radius surrounding the subject  property is used) and dividing it by the total population in that same trade area.  In the trade area  surrounding Metro’s proposed subject property, there are three self‐storage competitors within a 3 mile  radius:   1. Acorn Mini Storage   2935 Lexington Ave S., Saint Paul, MN 55121  2. Beyond Self Storage   3100 Courthouse Lane, Eagan, MN 55121  3. Town Centre Self Storage   3495 Denmark Ave, Eagan, MN 55123  In total, these three facilities offer approximately 216,590 RSF to the marketplace. Given that the total  population is 35,826 in the same trade area, the existing supply ratio is 6.0 RSF / Person:    (216,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 6.0 RSF / Person  This is a useful formula for calculating demand in the trade area as that specific market is currently  constructed.  However, when proposing to develop a new facility in a market, it is also important to  quantify how the market will be impacted by additional self‐storage product offered from the new facility.   Since Metro’s proposed project would feature approximately 80,000 RSF, the proposed supply ratio would  be 8.3 RSF / Person:   (296,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 8.3 RSF / Person  To offer some perspective, Metro typically views a supply ratio anywhere in the 6‐10 RSF range as the  “sweet spot” for a high‐end, suburban market such as Mendota Heights.  Both the pre‐ and post‐ Metro  project supply ratios indicate that the market is undersupplied.  Therefore, given the strong physical  occupancies of the existing stabilized self‐storage operators in the trade area (approximately 90‐95%) and  the very healthy supply ratios (both excluding and including the proposed subject facility), Metro is  confident that the market will adequately absorb this additional Class‐A self‐storage product.  In addition to these factors, the average household income in the surrounding market is very strong at  $110,000‐120,000,  which  will  lead  to  a  customer  base  that  will utilize  the  storage  facility  products  (premium climate controlled and merchandise).   page 99 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-29 to either Deny [or Approve] a Variance for property located at 1751 James Road (Planning Case No. 2019-05) Introduction City Council is being asked to consider adopting one of two draft resolutions contained in this packet. One affirms the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny a variance request for the property located at 1751 James Road; and the other approves the variance with amended findings supporting said approval. Background Nick and Liz Banovetz are the property owners of 1751 James Road. The owners are requesting a variance to permit an encroachment of up to 2.13 feet into the 10-ft. side-yard setback standard for a new 11’-4” x 14’-8” single-story [dining room] addition to their home. At the March 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this variance request item was presented for consideration under a public hearing. A copy of the 03/26/19 Planning Staff Report, with plans and supporting materials, and the PC meeting minutes are all appended to this council memo report. The Banovetz’s have also submitted additional information from their attorney, architect and appraiser for the city to consider in this case (attachments after the draft resolutions). Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to deny the Variance request from Nick and Liz Banovetz, based on the findings of facts noted in the draft resolution of denial included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-29 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1751 JAMES ROAD; or if the Council wishes to reverse this recommendation, you may make a motion to adopt alternative RESOLUTION NO. 2019-29 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1751 JAMES ROAD, based on amended findings of fact supporting such approval, as noted therein. Either action to approve one of the two resolutions requires a simple majority vote. page 100 D * R * A * F * T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-29 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1751 JAMES ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-05) WHEREAS, Nick and Liz Banovetz (the “Applicant”) applied for a variance for the property located at 1751 James Road (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; 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, the Applicant is seeking a variance to encroach 2.13 feet into the 10-ft. side- yard setback under the R-1 District standards for a new home addition, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-05; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to deny the application for Variance, with certain findings of fact to support such denial. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance application proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-05 is hereby denied, with the following findings of fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use page 101 Res 2019-29 Page 2 the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 1751 James Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-05, is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 2019. 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 102 Res 2019-29 Page 3 EXHIBIT-A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1751 James Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-76402-02-120 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Twelve (12) excepting that part westerly of the line running from a point twenty (20) feet east on the south property line from the southwest corner of said lot extended to the northwest corner of said lot; and the westerly forty (40) feet of Lot Eleven (11), Block Two (2), Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 according to the plat there on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles within Dakota County, Minnesota. Certificate of Title No, 165079 page 103 D * R * A * F * T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-29 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1751 JAMES ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-05) WHEREAS, Nick and Liz Banovetz (the “Applicant”) applied for a variance for the property located at 1751 James Road (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; 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, the Applicant is seeking a variance to encroach 2.13 feet into the 10-ft. side- yard setback under the R-1 District standards for a new home addition, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-05; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to deny the application for Variance, with certain findings of fact to support such denial. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby reversed, and the Variance application proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-05 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical page 104 Res 2019-29 Page 2 difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the subject property was developed with the home off-centered on the lot, thereby creating a unique situation for adding on to the home on the east side of the house by the Owners; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the side yard space of the property, and keeps the rear yard space intact, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 1751 James Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-05, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: page 105 Res 2019-29 Page 3 i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 2.13-feet into the required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2019-05). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 1751 James Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-05, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 2019. 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 106 Res 2019-29 Page 4 EXHIBIT-A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1751 James Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-76402-02-120 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Twelve (12) excepting that part westerly of the line running from a point twenty (20) feet east on the south property line from the southwest corner of said lot extended to the northwest corner of said lot; and the westerly forty (40) feet of Lot Eleven (11), Block Two (2), Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 according to the plat there on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles within Dakota County, Minnesota. Certificate of Title No, 165079 page 107 Craig A. Kepler Tel: (612) 371-3544 Fax: (612) 371-3207 keplerc@ballardspahr.com DMNorth #6812636 v1 May 1, 2019 Via Federal Express Honorable Mayor Neil Garlock Mendota Heights City Council City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re:Variance Request –Planning Case No. 2019-05 Nicholas and Elizabeth Banovetz 1751 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Honorable Mayor Garlock and the Mendota Heights City Council: This firm is legal counsel for Mr. Nicholas and Mrs. Elizabeth Banovetz, the applicants referred to above. Please find enclosed a submission on behalf of our clients in support of their application for a zoning variance. Of course, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. BALLARD SPAHR LLP Craig A. Kepler Enclosure cc: Nick and Elizabeth Banovetz page 108 Page 1 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 MEETING DATE:May 7, 2019 TO:Mayor and City Council of Mendota Heights, and Nicholas and Elizabeth Banovetz FROM:Craig Kepler, Ballard Spahr LLP, Counsel for Nicholas and Elizabeth Banovetz SUBJECT:Planning Case 2019-05 - VARIANCE APPLICANTS:Nick and Liz Banovetz PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1751 James Road ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants are seeking to build an addition to their single-family residence in the R-1 district. A small portion of the addition would require a nominal variance to encroach into the 10-foot side- yard setback on the east side of the residence1. The encroachment would be an average2 of approximately 2 feet and would extend for 15’-4”, starting at the northeast corner of the house (furthest back from the road). It would end 15’ behind the front of the house. In other words, the addition is set at the rear of the house; the front of the house, as seen from the street, will continue to have its current setback of 19.8”, nearly twice the required minimum. The total portion of the addition within the variance would cover slightly less than 33 square feet of land, which is approximately 0.22% of the total parcel size. The smallest distance between any portion of the addition and the nearest neighboring residence to the east (1747 James Road) would be 22.7 feet, which exceeds the combined 20 feet that is the minimum required of the zoning code without a variance3. The average setback on the east side of the Applicants’ residence after the construction of the addition will be approximately 14’-3”. The residence is not centered on its lot. The setback on the west side ranges from 39.7 feet (near the road) to 37.8 feet (furthest from the road). Thus, the average side setback, taking into account both sides of the residence, will be in excess of 25’4 if the variance is approved. The need for the variance arises because the residence was originally built off-center to the lot. The Applicants purchased this residence in 2016. At the time of purchase, the house was in 1 The Applicants have a letter of support from the owner of the neighboring residence (1747 James Road). 2 The line of the structure is not parallel to the lot line. The encroachment would be 2’-2” at the northern end (furthest from the road), and 1’-10” at the southern end. 3 There are examples of residential additions in Mendota Heights where the resulting distance between adjacent residences is less than 20 feet. 4 It would be complicated to calculate this precisely because the lot lines are not parallel to the sides of the structure. The 25 foot average is conservative. The actual average is close to 26 feet. page 109 Page 2 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 considerable disrepair and largely unimproved from its original 1950’s interior design, including a highly compartmentalized (i.e. separate rooms) interior layout. The Applicants have invested substantially into needed repairs, as well as into upgrading and remodeling the residence to accommodate their growing family and to bring the house up to the standards normally expected from a residence of the current era, which includes an “open concept” kitchen/family/dining area. Updating the residence for the family’s needs and to comport with what the market currently expects from a residence reflects both a reasonable use of this property and a benefit to the neighborhood as a whole. At its hearing on March 26, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the requested variance. The Applicants timely filed a notice of appeal of the Planning Commission action. Pursuant to the minutes of the Planning Commission, the sole basis for its recommendation to deny the variance was a flawed determination by the Planning Commission that the proposed addition does not reflect a reasonable use of the property. The Commission did not address either of the remaining two prongs of the variance test. The reason stated by the Planning Commission for its determination that the proposed addition did not reflect a reasonable use of the property was: “The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, thereby eliminating the need for the variance.” The Planning Commission’s reasoning is tautological and creates a Catch-22 rule that would preclude a side setback variance in every case. Essentially, the Planning Commission’s recommendation says: “Because we conclude that the side setback required by the zoning ordinance is reasonable, we can therefore conclude that any request for a variance from this setback does not reflect a reasonable use of the property.” Clearly, this rule is not uniformly applied throughout Mendota Heights. If the matter was to go to litigation, it would not be difficult to point out multiple instances where variances to side setback have been granted in the past, and also where neighboring residential structures are closer than 20 feet. More important, the Planning Commission’s reasons are inconsistent with applicable law. The applicable statute specifically permits a variance where owner “proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.” Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd.6.(2). In other words, the variance process exists for the express purpose of allowing variances. Therefore, a request for a variance cannot support a finding that the proposed use is not reasonable. page 110 Page 3 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION As noted in the Planning Commission staff report, the property contains approximately 14,978 s.f. of land area, and has a two-story single family residence originally built in 1958, with 3,594 sq. ft. of finished area space. Most of the finished square footage in the home currently encompasses bedrooms, bathrooms, and sub-grade family room/basement. The home’s main-level interior amounts to only 15% of the total square footage. The house is approximately 35.4 feet from the front lot line (James Road ROW); 37.8 feet from the west line; approx. 52-feet from the rear line; and 19.2 ft. from the east line. As noted above, the east and west lot lines are not parallel to the sides of the home. Thus, the length of the setback varies somewhat between the front and rear of the residence. The home when purchased by the Applicants in 2016 was largely unimproved from its original 1950’s interior layout. The common area portion of the interior was compartmentalized into separate rooms: a living room, a kitchen, and a dining room. The structure also showed considerable deterioration and deferred maintenance. The Applicants have made substantial investment into repairing the deteriorated conditions, updating the interior finishes, and performing deferred maintenance. The Applicants would now like to perform an interior remodel of the kitchen/living/dining areas to accommodate their family’s needs and to bring the residence into alignment with current expectations for residences of this quality, which will result in an “open concept” kitchen/dining/living area that is large enough for the amenities and furnishings that families in this sector would normally expect to have in their residence. The Applicants began this process working with a kitchen remodeling company, Northland Woodworks. Northland could not develop a plan that opened up the kitchen, created an eat-in area, and created access to the patio/backyard. Therefore, Northland recommended bringing on an architect, which brought the Applicants to retaining David Lund. The project before the Council is the culmination of a great deal of thought and work with the architect. The project is designed to address multiple issues and will mean a considerable investment by the Applicants: There is currently no direct access from the kitchen to the patio; the project will create such access. The current kitchen size necessitates keeping the kitchen table against a wall, which does not accommodate perimeter chairs for the Applicants’ growing family. The current kitchen doesn't support a modern range. The prior homeowners cut two cabinets in half to create a makeshift space for a range of normal size. The project would correct this. This is also true for the refrigerator space. As part of the work, additional repairs and deferred maintenance will be addressed, including water damage from flooding that occurred after the homeowners purchased the property (wood floors are warped, which caused boards to separate), and water damage to cabinets. page 111 Page 4 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 As part of this project, the Applicants seek to construct a new 11’-4” x 14’-8”5 single-story addition to the east side of the home. The addition would encroach an average of approximately 2 feet into the 10-foot side-yard setback. The addition is to accommodate a new dining room space for the home, which the Applicants feel is best met by adding to the side-yard space, instead of the rear yard. The new addition will match similar exterior materials of the home that exists today. It will allow open concept line-of-sight communication and living from the kitchen area to the dining area, and it will create useable indoor family space in the side yard portion of the lot, which is not useful as exterior (outdoor) space for family purposes. Further, the added dining area will provide seating for the Applicants’ entire family. Without the addition, the Applicants will not have space in their kitchen/dining area for the entire family to be seated together for a meal. In planning this addition, the Applicants and the architect considered many variations, taking into account the location of existing plumbing and load-bearing walls, which restricted options in terms of where amenities could be located. Options that involved expanding the dining area north, into the back yard, are not viable for several reasons: (a) The back yard is small and has been improved with an upgraded patio and other landscaping for family use. If the dining area encroached into the back yard, it would destroy the home’s existing outdoor patio and other outdoor family areas, but it would not increase the functionality of the home. Rather, it would replace one functionality (back yard outdoor family use) with another (indoor dining). In contract, expansion to the east increases the functionality of the home by placing interior dining in an area not used for outdoor family use. (b) Expanding dining to the rear (north) would break up line-of-sight communication and living between the kitchen area and the dining area. (c) Expanding dining to the north, or 5 These are the foundation dimensions. page 112 Page 5 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 reducing its eastern size, would require reducing the size of the kitchen, which is already a small and poor-functioning space in the context of modern suburban kitchens. ANALYSIS The City Council must consider two categories of variables when determining a variance application: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. As noted above, the sole basis for the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial of this variance was the commission’s flawed determination that the Applicants’ proposed use was not reasonable. The Planning Commission based its recommendation on the tautological reasoning that, assuming the zoning setback requirements are reasonable, any requested variance is unreasonable. In other words, the Planning Commission determined that the variance was not a “reasonable use,” without making any finding as to the actual proposed use of the property. The applicable statute, Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6.2., specifically contemplates that uses requiring a variance can be reasonable: “’Practical difficulties’… means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.” The proposed use of the property here is to bring this residence into alignment with the current market in terms of interior amenities normally associated with residences of this size and location, which includes an interior “open plan” kitchen/dining/living area of a size that permits the use of furnishing that are typically preferred by homeowners. As noted, this is a single-family zoned neighborhood of upper middle class homes. There is no realistic argument that use of this property for an upgraded single-family residence is not reasonable. The staff report (submitted to the Planning Commission) contained some odd wording on this point, which we would note: One question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed use of the property, as altered by the variance, is reasonable. With or without the addition, the overall use of the home and property will not change. The Applicant’s desire to construct a small addition on the side of the existing house, even one that requires this variance, can be page 113 Page 6 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 considered a reasonable request and use of the property The italicized portion of the staff’s report is not consistent with the statute, for the reasons stated above. Further, the staff misstates the proposed use. Certainly the property is a residence and will continue to be used as such, with or without the variance. But the specific proposed use here is to bring the residence into alignment with current market standards for residences of this size and location, and to create a kitchen/dining space large enough for the Applicants’ growing family. That proposed use is not only reasonable, it is an affirmative benefit to all neighboring residents, as evidenced, among other things, by the fact that it is supported by the neighbor located on the east side (the side impacted by the variance). There is not a great deal of case law directly addressing side setback variances, but there are a few cases that are instructive. In Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, the reasonableness of the variance was measured by how closely the variance conformed to the original ordinance. Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701-702 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Here, as noted, the total area occupied by the variance is a bit less than 33 square feet, which is about the size of a modest closet. It represents a fraction of 1% of the total lot size, it occupies a portion of the lot that is not suitable for family outdoor recreational use, and it is set back from the street. The neighbor on the east side supports the variance. An eat-in open kitchen/dining area, tucked to the rear of the house, occupying a sliver of setback area, is a de minimus variance from the zoning setback requirement. 2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. The Planning Commission did not address this factor it its recommendation. However, the Applicants believes that planning staff summarized many of the issues here. The main “living- space” of the home is situated on the east side of the residence, while the attached garage is on the west side of the dwelling. The logical area to expand the living space of this home would be to the east side, where the addition is being proposed. Re-orienting this space to the west side of the house would require major structural renovation and re-plumbing, which would make the project cost prohibitive. The home, when originally built, was not centered on the lot. It is closer to the east side than the west side. This location, coupled with the size of a dining area needed to bring the property into alignment with current market expectations, is what is driving the need for this application. Had the house been constructed in the center of the lot, the variance would not be necessary. This factor contributes to a “unique characteristic of the property- not created by the current owners,” which in turn provides reasonable justifications or support to the variance. Planning staff indicated that they felt the Applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty in meeting the required side yard setback for constructing this addition at this preferred location. In addition to the factors noted by staff, we would note that the Applicants’ rear yard is small and is improved with an updated patio and landscaping that is actively used by the family for family outdoor activities. In contrast, the east side of the lot is a strip of grass between residences that is not used by residents of either home for active family outdoor activities. Building the dining area page 114 Page 7 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 back into the back yard would eliminate family outdoor activity space and replace it with interior family dining space. It would not result in a net increase in functionality of the home. It would replace one functional use with another. In contrast, locating the dining area on the east places the interior dining function in an area not actively used for other family functions. It results in a net increase in the functionality of the home. In addition, as noted above, locating the dining area in the back minimizes the open concept feel of the addition by eliminating line-of-sight communication between kitchen and dining. Finally, building in the back would negatively impact drainage because of grading and slope in the back. The rear yard has a slope gradient away from the back of the house. These grades and the limited space in the back yard make an addition off the back of the home problematic in times of heavy rain or snowmelt. 3.The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new addition represents a considerable investment by the Applicants to bring the existing 1950’s style (and designed) dwelling into a much improved and more up-to-date home for the owners. It would enhance property values in the neighborhood as a whole. Planning staff indicated that they were comfortable that the Applicants have demonstrated through their architectural/construction design plans that the new addition will be made to match the existing home, will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling. Further, the addition is set to the back of the side of the house. The front portion of the home will retain its current dimensions. In other words, from the street, there will be no change in the sight line of the homes along this street. 4.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The Applicants are proposing spending a large amount of money bringing this home up to date. When working on designs with their architect, they were cognizant of the setback issue. Therefore, they worked on a design that creates the smallest dining space that they consider viable and useable for their family. In other words, this addition is less expensive than it could be because the setback has forced the Applicants to adopt a relatively small expansion when, without the setback, they may opt to spend more money. The option of building to the side rather than the back is not about cost. It is about the reality that building back would eliminate one area of functionality and replace it with another, while negatively impacting site drainage. In other words, there would be no net gain in functionality, the design would not be less useful in terms of the “open concept” living space, and it would create new problems with respect to surface water. IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: page 115 Page 8 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Planning Commission did not address this factor, at all, in its decision, but as noted by City planning staff, homes with 10-foot side-yard setbacks result in a physical spacing of 20-feet (or more) between structures. The current separation distance between 1751 James and 1747 James to the east is 34.1-feet. The addition would result in a 22.7-ft. separation between the subject dwelling and the neighbor’s home. The purpose of all setbacks is to maintain a safe, fire-resistant separation between structures, and maintain suitable open space (air space) between properties. For all intents and purposes, this separation can be considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance (and comprehensive plan); and the addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. Further, if the Applicants were to pursue this application in the courts, Applicants are confident they could find examples of residences in Mendota Heights where the separation is less than 20 feet as a result of previously granted variances. It is noteworthy that the Applicants have 8 letters of support from the surrounding neighbors, including the neighbor on the east, where the addition is located. The community has given its unequivocal support to this application. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. This is a single-family residence. The variance will not have a traffic impact. Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. As noted above, there will still be in excess of 20 feet of space between residences after the addition is constructed. Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. Improving the home in this manner will have a positive effect on the value of surrounding properties. It will remain a single-family residence, and thus will have no impact on the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. As noted above, the Applicants have established that there are several practical difficulties to bringing this residence into a condition that is consistent with current market expectations about housing in this area. The Applicants are completely willing to abide by the conditions recommended by planning staff, which are as follows: i.)The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 2.13-feet into the required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2019-05). page 116 Page 9 DMNORTH #6810385 v2 ii.)The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.)Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.)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. v.)Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. page 117 www.davidldesign.com | [612] 209-0913 | info@davidldesign.com | A022 May 1, 2019 Mayor Neil Garlock and the Mendota Heights City Council 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor Garlock and Members of the City Council, Please accept this letter in support of Nick and Liz Banovetz’s application for an addition at 1751 James Road, Mendota Heights, MN. I hope the following will provide you with background and context as you consider their variance request. The Banovetzes contracted me as their architect to reconfigure the main level of their home and to add a dining room on to the home’s existing footprint. I began working with them in September 2018 and we are currently finalizing construction plans, pending approval from the City of Mendota Heights. Firm Background My firm, David Lund Design, is an award-winning, Minneapolis-based residential design firm, of- fering a full-range of architectural design and interiors services – from new construction, to large additions, to small remodeling projects. I have 12 years of experience helping families improve and optimize their homes. Our Position We believe the Banovetz’s application for a side setback variance is reasonable, and the addition will enhance the home and essential character of the neighborhood for the following reasons. We’ve intentionally kept the addition modest - a mere 165 square feet - It has been scoped as tight as possible (construction documents are down to the 1/8” inch, and incredibly precise). We have included a new spatial and visual connection between the kitchen and the dining room, which currently doesn’t exist. This direct “line-of-sight communication” between the two most critical spaces in both the house and the project is a major shift and improvement to the existing layout, where the dining room and kitchen are completely separate. We have also specified exterior finishes that match not only the existing house but the broader character of the neighborhood. It is our firm’s stated mission to design projects that are sympa- thetic to not only the existing property but also the surrounding neighborhood. Our three BLEND design awards speak to this fact and illustrate that a primary goal is to enhance and alter homes in a way this is consistent with the immediate neighbors and the broader community. 4108 Drew Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minn 55410 page 118 www.davidldesign.com | [612] 209-0913 | info@davidldesign.com | A022 Our Solution By way of background, the property at 1751 James Road has presented a number of practical diffi- culties and unique circumstances. Given such, the only reasonable and functional direction for an addition is on the east side of the house. Among the practical difficulties: 1. The house was not built on the center of the lot, as illustrated in the land survey completed in fall 2018. From a functionality standpoint, it would not be wise to add a dining room to the west side of the house because the garage would separate the dining room from the rest of the house. 2. The property’s back yard lacks depth, encompasses a topography that slopes north (drainage), and features a covered and open patio. Building on the north-side of the property is not functional and would prove difficult. 3. The east side of the house itself provided a practical difficulty: The second story of the east side of the house features two windows that are the only egress windows for that story, which features two of the home’s bedrooms (the variance would allow the addition’s roof line to not interfere with these windows). 4. A new, direct line of sight layout connecting the kitchen with the dining room. Currently these two spaces are in different rooms, and are completely separate. While the application requests a negligible variance of two feet on the side setback, ample dis- tance (22.5 feet) would remain between the Banovetz’s home and their east neighbor’s garage. Provided the above, an addition on the east side of the house – including a variance of 30 total square feet over the side setback – is reasonable. Summary I understand members of the Planning Commission recommended that the Banovetzes avoid extending their addition over the side setback by opting for an elongated dining room. From a professional architectural and design perspective, odd-shaped rooms are, generally, not desirable for homeowners (for furniture placement, re-sale, etc.). What’s more, the placement of the sec- ond story windows, again, informed the placement of the addition’s roof (i.e., elongating the room alters the roof line). In navigating these practical difficulties, I have designed an addition that enhances both the home and the essential character of the neighborhood. Thank you for reviewing this application and accepting my letter. In closing, I believe the addition at 1751 James Road to be reasonable, in support of the essential character of the neighborhood, and a result of several practical difficulties on the property and with the home. Regards, David Lund Cc: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director, City of Mendota Heights page 119 April 30, 2019 Honorable Mayor Neil Garlock Mendota Heights City Council City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Via email: neilg@mendota-heights.com RE: Variance Request Nicholas Banovetz 1751 James Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Case No. 2019-05 Dear Honorable Mayor Garlock and the Mendota Heights City Council: It is my understanding that Mr. Nicholas Banovetz has requested a Variance for the above referenced property. This would be a 2.13’ variance into the required 10’ side- yard setback for a new addition on the easterly side of his home. The property is currently zoned R-1 or One Family Residential. The minimum lot area is 15,000 SF while the minimum lot width is 100’ and the front yard setback is 30’. The side yard setbacks are 10’ on each side or ½ of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15’. The rear yard setback is 30’ or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater. Based upon a review of a current survey it appears that the property meets all current minimum requirements although the Dakota County Assessor reports a lot size of 0.34 acres or 14,978 SF. As you probably know, this neighborhood is transitioning from older families with kids who have either moved out or married to younger families with children. The neighborhood was originally built-out from the mid-1950s through the late 1950s and into the early 1960s. The two main builders were Tillsen and Bream. page 120 I am a real estate appraiser who deals with this type of situation as part of my practice. I would think that the bottom line would be what kind of an impact this has on adjacent neighbors and the neighborhood in general. Is the impact positive or negative? I live at 1750 James Rd directly across the street from 1751 James Rd and have lived there since 1979. Based upon a review of the blue prints for the addition, a site survey, and the Mendota Heights zoning code I have determined that the addition will not have an adverse impact on any of the properties in the immediate area of 1751 James Rd or in the neighborhood as a whole. The only property that it could conceivably impact would be the property located immediately to the east or 1747 James Rd. This is very doubtful however, as that property’s side yard setback, according to the current survey averages 14.85’ from the easterly lot line of 1751 James Rd. Additionally, the portion of the house located at 1747 James Rd that is closest to the addition is a garage and not a living area. It is also my understanding that the person who owns 1747 James Rd has no problem with the addition and the variance. The variance amounts to 2’-2”. It is my opinion that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and, in fact, should enhance the values of other properties located in the area. It appears that Mr. Banovetz would like to use his property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. But, based on the fact that this has a positive impact on the neighborhood it is felt that this variance should be granted although it is technically prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Should the Honorable Mayor or the Mendota Heights City Council have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, Daniel E. Dwyer Dahlen, Dwyer, Foley & Tinker, Inc. Certified General Real Property Appraiser MN License #4001170 Cc: banovetz@gmail.com page 121 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-05 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Nick and Liz Banovetz PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1751 James Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: April 22, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants are seeking to build an addition to their single-family residence, which would require a variance to encroach 2.13 feet into the 10-ft. side-yard setback standard in the R-1 One Family district. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The Applicants have submitted eight letters of support from neighboring residents, including the immediate neighbors to the east of the property. These letters are appended to this report. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The subject property consists of 0.34 acres (or 14,978 sf.) of land area, and has a two-story single family residence originally built in 1958, with 3,594 sq. ft. of finished area space. (Image – below left). AERIAL / LOCATION MAP GOOGLE STREET IMAGE (LOOKING north from James Road) page 122 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 2 According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approximately 35.4 feet from the front lot line (James Road ROW); 37.8 feet from the west line; approx. 52-feet from the rear line; and 19.2 ft. from the east line. The Applicants seek to construct a new 11’-4” x 14’-8” single-story addition to the east side of the home, which would encroach 2.13 ft. into the 10-ft. side-yard setback (see image – below): The addition is to accommodate a new dining room space for the home, which the Applicants feel is best met by adding to the side-yard space, instead of the rear yard. The new addition will match similar exterior materials of the home that exists today. ANALYSIS Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to page 123 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 3 meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Our family has lived in Mendota Heights for three years, and would like to make this our home for many years to come. We see enormous potential in our home; currently, however, its common areas/ main level offer significant space limitations for our family and for frequently hosting company (i.e., our kitchen, living room and dining room amount to 559 SF, and the design is compartmentalized). What’s more, our dining room only fits six people and can’t accommodate our buffet. Toward an open concept that can better meet our style of living and hosting, and include seating that can accommodate eight people, we are hoping to add a dining room on to the east side of our home (the addition would amount to approximately 165 SF – which is only a 4.5% increase to our home’s total square footage). In support of our request for a 2’–2” side setback variance, we currently have approximately 34’ between our house and our neighbor’s garage (see enclosed land survey). Also, this 2’–2” figure applies to part of the addition as our property line runs at an angle (the amount that we hope to exceed the side setback ranges from 1’–10” to 2’–2”). If we’re unable to obtain a variance, we will forego full-length windows on the front (south) side of the addition. Staff’s Response: One question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed use of the property, as altered by the variance, is reasonable. With or without the addition, the overall use of the home and property will not change. The Applicant’s desire to construct a small addition on the side of the existing house, even one that requires this variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property. The city must also consider whether or not the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Generally speaking, and in most cases throughout the city, homes with 10-foot side-yard setbacks results in a physical spacing of 20-feet (or more) between structures. The current separation distance between 1751 James and 1747 James to the east is 34.1-feet. The 11.3-ft. addition would result in a 22.7-ft. separation between the subject dwelling and the neighbor’s home. The purpose of all setbacks is to maintain a safe, fire-resistant separation between structures, and maintain suitable open space (air space) between properties. For all intents and purposes, this separation can be considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance (and comprehensive plan); and the addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: We have a shallow backyard, and we don’t feel comfortable expanding in that direction because: A) That’s where we spend our time outside (patio, fenced-in yard for our kids, play set, etc.); and B) After consulting landscape architects and our residential architect, the topography of our land slopes north (toward the back property line) and we’re concerned about interfering with drainage. Also, there’s a wood fence on the side property line, which would provide screening between our neighbor’s property and our addition. Lastly, we have a 1950’s, compartmentalized-designed home. The majority of our square footage is designated to bedrooms or is below grade. We’re trying to increase the amount of common area space we have for our family (our family has grown since we purchased the house, and we prefer not to move). page 124 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 4 Staff’s Response: As the Applicant noted in their response, the main “living-space” of the home is situated on the east side, while the attached garage is on the west side of the dwelling. The logical area to expand the living space of this home would be to the rear or the east side, where the addition is being proposed. The Applicant’s rear yard contains a canopy patio and open patio space, and appears to have a slight slope gradient away from the back of the house (see image – below- and site pictures at end of report). These grades and the limited space in the back yard, make an addition off the back of the home a bit more difficult, as the Owners would potentially need to remove existing patio space(s), and restore/re-grade valuable rear yard space. Reviewing the Applicant’s survey, one can see the home was not centered in the lot, as there appears to be a much larger side-yard setback on the west side of 37.8-ft. versus the 19.2-ft. setback on the east side (see graphic – below). Had the house been constructed in the center of the lot, the need for this variance would not be required. This factor contributes to a “unique characteristic of the property- not created by the current owners”, which in turn provides reasonable justifications or support to the variance. Staff feels the Applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty in meeting the required side yard setback for constructing this addition at this preferred location. page 125 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 5 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: The addition would mimic our existing home, including the same wood siding and color, as well as the same roof pitch and shingles. It will also feature new, nicer windows (that we will eventually incorporate throughout the rest of the house. We believe the addition will improve our neighborhood – a modest addition coupled with a substantial remodel will increase property values. Our home has curb appeal, and we would further enhance its appeal; this addition (and remodel) will increase our home’s market value (and property taxes). This investment not only improves our home, but also adds to the neighborhood. Lastly, we have been partnering with David Lund Designs on this project, an award-winning residential architect who’s helping assure this is a high-quality addition and remodel. Staff’s Response: The neighborhood is residential in character. The new addition represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing 1950’s style (and designed) dwelling into a much nicer and more up-to-date home for the owners. Staff believes the Applicants have demonstrated through their architectural/construction design plans, that the new addition will be made to match the existing home, will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling. The new home addition appears to be minor in size or scale to home, which in effect should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. When weighing the economic factor of a variance application, taking economic considerations into account cannot be the only reason to approve a variance. In this particular case, the property owners simply wish to provide a small addition to their home, and not “eat-up” any valuable rear/back yard space to do so. It is not clear how economic considerations may affect the outcome of a variance request; as they certainly do not appear to be the sole reason for this particular variance application. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the subject property was developed with the home off-centered on the lot, thereby creating a unique situation for adding on to the home on the east side of the house by the Owners; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and page 126 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 6 iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the side yard space of the property, and keeps the rear yard space intact, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 1751 James Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 05, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 2.13-feet into the required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2019-05). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition. 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to page 127 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 7 the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variance with findings of facts to support the granting of said variance, with the conditions noted therein. Attachments 1. Site Pictures 2. Aerial/Site Location Map 3. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 4. Survey/Site Plan/Floor Plans 5. Letters of Support page 128 Planning Report-Case #2019-05 Page 8 Looking Towards Residence Side-Yard – between 1751 and 1747 James Rd. Side of Home – Area of Proposed Addition Rear Yard page 129 6666"" ³66666666666 6 6 6 66666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 1752 1056 1747 1750 1751 104010441046 1748 1746 1753 1754 1050 1745 1057 1053 1049 10391043 1033 1055 1049 104110451051 1030 1744 1760 1065 JAMES RD DOUGLAS RD 317' 315'285' 24 0 ' 133' 98.3'125.1'Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights080 SCALE IN FEETDate: 3/20/2019 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. 1751 JAMES ROAD(Bonovetz Residence) page 130 Nick & Liz Banovetz 1751 James Rd. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tim Benetti, Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 February 19, 2019 Dear Mr. Benetti: Please accept this letter of intent for a proposed addition to our home at 1751 James Road. Our family has lived in Mendota Heights for three years, and hope to remain part of this community for years to come. When we purchased our house, we were eager for space to raise our growing family, host family and friends, and to reside in a neighborhood conducive to being outside. We’re grateful to call Mendota Heights home – its attractiveness, quality of life, recreational areas and schools are among the best in the Metro area. It was after we struggled to find a home in a competitive real estate market that we landed on 1751 James Road – property that had gone largely untouched since it was built in 1958. While it had nominal square footage in common areas (559 SF) in a compartmentalized design – in dilapidated condition, in many respects – we also saw great potential. That’s why we’re writing today. As part of a substantial remodel to our main level, we hope to make a modest 165 SF addition to the east side of our house – a 4.5% increase in our total square footage – to accommodate a dining room. Specifically, we’re requesting from the City of Mendota Heights a side setback variance of 2’– 2” (at the most, as the property line runs at an angle; the northeast corner of the dining room would require 2’–2”, whereas the southeast corner would exceed the side setback by approximately 1’– 10”). We’ve contracted an award-winning architect, David Lund Design, on this project (construction renderings enclosed), and are ready to proceed with construction pending city approval. We’ve taken on considerable improvements to our property already – a testament of our commitment to making it a high-quality, functioning house. (When we purchased in 2016, the house had been subject to years of neglect – mechanics, electrical, plumbing, yard and appliances; much of the house from cabinets and flooring appear to have been original from when the house was built.) Basic repairs and improvements had been neglected. The energy and financial resources that we’ve put into our home to-date are highlighted below; they range from asbestos and water abatement following a flood (due to previous homeowners’ negligence, which we have fully repaired) to a new roof, re-sodding and new landscaping (the vast majority of our yard was woodchips with decaying plants overtaken by weeds). page 131 The changes we’ve made have been high-quality and amounted to significant investments. Thank you for your consideration. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions. Regards, Nick & Liz Banovetz 1751 James Road – 2016-2019 sample improvements and repairs General •  Asbestos abatement •  Updated electrical and duct repairs •  Repaired central air and furnace – neither worked properly at purchase •  Repaired all three showers – none worked at purchase •  New light fixtures •  Paint Kitchen •  New appliances •  Removed abandoned uncapped pipe, which was causing a leak into the basement Living room •  Gas insert in the fireplace Master bedroom •  Added central AC Family room •  Had chimney cleaned out following a chimney fire – metal insert for flue, new flue door and crown for chimney Laundry room •  Removed spiral staircase (connection to master bedroom) •  New washer and dryer Basement •  Replaced drain pipes and had main drain cleaned (due to flooding) Exterior •  New roof •  Front yard – now sod; entire lawn was overgrown with weeds and plants; removed 90% of plants, replaced with sod and new landscaping •  Back yard (it was overgrown with weeds): o  Built a retaining wall to level off and installed grass o  Installed fence on back property line o  Removed damaged sun room; kept roof, wrapped posts, new bluestone floor o  Added a bluestone patio •  Added 12 trees to the property Garage •  Enclosed furnace (i.e., walls, door), installed air intake duct work page 132 2019-05 300.00 02/22/2019 500.00 04/21/2019 page 133 Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of 4 VARIANCE APPLICATION – CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case #:_____________________ Address:_____________________ The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: x Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. x Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: ‰Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. ‰Completed Application Form(s). ‰Letter of Intent. ‰Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): ‰Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. ‰Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. 2019-05 Applicant:______Baonovetz__________ 1751 James Road page 134 Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of 4 ‰ Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. ‰ If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. ‰ If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. __________________________________________________________________ Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). ‰ YES ‰ NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: Our family has lived in Mendota Heights for three years, and would like to make this our home for many years to come. We see enormous potential in our home; currently, however, its common areas/ main level offer significant space limitations for our family and for frequently hosting company (i.e., our kitchen, living room and dining room amount to 559 SF, and the design is compartmentalized). What’s more, our dining room only fits six people and can’t accommodate our buffet. Toward an open concept that can better meet our style of living and hosting, and include seating that can accommodate eight people, we are hoping to add a dining room on to the east side of our home (the addition would amount to approximately 165 SF – which is only a 4.5% increase to our home’s total square footage). In support of our request for an 2’–2” side setback variance, we currently have approximately 34’ between our house and our neighbor’s garage (see enclosed land survey). Also, this 2’–2” figure applies to part of the addition as our property line runs at an angle (the amount that we hope to exceed the side setback ranges from 1’–10” to 2’–2”). If we’re unable to obtain a variance, we will forego full-length windows on the front (south) side of the addition. page 135 Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 4 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? ‰ YES ‰ NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? ‰ YES ‰ NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhoo d. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. We have a shallow backyard, and we don’t feel comfortable expanding in that direction because: A) That’s where we spend our time outside (patio, fenced-in yard for our kids, play set, etc.); and B) After consulting landscape architects and our residential architect, the topography of our land slopes north (toward the back property line) and we’re concerned about interfering with drainage. Also, there’s a wood fence on the side property line, which would provide screening between our neighbor’s property and our addition. Lastly, we have a 1950’s, compartmentalized-designed home. The majority of our square footage is designated to bedrooms or is below grade. We’re trying to increase the amount of common area space we have for our family (our family has grown since we purchased the house, and we prefer not to move). The addition would mimic our existing home, including the same wood siding and color, as well as the same roof pitch and shingles. It will also feature new, nicer windows (that we will eventually incorporate throughout the rest of the house. We believe the addition will improve our neighborhood – a modest addition coupled with a substantial remodel will increase property values. Our home has curb appeal, and we would further enhance its appeal; this addition (and remodel) will increase our home’s market value (and property taxes). This investment not only improves our home, but also adds to the neighborhood. Lastly, we have been partnering with David Lund Designs on this project, an award-winning residential architect who’s helping assure this is a high-quality addition and remodel. page 136 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Your addition  1 message Michael Bosick <michaelbosick@gmail.com>Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:27 PM To: banovetz@gmail.com Hi Nick,   Hope you, Liz and the kiddos are well!   Annie and I support your addition and 2’ variance request from the Planning Commission and City. We view your remodel and addition as an investment that will enhance our neighborhood and properties.   I’d be happy to have a conversation with anyone that is involved in this decision.   Best regards, Mike Bosick   1753 James Rd Mendota Heights MN 55118   page 137 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Greetings from across the street  dwd0107@aol.com <dwd0107@aol.com>Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:49 PM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Nick/Nic ­   After a thorough review of your blueprints along with a review of the Mendota Heights city zoning code I have determined that your new addition will not have an adverse impact on any of the properties abutting your house or located across the street from your house.   The only property it could conceivably impact would be the property of your neighbor immediately to the east. This is very doubtful though as his side yard setback, according to your survey, averages 14.85 feet from you're easterly lot line. Additionally, the portion of his house that is closest to your addition is a garage and not a living area. I don't know this guy but I think he's a pretty good guy so I don't think he would have any problems with your variance of 2 feet, 2 inches.   Finally don't make your remodeling, including your addition, an over improvement. You never know where the housing market is going to be a couple years from now. The median sale price in our particular neighborhood of Mendota Heights is probably just under $400,000. The median home price for all of Mendota Heights in 2018 was $385,000 down slightly from $389,450 in 2017. This is a 1.1% decrease.   I say "go for it."    Dan    Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] page 138 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> 1751 James Rd. remodel/addition  Matt Kushner <kushn001@umn.edu>Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:45 PM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Hi Nick and Liz, Laura and I reviewed the plans for your remodel/addition.  From our perspective as you neighbors, this will be a welcomed addition that would add value and comfort to your home and would also add to the overall appeal and quality of the houses in our neighborhood.  We understand you will require a 2 foot side setback variance for this project.  This seem well justified and appropriate for the neighborhood given your plans.   Best, Matt and Laura Kushner 1748 James Rd.  [Quoted text hidden] ­­   Matt G. Kushner, Ph.D.  Professor of Psychiatry  University of Minnesota  2450 Riverside Ave.  282­2A West  Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55454  612­273­9809  kushn001@umn.edu  page 139 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Greetings from 1751 James Rd., Mendota Heights  McCahey, Jean <Jean@cbburnet.com>Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:19 PM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Hi Nick,   Great to hear from you and it's really exciting that you are increasing the space of your home.   I don't think you can go wrong in that neighborhood! Do nice, quality upgrades and I believe you will be in good shape!   What's the price of the addition and how much extra square feet/ rooms are you putting on?   Looking forward to hearing a bit more about your plans for staying too...that may make a difference.   Kind regards,   JeanMcCahey Coldwell Banker Burnet, Realtor Diamond Society ­ Relocation Specialist ­ Twin Cities Phone:651­270­6409 / E­Mail: Jean@Cbburnet.com     From: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com>  Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 5:43 PM  To: McCahey, Jean  Cc: Elizabeth Banovetz  Subject: Greengs from 1751 James Rd., Mendota Heights   Hi, Jean, We hope this email finds you well. As you represented the sellers when we purchased 1751 James Road – and our understanding is that you sell/help purchase a fair amount of real estate in Mendota Heights – we wanted to run a question by you... We're working with an architect to remodel the main level of our home (see attached, if you're inclined), and our plans include an addition on a portion of the east side of our house. In your experience, what affect, if any, do modest additions have on homes (ours and our neighbors)? Thanks – we look forward to hearing from you. Nick & Liz Banovetz page 140 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Greetings from 1751 James Rd., Mendota Heights  McCahey, Jean <Jean@cbburnet.com>Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 4:22 PM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Yeah, don't believe your neighbor!   Is my best advice...   Have fun!!!   :)       Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy® Note 4.     ­­­­­­­­ Original message ­­­­­­­­  From: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com>   Date: 3/10/19 4:14 PM (GMT­06:00)   To: "McCahey, Jean" <Jean@CBBurnet.com>   Subject: Re: Greetings from 1751 James Rd., Mendota Heights     Thanks, Jean – this is helpful. We're spending 150-175 on the project (including the kitchen, not just the addition), will add 165 SF... a neighbor contends that additions in suburbs negatively affect property values because they reduce lot sizes (ours does include a 2' side setback variance request from the city)... just trying to get a handle on, generally speaking, affects on property values. Thanks again!   On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:19 PM McCahey, Jean <Jean@cbburnet.com> wrote:  Hi Nick,   Great to hear from you and it's really exciting that you are increasing the space of your home.   I don't think you can go wrong in that neighborhood! Do nice, quality upgrades and I believe you will be in good shape!   What's the price of the addition and how much extra square feet/ rooms are you putting on?   Looking forward to hearing a bit more about your plans for staying too...that may make a difference.   Kind regards,   JeanMcCahey Coldwell Banker Burnet, Realtor Diamond Society ­ Relocation Specialist ­ Twin Cities Phone:651­270­6409 / E­Mail: Jean@Cbburnet.com Thanks, Jean –this is helpful. We're spending 150-175 on the project (including the kitchen, not just the addition), will add 165 SF... a neighbor contends that additions in suburbs negatively affect property values (ours does include a 2' side setback variance request from the city)... just trying to get a handle on, generally speaking, affects on property values. Thanks again! page 141 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> 1751 remodel  Linda Stein <lindasternstein@gmail.com>Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 7:24 PM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Cc: Jim Stein <chippermonk@gmail.com> Wow.  Looks like you are going to make the house much more functional.  We clearly have no objections to the variance.   Trying to understand the plans.  is the east addition behind the existing garage or are you moving the garage?   Our news is that we are preparing to put our house up for sale...targeting some time in the spring.  But we're moving very slowly on the decluttering that we need to do before putting it up on MLS.   [Quoted text hidden]   BAN1801­CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS­022019 (6).pdf  2740K page 142 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> 1751 remodel  Linda Stein <lindasternstein@gmail.com>Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:30 PM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Oops your garage is of course on the west side of the house. Look forward to seeing the completed project. And of course nice to see you do this because it must mean you’re staying in Mendota Heights.     Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] <BAN1801­CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS­022019 (6).pdf> page 143 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Quick question  Storey, Cathy H <CHStorey@cbburnet.com>Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com>, "Koniar, Kim C" <kim.koniar@cbburnet.com> Cc: Elizabeth Banovetz <liz.banovetz@gmail.com> Hi Nick and Liz,   Exciting plans!!  It’s going to be amazing and so functional for your family and entertaining.  Really looking forward to seeing it!   We agree that anytime you add finished square footage to your home, it increases the value.  And especially kitchens.  As you may recall that was the #1 concern with the feedback when you were listed.  As far as your neighborhood…anytime neighbors improve their homes it adds value to the neighborhood.  They should be very excited about what you are doing.   Hope that helps!  Any other questions let us know.  Have fun with it!!   Cathy Storey Realtor Coldwell Banker Burnet chstorey@cbburnet.com 612­270­3427 [Quoted text hidden] *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.  page 144 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Greetings from 1751 James Rd.  Jan Trapp <jantrapp@comcast.net>Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:52 AM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Hi Nick and Liz,   It’s been a very long winter, maybe with temps in the 40s this week we will get some relief from the snow. I can imagine Lumi and Arlo are getting a bit anxious to run around outside.    Your plans! Thanks for including them; I have looked at them closely. I think the city may want neighbor input (approval ?) for that 2’ side setback variance. To me it looks fine, we would have no issue with this at all. Also, I would say any improvement to a home in our neighborhood can only be beneficial to all of us.    I hope you are able to move forward with your plans.    And I also am eager for Spring!!   Jan     Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] <BAN1801­CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS­022019 (6).pdf> page 145 Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Hello from next door  Molly & David <mollydavid@q.com>Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM To: Nicholas Banovetz <banovetz@gmail.com> Cc: Elizabeth Banovetz <liz.banovetz@gmail.com> Hi Nick and Liz ­ Thanks again for getting us connected with Tim.  He was very helpful.  We are supportive of your addition.  I wish we could still have a better option to expand our garage but we think your addition will mean more to your family than a garage would mean for ours.  The only thing we ask is that there isn’t anything that will extend further out from your nearest wall such a an air­conditioning unit (loudness closer to our bedrooms) and any change­orders to further extend.  It doesn't look like these are in the plans but we just wanted to make sure.  So thanks again for discussing this with us and showing us the plans.  Good luck and keep us updated!  And you can use this email for our support.  Talk to you soon!   David and Molly [Quoted text hidden] page 146 Survey/Site Plan a010 1751 James Road Mendotah Heights 55118 COMM. NO. DATE DRAWN BY BAN1801 20-FEB-19 DVL CHECKED BY DVL PROJECT ADDRESS DRAWING TITLE Banovetz Residence PROJECT 00-XXX-18 REVISONS SHEET NUMBER ‹david lund design 00-XXX-18 00-XXX-18 CONTACT info@davidldesign.com (612) 209-0913 page 147 page 148 Existing Main Level Floor Plan & Exterior Elevations e101 1751 James Road Mendotah Heights 55118 COMM. NO. DATE DRAWN BY BAN1801 20-FEB-19 DVL CHECKED BY DVL PROJECT ADDRESS DRAWING TITLE Banovetz Residence PROJECT 00-XXX-18 REVISONS SHEET NUMBER ‹david lund design 00-XXX-18 00-XXX-18 CONTACT info@davidldesign.com (612) 209-0913 page 149 Main Level Demolition Floor Plan d101 1751 James Road Mendotah Heights 55118 COMM. NO. DATE DRAWN BY BAN1801 20-FEB-19 DVL CHECKED BY DVL PROJECT ADDRESS DRAWING TITLE Banovetz Residence PROJECT 00-XXX-18 REVISONS SHEET NUMBER ‹david lund design 00-XXX-18 00-XXX-18 CONTACT info@davidldesign.com (612) 209-0913 page 150 Main Level Floor Plan [Alts 1 & 2] a101 1751 James Road Mendotah Heights 55118 COMM. NO. DATE DRAWN BY BAN1801 20-FEB-19 DVL CHECKED BY DVL PROJECT ADDRESS DRAWING TITLE Banovetz Residence PROJECT 00-XXX-18 REVISONS SHEET NUMBER ‹david lund design 00-XXX-18 00-XXX-18 CONTACT info@davidldesign.com (612) 209-0913 page 151 West & South Exterior Elevations a200 1751 James Road Mendotah Heights 55118 COMM. NO. DATE DRAWN BY BAN1801 20-FEB-19 DVL CHECKED BY DVL PROJECT ADDRESS DRAWING TITLE Banovetz Residence PROJECT 00-XXX-18 REVISONS SHEET NUMBER ‹david lund design 00-XXX-18 00-XXX-18 CONTACT info@davidldesign.com (612) 209-0913 page 152 1751 James Road –2016-2019 improvements and repairs 4/6/19 Across the house •Updated electrical and duct repairs  •Repaired central air and furnace –neither worked properly at purchase  •New child safety outlets and light switches in every room •New vents in most rooms Kitchen •New appliances, including water line for fridge •removed damaged built-in desk •removed abandoned uncapped pipe (former drain for previous dishwasher), which was causing a leak into the basement •Fresh paint Uncapped, abandoned pipe Water damage under the dishwasher and cabinets page 153 Living room, dining room and entry way •Gas insert in the living room fireplace •Painted walls •New dining room ceiling light After pics Master bedroom •Add central AC Bedroom #1 •Painted walls and trim Bedroom #2 •Painted walls and closet Bedroom #3 •New ceiling light/fan •New AC wall unit Without a variance, our new dining room would be smaller than what we currently have Before (dirty, tired) After page 154 Family room •Had chimney cleaned out (there had been a chimney fire) –metal insert for flue, new flue door and crown for chimney •Primed and painted all walls, trim, doors and fireplace •New ceiling lights Laundry room •Removed spiral staircase (connection to master bedroom)  •New washer and dryer •Painted built-in cabinets Before (dirty, tired) After Before After page 155 Bathrooms •Repaired all three showers (none worked at purchase) •Hall bathroom –removed damaged cabinet, painted walls, removed damaged glass doors for shower, new toilet and hardware •Upstairs bathroom –removed wallpaper, painted •Family room bathroom –removed wallpaper, painted cabinets and walls, new hardware Basement •Primed and painted walls •Replaced drain pipes and had main drain cleaned (due to flooding) •Asbestos abatement, including removing asbestos tile from floor in the finished part of the basement (under carpet) •Had sink in tool room cleaned out (didn’t drain) After Before (filthy, deteriorating), and flood damage After page 156 Exterior •New roof •Front yard: o Removed overgrown cedar tree o Removed 90% of plants, replaced with new landscaping and sod o New paint around dormer windows o New mail box •Back yard: o Built retaining wall, filled in with 7 truckloads of dirt to reduce drop off; removed 2 massive vegetable gardens, re-sodded back yard (was overgrown with weeds and plants) o Installed wood fence on back property line o Updated/repaired treehouse o Replaced faucets (didn't work) o Removed damaged glass blinds from patio, and a non-working heater (had gas line cut off) –wrapped posts, painted; replaced concrete floor with bluestone •Added 12 trees Before Overgrown, neglected yard and deteriorating roof Neglected sunroom (no working heat, despite the house’s listing, plus broken and missing windows page 157 Exterior continued In progress New front lawn New back yard –installed retaining wall to reduce drop off page 158 Exterior continued After Garage •fixed broken garage door / installed new opener •Enclosed furnace (i.e., walls, door), installed air intake duct work Enclosed furnace in garage, bringing it up to code page 159 Misc. Second story bedroom –egress window would be eliminated if we followed the recommendation of the Planning Commission The current plan for the addition avoids having to eliminate the only two egress windows on the second floor (i.e., the roof line), as well as two AC wall units page 160 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 21 A) PLANNING CASE #2019-05 NICK AND LIZ BANOVETZ, 1751 JAMES ROAD VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE-YARD SETBACK Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Nick and Liz Banovetz had requested a Variance to the side yard setback for their property located at 1751 James Road. The property is located at the centered part of what is known as the James and Douglas Road split. It is a 0.34 acre parcel with a two-story 3,594 square foot single family residence built in 1958. Mr. and Mrs. Banovetz are requesting to build an 11.5’ x 14.5’ addition off of the east side of their home. This would be a single story addition to accommodate a new living room. The current dwelling sits 35.4 feet off of the front lot line, 37.8 feet from the west lot line, 52 feet from the rear line, and 19.2 feet from the east line. The addition to the east side would encroach 2.13 feet into the 10-foot side-yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property relative to its location within the neighborhood, images of the property itself, and the location of the proposed addition. Mr. Benetti explained that the reason for the proposed addition to not be on the rear of the home was due to an existing canopy patio and open patio space in the already limited back yard. Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide justification for any variance request: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff. Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows: Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community Existing and anticipated traffic conditions Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road, were available for questions. Mr. Banovetz clarified that the request was for a dining room addition. When they purchased the property it was pretty much in disrepair. However, they fixed it up and fell in love with Mendota Heights. They would like to make this their permanent home for years to come. page 161 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 21 They received nine letters of support from neighbors, one of whom is a real estate appraiser. They also had two emails from real estate agents confirming that this addition would be an enhancement for the neighborhood and positively affect property values. Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the criteria to be met to approve a variance was that the request was not a convenience, but would meet a practical difficulty. In looking at the shape and dimensions of the proposed addition, he asked for an explanation of the practical difficulties associated with the request. Mr. Banovetz replied that there were several practical difficulties:  They are working with an award winning architect in the Twin Cities and have gone through many reiterations of trying to plan out the main living space. The common areas of the house only amount to 559 square feet. While the total square footage is high, most of it focused on bedrooms or living space that is below grade.  They would like to fit a dining table and buffet into the new dining room. If they cannot have the variance it would affect where they could put windows, and they may end up not putting any windows on the street facing side of the addition if that is where they have to put the buffet.  There is currently 34 feet between their home and the neighbor’s garage; the placement of the addition would narrow that space down to 20 feet. If each property owner complied strictly with the 10-foot side-yard setback, it would result in a 20-foot separation between homes.  The topography of the land and the shallowness of the backyard also creates a practical difficulty in placing the addition at the rear of the property. Commissioner Noonan stated that it appears as if the architect had advanced various alternatives that would respect the side-yard setback; and the decision to go with the alternative presented today is just a matter of what is more suited to this family’s desire. Mr. Banovetz replied that the architect has not provided any alternatives and not believe that anything else would work. All other reiterations of the architectural design would still encroach the setback by 2 feet. Commissioner Corbett remarked that he appreciated all of the letters of support that were shared, and he believed one was from the neighbor to the opposite side. He then asked if there was a letter of support from the neighbor on the east, whose property would be encroached upon. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was included in the packet. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that they feel that the dining room expansion could not be made 9’ 2” inches. Mr. Banovetz replied in the negative, he did not feel that the expansion could be made smaller. He then asked if they had installed the patio or was it already there when they moved in. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was a little bit of both; there was a patio there and they fixed it up. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. page 162 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 21 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-05 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Commissioner Toth explained that he agreed with Commissioner Noonan statements due to the 10.5 feet; the Commission has not been given a reason why they need that 10.5 feet as a practical difficulty. They have not heard why a shorter distance of 8 feet would not work. He would like to see something, if it could be worked out, like 8.5 feet or 9.5 feet by 16.5 feet, or similar. Commissioner Mazzitello said, realizing that every variance request stands on its own and that actions of the Commission or the Council with respect to these applications do not set precedence, there was a case similar to this where someone’s addition was going to go into the side-yard setback and one of the findings of fact used for the Council’s ultimate approval of the request, was that the structure itself was not placed properly on the lot. Similar to this case, there is over 39 feet from the corner on the other side of the house. He would never advocate for someone to build a dining room on the other side of a garage so they have to pass through the garage to get to the dining room. However, that finding of fact was used. To throw all of the information on the table for the Commissions consideration, this very similar type of variance has been approved by the City Council in the past, against the Commission’s recommendation. page 163 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 21 Commissioner Petschel asked if Commissioner Mazzitello was proposing to use the center of mass relative to the center of the lot line as an indicator to the variance. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that the only thing he was saying was that the indicator was used once in the past; not saying that it should be a standard. Commissioner Noonan that this argument, if there were no alternatives for the placement or the size of the addition; the addition could be spread out to give the square footage as well. There are alternatives which provide for what the property owners want. He heard justifications for convenience sake as opposed to a practical difficulty. There are alternatives that exist that would allow the property owners to get the addition. It may not be what they ultimately desire, but it would still respect the setbacks – which are important. If setbacks were not important, then they would not be there. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would be for a mitigating circumstance. For example, if this were a non-conforming lot size where the rules were written for a 15,000 square foot lots and someone walks in with 9,000 or 10,000 square foot lot and the house is already practically violating the setback rules. Commissioner Noonan agreed that this would be a good example. However, in this case there is not a non-conforming use. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019 meeting. page 164 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-30 to Approve [or Deny] a Variance for property located at 916 Adeline Court (Planning Case No. 2019-08) Introduction City Council is being asked to consider adopting one of two draft resolutions contained in this packet. One affirms the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a variance request for the property located at 916 Adeline Court; and the other denies the variance with amended findings supporting said denial action. Background Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury are the property owners of 916 Adeline Court. The owners are requesting a variance to permit an encroachment of 8.8-ft. into the 30-ft. front yard setback standard in order to construct a new 16’ x 8’ fully enclosed foyer, and includes a 4’ x 16’ partially covered deck. At the April 23, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this variance request item was presented for consideration under an official public hearing. A copy of the 04/23/19 Planning Staff Report, with plans, attachments and supporting information, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this council memo report. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended favorably (by 3-2 vote) to approve the Variance request from Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury, based on the findings of facts noted in the draft resolution of approval included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-30 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 ADELINE COURT; or if the Council wishes to reverse this recommendation, you may make a motion to adopt alternative RESOLUTION NO. 2019-30 DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 ADELINE COURT, based on amended findings of fact supporting such denial, and as noted therein. Either action to approve one of the two resolutions requires a simple majority vote. page 165 D * R * A * F * T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-30 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 ADELINE COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-08) WHEREAS, Breanna Zarmbinski & Paul Shrewsbury (as “Applicant”) applied for a variance for the property located at 916 Adeline Court (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; 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, the Applicant is seeking a variance to encroach 8.8-ft. into the 30-ft. front yard setback standard in the R-1 One Family district, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019- 08; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended favorably (by 3-2 vote) to approve the application for a Variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-08, with certain findings of fact to support such denial. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance application proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-08 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact and conditions: page 166 Res 2019-30 Page 2 A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the front-yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-30. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly page 167 Res 2019-30 Page 3 proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8- feet into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019- 08). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 916 Adeline Court, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-08, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 2019. 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 168 Res 2019-30 Page 4 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 916 Adeline Court Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-71275-02-250 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Twenty-five (25), Block Two (2), South Ridge, Dakota County, Minnesota page 169 D * R * A * F * T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-30 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 ADELINE COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-08) WHEREAS, Breanna Zarmbinski & Paul Shrewsbury (as “Applicant”) applied for a variance for the property located at 916 Adeline Court (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; 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, the Applicant is seeking a variance to encroach 8.8-ft. into the 30-ft. front yard setback standard in the R-1 One Family district, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019- 08; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended favorably (by 3-2 vote) to approve the application for a Variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-08, with certain findings of fact to support such denial. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby reversed, and the Variance application proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-08 is hereby denied, with the following findings of fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical page 170 Res 2019-30 Page 2 difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard is not warranted under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 916 Adeline Court, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-08, is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 2019. 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 171 Res 2019-30 Page 3 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 916 Adeline Court Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-71275-02-250 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Twenty-five (25), Block Two (2), South Ridge, Dakota County, Minnesota page 172 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: April 23, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-08 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Ispiri, LLC (on behalf of Breanna Zarmbinski & Paul Shrewsbury) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 916 Adeline Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 22, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants are seeking to build a front-entry/foyer addition to their single-family residence, which would require a variance to encroach 8.8-ft. into the 30-ft. front yard setback standard in the R-1 One Family district. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The subject property is a trapezoidal shaped parcel consisting of 0.36 acres. The property contains 4,628 sq. ft. (finished sq. ft.) one-story walk out rambler, built in 1979 (see Google Street image – below). page 173 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 2 According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approximately 30.0 feet from the front lot line off Adeline Court. The Applicants are performing a major renovation and remodeling project of the interior and exterior elements to the existing home. As part of these renovations the owners wish to construct a new 16’ x 8’ fully enclosed foyer, which includes a 4’ x 16’ partially covered open-deck entryway. The outer edge of the deck/foyer addition is indicated with a 21.2-ft. setback off the front, curved lot line along Adeline Court. This addition encroaches 8.8-ft. into the required 30-ft. setback (see survey image – below): hence the need for a variance. page 174 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 3 ANALYSIS Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): page 175 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 4 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Homeowners wish to alleviate their cramped entryway and add curb appeal to the house. Construction of the addition as proposed would grant them their wish. Staff’s Response: A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed use of the property, as altered by the variance, is reasonable. With or without the addition, the overall use of the home and property will not change. The Applicant’s desire to construct a small addition on the side of the existing house, even one that requires this variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The curvature of the front property line and thusly the building setback line prohibits us from altering the front of the home without seeking a variance. Staff’s Response: The Applicant’s desire to construct a new foyer/entry space addition can logically be placed only near the front entryway to the existing residence. With the trapezoidal shaped lot and concaved front lot line, the setback limits were set when the existing home was built and placed in 1979. There does not appear to be any other area(s) to expand the home outward in any direction, except by means of a variance. The City will need to determine if this pre-development is unique enough to grant the Variance as requested. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: Granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. In fact, it would enhance the property, thereby improving the character of the neighborhood. The investment into the home would enhance neighboring home's values as well. Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is residential in character; and the new addition and extensive home renovation project represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing dwelling into a much nicer and more up-to-date residence for the owners. The new foyer/deck addition appears to be minor in size or scale to home, which in effect should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighboring properties are well shielded or screened by some mature upright arbor-vitae trees on both sides of the subject property, which should help limit or reduce any visual impacts to the neighbors. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” page 176 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 5 B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the front- yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8-feet into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019-08). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition. page 177 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 6 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard is not warranted under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of this Variance request, and either make a motion to recommend Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Variance with findings of facts to support said approval with the conditions noted therein; or make a motion on Alternative No. 2, a recommendation of denial on the Variance with findings of facts supporting such decision. If the Planning Commission wishes to table or delay making a recommendation on this item for any plausible reason, then the commission should make a motion consistent with Alternative No. 3 noted above. Attachments 1. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 2. Aerial/Site Location Map 3. Survey/Site Plans/Floor Plans 4. Site Pictures page 178 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 7 SITE PICTURES 916 ADELINE COURT page 179 Adam Bender lspiri, LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125 03/19/2019 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: 916 Adeline Court To Whom it may concern; It is lspiri's (Contractor) intent to remove the existing covered wood deck at the front of the home and replace it with a fully-enclosed and conditioned space which will enhance both the interior and exterior of the home. We will also construct a new poured concrete front stoop and sidewalk for access to the home. The home is a single family residence and will be occupied by Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury, a married couple (Client). Sincerely, lspiri, LLC page 180 11 01 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55 11 8 651.452 .1 850 phone I 65 1.452.8 940 fax www.m endota-heig hts.com • ,< C I T Y OF r ,I fflj MENooTAHEIGHTs VARIANCE APPLICATION -CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case#: ---------- App Ii cant: ________ _ Address : ---------- The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance , means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties . Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. • Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: CJ Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees , utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. CJ Completed Application Form(s). CJ Letter of Intent. CJ Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): CJ Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. CJ Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. CJ Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of 3 2019-08 Zarmbinski-Shrewsbury 916 Adeline Court page 181 variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. 0 If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. 0 If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: "practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). 0 YES 0 NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: HOMEOWNERS WISH TO ALLEVIATE THEIR CRAMPED ENTRYWAY AND ADD CURB APPEAL TO THE HOUSE. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION AS PROPOSED WOULD GRANT THEM THEIR WISH. Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of3 page 182 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? ca YES 0 NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: THE CURVATURE OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THUSLY THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROHIBITS US FROM AL TERINGTHE FRONT OF THE HOME WITHOUT SEEKING A VARIANCE. 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 0 YES ca NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, IT WOULD ENHANCE THE PROPERTY, THEREBY IMPROVING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE INVESTMENT INTO THE HOME WOULD ENHANCE NEIGHBORNING HOME'S VALUES AS WELL. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of3 page 183 page 184 9.613.7 1 0 . 1 XXXXXXX X X X X X XXGAR. FFE=860.55 FFE=861.50 LFE=852.41 8.0 1.023.05.0 0.82.772.00 p. , 71.93 m.30.832.5BLDSB BLDSB30.025.0 Retaining Wall porch deck cant.5.8BLDSB BLDSB BLDSB BLDSB BLDSBBLDSBBLDSBBLDSBBLDSB 30.010 10 1 0 1 0 16.5 Proposed Addition 8.04.021.225.0NOTES CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NORTH ~for~ INSPIRI ~of~ 916 Adeline Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118-3622 18.821BTI hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Minnesota License No. Dated day of 2019.11 January 41578 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY SCALE: 1" = '30BEARING DATUM: County JOB NO. 1 2 3 REVISIONS CJTDRAWN BY: 01-11-19DATE: L25-B2 E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. Professional Land SurveyorsEST. 1977 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 www.egrud.com Lot 25, Block 2, South Ridge, Dakota County, Minnesota. x DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION850.0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND LEGEND DENOTES EXISTING SANITARY SEWER> DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES GAS METER DENOTES HYDRANT > DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINEBLDSB LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 01/07/19. -Bearings shown are on an county datum. - Parcel ID Number: 27-71275-02-250 - Curb shots are taken at the top and back of curb. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of a current title commitment or an attorney's title opinion. - Due to field work being completed during the winter season there may be improvements in addition to those shown that were not visible due to snow and ice conditions characteristic of Minnesota winters. 3/19/2019 9:37:43 AM page 185 page 186 page 187 DNE (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (R.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (R.A.)SUBCONTRACTORS01'2'3'6'9' KEY EEEEEE EE EE EEEE E EE EEEE E T E EEE EEEEEEEE EEE EEEEEEE E E EEEEEEEE E E E E EEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEE E E EE E E E R E R E R E R E E E E E EE E E E E R E R E R E R E E 16'-1 1/2" SHEET INDEX ISSUE RECORD ELECTRICAL KEY XX FL.X1 KEY XX FL. 01'2'3'4' 1/2" SCALE INFO1/4" SCALE INFO VAULTED VAULTED POPCORN DINING ROOM CPT. VAULTED POPCORN SUNROOM CPT. VAULTED WD. CLG. POPCORN BREAKFAST W.I.C. CPT. WD. CLG. KITCHEN CPT. C.T. WD. CLG. FAMILY ROOM CPT.VAULTEDVAULTEDWD. CLG. FOYER C.T. C P T . C. T . CPT.C.T.CPT.C.T.WD. CLG. BATH C.T.VAULTEDVAULTEDWD. CLG. BEDROOM CPT. WD. CLG. HALLWAY CPT. LINEN POPCORN LAUNDRY VINYL POPCORN POWDER VINYL GARAGE POPCORN MASTER BEDROOM COVERED PORCH WOOD DECKING DEMO LOG TRUSS ABOVE CPT. POPCORN MASTER BATH C.T. CPT.VINYL CPT C.T. DEMO DECK, INCLUDING POSTS, FRAMING AND FOOTINGS DEMO RAIL AND EXISTING STAIR DEMO SIDEWALK AS NEEDED DEMO CLOSET DEMO WALLS DEMO STONE DEMO KITCHEN REMOVE WINDOW DEMO ALL FIXTURES AND FINISHES DEMO HINGED DOOR REMOVE ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM DN SUBCONTRACTORS 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY 1 2 MAIN FLOOR AS BUILT PLAN 4 3 6 DATE 1 DESCRIPTION 5 7 * FOR CURRENT INFORMATION REFER TO LATEST PLAN ISSUE ONLY 6 AS-BUILT ISSUE (ORIGINATION DATE) SHEET INDEX 3 REV. 3/7/18 SHEET NO. 2 1 5 ISSUE 4 8 ISSUE RECORD 1. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURES & SWITCHES TO BE VERIFIED AT ELECTRICAL WALKTHRU 2. FIELD VERIFY LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL OUTLETS WITH HOMEOWNER, KITCHEN DESIGNER, INTERIOR DESIGNER PRIOR TO PLACING OR ALTERING CABINETS AT ISLAND OR CABINETRY IN GENERAL. 3. BUILD INSULATED BOXES AROUND RECESSED LIGHTS AND BATHROOM VENT FANS AT ATTIC AREAS TYPICAL. CONSTRUCT WITH 1" FOIL FACED RIGID INSULATION TAPE ALL EDGES AND TAPE CONTINUOUS WITH VAPOR BARRIER, INSULATE ABOVE BOXES TO R-38 MINIMUM. NEW TRIM ON EXIST RECESSED LIGHT * CONST. TO ONLY UTILIZE MOST CURRENT BUILD PLAN ELECTRICAL KEY NEW FLUSH MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING FLUSH MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE NEW DIMMER LIGHT SWITCH NEW RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE NEW 3 WAY LIGHT SWITCH NEW OUTLET EXISTING OUTLET NEW LIGHT SWITCH THERMOSTAT NEW UNDER CABINET LIGHTING CABLE JACK PHONE JACK/DATA SMOKE DETECTOR EXISTING HANGING FIXTURE NEW HANGING FIXTURE JUNCTION BOX WALL MOUNT FIXTURE BATH FAN XX FL.X1 KEY XX FL. 0 1'2'3'4' 1/2" SCALE INFO1/4" SCALE INFO CONCEPT PLAN5/8/18 1, 2 C P T . C. T . CPT.C.T.CPT.C.T.DEMO LOG TRUSS ABOVE BID PLAN ISSUE5/22/18 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 CPT.VINYL CPT C.T. DEMO DECK, INCLUDING POSTS, FRAMING AND FOOTINGS DEMO RAIL AND EXISTING STAIR DEMO SIDEWALK AS NEEDED DEMO CLOSET DEMO WALLS DEMO STONE DEMO KITCHEN REMOVE WINDOW DEMO ALL FIXTURES AND FINISHES DEMO HINGEDDOOR REMOVE ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM 7 9 8 MAIN FLOOR PROPOSED PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVS, FOUNDATION PLAN, ROOF PLAN CONTRACT PLAN ISSUE7/23/18 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ORIGINATION DATE 07 MAR 2018 REVISION DATE NONE ZARMBINSKI / SHREWSBURY DESIGN BY; ISPIRI DBR, LLC. ACB CONTRACTTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR CONCEPT ONLY.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLIENT:916 ADELINE COURTMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118ZARMBINSKI /SHREWSBURYBREANNA & PAUL11 P: (651) 578-0122F: (651) 731-9112www.ispiri.comMN Lic # BC627402© 2018 Ispiri, LLC This plan and the design representedhereon is protected under thecopyright laws of the United States.Any reproduction or use of theseplans without written permissionfrom Ispiri is strictly prohibited. PROJECT:FRONT ENTRY ADDITION;MAIN LEVEL RENOVATIONCLIENT INITIALS:SHEET NO.7779 Afton Rd.Woodbury, MN 55125www.ispiri.com1 MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" page 188 DNE (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) NEW (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)36" RANGEPOTFILLERE (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (R.A.)NEW 8X7 O.H. DOOR (VERIFY SIZE) NEW 8X7 O.H. DOOR (VERIFY SIZE) EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING PATIO DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN REPLACE SASH W/ TEMPERED GLASS EXISTING GABLE WALL WINDOWS TO REMAIN REPLACE SASHES WITH TEMPERED GLASS NEW 2068-2 NEW 2468NEW 2468 NEW 2868POCKETNEW 3068-2 EXIST. PKT. EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING PATO DOOR TO REMAIN NEW CSMT WINDOW TO MATCH OPPOSITE SIDE MARVIN CUCA 3256 TEMPERED GLASS NEW 3068-2 DOUBLE ENTRY DOOR EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN SUBCONTRACTORS 01'2'3'6'9' KEY N FIX E OPG N FIX E OPGNNNNEEEEEEEE EE N E E E NNNNNNN N N N NN FIX E OPG E E T ENNNNN EEEE EEE EEEEE N E EEEEEEE NNNN EE NNNNEEN EEE NR N R N R N R N N R N R N R N R N N NRNRNRN N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N N N N N FIX E OPG N N N N N R N R N R N R N E E E E NC6 NCAT 6C6 NCAT 6C6 NCAT 6EEN 8'-1" 3'-0 1/4" 1'15'-0 1/2"10'-2 1/4"14'-1 3/4" 3'-6"2'-4 1/2" 7' 5'-10 1/2"4'-8"7'-4 1/8"3'-5"16'-3 7/8"5'-9 1/4"7'-8 3/8"2'-11 5/8"11" 4'5'2'-5" 15'-1 1/2"9'-2"3'-4"10'-2 1/4"8'4'1'-6"3'-7 1/4"4'-5 3/4"9'-8 1/4"3"4'-10"6"4'-10"6"4'-4"6"4'-4"3"6"10"6"6" 3'2'-1 1/2"2'-1 1/2"10' 2'-6" 16'-2"4'SHEET INDEX ISSUE RECORD ELECTRICAL KEY XX FL.X1 KEY XX FL. 01'2'3'4' 1/2" SCALE INFO1/4" SCALE INFO VAULTED VAULTED NEW K.D. DINING ROOM NEW L.V.P. VAULTED NEW 60" X 30" TUB / SHOWER W/ TILED SURROUND TO 96" NEW WOOD CLG. KITCHEN NEW L.V.P. VAULTED RELOCATE ATTIC SCUTTLE HOLE NEW K.D. OWNER'S CLOSET NEW CPT. EXIST. WD. CLG. EXIST. WD. CLG. GREAT ROOM NEW L.V.P.VAULTEDVAULTEDNEW K.D. CLG. FOYER NEW L.V.P. POWDER 12" BENCH NEW STAIR TO CODE 14 TREADS 15 RISERS 10" TREAD NEW C.T.VAULTEDEXIST. WD. CLG. NURSERY NEW CPT. EXIST. WD. CLG. HALLWAY NEW L.V.P. 42" HIGH HALF WALL FRAMELESS GLASS ENCLOSURE TO 84"24" WIDE X 9" DEEP OPEN CABINET ON COUNTERTOP FULL HEIGHT LINEN CABINET 21" DEEP COFFERED CLG. IN HALLWAY W/ CROWN MOULDING DBL. HANG DBL. HANG GARAGE NEW K.D. LONG HANG MASTER BEDROOM DBL. HANGLONG HANG DBL. HANG NEW CPT. SOFFIT TO CONCEAL LOG TRUSS NEW K.D. CLG. MASTER BATH NEW C.T.SHELF & RODCPT C.T. NEW DROPPED STRUCTURAL BEAM BUILT IN WOOD BENCH NEW HEAT-N-GLO 6000 42" GAS FIREPLACE NEW THIN STONE TO EXISTING MANTLE EXISTING RAISED HEARTH WITH NEW THIN STONE UNDERCOUNTER BEVERAGE FRIG. MEDIA CENTER 15" DEEP TALL PANTRY CABINETSNEW WALL 84" HIGH W/ WOOD CAP NEW STRUCT. DROP. HEADER ROLLING LADDER BENCH W/ WOOD TOP NEW K.D. CLG. MUDROOM NEW L.V.P.36"REFRIG.D.W. TRASH PULL-OUT EXIST. WD. CLG. COFFEE CENTER EN-SUITE NEW L.V.T. COUNTER OVER LAUNDRY MACHINES NEW PLANTER BOX TO FIT IN EXISTING BRICK CUTOUT RECESSED NICHE IN HALF WALL VERIFY OPTIMAL PLACEMENT OF NEW EXHAUST FAN VERIFY LOC. OF EXHAUST FAN NEW IRON-AWAY A-42 RECESS INTO WALL VERIFY EXACT PLACEMENT 2X6 WALL D.W.R&SR&SWOOD BENCH BOARD & BATTEN WAINSCOTING THIS ROOM OPEN BELOW CABINET FOR DOG BOWLS ELEC IN-FLOOR WARMING EXISTING TRAY VAULT SOFFIT EXISTING TRAY VAULT VAULTED VAULTED EXISTING DROPPED HEADER CLOSE IN OPENING FOR EQUAL RETURNS ON GREAT ROOM SIDE NEW FALSE DROP. HDR. 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 NEW ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. 1 4 1 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 4 1 5 1 5 1 8 1 8 2 8 2 8 4 6 4 6 2 7 2 7 4 7 4 7 1 7 1 7 9 6 9 6 8 6 8 6 1 6 1 6 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 7 3 6 3 6 7 6 7 6 3 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 4 5 4 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 3 7 3 7 2-2X10 HDR. 2 6 2 6 RE-JAMB AND CASE TWO EXISTING WINDOWS AS NEEDED 8" CMU FOUNDATION WALL 16" X 8" FOOTING 6" CMU FOUNDATION FOR STOOP SUPPORT EXISTING CMU FOUNDATION WALL WITH BRICK LEDGE CRAWL SPACE ACCESS THRU EXISTING WALL IN CLOSET UNDER STAIR 2" RIGID FOAM INSUL. NEW TESLA CHARGING OUTLET - VERIFY PLACEMENT WITH HOMEOWNER WOOD TOP OVENORIGINATION DATE 07 MAR 2018 REVISION DATE NONE DESIGN BY; ISPIRI DBR, LLC. ACB CONTRACTTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR CONCEPT ONLY.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLIENT:916 ADELINE COURTMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118ZARMBINSKI /SHREWSBURYBREANNA & PAULP: (651) 578-0122F: (651) 731-9112www.ispiri.comMN Lic # BC627402© 2018 Ispiri, LLC This plan and the design representedhereon is protected under thecopyright laws of the United States.Any reproduction or use of theseplans without written permissionfrom Ispiri is strictly prohibited. PROJECT:FRONT ENTRY ADDITION;MAIN LEVEL RENOVATIONCLIENT INITIALS:SHEET NO.7779 Afton Rd.Woodbury, MN 55125www.ispiri.com2 11 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" page 189 5' GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXIST. BRICK GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXIST. BRICK EXISTING ROOFING TO REMAIN PAINT EXISTING WOOD FASCIA & SOFFIT EXISTING WINDOW NEW 14" LOUVER SHUTTERS NEW PLANTER BOX NEW DORMER W/ SHED ROOF MAXIMIZE PITCH APPROX. 2.5 / 12 NEW OVERHEAD DOORS NEW OVERHEAD DOORS GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXISTING BRICK NEW 1X4 DOOR & WINDOW TRIM FRONT ONLY NEW 1X6 CORNER BOARDS, FRONT ONLY NEW ENTRY SYSTEM NEW MARVIN CUAWN 1818 - 2 WIDE STATIONARY 12 4 NEW ROOFING TO VALLEYS 1X4 AND 1X10 R.S. CEDAR FASCIA TO MATCH EXIST. 1X6 CORNER BOARDS EXISTING SIDING TO REMAIN NEW DORMER SHED ROOF BEYOND PAINT EXISTING SOFFIT & FASCIA, ENTIRE PERIMETER GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXISTING BRICK NEW CORNER BOARD NEW ROOF EXISTING ROOF NEW ROOF EXISTING ROOF ORIGINATION DATE 07 MAR 2018 REVISION DATE NONE DESIGN BY; ISPIRI DBR, LLC. ACB CONTRACTTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR CONCEPT ONLY.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLIENT:916 ADELINE COURTMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118ZARMBINSKI /SHREWSBURYBREANNA & PAULP: (651) 578-0122F: (651) 731-9112www.ispiri.comMN Lic # BC627402© 2018 Ispiri, LLC This plan and the design representedhereon is protected under thecopyright laws of the United States.Any reproduction or use of theseplans without written permissionfrom Ispiri is strictly prohibited. PROJECT:FRONT ENTRY ADDITION;MAIN LEVEL RENOVATIONCLIENT INITIALS:SHEET NO.7779 Afton Rd.Woodbury, MN 55125www.ispiri.com3 11 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 33 PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"22 PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" page 190 Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 7 SITE PICTURES 916 ADELINE COURT page 191 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 5 A) PLANNING CASE #2019-08 ISPIRI, LLC ON BEHALF OF BREANNA ZARMBINSKI & PAUL SHREWSBURY, 916 ADELINE COURT VARIANCE REQUEST Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Ispiri, LLC on behalf of Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury; a request for Variance to encroach 8.8 feet into the 30-foot front yard setback to build a front-entry/foyer addition. The property is zoned R- 1 Single-Family Residential and is located at 916 Adeline Court. The subject property is a trapezoidal shaped parcel approximately 0.36 acres in size and contains a 4,628 square foot one- story walk out rambler home. This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received an email voicing support of this application, which has been made part of the public record. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in its current state and a rendering of what the property would look like should this application be approved. He also explained the variables the Commission must consider when deciding on a variance: 1. Practical Difficulties i.) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance ii.) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner iii.) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood iv.) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties 2. Impact to the Community i.) Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community ii.) Existing and anticipated traffic conditions iii.) Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety iv.) Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan v.) Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty The staff report included the applicants’ and staffs’ responses to the above listed variables. Staff recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that the 22.2 feet from the front property line included the front porch. Mr. Benetti replied that it did not include the front porch. Commissioner Corbett noted that Condition F.v. claims that within one year of approval the applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition and asked what proposed garage. Mr. Benetti replied that it should have read front entry/foyer addition. page 192 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Noonan stated that he was wrestling with the justification and asked Mr. Benetti his thoughts on what the practical difficulty actually is. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Circumstances unique to the property is somewhat suggestive; however, the curvature of the front lot line is unusual. Also, the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood and there are no economic considerations. Ms. Breanna Zarmbinski, 916 Adeline Court and Mr. Adam Bender with Ispiri, LLC were available for comments and questions. Ms. Zarmbinski explained that this is the home she grew up in and she and her husband have purchased it from her parents. They are updating the property and making it their home. Chair Magnuson asked, if the porch was not part of their plans, how much impact would that have on the whole concept of their remodel, or if it was something that could be modified or work around to come into closer compliance with the setback requirements. Mr. Zarmbinski replied that one of the functionalities is that the home currently has a very large great room with a small closet area, but not a lot of space for people to sit and remove their shoes or winter gear. They are trying to create a more functional area and that is the reason for the foyer. The idea of the porch was to continue the curb appeal of the home similar to the neighboring properties. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-08 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: page 193 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 5 i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the front-yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8-feet into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019-08). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. Commissioner Noonan stated that he was having a hard time seeing the practical difficulties. The staff report talks about the reason for the variance was to accommodate an expansion that provides greater convenience on the inside of the house. The granting of the variance should not be a convenience to the application. Saying that the nature of the house on the inside provides a rationale does not rise to meeting the practical difficulty test. He questioned how far the page 194 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 5 Commission should go to protect the zoning and the setbacks, which are established for certain reasons. He believed that this would make the granting of variances rather trite. Commissioner Mazzitello explained that the reason he chose to move this application for approval, and he partially agreed with Commissioner Noonan, was that, although the practical difficulty definition was weak but he could see the rationale behind it. The existing floor plan of the house really has no foyer space whatsoever. The front door opens into and covers the closet and empties right into the family room. What they are proposing is to have a foyer space, which is relatively common throughout the city, in the front entranceway of the home. Because the initial construction of the building, the shape of the lot, the curvature of the lot line – constructing that foyer space inside the existing frame of the house is not practical. It is difficult to be practical. Because of what has already been built and plumbed within that house – stairwell, bathroom – are things that do not get moved in renovations. He could see where there was a difficulty in obtaining that foyer space within the existing building footprint and abiding by the setback. Commissioner Noonan said, with that argument, one could say that an existing floor plan of an existing house could meet the test of practical difficulty if someone wished to create something significantly at odds with the original. Commissioner Mazzitello understood what Commissioner Noonan was saying; however, each Variance request stands on its own merit. In this particular instance, although he agrees that the practical difficulty test is weak, he could see where there is a difficulty in updating and renovating this home to current standards. Chair Magnuson agreed that if the Commission were to continue granting variances based solely on reasonableness without a strong showing of practical difficulty they undermine the zoning ordinance. She commented that she would be interested in seeing if the front porch could be smaller so the encroachment becomes de minimis. Commissioner Katz shared his opinion that if one were to make this amount of remodeling to the house, it makes a lot of sense to change structurally the interior of the house and that it, in many ways, meets the definition of practical difficulty. He would support the motion on the floor. Chair Magnuson stated that all she has heard is that the shape of the property could possibly contribute to the practical difficulty, the home is not really susceptible to be creating a foyer internally given the layout of the current home, and there are older people in the family who need to sit down to remove their shoes. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the property to the east has a very similar front porch; although it sits back further from the property line because of the curve of the cul-de-sac. So meeting the character of the neighborhood is met. Commissioner Corbett stated that the granting of this variance would be in line with what is going on in the Comprehensive Plan with the encouragement of remodeling of homes so that multiple generations can use and stay in the home. Making these adaptations of things like this is helpful. Again, approving the Variance would be in line with that type of effort. page 195 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 5 It was noted that the new Comprehensive Plan has not yet been approved. Chair Magnuson called for the vote. AYES: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Katz) NAYS: 2 (Noonan, Magnuson) ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019 meeting. page 196 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-31 Approving a Wetlands Permit for 2458 Bridgeview Court (Planning Case No. 2019-09) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting Resolution No. 2019-31, which approves a Wetlands Permit to Philip & Margaret Johnson, owners of the property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court. Background City Code Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. The Johnson’s wish to remove an old deck off the back of the home, and replace it with a new style deck in the same area. All new work will have very minimal (if any) impacts to the adjacent pond and wetland feature. At the April 23, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this Wetlands Permit application item was presented for consideration under an official public hearing. There were no comments from the public. A copy of the 04/23/19 Planning Staff Report, with plans, attachments and supporting information, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this council memo report. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a Wetlands Permit, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (by 5-0 vote) of the application for the Wetlands Permit, with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-31 APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 197 Res 2019-31 Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-31 RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT WHEREAS, Philip & Margaret Johnson (the “Applicant”) have applied for a Wetlands Permit under Planning Case No. 2019-09 for the property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court , 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, is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is located adjacent to an established wetland and Rogers Lake; and WHEREAS, the Applicants seek permission to remove an old deck and construct a new deck on the rear part of the existing dwelling located on the Subject Property, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, all new construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within one-hundred (100) feet of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, 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 (by 5-0 vote) of the Wetlands Permit for the property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, 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 recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Wetlands Permit application for the property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-09, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. page 198 Res 2019-31 Page 2 B. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12- 2-1 Wetlands Systems. C. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. D. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands, due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from the wetland. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Wetlands Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-09 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. page 199 Res 2019-31 Page 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 2019. 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 200 Res 2019-31 Page 4 Exhibit-A Legal Description PID# 27-15150-04-010 LOT 1, BLOCK 4, BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 1ST ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA page 201 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: April 23, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-09 Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Philip & Margaret Johnson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2458 Bridgeview Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the replacement of an older deck with construction of a new 685 sq. ft. deck structure off the back of the home. The subject property is located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, and is situated adjacent to an established Type III wetland (fresh water pond). A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND The property has a 4,288 sf. single-family residential structure, built in 1992. The platted lot consists of 0.68 acres, part of which lies within the back pond (water) area. The applicants currently seek to remove and replace the old deck, with a newer 685-sf. curvilinear style deck in the same location. EXISTING DECK NEW DECK DESIGN Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-6; any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city. The following activities require a permit: 1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. page 202 Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 2 of 7 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. The current back edge (corner) of the house and existing deck structure measure approximately 50-ft. and 65-ft. respectively from the wetland edge (see image below). ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential dwelling qualifies as a permitted use in the applicable zoning district, subject to full city approvals; and should remain compliant with the current 2030 Plan and the expected 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.  Wetlands Permit Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100- feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and page 203 Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 3 of 7 5. Ensure safety from floods. City Code Title 12-2-7 provides a list of standards and conditions for the granting of a Wetland Permit within the City. These standards are appended to the bottom of this report. It appears all major construction related to the building of the new deck should have little, if any effect upon the adjacent wetland. The existing rear yard buffer space (from structure to wetland edge) will remain virtually the same. The new deck will be supported by either existing concrete frost piers or new ones as needed. There are no plans for any new or major grading work as part of this deck project. Any excavation or digging of posts will be require silt-fence protection all around the work area prior to any construction in or around this wetland area. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) provides certain guides and suggested standards for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The LSWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any fertilizer/chemical runoff from the lawn areas. The subject properties and neighboring properties appear to have this buffer in place. The scope and scale of this proposed new home project fits in nicely with the overall size of the property; and due to the proximity of the wetland and adjacent lake, most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area in and around where the old deck exists today. Due to this relatively minor scale of the project on this large parcel, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. page 204 Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 4 of 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to Philip and Margaret Johnson, and for the property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, which would allow the construction of a new deck structure on the rear portion of the home, based on the attached findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. page 205 Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 5 of 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit for 2458 Bridgeview Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems. 3. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 4. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands, due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from the wetland. page 206 Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 6 of 7 TITLE 12-2-7: STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF [WETLANDS] PERMIT: A. Specific Standards: No permits shall be issued unless it is determined that the proposed action within a W district complies with the following requirements: 1. Dredging and/or filling shall be located in areas of minimal vegetation. 2. Dredging activities shall not significantly reduce the water flow characteristics or ponding capacity. 3. The size of the dredged material shall be limited to the absolute minimum and said limits designated on the dredging/grading plan. 4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not result in a significant change in the current water flows, ponding, or in destruction of vegetation, fish spawning areas, or in pollution of water. 5. Earthwork will not be performed during the breeding season of waterfowl or the fish spawning season. 6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large scale development or PUD. In other residential developments, dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of boat channels and marina by two (2) or more adjacent property owners. The width of a boat channel to be dredged shall be no more than the minimum required for the safe operation of boats at minimum operating speeds. 7. No part of any septic tank system or any other sewage disposal system requiring on land or in the ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than fifty feet (50') from the edge of a W district boundary, unless it can be shown that no effluent can reach the wetland because of existing physical characteristics of the site. On-site sewage disposal systems shall be permitted only if they meet state and city regulations. 8. Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity. 9. No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area. 10. W district lands may not be used for disposal of organic refuse or garbage material typically disposed of in a landfill. No part of a wetland should be used for a sanitary landfill. 11. Lowest floor elevation of buildings located within the W district must be at least three feet (3') above the highest known water level. 12. No development shall be allowed in the W district which will endanger the health, safety, and welfare of persons or which will result in unusual maintenance costs to road and parking areas or the breaking or leaking of utility lines. 13. Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter. 14. Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property. 15. The proposed action will not cause storm water runoff to take place at a rate which would exceed the natural rate of runoff occurring from a rainstorm of a twenty four (24) hour duration and a once in two (2) year frequency. 16. Any increase in runoff due to the proposed action will be detained on the site for infiltration through the soil to the water table. Detention of water shall be calculated on the basis of 100- year frequency rainfall published by the U.S. weather bureau. page 207 Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 7 of 7 17. The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain undisturbed by the development of the site. a. Drainage water shall be directed in such a manner as to travel over natural areas rather than across contaminated surfaces. b. Treatment of runoff prior to release to natural drainage shall be provided for parking areas and land uses which manufacture products likely to contaminate ground water. c. No portion of any septic tank drain field shall be located closer than four and one-half feet (41/2') from the highest known water table on the site or underlying bedrock. 18. Land shall be developed in the smallest practical increment at any one time and for only the shortest practical period of time, not to exceed a single construction season. 19. Sufficient control measures and retention facilities shall be put in place prior to commencement of each development increment to limit gross soil loss from the development site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year. 20. Existing wetlands shall not be used as sediment traps. 21. Sediment yield from construction sites adjacent to streams and lakes shall not exceed two (2) tons per acre per year. 22. The person seeking the development permit shall be required to demonstrate that after the development is completed the conditions on the site will be stabilized such that the yearly soil loss from the site will not be greater than 0.5 tons per acre. 23. Development of woodlands shall not reduce the existing crown cover by more than fifty percent (50%). The removal of trees seriously damaged by storms or other act of God, or diseased trees shall not be prohibited. (1981 Code 402 § 7) page 208 2458 2464 701 701 2458 2450 2480 2455 2470 2461 2464 2480 BRIDGEVIEW C T Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights040 SCALE IN FEETDate: 4/9/2019 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. 2458 Bridgeview CourtPhilip & Margaret Johnson(Planning Case No. 2019-09 page 209 page 210 page 211 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 2 B) PLANNING CASE #2019-09 PHILIP & MARGARET JOHNSON, 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Philip and Margaret Johnson; a request for Wetlands Permit to remove an existing deck and construct a new 685 square foot deck off the back of the home. The property, located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, is situated next to a fresh water pond. This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received one phone call from a neighboring property owner who had no objections or concerns and voice their support of the project. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in its current state and a rendering of the proposed deck. He then shared the 23 standards and conditions of a Wetlands Permit, as listed in Title 12-2-7. He noted that all major construction related to the building of the new deck should have little, if any, effect upon the adjacent wetland and that the existing rear yard buffer would remain virtually the same. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) recommends a 25-foot no- disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, which this property and neighboring properties appear to have and would not be affected by this work. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the new deck surface would be impervious. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Noonan asked for the size of the old deck. Mr. Benetti did not measure but he believed it to be a little bit smaller than the new. Commissioner Noonan noted that the old deck was on stilts and asked for the relationship of the new deck to the ground. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be the same elevation with stilts. Mr. Mark King from Infinite Decks, contractor, came forward on behalf of the owners who could not be in attendance. In response to the questions asked by the Commission, he noted that the new deck would be on the same level (approximately 9 feet off the ground) as the old and would be using the majority of the existing footings. Any new footings installed would be of helical piles, which will be driven in; no concrete and no soil removal. The surface will be permeable. Commissioner Noonan asked how much larger the new deck would be from the old. Mr. King replied that it is approximately 40 square feet larger. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. page 212 EXCERPTS April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 2 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-09 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems. 3. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 4. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands, due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from the wetland. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019 meeting. page 213 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: City Attorney Services RFP Date: May 7, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to approve the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for general municipal legal services, so as to obtain City Attorney services. Background: Since May, 2013, Mendota Heights has had its municipal legal services provided by the firm of Eckberg Lammers. The first E-L attorney assigned to Mendota Heights was Tom Lehmann, who left in 2018 to become a district court judge. His successor has been Andy Pratt. However, on April 22nd, Mr. Pratt informed me that he is leaving the firm to take another position. His last day with E-L will be May 9th. He will be starting with his new firm on May 13th. Discussion: As it has been several years since an RFP for a City Attorney has been sought, it should be done at this time. The City does not have a formal contract with E-L at this time, and so there are no notices which need to be provided to that firm. Mr. Pratt has agreed to stay on to provide City Attorney services through the completion of the RFP process. This is important, so that continuity can be provided, especially given that the Village lots RFP, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan consideration will be considered in the upcoming weeks. If it is agreeable to the City Council to have Mr. Pratt serve as interim attorney, his would continue to bill his hours at the same rate, which is approximately $150 per hour, and a $200 flat rate for City Council meetings. RFP Scope: I recommend that this RFP be sought for general municipal legal services only. The City currently has other law firms which provide specialized legal advice in the areas of criminal prosecution, municipal bond issuance, and labor and personnel law. We have been satisfied with those providers; however, if page 214 new proposals for those specialty areas are desired, I recommend that the discussion of RFP’s for those wait until the new general City Attorney firm is in place. Attached is a proposed RFP for general municipal services. It spells out what is required of respondents; the resulting information should be used to determine what firm should be chosen as the next City Attorney firm to serve Mendota Heights. We are aware of at least a dozen legal firms to whom it should be sent. Selection Process: In the RFP, it is recommended that there be four weeks during which time the law firms can respond. The last time that there was a City Attorney selection process in Mendota Heights, the City Council appointed two of its members to meet with staff, and together that committee narrowed the firms down to a manageable number for “finalist” interviews. The full Council then conducted those interviews at a special Council meeting. If the Council is comfortable with the same process, it should appoint two of its members to sit on the preliminary selection committee. We recommend that the Council then conduct the finalist interviews as a special City Council meeting, which is proposed to be June 25th. Official approval of a contract with the new firm could be considered by the City Council as early as July 2nd. Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council review the proposed RFP. If Council is in agreement, it should affirm that the dates in the schedule are acceptable (including the proposed interview schedule), and direct that the RFP be sent out for responses. It should designate two members of the City Council to serve on the selection committee. Finally, it should authorize the continuance of services of Andy Pratt as interim City Attorney, until the completion of the RFP process. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct the following: 1. Direct staff to advertise the RFP for General Municipal Legal services. 2. Appoint two Council members to serve on a preliminary section committee to narrow the number of candidate firms for interviews, and 3. Designate Mr. Andy Pratt to be interim City Attorney until otherwise designated __________________________ Mark McNeill City Administrator page 215 City of Mendota Heights Legal Services Request for Proposals May, 2019 page 216 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights desires to retain the services of a City Attorney and staff to provide general municipal legal services. Note that the City has separate agreements for the provision of bond counsel, prosecution services, and labor and personnel issues. Therefore, while general assistance and expertise may be asked of the general services legal counsel in these areas, the primary source of advice in those specific areas will be those other firms. II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSERS A. All proposals must be formatted in a PDF document, and sent to: Lorri Smith, City Clerk lorris@mendota-heights.com B. All proposals shall be submitted via e-mail. As a result, no paper copies of the proposal need to be printed or mailed to the City. C. Questions about this proposal shall be directed to: Mark McNeill, City Administrator markm@mendota-heights.com D. All proposals must be received no later than 11:30 AM. on Friday, June 7th, 2019. III. PROPOSAL CONTENT A. Title Page: Show the RFP subject, the name of the firm, local address, telephone number, email, website, name of contact person and the date. B. Table of Contents: Include a clear identification of the material by section and page number. IV. PROPOSAL FOR GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES / CITY ATTORNEY At a minimum, the proposal shall include: a. The areas of expertise and general services available. b. The general qualifications of the firm as related to the requested services. page 217 c. The proposal should address each of the activities outlined in the scope of work. The proposal should expand upon each item and set forth the firm’s approach/ability to carry out each activity. d. The name, experience and qualifications of the person who will be responsible for fulfilling the obligations as City Attorney, and his or her designees. e. The qualifications and resumes of other professional staff that will be responsible for providing legal services. f. The availability of the aforementioned staff. g. List and describe any previous or current experience in municipal legal services, specify activities performed, and the name of a person who may be contacted at the municipality. h. A list of previous or current activities performed for the City of Mendota Heights. i. Define any potential conflicts of interest the firm might have providing services to the City. j. Describe the firm’s research capabilities, and the references utilized. Detail the firm’s capability to maintain a proper response time for legal reports and memos. k. Provide a detailed description and explanation of all fees and/or charges that may arise for provided municipal legal services. Rates should be clearly stated for all levels of staff expected to perform services. Scope of Work: a. Legal Action: The City Attorney’s office would be involved in any civil action brought against the City that is not covered by the City’s liability insurance. These typically have to do with actions being brought as a result of actions of the Planning Commission and City Council, whereby a developer or applicant requests the court that the action be overturned. Other civil actions include condemnation for street and utility right-of- way, actions being brought either by or against the City regarding nuisance issues, and injunctions brought for or against the City where the City’s liability insurance carrier defends the claims. b. Advisor to the City Council, Committees and Staff: The City Attorney also acts as advisor to the City Council and its advisory committees (such as the Planning Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission), and staff. These functions include attending and reviewing minutes for the Regular City Council meetings, and special City Council meetings, or other meetings as directed by the City Administrator or City Council. These activities include the preparation of opinions regarding page 218 miscellaneous legal issues including zoning, platting, risk management, the issuance of permits, procedural matters dealing with operation of the City Council and Planning Commission and other advisory groups. c. Improvement and Redevelopment Projects: The City Attorney’s office is involved in assistance with improvement projects including sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and street improvements. These functions include the acquisition and negotiation for all easements for street and utility purposes including condemnation where necessary, assistance in assessment issues including the preparation of assessment rolls and advising the Council in assessment hearings and other proceedings. In addition, the firm will handle all assessment appeals to the District Court and prepare and assemble transcripts for all General Obligation bond issues in cooperation with bond counsel for the City. The firm will also provide counsel on matters of economic development activities including development, redevelopment, enforcement, and TIF plan preparation and property and real estate law and property sales and acquisitions. d. Miscellaneous Legal Issues: In addition, the City Attorney’s office is involved in areas such as ordinance drafting, preparation of documents including development agreements and planned unit development agreements, preparation of agreements of a miscellaneous nature, review of transcripts for industrial revenue and tax exempt mortgage financing or refinancing, negotiation for the acquisition, sale or transfer of title to personal property and land acquisition of easements by the City for miscellaneous purposes including parks, general advice to the City regarding building permits, zoning, platting, assistance with insurance issues, property maintenance and code enforcement, general employee relations, etc. V. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD A. The City intends to award a contract to the proposer(s) evaluated to be best qualified to perform the work for the City, cost and other factors considered. B. Based upon the evaluation, the City Administrator will recommend to the City Council the selection of the firm(s) judged to be the most responsive and responsible proposer for each position. The City Council may choose to conduct interviews of those firms they deem fit. The actual selection of the firm(s) and contract awards will be made by the City Council. C. The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by the proposer including, but not limited to, expenses associated with the preparation of the proposal or final contract negotiations. page 219 D. The City of Mendota Heights reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to request additional information from any or all proposers. E. It is anticipated that the City will establish a relationship with a selected firm for a minimum of three (3) years. A contract for one year with annual renewals is expected. Each party may terminate the contract with 90-day notice. VI. LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT EXECUTION A. Contract Negotiations – Notwithstanding a contract award, the City reserves the right to negotiate the final terms and conditions of the contract to be executed. Should the City and the proposer(s), to whom the contract(s) is recommended to be awarded, be unable to mutually agree upon the entire contract, the City reserves the right to discontinue negotiations, select another proposer or reject all of the proposals. Upon completion of negotiations agreeable to the City and proposer, a contract shall be executed. B. Contract Ethics – 1. No elected official or employee of the City who exercises any responsibilities in the review, approval or implementation of the proposal or contract shall participate in any decision which affects his or her direct or indirect personal or financial interest. 2. It is a breach of ethical standards for any person to offer, give or agree to give any City employee or Council person or for any City employee or Council person to solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from another person or firm, a gratuity or an offer of employment whenever a consideration was motivated by an individual, group or corporate desire to obtain special, preferential, or more favorable treatment than is normally accorded to the general public. 3. The firm(s) shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent of the City. 4. The firm(s) shall not accept any client or project which, by nature, places it in an ethical conflict with its representation of the City of Mendota Heights. VII. CITY INFORMATION 1. General - Mendota Heights is a first ring suburb of the Twin Cities, and is adjacent to the City of St. Paul, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. It was incorporated in 1956, and is nearly fully developed. It has a population of 11,100, and is seen as a desirable community in which to live, with a well-educated and involved citizenry. The tax-base is page 220 primarily residential, although it have does have a mature Commercial Industrial Park. Mendota Heights provides Police and Fire Services to the Cities of Mendota and Lilydale, and Fire Services to the City of Sunfish Lake. It buys water services from the St. Paul Regional Water System. 2. City Organization - The City of Mendota Heights is as a statutory, Plan A City and has a Council/Administrator form of government. The City provides a full array of municipal services and general administrative functions. 3. City Council - The Mendota Heights City Council is the final review and approval authority regarding all contracts, payments, plans, improvements, policies, procedures, and other business of the City. The City Council, composed of four members and the Mayor, is the legislative and policy making body of the City. The Mayor, who presides over City Council meetings, is elected at large for a two-year term. The Councilmembers are also elected at large for staggered, four-year terms. The current composition of the City Council is as follows: Name Title Term Expires Neil Garlock Mayor December 31, 2020 Ultan Duggan Councilmember December 31, 2022 Elizabeth Petschel Councilmember December 31, 2022 Jay Miller Councilmember December 31, 2020 Joel Paper Councilmember December 31, 2020 4. City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. City Council work sessions are scheduled as needed. 5. City Administrator - The City Administrator reviews and coordinates all matters coming before the City Council. The Administrator is responsible for the implementation of Council direction and the coordination and management of City departments on a daily basis. 6. City Staff - The City Administrator implements Council direction through the Department Heads. 7. On average for the three preceding years, the City generates about 245 hours of general legal services per year, which is in addition to the City Council meetings, referenced in (4) above. page 221 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE City Council Approval of RFP May 7, 2019 Distribute/Advertise RFP’s May 10, 2019 RFP Submittal Deadline June 7, 2019 Initial Review of Proposals June 10-21, 2019 City Council Interviews June 25, 2019 City Council Approval July 2, 2019 City Council Meeting page 222 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Comprehensive Plan Workshop Date Date: May 7, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to set a date at which to review the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the City, and give direction as to an additional Public Hearing. Background: On April 22nd, following seven Public Hearings over approximately a year and a half’s time, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. The City Council could act on the Comp Plan at the May 7th meeting, which would be to accept the preliminary version and direct that plan be distributed to neighboring jurisdictions for comments over the next six months. However, there are likely going to be additional comments. For that reason, it is recommended that the City Council hold a workshop to discuss the Comp Plan in detail. Knowing that there will be interest from residents, an evening meeting is recommended, and that the City Council Chambers be the meeting location so as to more comfortably accommodate observers. There are no plans to cablecast the meeting, unless the Council directs otherwise. The City Council Chambers is available on the following dates: May 13— Monday (note that if chosen, an HOA meeting previously scheduled for the Council Chambers that evening will need to be re-booked) May 15—Wednesday May 16—Thursday See the attached calendar. The Council should also choose a starting time for the workshop. Finally, the City Council should determine whether it wants to hold an additional official Public Hearing by the City Council at the time that the Comp Plan is anticipated to be formally considered (tentatively scheduled for May 21st), or whether accommodations should be made instead for less formal, but still page 223 public comments? The difference is whether formal advertisement of a Public Hearing will need to be made. Recommendation: The Council should decide on a time and date to hold a workshop for the Comp Plan consideration, and also direct whether a formal Public Hearing should be advertised. Action Required If the City Council concurs, it should determine a date and starting time at which to hold a workshop to consider the Planning Commission’s recommended version of the Comprehensive Plan. It should also determine whether the formal consideration of the Comp Plan at a subsequent City Council meeting should be done as an official Public Hearing, or instead to accommodate public comments at the City Council meeting. page 224 Airport Comm Mtg | 7pmJoint Mtg w/Eagan ARC Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm City Council Mtg | 7pm City Council Mtg | 7pm Cinco de Mayo Mother’s Day Armed Forces Day City Hall and PublicWorks Closed Memorial Day Victoria Day (Canada) Yom HaShoah Ramadan begins Na�onal Police Week Na�onal EMS Week SBA Na�onal Small Business Week Military Apprecia�on Month | Older American’s Month | Na�onal Building Safety Month Lailat Ul Qadr Kentucky Derby Military Spouse Apprecia�on Day Peace Officers Memorial Day Na�onal Defense Transporta�on Day Preakness Stakes Na�onal Mari�me Day Na�onal Missing Children’s Day City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm www.mendota-heights.com City of MHParks Celebra�on begins in the evening page 225 Lailat al-Qadr Airport Comm Mtg | 7pm Plan Comm Mtg | 7pm Parks Comm Mtg | 6:30pm City Council Mtg | 7pm City Council Mtg | 7pm Father’s Day Flag Day First Day of Summer Shavuot Eid al-Fitr - Ramadan ends CPR & AED Awareness Month Shavuot D-Day Observance Belmont Stakes American Eagle Day City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 | City Hall: M-F | 8-4:30 pm www.mendota-heights.com City of MH Parks Celebra�on & Officer Sco� Patrick Memorial 5K Run/Walk for Special Olympics page 226