Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-07-02 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 2, 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. Approval of June 18, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Resolution 2019-45 Approve Park Bench Donation to Ivy Hills Park d. Approve Resolution 2019-43 Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for the Marie Avenue Pedestrian Underpass Replacement e. Approve Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements – Change Order f. Approve Resolution 2019-49 Authorize the Donations of Bicycles and a Popcorn Machine g. Approve Out of State Travel Request for City Administrator h. Approve Out of State Travel Request for Police Department i. Acknowledge April Par 3 Financial Report j. Approve Mendota Heights Athletic Association Lease Agreement k. Approve the May 2019 Financial Report l. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 7. Presentations a. 2018 Audit 8. Public Hearings - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2019-46 Denying (or Approving) a Variance for Reduced Driveway Setback at 1562 Wachtler Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-14) b. Resolution 2019-47 Approving a Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition at 777 Wentworth Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-17) c. Resolution 2019-48 Approving (or Denying) Variances for Increased Structure Heights in the R-1 Residential District at Henry Sibley High School, 1870 Delaware Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-18) d. Ordinance No. 542 Amend Title 12, Chapter 1, Article D, General Zoning Provisions Regarding Certain Fence Regulations and Standards e. Par 3 Irrigation Control System f. Review of the Mendota Heights Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Plan g. Resolution 2019-44 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements h. Resignation from Ira Kipp from the Parks and Recreation Commission 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 18, 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 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL BY PAUL OBERHAUS, CPMI Mr. Paul Oberhaus, CPMI, is the construction manager of the Fire Station Expansion/Remodel project. He stated that they have the majority of the site cleared and the foundation is in the ground for the majority of the building addition. They have started the ambulance addition. They are hoping that this week the Xcel power line will be rerouted and that grading on the north side can start next week. They are a few weeks behind schedule; however, he noted that it is early in the project. They will hopefully make up the time if they have good weather. He pointed out that even though they have had a slow start, they have procured the materials needed for the job. All of the shop drawings have been submitted and approved. The plotters are working on fabricating the steel. The masonry and brick has been ordered. Councilor Duggan asked if they were having any challenges with the contractors in relation to having the work force to do the work. Mr. Oberhaus replied in the negative. page 3 B) 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION REVIEW BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE RUTH RICHARDSON Minnesota Representative Ruth Richardson provided a brief recap of the legislative session. She was appointed to three committees: the Transportation, Finance and Policy Division; the Education Finance Division; and Commerce. She was also appointed to the Pensions Commission. There were over 2,500 bills that were introduced this session. As one of two divided legislatures in the U.S., the Minnesota Legislature had had an interesting session in terms of being able to find some common ground. Transportation In terms of what the Transportation Omnibus Bill ended up looking like that Governor Walz signed into law, she said that it really was a status quo bill. Things will stay much the same for Mendota Heights in terms of municipal state aid. With the MnDOT commission orders, it is just over $600,000 that would continue to flow to Mendota Heights for maintenance and construction. She was grateful for the help in getting the Mendota Heights Fire Station sales and use tax exemption passed. She thanked City Administrator McNeill, Mayor Garlock, and Fire Chief Dreelan for coming down to testify before the committee to help get that passed. She also appreciated the support from Representative Rick Hansen and Senator Matt Klein. The estimated cost savings to the City will be $190,000. There was also a Sales & Use Tax Exemption for the Dakota County SMART Center that passed. That will have some impact for Mendota Heights, with a county-wide estimated cost savings of $260,000. Education She said that District 197 is going to see an approximate 1.8% increase over its base in fiscal 2020. In fiscal 2021, they will be seeing an increase of 3.6%. They were also able to preserve all of the Pre-K slots in District 197. One of the challenges faced this session was the lack of a bonding bill. There is talk of a special session in September 2019. If this occurs, it is possible that a bonding bill could potentially be discussed. Additional Items Representative Rick Hanson took a leadership role in securing funding for Chronic Wasting Disease of approximately $6.8M; Aquatic Invasive Species secured approximately $6M; and $1M for Emerald Ash Borer was secured. page 4 In July, she will be attending an Energy Summit in Düsseldorf, Germany. She will be able to learn about what a number of cities are doing in terms of cleaner forms of energy. She will provide an update when she returns. Councilor Petschel asked for clarification that the Bonding Bill is also referred to as the Infrastructure Bill. Representative Richardson replied that ‘infrastructure’ is used in a few different ways. In terms of the Transportation Infrastructure Bill, with bonding, there is also infrastructure that is included. Councilor Duggan expressed gratitude for the sales tax exemption on the materials to be used for the fire station addition and remodel. Representative Richardson concluded by explaining that the next session would be a shorter session, as it is a policy year. There could potentially be a supplemental budget so if there are any issues that the city was thinking about potentially moving forward, she would be available this summer to talk about them. If the city wants to have a good chance of moving something forward, they would need to get those bills drafted now so they are ready for the shorter session. City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded the public about a meeting scheduled for June 24, 2019, in the Mendota Heights Council Chambers. Representative Hanson, Senator Klein, and Representative Richardson will be providing a recap of the legislative session. They will also be hosting Representative Frank Hornstein, who will be speaking about the transportation policy. 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, pulling items e.) Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Participation, h.) Accept Retirement Notice of Firefighter John Boland from the Mendota Heights Fire Department, j,) Approve Invoice from Saint Paul Regional Water for the Dodd Road Watermain Offset, and k.) Approval of Resolution 2019-38 Accepting Donations for City Events. a. Approval of June 4, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of June 4, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the May 14, 2019 Parks/Rec Commission Minutes d. Acknowledge the May 23, 2019 Parks/Rec Work Session Minutes e. Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Participation f. Acknowledge the 2020 Budget Timeline g. Approve the Liquor License for Haiku MH Inc. dba Haiku Japanese Bistro h. Accept Retirement Notice of Firefighter John Boland from the Mendota Heights Fire Department i. Approve Public Works Lead Worker Appointment j. Approve Invoice from Saint Paul Regional Water for the Dodd Road Watermain Offset k. Approval of Resolution 2019-38 Accepting Donations for City Events l. Approval of Claims List page 5 Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS E) BEYOND THE YELLOW RIBBON (BTYR) PARTICIPATION Mayor Garlock explained that this item was brought to the city’s attention by a former member of the West St. Paul City Council, who is a member of the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Chapter there. He noted that this involves the active duty, retired, former, and disabled veterans. If a problem becomes known for a service person or their families, they would help the person or their family at no cost. Beyond the Yellow Ribbon would raise funds through local businesses and it would be a non-profit organization. Mayor Garlock noted that the Red Bull Infantry Division is going to be deployed. It is anticipated that needs could arise while they are deployed. Mayor Garlock has volunteered to serve on the steering committee and would recruit other individuals who are interested in veterans and military affairs to volunteer their time. Councilor Duggan moved to endorse the formation of a joint Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Committee with the cities of Mendota, Lilydale, and West St. Paul, and to authorize staff support. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 H) ACCEPT RETIREMENT NOTICE OF FIREFIGHTER JOHN BOLAND FROM THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT Councilor Miller took this opportunity to recognize Firefighter John Boland for his contributions and service to the Fire Department. John has been a member of the Mendota Heights Fire Department for 21 years. During that time, he filled the roles of Captain and Vice-President of the Board of Trustees. John is unique in that he brings calmness throughout the department. Councilor Duggan noted that he knew John Boland’s father, Mike Boland who was a teacher at Cretin Durham. He could see where that even temperament flowed from father to son. Councilor Petschel moved to accept, with reluctance, the retirement of John Boland from the Fire Department and to formally thank John for his 21 years of service as a firefighter. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 J) APPROVE INVOICE FROM SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER FOR THE DODD ROAD WATERMAIN OFFSET Councilor Petschel noted the memo received from Saint Paul Regional Water (SPRW) and that they are not going to adjust the invoice any further than they already have for the watermain offset page 6 and valve relocation on Dodd Road. She requested that the City Attorney look at the City’s agreement with SPRWS and make sure that the two directives noted in the memo are in the agreement, and, if not, they are to be added to the agreement. Councilor Duggan stated there is an onus on the part of SPRWS, as well as the city engineering department, to be sure that things are done right. SPRWS has not communicated to the city in a timely manner. Councilor Duggan also reminded the Council that the city needs a representative on the Saint Paul Regional Water Board. Councilor Petschel moved to authorize payment of the invoice from St. Paul Regional Water Services for watermain offset and valve relocation on Dodd Road and directed staff and the City Attorney to assure that the two suggested addendums are in the agreement if they are not already. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 K) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2019-38 ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR EVENTS Mayor Garlock noted the revised resolution presented. There were 90+ people who donated prizes to the Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K walk/run. He noted $5,000 received from the Mendota American Veterans Post 1; $2,500 received from Robert Brackey, who he said probably has donated more than anyone in the history of the 5K for 14 years; and $1,000 received from Gateway Bank, the initial sponsor of the 5K. They also provided the post-race pizza party, which was valued at $919.94. Councilor Duggan suggested that someone take the t-shirts for the previous 5K’s and create a special prize to raffle off. Councilor Petschel noted that it would be interesting if a quilt could be made out of them and then auction it off. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-38 ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY FOR THE OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL 5K RACE, THE PARKS CELEBRATION, AND THE CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jason Eggers, 2260 Wagon Wheel Court, noted a large amount of buckthorn on his property, which he has been trying to clear. He requested the use of goats which he would rent from a company. He knows that they have been used on public land with success and asked the Council to consider this as a non-herbicide alternative to help clear the buckthorn because he feels he is fighting a losing battle. page 7 Councilor Petschel noted that the city has used goats on the Pilot Knob site. One of her concerns would be the goats fouling the wetlands, where this property is located. She would be interested in learning more about private individuals renting goats. Councilor Duggan noted that he would be supportive of the idea. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that staff would research this idea and report back to Council. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS RESOLUTION 2019-37 ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TOWN CENTER VILLAGE RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to accept the feasibility report for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Wall Improvement Project. This would schedule the public hearing for July 16, 2019. Mr. Ruzek also asked the Council which kind of wall style they would desire. The consulting engineering firm recommended a small block wall as they are concerned that there may be a need for a larger crane for the boulder wall and the space is very tight. The cost difference for a boulder wall over a small block wall is approximately $18,000. Councilor Duggan asked if the wall behind Walgreens along Dodd Road is nine feet in height. The response was that that wall gets taller in the corner near the Gemini Medical Building. Councilor Duggan recommended that if the small block is used, that maybe it could be tiered or staggered. He stated he would prefer the boulder wall. Councilor Duggan asked if the additional cost for the boulder wall was included in the estimate before the Council. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative. Councilor Miller asked if the boulder wall option is chosen, would the current boulders already on site be repurposed and used. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city owns those boulders, so if they wanted to repurpose them, they could. Councilor Petschel stated she was glad to hear that the homeowners association was allowed to give their opinion on what they would like to see. She asked if everyone was aware of the proposed assessments for this project. Mr. Ruzek replied that he had shared this report with their property management company and with their board. page 8 Upon a question from Councilor Duggan, Mr. Ruzek stated that there are 53 property identification numbers. This report shows 53 individual assessments to the residential homeowners association. There is one person who owns a double unit and a single unit; they would receive two assessments. Councilor Miller stated that, from an aesthetic standpoint, he would prefer the look of the boulder wall. He also believed it would last longer over time. Councilor Paper stated that he would prefer the boulder wall because of the longevity. Mayor Garlock was also in favor of the boulder wall. Councilor Duggan asked if this included the Victoria Road – Walsh Lane retaining wall reconstruction. Mr. Ruzek replied that the intention was to have this bid as an alternate item in the design phase. A public hearing is not required for the Victoria Road – Walsh Lane retaining wall, so it would be set up as an alternate bid. Once the bids are opened, staff would decide how to proceed. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-37 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201810). Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 AWARD HAGSTROM KING PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reminded the Council that at their March 19th meeting, he presented a proposed layout for the Hagstrom King Park playground. It is proposed to be a larger playground than what is currently there. A dual zip line feature is being proposed and some of the existing equipment would be salvaged. Another item discussed at the March 19th meeting was the style of the container to hold in the mulch. The existing container was a plastic border which has not held up. The other parks have composite that looks like timber (8 parks) and concrete (3 parks). Councilor Petschel noted that she would prefer the composite border as it appears there is only a $3,000 difference. Councilor Miller concurred. Councilor Petschel asked if any trees were proposed to be planted. Mr. Ruzek replied that there are two trees to the west. The container would be moved 10-15 feet to the west to take advantage of the shade they provide. There are also a couple of spots inside the playground where trees could be planted. page 9 Councilor Duggan asked if any consideration had been given to installing triangular sunscreens. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff did consider that option, but the vendor had some concerns with adding manufactured shade structures and they recommended the planting of trees within the playground. Councilor Duggan asked if the Minnesota Safety Council had a preference for the manufactured shading versus natural trees. Mr. Ruzek replied that the state would not weigh in with a preference as shading is not a requirement. Councilor Paper asked what the difference was between the new swings and the ones there now. Mr. Ruzek replied that the current swings are wobbly. Also, when speaking with the vendors, the cost of rehabilitating the current swings and installing new is almost the same. Councilor Paper asked what would be done with the existing play equipment that would be replaced. Mr. Ruzek replied that is undetermined at this point. The project costs include demolition and disposal by the vendor. Councilor Paper asked if the city was allowed to donate the equipment. Mr. Ruzek replied that both vendors indicated that there was not a local market for donated equipment. There is a company that ships the equipment to other countries. He stated that staff could call around to see if one of the local churches has any interest in the equipment. Councilor Paper asked what the timeframe is for this project. Mr. Ruzek replied that they would be looking at late August or early September for installation. Councilor Paper stated the city could then have time to advertise the old equipment. Mr. Ruzek agreed. Councilor Paper suggested that staff take the time to find a place to donate the equipment to, rather than see it demolished. Mayor Garlock agreed with the idea of donating the equipment to a local organization. Councilor Duggan moved to award the Playground Improvement Contract to Mn-Wi Playground for a not-to-exceed amount of $160,000, that efforts be made to donate the existing play equipment to a non-profit for their use, and that trees be planted within the new playground. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HAGSTROM KING PARK PORTABLE TOILET LOCAT ION Public Works Director Ruzek noted that there has been lengthy discussions over the location of the portable toilet at Hagstrom King Park. He understands that the cleaning trucks cannot drive on the trail and residents within the area do not want the toilet located in the parking lot. If it were moved to the place being proposed, between the second and third trees, it would be more out of sight for the neighbors. He also understands that there is a smell when they are being cleaned, however, regular cleaning keeps the smell at a minimum – the city has their portable toilets serviced weekly. page 10 Public Works Director Ruzek commented that determining a location has taken more effort than expected. To build a shelter around this structure is a waste of money because this is a temporary, several months of the year, portable bathroom. Ms. Orapat Sivatanpisit, 600 Hampshire Drive, stated that when she looks out from her home, she sees a portable toilet and it is not a welcoming sight. When she first heard about the new playground, she believed the city would find an accessible spot from the ballfield and the playground. It had been at the same location for 20+ years, but now that location is not ADA compliant. She stated that having a portable toilet greeting visitors to Hagstrom King Park would not be aesthetically pleasing. Councilor Miller interjected that everyone agrees that placing this in an ADA compliant spot is a good thing. He asked about the possibility of planting a tree or two to screen the facility. Mr. Ruzek replied that this recommendation was included in the staff memo. Councilor Paper moved to confirm the location of the portable toilet facility, between the second and third trees on the south side of the trail from the parking lot to the playground and to screen it with coniferous trees. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the Teddy Bear Bank will perform in Mendakota Park on June 19th. Bogey with the Red and Blue is scheduled for June 23rd at the Par 3. He said that this is an opportunity for residents to golf with members of the Fire and Police Departments. The Marie Park Tennis Court Grand Opening for the refurbished tennis courts will be held on June 25th. Members of the United States Tennis Association will be in attendance. A grant for $20,000 hadbeen received from them, which covered almost one-fourth of the refurbishing costs. Finally, he said that the July 4th fireworks display will be held beginning at dusk, and will be shooting from the usual location at Mendakota Country Club. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Duggan wished everyone a happy summer. Councilor Paper expressed his appreciation to Public Works employee Rich Burrows who rescued seven ducklings from the storm sewer line. He expressed his appreciation to the Police Department who responds to everything. He thanked John Boland for his 21 years of service on the Fire Department, and he congratulated Terry Blum for nearly 45 years of service to the city. Councilor Miller mentioned the golfing event with the Police and Fire departments will be held this Sunday at the Par 3. He encouraged residents to attend. page 11 Mayor Garlock expressed his appreciation to Public Works for a situation they rectified this past weekend when a replacement stop sign up for westbound traffic to southbound Hwy 13 was omitted. Councilor Petschel stated that she attended the first quarterly meeting to assist the Metropolitan Airport Commission in developing its 2040 Long-term Comprehensive Plan. They had representatives attend from the communities surrounding the airport, Sun Country, UPS, Delta, area cities’ Chambers of Commerce, a representative from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, representatives from major corporations, and representatives from Americans with Disabilities. These representatives were asked to give their input on what they thought the challenges were going to be at MSP going forward, and what would be the best way to meet those challenges. She had three major takeaways from the meeting. The air freight business is going to be a rapidly growing business. Delta does not see an increase in their operations, however, they do see a steep increase in the number of passengers they are going to bring through the airport, and operating larger planes which may require changes to the jet ways and runways. And, the City of Bloomington owns their Park ‘n Rides and they are taking the licenses away from the businesses who operate them because their land is so valuable. There may be businesses looking for new areas to relocate the Park ‘n Rides to – like the Mendota Heights Industrial Park. ADJOURN Councilor Petschel moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. ___________________________________ Neil Garlock ATTEST: Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 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 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 23, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Petschel stated the minutes reflect he was present and absent, and they should reflect only absent. Commissioner Corbett also asked to change Page 5 - seventh paragraph down, from “Commissioner Corbett stated…” to “Commissioner Katz stated....” COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2019 AS AMENDED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-10 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PROPERTY NEXT TO 2383 PILOT KNOB ROAD INTERIM USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Southview Design was seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow for the temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the adjacent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) owned property. The site is generally located south of the intersection of Highway 13 and Pilot Knob Road, officially addressed as 2383 Pilot Knob Road. The public hearing was properly notified with letters being sent out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. No objections or comments have been received. page 13 Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property as it exists today. It is very typical of a railroad right-of-way; there being no more rails. Mr. Benetti pointed out that although the subject property is located immediately adjacent to Pilot Knob Road there would be no access from Pilot Knob. Southview Design is a landscaping company who hires a lot of seasonal employees who, in the past, have had to park along Enterprise Drive. This has been tolerated but has raised some concerns and issues. Southview Design tried to purchase the land from MnDOT; however, it is under a lease agreement with Dakota County who is considering extending the Big River Regional Trail east to connect to the new Vikings facility development in Eagan. MnDOT is willing to allow Southview to continue to lease the right-of-way space until the county makes a decision on their plans. While MnDOT will not allow the area to be improved with any drainage improvements or any hard surfaces, they have agreed to allow bark mulch to be placed to control weeds and some run- off and provide some form of temporary drive-able surface. Temporary access would be provided down to the lower right-of-way, but no direct access or driveway onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti shared that the City Code Section 12-1D-16 does allow for off-site parking facilities with written authority filed with the city and as long as said parking facilities are located no more than 100 feet from the premises at its closest point. Approval of this requested Interim Use Permit would satisfy the written authority provision. He then explained how the eight standards for approval for an Interim Use Permit were met in this application. Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that Southview Design has a lease with MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed, prompting Commissioner Noonan to state that Dakota County has a lease with MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed that was true as well. Commissioner Toth asked to see the image of the proposed parking area and noted that there was quite a bit of green space – foliage and trees – and asked how they planned to park their cars in this space. Mr. Benetti replied that there was approximately 50 feet before the green space so they would most likely pull their cars up against the boulder wall. Commissioner Toth also asked for confirmation that there would be no access point to the parking area from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed. All cars would enter the site from the current access point to the facility and use a temporary access point down to the temporary parking area. Commissioner Toth noted a yellow marker and asked if that was a gas main running parallel with Pilot Knob and does not run down the center of the right-of-way. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed there was a pipeline running down the center; so they would be parking on top of the pipeline. Commissioner Toth asked if there were any other permit needs to ensure safety to and from the pipeline. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT would be the permitting agency for that – or allowance. They would be like any other private land owner, if they want to allow people to park there it is up to them. It was asked if MnDOT was aware of this parking arrangement. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. page 14 Commissioner Katz asked if there was an estimate as to the number of cars to be parked on this site. Mr. Benetti did not have a specific number. Commissioner Noonan stated that a comment had been made that MnDOT would not allow any improvements on the area to accommodate the parking other than some mulch. He asked if the city allowed other properties to have parking areas that are not improved and if the city had standards on how parking areas should be improved. Mr. Benetti answered that most parking surfaces have to be hard surface – either concrete or bituminous. Commissioner Noonan asked for a reason. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a requirement of the city code for stormwater management. However, in this case MnDOT said they would allow the site to be used but it could not be improved – even with Class 5 surface. Commissioner Noonan then cited the two examples of Interim Use Permits provided by Mr. Benetti – the Xcel and the Minnehaha Academy examples – where they met the definition of an Interim Use because they were here today and gone tomorrow. At the end of December 2020 and they move into the height of the season in 2021, the parking problem is not going to disappear. So essentially the city is ‘kicking the can down the road’. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, he believed the intention here was to match up with what MnDOT was allowing for their lease agreement. It is a two-year timeframe. The applicants have indicated that their lease with MnDOT expires in December 2020. If MnDOT were to choose to extend it, they have the ability to return and ask for another 2-year extension. At that time the city can determine if they provided for a satisfactory use in that 1.5- or 2-year period and if the extension was warranted. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were to be a very wet spring, what rights the city would have to go in and say they needed to address the mud and condition of the property. Mr. Benetti replied it would most likely be a code complaint if they were tracking mud all over the roads and not being good stewards of the land. Looking at their facility and their property, he believed them to be very good stewards and have one of the nicest property’s in the industrial park. Chair Magnuson said that she believed putting down mulch would some benefit to keeping that property from being destroyed from tire tracks and heavy vehicles. However, she saw that the mulch was an allowance but not a requirement. She asked if that was something the Commission wanted to consider – that they be required to put a certain amount of mulch on the property so as to protect it from any kind of heavy rain, damage, or erosion. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and noted that as he walked the site it was clearly a very heavily compacted base to begin with. Putting that little bit of mulch in there is a double layer of protection. Chair Magnuson suggested that a requirement be added that if they do not put down mulch for weed control, it at least has to be regularly mowed. Commissioner Toth stated that it was fair to say that since this was a previous railroad bed, they probably did not disturb the top or the sub-aggregate, it probably drains very well, it has been compacted, and it is not like they would be driving over green space. That packed material has been put into place. Mr. Benetti agreed and said when he walked the property it was right after a heavy rain and he did not see any standing water and it was very well drained. page 15 Commissioner Toth asked if the mulch would be removed and the site returned to its current state after the Interim Use had ended. Mr. Benetti replied that there is a provision that they have to restore the site back to the way it was. The city could also ask MnDOT what they defined as an approved restoration. Chair Magnuson, referring to the Findings of Fact for Approval, stated that number three reads “The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty” and asked if the date of December 31, 2020 shouldn’t be identified there. Mr. Benetti agreed that could be added. Chair Magnuson then referred to number four under the Findings of Fact for Approval refers to restoring the property but it does not require it. It also then talks about the possibility of providing an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost. She suggested there be a condition that requires that the property would be restored. It was noted that Condition three provided that. Commissioner Noonan stated that restoration is important; however, maintenance during the period is important as well. He suggested a condition be added to that affect. Mr. Benetti asked if ‘the property shall be properly maintained during the duration of the Interim Use Permit’ would be sufficient. Commissioner Noonan like that but also suggested that something be added that says if the city deems the site is not being adequately maintained, the applicant shall provide the appropriate maintenance to the satisfaction of the city. Chair Magnuson asked what amount of Mr. Benetti thinking for the ‘financial surety’ noted in Condition three. Mr. Benetti replied that was left up to the City Administrator to determine. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the surety would be held by the property owner rather than the city. Mr. Benetti replied that in this case it would be held by the city because the city was providing the Interim Use Permit. Mr. Chris Clifton, President and CEO and Ryan Slipka, Operating Officer / Partner of Southview Design, were available for questions. Mr. Clifton stated, in regards to the Flint Hills and the petroleum line servicing MSP, the engineers came out from Flint Hills and they did compaction tests. They had been on board with the Class 5 initially so they are very well aware of what Southview is looking to do. Even just adding mulch they will have to consult with Flint Hills and there would be watch dog meeting – they would come out and watch every improvement done within 20 feet of the gas line. As to the number of vehicles, at this point there are 50 to 60 vehicles parked on Enterprise Drive. This space would allow for these vehicles. It is approximately 60 feet wide and drains from south to north. There is an approx. 5-foot drainage ditch between Southview and the north neighbor. Mr. Slipka said they would expect the lease to be renewed without issue. As long as Dakota County is not planning on using that land for a bike trail, they would expect to be able to keep leasing it indefinitely. Mr. Clifton stated that Dakota County would have to pull out part of Highway 13 and tunnel underneath, the way the land is set up now. There is a crosswalk at Highway 13 for the bike trail. The folks at MnDOT that they have been dealing with said that page 16 they do not foresee it coming in the near 20 or 30 years. His goal would be to, in the next two years, during the course of this – and whether there is more direction on the extension of the bike trail – to be able to do a more permanent compacted Class 5 base. At this point, the mulch they are talking about doing and the access from their site should ensure that when they hit their parking lot, let alone Pilot Knob Road, we they do not expect there to be any mess. Commissioner Noonan asked if they would have any objection to putting a maintenance clause or condition obligation in the permit. Mr. Clifton said they would have no objections whatsoever. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that they mulch would keep the mud from tracking onto their parking lot, their facility, and onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Clifton confirmed and said that the mulch they are talking about is more of a wood chip rather than the fine ground-up mulch typically seen in residential yards. And they are looking at a 5-6 inch depth of that. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation they were talking about 50-60 vehicles. Mr. Clifton confirmed. He then asked, if the business were to expand and grow, if he saw four or five years from now the need for parking for 50 to 120 vehicles. Mr. Clifton replied that the facility they are in currently is almost maxed out; from trucks, trailers, and their currently facility to the south (3.1 acres). At this time they are looking for space in the Maple Grove area to start to base some operations out of there as well. Commissioner Petschel asked if they were planning to park mostly company vehicles on the site or parking for the employees. Mr. Clifton replied that it would be parking for personal vehicles. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the access point off of the parking lot to the right-of-way area, noted that it was not part of the right-of-way so they could surface that any way they wanted. He asked what their intentions were for that area given the concerns for possible creation of mud and muck. Mr. Clifton replied that they would rather not pave that. Most construction sites have a construction entrance and they would be looking at a compacted Class 5 base so there is anything that would catch on that area they could easily blow that off and clean it off. 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 PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-10 INTERIM USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: page 17 1. The proposed interim use allowing an unpaved off-site parking facility for Southview Design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed interim parking use conforms [partially] to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including some performance standards. The City however, supports the efforts of Southview Design to provide off-site parking for their seasonal employees next to their business site; and will be required to keep and maintain this site in a neat and orderly fashion, and that they shall meet all conditions during the term of construction. 3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty [the following portion of this Findings was added by the Commission] (December 31, 2010). 4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of restoring the temporary parking site upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2020. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council. 2. The former railway right-of-way shall be used for the parking of seasonal employee vehicles only. No commercial or business/work trucks, semi -trailers, storage containers, dumpsters, refuse or landscaping equipment or materials will be allowed to be stored in this area. 3. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Southview Design and the City Administrator, to ensure the MnDOT owned property will be vacated, cleaned and restored to its pre-parking state, upon the expiration or revocation of the interim use permit, either by the City or MnDOT. [The following portion of this condition was added by the Commission] The applicant shall maintain the Interim Use area in manner acceptable to the city. Should the city deem the area needs maintenance, the applicant shall promptly move to maintain the property. 4. Any new or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the adjacent Pilot Knob Roadway. 5. No direct access to this interim parking facility will be allowed on to Pilot Knob Road. 6. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 18 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-12 CHUCK MASTEL - 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Chuck Mastel has requested a Variance to residential fence heights standards for his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. He currently has a rear yard fence at 6-feet in height, which must be relocated due to a county order. He is now seeking a Variance to rebuild with a high fence. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published; no letters of objections or notices from the adjacent neighbors were received. The property is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property in relation to surround properties and roads. The property is just over a half-acre in size, contains a 3,468 square foot 2-story home with an in-ground swimming pool. The applicant’s neighbor to the south had requested to re-fence his backyard and tried to match into the fence owned by Mr. Mastel; however, the county official discovered this and said they could not do that because they were well within the county’s right-of-way. They then sent Mr. Mastel a letter indicating that he needed to move his fence to be outside of their right-of-way as soon as possible. Mr. Mastel indicated to staff when they visited the property that moving the 6-foot high fence would have it sitting in a spot that would be three to four feet lower than its current position. Therefore, he is requesting a nine-foot fence to keep the screening he has enjoyed for many years. There are three standards that must be met when considering a Variance request; Mr. Benetti explained how this application met those standards. Mr. Chuck Mastel, 1341 Cherry Hill Road, was available for questions. He stated that the fence had been in its current location for 32 years and he did not have a record of a variance or permit for the installation. Midwest Fence Company were the ones who installed the original fence; however, they only keep records for 20 years. Therefore, they were unable to provide evidence of a variance or permit. He also stated that if the fence were relocated at the 6-foot height, the top would be level with Wachtler Road and he would not have any privacy. More importantly, there is the safety issue. Anyone could put a plank from Wachtler Road to his fence and enter his rear yard; someone could drown in the pool. He has a $1M umbrella policy but would have let his insurance agent know the situation. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the portion of the fence he is proposing be nine feet was just that portion parallel with the Wachtler Road. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. The side yard fences would remain at six feet. page 19 Chair Magnuson asked how he came up with nine feet. Mr. Mastel replied it is a combination of the incline and Midwest Fence not recommending a fence higher than nine feet based on the board-on-board style he has. It would not be as great as it is right now but it would be better than installing a six-foot fence. Commissioner Noonan asked what the difference would be from the current six-foot height to the proposed nine-foot height. Mr. Mastel replied that it would be approximately three feet. Commissioner Noonan stated that essentially he was doing the nine-foot fence to effectively reproduce the status quo condition – the separation of approximately six feet. Mr. Mastel replied that it would not be the same as a six-foot fence from Wachtler, it would be more like a three-foot fence. However, that is better than being level with Wachtler. Commissioner Corbett asked if the whole run along Wachtler was 6 feet. Mr. Mastel answered in the affirmative and noted that it was 150 feet long in the back. This would be the portion of the fence that would be nine feet in height. The sides that come up to his home would remain at six feet. The top of the fence portions – from the side yards (6 feet) to the rear yard (9 feet) would level. Commissioner Toth asked if his fence would be three feet higher than his neighbor’s fence. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. 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 NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-12 VARIANCE 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 a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along the rear lot line, by the following: page 20 i. the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the property; ii. Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next to the county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system; iii. due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the subject property abuts residential properties on both sides, and the residential uses on the opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated far enough away that they will not be impacted by the higher fence; and iv. the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the county roadway, 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 1341 Cherry Hill 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. 2019-12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-40. 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 higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. ii. The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9-ft. above the level grade of the rear yard at the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the current shadow-box style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject property. iii. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition. WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. page 21 Commissioner Noonan, referencing Finding of Fact B-iv, stated that he was compelled by the safety consideration that the applicant mentioned; given the fact that a lower fence would effectively provide the ability to bridge Wachtler in. He proposed a friendly amendment by requesting that they include safety in that section. Also, there had been no discussion on economic considerations so he recommended the removal of that phrase as not being relevant. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the friendly amendment as stated. Commissioner Katz asked if this essentially was a 16-foot move from the fence’s currently location to the new. Mr. Benetti confirmed that it was approximately 15 feet. Commissioner Katz then stated that, in his mind this would wipe out any safety concerns as he could not see anyone riding across a plank long enough to enter the rear yard. In his opinion, the emphasis on the safety concern should be due to the pool, which was probably why the fence was installed in the first place. This is a safety concern because the county is saying he needs to move the fence; the issue they are really discussing is whether or not the six-foot versus the nine-foot is the acceptable use for this now. In his opinion, because of the grade, etc. – yes, the nine-foot still gives him the privacy he needs, he has to move this fence, and it is still providing the protection for the property and against the pool that is there. Mr. Benetti pointed out for the record that, per city code, anything built over seven feet requires a building permit. So this fence will be inspected and will have to be very well built to withstand certain wind and snow requirements. Chair Magnuson commented for the record that there was conversation with staff and the land owner about the difference in grade being somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately three feet. Her thinking is that, given that difference in grade, effectively he is putting up roughly a six- foot fence because it is coming down to the point it might match or even be less than what it currently there. The fact that the topography of the property exists the way it does makes putting a six-foot fence in useless. She agreed that no one was going to put a board across a 16-foot span, but depending on the grade it might be a lot easier to hope over a six-foot fence from an elevated position than a nine-foot fence from an elevated position. Commissioner Toth commented that 32 years ago, when this fence was put into place, the resident has lived there and has had a level of privacy. Now with the changes required by Dakota County, they would lose that privacy with the six-foot ruling. The privacy needs to be looked at as well when making their decisions. Commissioner Petschel noted that if privacy had been the only issue, he would have voted against this request. They had artificial privacy as a result of having the fence further up the hill than what would normally be allowed although that is clearly not the homeowners fault. Safety is really the only concern here. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 22 C) PLANNING CASE #2019-13 MARK & STACY ROSZKOWSKI, 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Stacy Roszkowski were seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow for the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool for their property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail. This property is located up against an established Type III wetland, which is a Slightly Susceptible Wetland. Any new construction related improvements, grading or removals requires a wetlands permit. This item was heard under a public hearing and notices were sent to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in relation to surrounding neighbors and streets. The wetland was also indicated in the images. The property is currently zoned R-1 and is guided as LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.25 acres in size with half of it currently encumbered by a drainage and utility easement on the back side; making for a limited amount of buildable area there. The property has a 5,356 square foot single family dwelling. Mr. Benetti then shared a site plan image showing the location of the proposed 14’ x 28’ in - ground swimming pool, which would replace the current back yard patio. They also plan to install a concrete patio deck around the perimeter. The edge of the pool structure would be situated approximately 40 feet from the nearest edge of the creek channel with the decking approximately 36 feet from that same channel. Normally, the city requires no disturbance within 25 feet of an established wetland. Mr. Benetti shared the Local Surface Water Management Plan, which provides certain guides and standards to follow for the city to follow or implement for any new development near natural water features. This plan recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge; the subject property has a very well established and natural vegetative buffer in place. He then provided statements that met the guides and standards for the Commission to review and consider in their determination. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the schematic drawing, noted that the dimension from the creek edge to the pool is 40 feet. He then asked what the dimension was from the creek edge to the silt fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it appeared to be approximately half that distance – say 20 feet. He then asked if it would be amiable to the applicants to move the silt fence to be 25 feet from the creek edge (per city code). Mr. Benetti agreed this could be done. Looking at the elevation numbers, Commissioner Toth asked if there would be additional fill brought in on the back side of the home or would the dirt removed to install the pool be used to fill. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; most of the area where the patio currently exists is pretty much where the new pool deck and in-ground pool would be located. There would not be much grading or regrading necessary around there. page 23 Commissioner Katz asked where the rest of the fencing would be in terms of relativity to the pool. Mr. Benetti indicated the location of the fence of the schematics – approximately 14 feet from the pool itself and approximately 35 feet from the wetland. Chair Magnuson, referencing Condition 3 that reads, in part, “Draining or back-flushing of water from the pool shall be directed onto the owner’s property only, and shall not drain directly into the creek or wetland systems”, asked how that would be enforced, especially with a grade like this because no matter where they put the water it will flow downhill. Mr. Benetti replied that it is usually the responsibility of the property owner to make sure they are not flushing chlorinated water directly into the creek system. The fact remains that if they let chlorinated water drain out onto an open space of their land, the chlorine would dissipate enough that by the time it reached the natural water body it would be harmless. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that most pools are going to burn through any chlorine in them within a couple of days. If any homeowner does not add any chlorine for three to four days, the chlorine levels would be very low in the pool and can be discharged in the yard. Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that there are no plans for an additional drain to actually put pool discharge water into that then gets treated in some sort of city or storm sewer system. Mr. Benetti replied the he was unaware of anything like that under this plan but he Commission could ask that of the applicant if they wished. Mr. Ruzek noted that the city does not have a lot of heavy restrictions. He did a quick search of neighboring communities; Eagan basically says that it is up to the homeowners to make sure the chlorine is evaporated but they can discharge it anywhere in Eagan. Mendota Heights could let it connect directly to the sanitary sewer; however, most people are not filling their pool in January, February, or March so that is not getting counted for water that is going down the sewage systems. Commissioner Katz continued by explaining that his concern is that this is so close to the wetland and there are other provisions that have to protect it from things like silt. The last thing he would want to see done, because of convenience sake, when they want to dump the water in the fall or whenever, there is this natural wetland and the just hook the hose up; no one is enforcing it so what do they care. To him, that defeated the provisions of protecting wetlands and other things. The Commission needs to look at something to recommend at least. Mr. Nick Holly from Performance Pools came forward to address some concerns raised in terms of drainage. He explained that backwashing is taking a canister of sand (typically), which is filtering the small particles from the water and essentially pumping that out to clean the filter. Performance Pools installs cartridge filter pieces – pleated paper cylinders – and when they get dirty they dismantle the filter and clean out the cartridges so there is no back flushing involved with the general filtration maintenance. Also, there is no need to drain pools to winterize any more. They have duck plugs, one-way valving, there is no water draining every fall. If they needed to drain to the front, they have a 3.5 horsepower pump on that would take care of that. page 24 They also install salt systems on all of their pools, which generally maintains 1 to 3 parts per million of chlorine. To the best of his knowledge, EPA allows up to 4 parts per million in their drinking water. They could also reduce the parts per million before any sort of draining. The only time that would have to happen is if there was a liner replacement – 15 years or so after the initial install of the pool. The salt system is taking a sodium chloride blend and associating it so the chlorine can then sanitize the pool; and does it at a very slow consistent rate versus products and other ways to apply. As for the salt, it is 2,700 parts per million, it cannot even be tasted. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there were a need to drain the pool, whether for maintenance or whatever, it would have to be discharged somewhere. Mr. Holly replied in the affirmative and stated that as long as they are allowed to drain to the street, which would be the easiest and most reasonable way to do that. Chair Magnuson noted that they would be pulling out a significant amount of dirt of the ground and asked what they planned to do with that. Mr. Holly replied that their proposed pool grid, relative to three quarters of that pool, is essentially equal or zero. The one corner is getting closer to two feet out. He would be essentially excavating and hand full loads or dirt and bringing it up on the deeper end corner and blending off. Based on the conversations he heard, it sounds like they are untouchable within 25 feet of the creek, including the way the install the silt fence and potential grading adjustments. He believes and knows that they will do that. 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 PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-13 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed. page 25 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer area will take place or is anticipated under this project, which will ensure no negative impacts to the adjacent wetlands feature should occur. 4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction. 5. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drain directly into the creek or wetland systems. Any drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. 4. The Owners shall provide and maintain a 25-foot wide no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the creek edge in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection from said wetland feature. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 26 D) PLANNING CASE #2019-14 JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jim Carlson would like to build a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard of his property at 1562 Wachtler Avenue and needs a Variance to required setbacks for a new driveway extension to that garage. This item had originally been noticed as a Variance with a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a larger detached garage. However, it was determined that the Conditional Use Permit was not necessary because he meets all of the requirements for a larger detached garage structure under 1,000 square feet because the lot is large enough. This item was presented under public hearing and notice was published in the Pioneer Press and letters were mailed to all owners within 350 feet of the subject property. One letter was received from the property owner immediately to the north; a copy of which was provided to the Commissioners and is part of the public record. The property is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.77 acres in size, and has a 5,345 square foot single family residential home with a 1,153 square foot 3-car attached garage. All single family properties are allowed to have up to 1,200 sq. ft. attached garage; and for larger lots between 1.5 to 2.5 acres in size, one additional detached garage is allowed up 1,000 sq. ft. in size. The proposed garage by the applicant meets this size limit. Mr. Carlson provided a detailed survey showing the location of the existing driveway where it sits today at 12.5, 13.9, and 19 feet off the north property line. The proposed site plan showed the driveway extension coming off of the side of the garage, the new garage in the back corner meeting the 10-foot setbacks as required by code, and the location of the proposed driveway extension. At the closest point is an 11 foot 3 inch wide driveway, requiring the 2.5 foot variance from the side yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property, noting the possible need for a retaining wall along the side because of the grade differences. The shed shown in the rear yard would be removed as part of this project. He also pointed out the grade differences between the proposed location of the driveway and the other side of the property. In Mr. Carlson’s opinion, it fits better in the proposed location. Mr. Carlson indicated to staff that, as far as any alleviating any screening or potential visual impacts to the neighbor, he would provide for some type of screening measures such as some evergreens or some pampas grasses or something else of that nature. He is also looking at providing for some permeable pavers to ensure that this area will handle some of the stormwater drainage if requested or required. Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met when considering a Variance request and explained how this request met those standards. page 27 Commissioner Corbett asked for confirmation that the land the proposed driveway would be on is graded towards the neighbor’s property. Mr. Benetti confirmed and stated that more than likely, he would have to provide for some type of grading and a retaining wall along that side to ensure that the driveway is nice and level. Chair Magnuson asked who owned the fence along that side. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed that Mr. Carlson did. He plans on retaining the fence. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if he was reading the new schematic correctly in that there would be 11’3” between the pavement edge and the property line; and 2.5 feet between the pavement and the property line. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Mazzitello noted in the packet a survey that had been completed in April 2019; however, he was not seeing any drainage or utility easements around the property lines. He asked if they existed. Mr. Benetti replied that this is Lot 32 of the Auditors Subdivision No. 3 but he did not believe there were any utility easements; probably due to the time it was platted. Without any geographical reference, Commissioner Katz asked if it had been evaluated whether or not the driveway could be put down Wachtler, in the opposite corner. Mr. Benetti replied that he possibly could; however, this area has a creek and there is also a considerable grade difference. Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, commented that he does not like leaving things outside. He believes in a garage as a way of keeping the neighborhood looking nice and preventing his neighbors from staring at his junk. He would like to store his fishing boat, riding lawn mower with attachments, snowplow, and other items if he decided to obtain them. He also stated that it would mostly be used for cold storage in the winter and that he would probably not even plow that part of the driveway. Commissioner Corbett stated that he was having a conflict in terms of the usage and the needing a concrete driveway for it if was not going to be used in the wintertime. His thinking was that in needing a concrete driveway to go to the shed, why wouldn’t the shed not be part of an expansion of the existing garage, which already has a driveway to it; or building out from that garage if its intended use was for garage storage and not as a traditional shed. Mr. Carlson replied this his existing garage has a stairway going down through the basement in the front of the garage. He would rather have a garage out in back dedicated where he could put his items in it and not have to deal with them being in the garage and the house. As for the concrete driveway, he really did not want to put in a concrete driveway; however, Mr. Benetti had brought it up to him that there were permeable pavers. He went to a supply company and there are nice pavers that are 2’ x 2’ sections with holes. He could put them down, put dirt back in them and plant grass and he believed it would blend into the yard pretty well. He is leaning more towards the permeable pavers now rather than concrete. Commissioner Petschel asked if there was any reason why he did not consider putting the new garage in the opposite corner of his lot. Mr. Carlson replied that the creek area is down there, it is wooded, and can be seen from the street. The proposed location already has a shed, it is screened and it would look good back there and not take away from the beauty of the property. page 28 Chair Magnuson asked if it would be possible to simply add a section on the back of the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that there is a staircase in the garage that starts right in the middle of the garage and goes down to the basement; so they would not get much out of that. Chair Magnuson explained her confusion in that he already stores his work vehicle, his vehicle, and his companions vehicle in the garage; clearly the stairs are not in the way of those items and she wondered why it would cause a problem with expanding the garage. Mr. Carlson pointed out on the survey image the location of the staircase. He also stated that he has a nice tree garden on the rear that would be lost. Commissioner Toth noted that the dimension of the planned garage is 2 9’ x 34’; he then asked what the peak of the roof would be. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not know that yet. Mr. Benetti replied that detached garages could not be more than 15 feet in height. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Carlson used the pavers, would they count as impervious surface. Mr. Benetti replied that the city does not have an impervious surface percentage calculation requirements. He asked for commentary on the transition between pavers and a concrete driveway – one that would necessitate a permit and one that would not. Would the move from a concrete driveway to 2’ x 2’ pavers negate the need for the variance. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because a driveway is a driveway, whether it’s concrete or some other material. Mr. Carlson needs a driveway to access the garage, the city does not want people driving back and forth across their yards to access their detached garages. Commissioner Petschel then asked if it was part of their functional definition of a garage is that it has to have a driveway. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. If it looks like a garage it needs to be permitted as a garage and it has to have a drivable surface to it. He had suggested the permeable pavers just because of the impact of that side yard and looking where the drainage would obviously go. He felt it would be a better solution to maintaining the drainage pond as much as possible. Commissioner Corbett asked how many of the trees along the fence line would be removed; it appears that every tree along that fence line that may be blanketing the garage from the neighbors view would have to be removed. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not believe that many would be removed. He estimated at least two or three of the ten located there. It is a beautiful site and he has no desire to remove very many trees at all. If he did have to remove any he hoped to plant some back in again afterwards. Commissioner Toth asked what materials the proposed garage would be made of. Mr. Carlson replied that he had no plans at the moment; but he had thought about vinyl siding that would match the house or maybe stucco. He would not want white but possibly a sand color to match the brick on the house. Steel shingles like on the house are pretty expensive and he probably could not do that; however, he would try to make it fit into the motif. When asked, Mr. Benetti replied that the garage has to match architecturally the principal building. The city does allow for color matching if the house is brick or stucco and they want to page 29 match it with vinyl, lapboard, or wood siding. The city would like for the roofing material to match as close as possible. When asked if he would consider building off of the front of the current garage, Mr. Carlson replied that it would not look good and would take away from the beauty of the neighborhood and the property. His neighbors would kick him out. Chair Magnuson asked if he had considered a smaller driveway. Mr. Carlson replied that his fishing boat is an 18’ Lund and it requires a truck to back it into the garage. He questioned if he could accomplish that with a narrower driveway. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he did realize until this evening that there was no need for a Conditional Use Permit for the garage building. He assumed the reason it was accepted is because of the size of the lot. The reason that would be the case was that it was not expected that the building would be built right on top or close to a neighbor’s property with that size of a lot. One would think that there could be a building a ways away. He and his wife have been living on his property since 1988; 30 or more years. They moved from Macalester-Groveland where they had alleys up and down behind the buildings. This driveway is as close to an alley as he has ever experienced. One of the reasons they moved to Mendota Heights was because they liked the open space. The property behind him had a great stand of trees and the previous owner, before he died, took very good care of the place. They would hate to see what they would consider an alley put in right behind their property and then have this large building, which has to be served by the driveway. They do not see why it could not be moved away from their property and the driveway put in a different direction. Mr. Carlson currently has a driveway apron on the other side of his home where two cars are normally parked. If the property was so problematic that he could not have a building on that same side, why would he consider it level enough for a nice concrete apron. Mr. Trojack did not believe it was reasonable, considering the size of the lot, to do what is proposed. He did not believe it serve the neighborhood to have this kind of a precedence set where they could put an alley driveway right behind someone else’s property. This plan is also detrimental to Mr. Trojack’s property values, as indicated in his letter. He spoke to his appraiser and was told that this would definitely decrease the value of his home. Also, there is a good stand of trees behind the fence on Mr. Carlson’s property and Mr. Trojack did believe that most of them would be standing afterwards. In summary, Mr. Trojack stated that this would be very damaging to the neighborhood, there is a good alternative on the other side of the property that should be considered, and he believed they should not have this place next to their property. Mr. Chris Shepard, 792 Upper Colonial Drive, said that initially when Mr. Carlson came by and proposed this his reaction was OK because it was his property. He did not know to what extent page 30 this would affect his own property. He was concerned about the drainage and asked that the Commission make recommendations to prevent snow buildup and then runoff and water runoff under any wet weather event. He understands that impervious pavers is probably better than concrete and he was happy to hear that was in play. The other concern were the sight lines; he pointed out the trees on the shared image. If they were to build a driveway there, they were hoping to have some sort of privacy fence be included or something that would account for the shrubs, etc. that are in place now. As to Mr. Trojack’s idea of placing the garage on the other side of the house, he would be in favor of that position. Mr. Carlson returned and stated that as of right now, there they are talking about water runoff. There is a grade right now that when it rains the water is running into Mr. Shepard’s yard. He wants to put a retaining wall in there to raise it up because it is hard to mow and dirt is washing away. Also, what Mr. Trojack pointed out on the south side of the house is not level. There is a steep bank going down into the driveway and then when you hit the yard there is a great big hill on the side. It would be hard to be tearing up all of the landscaping to put a garage in there. A person would have to haul in a lot of dirt and fill to get the grades. It would be pretty tough; it is not flat like he claimed. Chair Magnuson asked what the plans were for the chain link fence. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not want to take the chain link fence out because of the open sight lines and he likes seeing his neighbors. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-14 VARIANCE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION REVIEW PERIOD. Commissioner Noonan provided his reasons as follows: There have been questions asked and answers not given There has been considerable discussion about the possibility of building on the other side of the house There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation is, etc. There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. page 31 o An ugly building can be erected and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood He did not feel comfortable with the information to be had to make an informed decision Commissioner Toth provided his reasons as well: He felt he could not make a decision as this time as he wanted to look at the property There are too many unanswered questions, the same as mentioned by Commissioner Noonan Councilmember Petschel asked under what circumstances the Commission would approve this. What is the pass/fail criteria with which to approve this? Commissioner Katz noted that they do not have enough information to approve this. The other points and the seconded of the motion is that the Commission wants more information before making a decision. Commissioner Noonan stated that one of the findings they need to make is does it fundamentally alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He did not have enough information to make that determination. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019. As a point of order, Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that they were considering a side-yard setback Variance for a driveway. The garage has nothing to do with the question they were being asked to consider. Commissioner Noonan replied that but for the garage, the driveway would not be necessary. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed and stated that the garage could be discussed; however, it could not be considered as part of the Commission’s decision on the driveway. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the garage was not proposed the driveway would not be either, so they are connected. Chair Magnuson agreed. Commissioner Corbett suggested to the owner, since the third bay in the current garage was not blocked by the stairwell to the basement, he could put in a second garage door on the backside and extend a drive through garage from the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that he had thought about that but he would end up knocking down more trees, ruining the appearance of the nice tree garden out there right now. He pointed out on the photographs why it would not feasible. Further discussion occurred on alternatives and the Commission suggested that they be brought back for due consideration. page 32 E) PLANNING CASE #2019-15 NONA MOSVICK, 1133 ORCHARD PLACE LOT SPLIT - SUBDIVISION Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Nona M. Mosvick was requesting approval to subdivide her property located at 1133 Orchard Place. A subdivision request must obtain city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item was presented under a public hearing with notice being printed in the Pioneer Press and letters being sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcels. No objections or indications of support were received. The subject site is a square shaped 1.04 acre parcel of land located in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle and has an existing 1.5 story split level single family home with 4,404 square feet of finished floor space. The home has a dual access U-shaped driveway off Orchard Place with a large open space area on the western edge. The proposed split would create a new parcel in this west area, which Ms. Mosvick’s son plans to develop for a new single- family home. Parcel A, the proposed new parcel, would have 100 feet of roadway frontage and 214.5 feet of lot depth, creating a 21,451 square foot (0.49 acre) parcel. Parcel B, containing the current single- family dwelling, would have 111 feet of frontage and the same 214.5 feet of depth, creating a 23,810 square foot (0.55 acre) parcel. Once the 30-foot easement is taken into consideration, Parcel A would be 18,451 square feet or 0.42 acres in size and Parcel B would be 20,480 square feet or 0.47 acres in size. Both parcels would meet the 100-foot frontage requirement, as well as the minimum lot size. Their surveyor is working on adding the new perimeter drainage and utility easements required along the front, sides, and rear lot lines of each parcel. In terms of the average setback rule, the average setback between 1133 and 1139 is approximately 57 feet. Staff has requested that any house built on the new lot has to match or maintain that average setback rule. Chair Magnuson noted that the property slopes down; therefore, a fair amount of work will need to be done to deal with drainage issues, access issues, etc. She asked if anyone knew the plans for that. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not know what those plans were; however, that would typically be handled during the building permit process. Commissioner Toth asked Mr. Benetti if he had walked this lot. Mr. Benetti replied that he walked it from the road. Commissioner Toth then asked for confirmation that the new lot is a buildable lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be buildable assuming it was approved with the 100’ x 215’ size. Commissioner Toth then asked if it would impact drainage to the residents to the west. Mr. Benetti replied that all of that would be reviewed and reconciled during the building permit process. page 33 Mr. Matt Mosvick, the son of Ms. Nona Mosvick, stated that they were looking to do the lot split and then he would build a house next to her to allow her to stay in her home as long as possible. As far as any of the grading, he has had several builders out there and he knows they are going to have to fill a lot in the front and then come down level to the house to the west. The front would be filled and then they are looking at a walkout to the back. A few trees will have to be removed; however, the majority are black walnuts that the neighbor will be happy to see go. Also, a maple tree in the middle will need to be removed, which will make Xcel Energy happy. 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: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-15 LOT SPLIT – SUBDIVISION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Orchard Place. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. As part of any new building permit application on Parcel A, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored. 2. Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of 57-feet. 3. The applicant shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Johnson & Scofield Inc., dated 04/30/2019; or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. page 34 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Mr. Mosvick asked about the Park Dedication Fee. Mr. Benetti replied that this is a standard fee that the city adopted into the fee schedule for a long period of time. State law allows cities to either require developers, whenever they are platting out multiple lots, to either have to dedicate out a certain percentage of land for parks, open space, drainage area. In Mendota Heights case, whenever they create a new buildable lot or a new potential residential unit, there is a $4,000 cash in lieu of payment for that. Mr. Mosvick stated that he could understand that fee for a developer putting in multiple lots; however, for splitting one lot that is a pretty excessive amount of money. Chair Magnuson replied that there was nothing the Commission could do about that as it is written in the code. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. F) PLANNING CASE #2019-16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff had a zoning code amendment for the Commission to consider. Part of the reason for bringing this forward was that a few weeks ago he was approached by a lot of fence companies and residents wanting to put up solid screen fencing. One of them did a lot of phone calling and political reach-out so City Administrator Mark McNeill asked him to bring this to the Commission to see what they would have to say. He noted that whenever anyone builds a fence in the city they are required to have a certain percentage of openness; 30% in Mendota Heights. Historically, the city has allowed for the alternating board or shadowbox design. In the city’s definition, this meets the 30% openness requirement. The city also has a lot of individuals or residents who have fenced off their front yards that have said that three feet is not enough to contain a good size Labrador or very energetic two or three year old child who wants to play in the front yard. They are asking for a 42 inch or four foot high fence. Referencing Section 12-1D-6: Subpart C.2 that reads, “Conditional Use Permit Required for Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6’) in height and with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit”, expressed his desire to change the wording to ‘and/or’ or just ‘or’. Staff also recommended changes under the Permitted Encroachments onto Public Ways section. Mr. Benetti shared an image of what the city currently permits, a nice fence with a lot of openness but not a lot of privacy. He then shard images of what a lot of residents are asking for – the solid screening fence. page 35 He understood the reason for the openness rule, which was to allow for wind and airflow so that plants on the other side would not get burned out. When speaking with fence companies they claimed they never heard of that rule or need. In summary, staff requested: Section 12-1D-6: A. Fences in All Districts, under Subpart 3. Construction And Repair o Removing the 30% opacity rule and moving the provisions for fences on industrially zoned property (next to residential uses) to another section Section 12-1D-6: B. Fences in Residential Districts: Height, Style and Location o Allowing for a maximum height of four feet rather than the previous 36 inches for front yard fences o Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadowbox style fence o Rear yard: if the rear lot line is common with the side lot line of an abutting lot . . . may be fenced to a height of four feet (rather than the previous 36 inches) Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business And Industrial Districts o Fences may be erected along the property line and to a height of six feet o Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and at least six feet (6’) in height o Fences over six feet (6’) in height [or] [and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. Section 12-1D-6: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways o Fences greater than four feet (4’) in height (as opposed to the previous 36 inches) but no greater than six feet (6’) in height – striking the 30% open phrase – may be allowed to encroach . . . through administrative approval by the Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) – rather than approval by the engineering department The Commissioners had length discussions around chain-link fencing, the location of certain types of fencing on the property line or set inside the property line for maintenance, the reason for the 36” height limitation (which no one knew why), the definition of ‘decorative fence’ having an openness factor assigned to it, the requirement that business and industrial zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property must have a fence and that fence shall be erected along the property line and shall be 100% opaque, and what the current ordinance required versus what was being suggested. In regards to residentially zoned properties, consensus of the Commissioners was that 6-foot, 100% opaque fences in the rear and side yards; 4-foot open-type fencing in the front yard were permissible. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. Matt Mosvick, 1133 Orchard Place, since he was planning on putting in a fence himself was curious and that was why he stayed after his planning case had been heard. He noted the case page 36 heard earlier this evening where a nine foot fence was being installed and would meet up with a six foot fence. He commended that if he were the six foot fence owner he would not like that. He suggested they think about making a gradual decline from the nine foot fence to the six foot fence to it would not be so stark; it would be more aesthetically pleasing. He also commented that he has had a fence for 30 years with the staggered board. When looking at it straight on it appears to be a solid fence. However, when looking from the side it can be seen through. He suggested they consider safety with a solid fence due to the wind factor. Even with his staggered fence, he has had a few sections get blown down in the past. Ms. Debbie Smith, 1088 William Court, stated that she and her husband, Dewey, tried to get a solid panel polyethylene privacy fence because they have a tremendous amount of cars going by and it is very noisy. Mr. Smith stated that he is 68 years old and he is tired of maintaining an old fence. He would like to install a fence that is maintainable, looks nice, maintains their privacy, and prevents the car lights from shining into their yard. They are also concerned about safety in that they have had burglars try to scale their fence and if they had a solid fence they would not be able to get a foothold. Luckily the police have scared these burglars before they got inside. Mr. Dan Larson, 1961 Walsh Lane, has worked for Midwest Fence for the last 23 years. He explained that when the code was written many years ago, the standard privacy fence was a stockade style, white cedar, manufactured panel. The pickets were rough and thin and they were fastened with small nails or staples. The rails were 2 x 3, not 2 x 4 as used today. They were sold at retail outlets and design to be a do-it-yourself (DYI) product. These panels typically failed quickly. Panel failure would lead to property damage and/or unsightly residential yards. Today, these panels are not manufactured. Over the last 30 years, the fence industry has evolved to make huge advancements in product performance and longevity. For example, composite and PVC privacy manufacturers make styles that withstand wind loads between 90 and 130 miles per hour. They are windblown tested at Miami Dade County. They do not decay or require staining, painting and come in a variety of styles and colors, from light white, neutral, and dark and wood grain texture. Cedar privacy fences today are typically installed with concrete set posts on by six dimension boards, galvanized rain shanks, stainless or similar nail, and 2 x 4 rails. The residents of Mendota Heights, under the current code, have an extremely limited selection of privacy styles to choose from and are usually surprised when they are advised of the city requirements. With the exception of a handful of cities within the metro area, Mendota Heights has an antiquated code, that if amended would allow residents to privatize their back yards with products that are dressier, unique, and long lasting. Commissioner Corbett asked if he could build a shadowbox fence with PVC material. Mr. Larson replied that there is one manufacturer that makes one. It is extremely costly. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS UNDER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 542 page 37 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019. It was also noted that the public hearing was still open as it had not been closed. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Developer Director Tim Benetti informed the Commission that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan would be presented to the City Council on Tuesday, June 4, 2019. He also provided highlights and recommendations that came out of the workshop meeting. The City Council did agree to allow a storage facility through a Conditional Use Permit with a quarter-mile separation factor rather than the 300-foot separation factor recommended by staff. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:47 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 38 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 2 , 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Park Bench Donation – Pamela Bukowski COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked accept a park bench donation from Pamela Bukowski. BACKGROUND The Park Bench Donation program was adopted in 2001. Through the program, a resident may donate $1000 to the city to offset the costs to purchase and install a park bench. Any costs above the donated amount would be the responsibility of the city. DISCUSSION Pamela Bukowski has submitted a request to make a donation through the City’s Park Bench Donation Program in memory of Iliana Marie Ellingson Diaz. Ms. Bukowski has requested to place the bench in Ivy Hills Park at the city’s discretion. The desired language for the plaque is: In loving memory of Iliana Marie Ellingson Diaz “When you smile, the whole world stops and stares for a while.” BUDGET IMPACT The $1000 donation will be used toward the purchase and installation of the park bench. Costs exceeding $1000 may be drawn from the Parks Equipment/Maintenance budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends accepting the park bench donation. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion pass RESOLUTION 2019-45, A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACCPETING A DONATION FROM PAMELA BUKOWSKI. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 39 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-45 FORMALLY ACCEPTING A GIFT FROM PAMELA BUKOWSKI WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts $1,000 from Pamela Bukowski in loving memory of Iliana Marie Ellingson Diaz for a park bench donation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of July, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 40 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 2 , 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for the Marie Avenue Pedestrian Underpass Replacement COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Dakota County for the Marie Avenue Pedestrian Underpass replacement. BACKGROUND Dakota County has been working with the city of Mendota Heights on establishing a Mendota- Lebanon Greenway Trail and River to River Greenway. The northern portion of this trail is intended to be developed by utilizing the city trail that runs through Valley Park. DISCUSSION Mendota Heights installed a pedestrian underpass for this trail section in 1974. The city is currently reconstructing Marie Avenue and Dakota County desires that the 1974 pedestrian underpass be replaced with an underpass that meets the current Dakota County standards. Dakota County is proposing to finance the pedestrian underpass replacement portion of the project that would be constructed with Phase 2 of the Marie Avenue rehabilitation project in 2020. The Joint Powers agreement identifies responsibilities of each party as well as the cost allocation. The JPA will likely need to be amended prior to construction to update the estimated costs and timelines. BUDGET IMPACT As the City of Mendota Heights has a planned reconstruction of Marie Avenue, the city costs are not planned to be substantial. Some project oversight, plan coordination, and review will be needed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for cost contribution of the Marie Avenue Pedestrian Underpass replacement. page 41 ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution 2019-43: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAKOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR COST CONTRIBUTION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE MARIE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ALONG THE RIVER TO RIVER GREENWAY. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 42 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-43 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAKOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR COST CONTRIBUTION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE MARIE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ALONG THE RIVER TO RIVER GREENWAY WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, Dakota County (“County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights (“City”) is a Minnesota municipal corporation (collectively herein the County and the City are referred to as the “Parties”); and WHEREAS, the County and City are desirous of entering into this Agreement so that the County and the City may share the actual costs for the reconstruction and replacement of the Marie Avenue pedestrian underpass along the River to River Greenway, as more fully described in Exhibit 1 (“Project”) of the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that in consideration of the mutual benefits the County and the City shall derive from this Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”), the Parties hereby enter into this Agreement for the purpose of cooperation and funding by the County to the City for actual reconstruction and replacement costs of the Project and to define the responsibilities and obligations of the County and the City for cost contribution. All funds provided by the County are to be used by the City solely for this purpose. The City shall use funds pursuant to this Agreement exclusively for the payment of actual reconstruction and replacement costs as provided in this Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of July, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 MENDOTAHEIGHTS LILYDALE 149 35E R i v e r t o R i v e r G r e e n w a y R i v e r t o R i v e r G r e e n w a y Underpass Replacement M a r i e A v e . P e d e s t r i a n U n d e r p a s s R e p l a c e m e n t M a r i e A v e . P e d e s t r i a n U n d e r p a s s R e p l a c e m e n t River to RiverGreenway Valley Park Marie Avenue Mendota to Lebanon HillsGreenway 1974 2018 2020 (Concept) page 53 ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1 CLEARING TREE 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 2 GRUBBING TREE 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 3 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES)LF 50 1.90$ 95.00$ 4 REMOVE UNDERGROUND PEDSTRIAN TUNNEL LF 125 100.00$ 12,500.00$ 5 REMOVE TIMBER RETAINING WALL LF 40 10.00$ 400.00$ 6 14 X 10 PRECAST CONCRETE END SECTIONS EA 2 17,500.00$ 35,000.00$ 7 14X10 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT LF 90 1,500.00$ 135,000.00$ 8 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 1667 14.00$ 23,333.33$ 9 GRANULAR BEDDING CY 30 40.00$ 1,200.00$ 10 AGGREGATE BEDDING (CV)CY 85 50.00$ 4,250.00$ 11 RETAINING WALL SY 675 40.00$ 27,000.00$ 12 PROTECT, INSULATE WATERMAIN AND SANITARY LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 13 TUNNEL LIGHTING LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 14 ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING SF 3060 1.50$ 4,590.00$ 15 ASPHALT WALKING TRAIL TON 100 60.00$ 6,000.00$ 16 TRAIL BASE MATERIAL CY 0 30.00$ -$ 17 TOPSOIL BORROW CY 20 30.00$ 600.00$ 18 HYDROSEED WITH SEED MIX 25-131 ACRE 0.2 35,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 19 SILT FENCE TYPE MS LF 300 5.00$ 1,500.00$ 276,468.33$ QUANTITY/PRICE ESTIMATION - MARIE AVENUE (PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL) TOTAL page 54 INSURANCE TERMS Contractor agrees to provide and maintain at all times during the term of this Contract such insurance coverages as are indicated herein and to otherwise comply with the provisions that follow. Such policy(ies) of insurance shall apply to the extent of, but not as a limitation upon or in satisfaction of, the Contract indemnity provisions. The provisions of this section shall also apply to all Subcontractors, Sub-subcontractors, and Independent Contractors enga ged by Contractor with respect to this Contract, and Contractor shall be entirely responsible for securing the compliance of all such persons or parties with these provisions. APPLICABLE SECTIONS ARE CHECKED 1. Workers Compensation. Workers' Compensation insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes including an All States or Universal Endorsement where applicable. Such policy shall include Employer's Liability coverage in an amount no less than $500,000. If Contractor is not required by Statute to carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance, Contractor agrees: (1) to provide County with evidence documenting the specific provision under Minn. Stat. § 176.041 which excludes Contractor from the requirement of obtaining Workers’ Compensation Insurance; (2) to provide prior notice to County of any change in Contractor’s exemption status under Minn. Stat. § 176.041; and (3) to hold harmless and indemnify County from and against any and all claims and losses brought by Contractor or any subcontractor or other person claiming through Contractor for Workers’ Compensation or Employers’ Liability benefits for damages arising out of any injury or illness resulting from performance of work under this Contract. If any such change requires Contractor to obtain Workers’ Compensation Insurance, Contractor agrees to promptly provide County with evidence of such insurance coverage. 2. General Liability. "Commercial General Liability Insurance" coverage (Insurance Services Office form title), providing coverage on an "occurrence" rather than on a "claims made" basis, which policy shall include, but not be limited to, coverage for Bodily Injury, Property Damage, Personal Injury, Contractual Liability (applying to this Contract), Independent Contractors, "XC&U" and Products-Completed Operations liability (if applicable). Such coverage may be provided under an equivalent policy form (or forms), so long as such equivalent form (or forms) affords coverage which is at least as broad. An Insurance Services Office "Comprehensive General Liability" policy which includes a Broad Form Endorsement GL 0404 (Insurance Services Office designation) shall be considered to be an acceptable equivalent policy form. Contractor agrees to maintain at all times during the period of this Contract a total combined general liability policy limit of at least $1,500,000 per occurrence and aggregate, applying to liability for Bodily Injury, Personal Injury, and Property Damage, which total limit may be satisfied by the limit afforded under its Commercial General Liability policy, or equivalent policy, or by such policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella or Excess Liability policy (or policies); provided, that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella or Excess Liability policy is at least as broad as that afforded by the underlying Commercial General Liability policy (or equivalent underlying policy). Such Commercial General Liability policy and Umbrella or Excess Liability policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverages afforded thereunder, so long as such aggregate limits have not, as of the beginning of the term or at any time during the term, been reduced to less than the total required limits stated above, and further, that the Umbrella or Excess Liability policy provides coverage from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying Commercial General Liability policy become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella or Excess Liability policy which "drops down" to respond immediately over reduced underlying limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits, but subject to a deductible or "retention" amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible or retention for each occurrence does not exceed the amount shown in the provision below. Contractor's liability insurance coverage may be subject to a deductible, "retention" or "participation" (or other similar provision) requiring the Contractor to remain responsible for a stated amount or percentage of each covered loss; provided, that such deductible, retention or participation amount shall not exceed $25,000 each occurrence. Such policy(ies) shall name DAKOTA COUNTY, its officers, employees and agents as Additional Insureds thereunder. | 3. Professional Liability. Professional Liability (errors and omissions) insurance with respect to its professional activities to be performed under this Contract. This amount of insurance shall be at least $1,500,000 per occurrence and aggregate (if applicable). Coverage under such policy may be subject to a deductible, not to exceed $25,000 per occurrence. Contractor agrees to maintain such insurance for at least one (1) year from Contract termination. It is understood that such Professional Liability insurance may be provided on a claims-made basis, and, in such case, that changes in insurers or insurance policy forms could result in the impairment of the liability insurance protection intended for DAKOTA COUNTY hereunder. Contractor therefore agrees that it will not seek or voluntarily accept any such change in its Professional Liability insurance coverage if such impairment of DAKOTA COUNTY's protection could result; and further, that it will exercise its rights under any "Extended Reporting Period" ("tail coverage") or similar policy option if necessary or appropriate to avoid impairment of DAKOTA COUNTY's protection. Contractor further agrees that it will, throughout the one (1) year period of required coverage, immediately: (a) advise DAKOTA COUNTY of any intended or pending change of any Professional Liability insurers or policy forms, and provide DAKOTA COUNTY with all pertinent information that DAKOTA COUNTY may reasonably request to determine compliance with this section; and (b) immediately advise DAKOTA COUNTY of any claims or threats of claims that might reasonably be expected to reduce the amount of such insurance remaining available for the protection of DAKOTA COUNTY. page 55 4. Automobile Liability. Business Automobile Liability insurance covering liability for Bodily Injury and Property Damage arising out of the ownership, use, maintenance, or operation of all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles and other motor vehicles utilized by Contractor in connection with its performance under this Contract. Such policy shall provide total liability limits for combined Bodily Injury and/or Property Damage in the amount of at least $1,500,000 per accident, which total limits may be satisfied by the limits afforded under such policy, or by such policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(ies); provided, that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(ies) shall be at least as broad with respect to such Business Automobile Liability insurance as that afforded by the underlying policy. Unless included within the scope of Contractor's Commercial General Liability policy, such Business Automobile Liability policy shall also include coverage for motor vehicle liability assumed under this contract. Such policy, and, if applicable, such Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(ies), shall include DAKOTA COUNTY, its officers, employees and agents as Additional Insureds thereunder. 5. Additional Insurance. DAKOTA COUNTY shall, at any time during the period of the Contract, have the right to require that Contractor secure any additional insurance, or additional feature to existing insurance, as DAKOTA COUNTY may reasonably require for the protection of their interests or those of the public. In such event Contractor shall proceed with due diligence to make every good faith effort to promptly comply with such additional requirement(s). 6. Evidence of Insurance. Contractor shall promptly provide DAKOTA COUNTY with evidence that the insurance coverage required hereunder is in full force and effect prior to commencement of any work. At least 10 days prior to termination of any such coverage, Contractor shall provide DAKOTA COUNTY with evidence that such coverage will be renewed or replaced upon termination with insurance that complies with these provisions. Such evidence of insurance shall be in the form of the DAKOTA COUNTY Certificate of Insurance, or in such other form as DAKOTA COUNTY may reasonably request, and shall contain sufficient information to allow DAKOTA COUNTY to determine whether there is compliance with these provisions. At the request of DAKOTA COUNTY, Contractor shall, in addition to providing such evidence of insurance, promptly furnish Contract Manager with a complete (and if so required, insurer-certified) copy of each insurance policy intended to provide coverage required hereunder. All such policies shall be endorsed to require that the insurer provide at least 30 days’ notice to DAKOTA COUNTY prior to the effective date of policy cancellation, nonrenewal, or material adverse change in coverage terms. On the Certificate of Insurance, Contractor's insurance agency shall certify that he/she has Error and Omissions coverage. 7. Insurer: Policies. All policies of insurance required under this paragraph shall be issued by financially responsible insurers licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, and all such insurers must be acceptable to DAKOTA COUNTY. Such acceptance by DAKOTA COUNTY shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. An insurer with a current A.M. Best Company rating of at least A:VII shall be conclusively deemed to be acceptable. In all other instances, DAKOTA COUNTY shall have 15 business days from the date of receipt of Contractor's evidence of insurance to advise Contractor in writing of any insurer that is not acceptable to DAKOTA COUNTY. If DAKOTA COUNTY does not respond in writing within such 15 day period, Contractor's insurer(s) shall be deemed to be acceptable to DAKOTA COUNTY. 8. Noncompliance. In the event of the failure of Contractor to maintain such insurance and/or to furnish satisfactory evidence thereof as required herein, DAKOTA COUNTY shall have the right to purchase such insurance on behalf of Contractor, which agrees to provide all necessary and appropriate information therefor and to pay the cost thereof to DAKOTA COUNTY immediately upon presentation of invoice. 9. Loss Information. At the request of DAKOTA COUNTY, Contractor shall promptly furnish loss information concerning all liability claims brought against Contractor (or any other insured under Contractor's required policies), that may affect the amount of liability insurance available for the benefit and protection of DAKOTA COUNTY under this section. Such loss information shall include such specifics and be in such form as DAKOTA COUNTY may reasonably require. 10. Release and Waiver. Contractor agrees to rely entirely upon its own property insurance for recovery with respect to any damage, loss or injury to the property interests of Contractor. Contractor hereby releases DAKOTA COUNTY, its officers, employees, agents, and others acting on their behalf, from all claims, and all liability or responsibility to Contractor, and to anyone claiming through or under Contractor, by way of subrogation or otherwise, for any loss of or damage to Contractor's business or property caused by fire or other peril or event, even if such fire or other peril or event was caused in whole or in part by the negligence or other act or omission of DAKOTA COUNTY or other party who is to be released by the terms hereof, or by anyone for whom such party may be responsible. Contractor agrees to effect such revision of any property insurance policy as may be necessary in order to permit the release and waiver of subrogation agreed to herein. Contractor shall, upon the request of DAKOTA COUNTY, promptly provide a Certificate of Insurance, or other form of evidence as may be reasonably requested by DAKOTA COUNTY, evidencing that the full waiver of subrogation privilege contemplated by this provision is present; and/or, if so requested by DAKOTA COUNTY, Contractor shall provide a full and complete copy of the pertinent property insurance policy(ies). K/CM/Exh/Insure-Prof-Liability-CM.doc Revised: 10/07 page 56 DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements – Change Order COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve a change order for the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND Council awarded the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements at their July 3, 2018 meeting. The project is substantially complete with only minor punch list items remaining. DISCUSSION In March of this year, a snow melt event identified a number of flooding concerns throughout the city. Three businesses on South Plaza Drive had damage from flooding along the rear of their properties where a storm water drainage swale is located. This drainage way is not well defined behind the 800 South Plaza Drive property as well as behind the 780 South Plaza Drive Property. The city project extended a 12” storm sewer to this drainage swale between the 780 and 790 South Plaza Drive buildings to collect drainage from smaller storm events. Staff met with the owners of the properties and discussed potential improvements. Staff then solicited quotes for these improvements. The contractor that performed the street work, Midwest Asphalt, submitted a quote of $22,600. The improvements consist of grading and shaping a swale behind 800 South Plaza Drive and placing 60 ton of field stone, geotextile fabric, and removal of excavate material. The newly installed catch basin will be graded to capture additional water, and a swale graded behind the 780 South Plaza Drive building which will be restored with seed and blanket. A second quote was received from Blaesser Landscaping for $23,685. BUDGET IMPACT The proposed work would be charged to the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement Project. The projects fund has an adequate balance for this additional work. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the change order to Midwest Asphalt for the swale grading behind 780, 790, and 800 South Plaza Drive. page 57 ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion; authorizing a Change Order to Midwest Asphalt for Drainage Improvements on South Plaza Drive, in the amount of $23,685. These actions requires a simple majority vote. page 58 ? ???? ? ? ?? ? ?(((((G!. G!.G!. G!.666 6 66 66 66 666666666 6 6 6 6 6 66666 6 6666 6666 666666666666666666 66666666666 6 6 6 !" " ³ ³ "³ ³ ³ ! ! * * ** " ³ ! " ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ " ³ 6 666666 666666 6 6666666 666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 750780 796-820 790 800 796 795 2069 790 784 791 785 779 775 771 765 772 766 2121 2116 2121 21242123 2125 2119 759 2126 2069 750 745 2131DODD RDCREEK AVE SOUTH PLAZA DR FOX PLSOUTH PLAZA WAY330 300 233 170 260 251.5239.570143.9199.449.5 City Base Map 2018Utilities Date: 6/25/2019 City ofMendotaHeights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Grade Swale, Restore w/Seed & Blanket Grade Berm Around Catch Basin Grade Sswale, remove excess material, place fabric and rock page 59 Date: June 18, 2019 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-49 Authorizing the Donation of Bicycles and a Popcorn Machine Background In June 2019, the Mendota Heights Police Department inventoried the bicycles being held as found property. It was determined there were 13 bicycles that met the requirement for the police department to remove them from found property and dispose of them as necessary. Seeing value in not simply disposing of the bicycles, the police department contacted Rick Anderson of Rick’s Bike Sale. Rick, along with other volunteers, refurbishes bicycles and donates the profits to Kids ‘n Kinship and DARTS. To date, Rick’s Bike Sale has raised more than $240,700.00. Kids ‘n Kinship is a nonprofit organization that provides role models to children and youth ages 5-16 who are in need of an additional supportive relationship with an adult. Through this program, children receive positive attention, enriching activities, and develop a sense of self- worth that is essential to functioning in school, healthy relationships, and eventually on the job. DARTS is a community-based nonprofit that provides a network of valuable information and resources to people. It connects them to services and partnerships that improve their quality of life, help them age well, and enable them to engage in their community. Rick’s Bike Sale is prepared to take all of the bicycles as a donation and there would be no cost to the City. The City also owns a popcorn machine that it no longer uses. The City wishes to declare this machine to be surplus property, and to donate it. An area service club has indicated an interest in it. page 60 Attached • List of bicycles to donate Recommendation If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign Resolution 2019-49 AUTHORIZING THE DONATION OF BICYCLES TO RICK’S BIKE SALE AND THE DONATION OF A POPCORN MACHINE. page 61 Bicycles to Donate: Make Serial Number • Schwinn 15C26634 • Schwinn N/A • Schwinn SNFSD10012134 • Schwinn D8HX54410 • Purple Kids Bike SNHBZM55735 • Purple Kids Bike LC12H29602 • Magna 01TD690336 • Mongoose N/A • Trek 305C1909D • Trek 1TK4B02699 • Trek WW004493 • Trek WTU139C0308F • Lynx Tempo CSO226371 page 62 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019- 49 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FOUND PROPERTY FOR DONATION AND REMOVAL OF CITY PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Code Title 1 “Unclaimed Personal Property” for appropriate disposition of property; and WHEREAS, the Code in Section 9 Chapter 1 defines property eligible; and WHEREAS, the Code in Chapter 2 defines allowable legal disposition of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to donate 13 found, unclaimed bicycles; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to remove a popcorn machine from city property. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council authorizes the Police Department to donate 13 found, unclaimed bicycles to Rick’s Bike Sale, and they City to remove a popcorn machine from city property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 63 DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Out of State Conference Request COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve the City Administrator’s attendance at the 105th Annual Conference of the International City/County Management Association. This will be held October 20th to 23rd in Nashville, Tennessee. BACKGROUND By policy, the City Council must approve all out of state travel at an open meeting. The ICMA Conference is recognized as the premier annual conference for the city management profession. I am asking the Council for approval to attend this year’s conference. I would arrive on October 19th. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated costs for attending are: Travel airfare $350 Airport Transfer 40 Registration 720* Lodging 920 Meals 50 Total $2080 *Assumes registration by August 8th Funds for this are available in the Administration budget. RECOMMENDATION page 64 The Mayor has recommended the approval of the City Administrator’s request to attend the conference. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize attendance of City Administrator Mark McNeill at the ICMA Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, October 20th through 23rd, 2019. ________________________ Mark McNeill City Administrator page 65 DATE: June 18, 2019 TO: Mayor, Council, and City Administrator FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain SUBJECT: Out of State Travel COMMENT: INTRODUCTION: City policy requires notification for out of state travel. By policy, the Council is also required to approve out of metro area travel in excess of $1000. BACKGROUND: School Resource Officer Steve Hilyar requested to attend the School Safety Symposium in Thornton, Colorado. Conference costs $500.00 Travel date: July 7 th to July 12th Location: Thornton, CO Lodging: Holiday Inn Express - $912.15 Flight $191.60 Rental Vehicle 6 days = $434.64 Meals: GSA maximum rate $51.00/per day, 5 days = $255.00 Total estimated cost: $2,293.39 BACKGROUND: The money is available in the training budget to cover the costs. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to attend the training. page 66 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Acknowledge April Par 3 Financial Report COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND Attached is the April Par 3 Financial Report. The Par 3 officially opened for the 2019 season on April 9th. During the month of April the course had a total of 576 rounds of golf played. The course was open for 14 days and had an additional 120 rounds by local schools. The April 2019 precipitation numbers were higher than the monthly average. The course received 3.91 inches of rain compared to the monthly average of 2.66 inches. The April 2019 snow amount was also higher than the monthly average. The course received 9.8 inches of snow compared to the monthly average of 2.4 inches. Throughout the month of April, the Par 3 had a total monthly revenue of $12,027. This includes Greens Fees, Recreation Programs and Concessions. After the month of April the Par 3 had a year to date revenue total of $29,870. The course’s April expenditures totaled $8,708. The year to date total was $22,288. The course currently has a profit of $7,582 for the 2019 season. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the April, 2019 Par 3 Financial Report. ACTION REQUIRED If the council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the April, 2019 Par 3 Financial Report. page 67 page 68 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Lease Agreement with Mendota Height Athletic Association INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to consider the approval of a lease agreement between the City and the Mendota Heights Athletic Association for use of City property to store association equipment and supplies. BACKGROUND The Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA) has used storage space to store equipment and supplies at city buildings and facilities for a number of years. Space being used by MHAA includes that at Public Works and the Mendakota Park concession building. The use of this space has not been covered by a formal agreement. To define the use of city property by an outside group and to establish protections for both MHAA (as the lessee) and the City (as the lessor), the City Attorney has drafted a lease agreement for consideration. The lease agreement has been provided to and reviewed by MHAA. The agreement is attached. Key terms of the lease include: • The proposed lease shall be for the term of one year and includes a provision for automatic renewal. The lease may be terminated by either party, without cause prior to the end of any term by providing a 60-day written notice to the other party. Rent shall be determined by the City Council, on an annual basis. The first year rental fee is $0.00. • The City shall maintain liability and property damage insurance and MHAA shall maintain personal property and contents insurance, rental insurance, as well as public liability insurance in the amount sufficient to cover maximum liability limits of Minnesota Statutes. The City must also be named as an “additionally insured” on any insurance maintained by MHAA relating to the leased premises or its use. • The lease provides for protections and clarification of responsibilities regarding indemnity by and liability of both parties. Additionally, the lease details the allowable uses by MHAA, safety and security, and damage to city property. page 69 BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Lease Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the Mendota Heights Athletic Association for use of City property to store association equipment and supplies. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the Lease Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and the Mendota Heights Athletic Association for use of City property to store association equipment and supplies. page 70 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Lease”), is made and entered into this ____ day of ________________, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Lessor”), and the MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Lessee”) (collectively, the “Parties”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of certain real properties, as listed on Exhibit A to this Lease (the “Properties”); and WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease a portion of each of the Properties to store various pieces of personal property and sundry items; and WHEREAS, Lessor is willing to lease a portion of each of its Properties on a non- exclusive basis to Lessee upon such terms and conditions as are expressed herein. NOW, THEREFORE, Lessor and Lessee covenant and agree as follows: 1. LEASED PREMISES: Subject to, and upon the terms, provisions, and conditions hereinafter set forth, Lessor does hereby lease and demise unto Lessee, certain storage areas within each of the Properties (the “Leased Premises”). 2. TERM OF LEASE: The term of this Lease shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of one (1) year. This Lease will be renewed automatically, subject to the early termination provisions of Section 3. 3. EARLY TERMINATION OF LEASE: This Lease may be terminated without cause prior to the end of any term by either Party by providing 60 days written notice to the other Party. Upon termination of this Lease, Lessee will promptly and peaceably surrender the Leased Premises to Lessor in substantially the same condition existing on the Effective Date, ordinary and reasonable use, damage and wear excepted. 4. RENT: Lessee shall pay to Lessor rent for the use of the Leased Premises (the “Rent”). The City Council shall determine the Rent on a yearly basis, by amendment to the Lessor’s Fee Schedule or by other resolution of the City Council. As of the Effective Date, the Parties understand and page 71 acknowledge the Lessor’s current Fee Schedule is Ordinance No. 537, adopted by the City Council on February 5, 2019, and the Rent is $0.00. Rent shall be payable in advance on or before the first day of each successive one-year term of this Lease. If Lessee fails to pay Rent, beginning on the 10th day of Rent delinquency, Lessee shall automatically be assessed and shall pay, as additional Rent, a late charge equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount otherwise due. Lessor reserves the right to increase or decrease Rent through amendment of the fee schedule each year by the City Council, or by other resolution of the City Council. No separate notice needs to be given to Lessee for any increase or decrease in Rent. 5. MAINTENANCE: Lessor shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of all structural components, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler systems and mechanical systems of the Leased Premises with exception of the repair provision stated below. Lessor shall additionally be responsible for maintaining the surrounding property, including lawn care and snow removal, surrounding the Leased Premises, in order to provide necessary ingress and egress to Lessee. The Lessee is responsible for repair costs for any and all repairs that are needed in the Leased Premises, as a result of the storage activities contemplated by this Lease. 6. INSURANCE: During the term of this Lease, Lessor shall obtain and maintain liability and property damage insurance for all of its Properties, including the Leased Premises. Lessee shall, at its own cost, maintain personal property and contents insurance, rental insurance, as well as public liability insurance in an amount sufficient to cover the maximum liability limits of Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04, as amended. Lessor shall be named as an “additional insured” on any insurance maintained by Lessee that relates to the Leased Premises or its use. All insurance required to be maintained by Lessee under this Lease shall be effected under valid and enforceable policies issued by a reputable insurance company or companies authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. Lessee shall deliver to Lessor certificates of all insurance required to be maintained hereunder. Lessee shall immediately notify Lessor of any changes in coverage or policy status for the policies required to be maintained under this Lease. 7. INDEMNITY: Lessee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, liability, and page 72 damages of every kind and nature, and from and against all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of any occurrence on or about the Leased Premises, or occasioned wholly or in part by the use and occupancy of the Leased Premises, or from any breach or default by Lessee under this Lease, or from any intentional act or omission or negligence of Lessee, its agents, employees, licensees, or invitees, in or about the Leased Premises. In the event of any action or proceeding brought against Lessor, by reason of any such claim, upon notice from Lessor, Lessee covenants to defend such action or proceeding by counsel satisfactory to Lessor. 8. NON-LIABILITY OF LESSOR: Except in the event of the gross negligence or intentional action of Lessor, its agents, employees, or contractors, Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee for any loss or damage resulting from or caused by any failure to furnish heat, electricity, water, gas, air conditioning or sprinkler system, nor for any consequential damage arising from interruption of any utility or services, nor shall Lessor be liable to Lessee for personal injury, death, or any damage from any cause about the Leased Premises or the Properties. Lessor shall additionally not be responsible for any loss or damage incurred by Lessee related to any personal property or sundry items stored by Lessee at the Leased Premises, unless such loss or damage occurs through the gross negligence or intentional action of Lessor, its agents, employees or contractors. 9. ASSIGNMENT: Lessee shall not assign or transfer any of its rights under this Lease or sublease any part of the Leased Premises. 10. DEFAULT: a. If this Lease is terminated by Lessor according to the terms hereof, and if Lessee does not voluntarily quit the Leased Premises upon receipt of the notice of termination, Lessor may, in its discretion, recover sole possession of the Leased Premises in an eviction (unlawful detainer) proceeding, and recover from Lessee all attorney fees, costs, and expenses relating to such proceeding. In addition, Lessor shall be entitled to recover all damages and other claims arising prior to the date of termination, including without limitation, all Rent otherwise due, damages, and attorney fees. b. If Lessee defaults in the payment of Rent and such default continues for 30 days after Lessor’s written notice thereof to Lessee, or Lessee defaults in the prompt and full performance of any other provision of this Lease and such default continues for 45 days after Lessor’s page 73 written notice thereof to Lessee, or if Lessee makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or if a receiver is appointed for the property of Lessee, or if Lessee abandons the Leased Premises, then, and in any such event, Lessor may by written notice to Lessee, immediately terminate this Lease and terminate Lessee’s right to possession of the Leased Premises. Lessor may recover sole possession of the Leased Premises using the methods contained in subparagraph (a). 11. RIGHT OF ENTRY: Lessor and its employees or agents shall have the right, without any diminution of Rent, additional Rent or other charges payable hereunder by Lessee, to enter the Leased Premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection, cleaning, repairing, altering or improving the same or the Leased Premises, but nothing contained in this provision shall be construed so as to impose any obligation on Lessor to make any repairs, alterations or improvements. 12. USE BY LESSEE: Lessee agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances, orders, rules, and regulations promulgated by all government agencies which relate to the use, condition, or occupancy of the Leased Premises by Lessee. Lessee warrants that it will abide by Lessor’s workplace policies and the Leased Premises will remain tobacco and chemical free. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that Lessor has the exclusive authority to modify and/or change its rules and regulations regarding the Properties and the Leased Premises at any time. Lessee shall not make any alterations or improvements to the Leased Premises without prior written consent of Lessor. All alterations and improvements to the Leased Premises and fixtures shall become the property of Lessor. Lessee’s use of the Leased Premises for the purposes described in this Lease shall be non-exclusive, and Lessee shall not preclude use or access of the Leased Premises or the Properties by the Lessor or by third parties using such areas by permission of Lessor, or through a permit granted by Lessor. 13. SAFETY AND SECURITY: Lessee is solely responsible for the safety and security of its employees, guests, and invitees while they are on the Leased Premises. Lessee is also responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of any door codes, keys, entry devices and the like used to gain access into the Properties and the Leased Premises. 14. SIGNS: Lessee agrees that no exterior or interior window or door sign, advertising media, or window or door lettering or placards or other signs or page 74 advertising materials shall be installed, erected, attached or affixed to any portion of the interior or exterior of the Leased Premises or the Properties, without the express prior written consent of Lessor. 15. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF LEASED PREMISES: If the Leased Premises are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease provided it gives written notice thereof to Lessor within 60 days after such damage or destruction, unless such fire, damage, or destruction is proved to be the fault of Lessee, through an intentional act, omission, or negligence. 16. SUCCESSORS: The Parties acknowledge and agree that the covenants, terms and conditions of this Lease shall extend, apply to and firmly bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective Parties. 17. SEVERABILITY: If any term, condition, or provision of this Lease or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder thereof and the application of such term, provision and condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and this Lease and all terms, provisions and conditions hereof shall, in all other aspects, continue to be effective and to be complied with to the fullest extent permitted by law. 18. RELATIONSHIP: This Lease does not create the relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture, or any other association between Lessor and Lessee. 19. CONSTRUCTION OF LEASE: It is agreed that this Lease shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Lease shall constitute the entire agreement relating to the lease of the Leased Premises between the Parties. Any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Lease shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this Lease. page 75 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto caused this Lease to be validly executed in their respective names, as of the day and year first above written. LESSOR: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By: ________________________ Its: Mayor By:________________________ Its: City Clerk LESSEE: MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION By: ________________________ Its: page 76 EXHIBIT A LOCATION OF PROPERTIES Mendota Heights Public Works Building: 2431 Lexington Avenue South Mendakota Park Storage Facility: 2111 Dodd Road Mendakota Park Concession Stand: 2111 Dodd Road page 77 page 78 page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2018 Audit Presentation BACKGROUND BerganKDV has completed the audit for 2018. The reports for 2018 are the Annual Report & Basic Financial Statements and the Communications Letter. These reports are included in your packet. Matt Mayer from KDV will be at tonight’s meeting to review the Annual Audit Report for 2018. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATION Accept the review and ask any questions you may have. page 91 • utyof Mendota He htg .. Audit Presentation ,sa fir% i��jUyy(`} y.r J ly 2, 2019 berganKov Independent Auditor's Report • Management is responsible for the financial statements • Auditor is responsible to express an opinion on the financial statements • Unmodified Opinion — best opinion an auditor is able to offer • Provides assurance that the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY bergank6tom I info@bergankdv.com Independent Auditor's Report • Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit — No Findings • Internal Control Findings — Lack of Segregation of Accounting Duties r PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY s bergankdv.cam I info@bergankdv.cam General Fund Variance Original and Final Budget- Final Budget Amounts Over(Under) Revenues Taxes and assessments $ 7,189,437 $ 7,237,908 $ 48,471 Licenses and permits 364,750 515,103 150,353 Intergovernmental 440,902 469,417 28,515 Charges for services 650,879 643,095 (7,784) Other 231,000 352,191 121,191 Total revenues 8,876,968 9,217,714 340,746 Expenditures General government 1,735,518 1,609,931 (125,587) Public safety 4,714,412 4,151,895 (562,517) Public works 2,482,788 2,464,014 (18,774) Capital outlay - 19,330 19,330 Total expenditures 8,932,718 8,245,170 (687,548) Other financing sources(uses) Transfers in 55,750 47,550 (8,200) Transfers out - (270,992) (270,992) Total other financing sources(uses) 55,750 (223,442) (279,192) Net change in fimd balances $ - $ 749,102 $ 749,102 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY q bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com General Fund Revenues ............... $10,000;000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 - $1,000,000 $- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ; -Other $259,605 $278,180 $183,925 $412,770 $352,191 iaCharges for Services 556,617 598,691 608,150 621,308 643,095 i■Zntergoverrurrental 397,819 418,234 457,010 424,268 469,417 ■licenses and Per-rrrits 443,498 435,220 1 414516 633,846 515,103 iaTaxes and Assessments 5;456,556 1 5,820,123 6,143,871 6,653,433 7,237,908 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY s bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.corn General Fund I R rm&T,rml I tol rm Rm I w9i UK." 8 Taxes and Assessments 78% Licenses and Permits 6% 1 Inter overs amental Charges for 5% Services Other 7% 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY 6 bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com General Fund Revenues - 2017 ............................... Taxes and assessments 76% Licenses and Pennits 7% Intergovemnental 5% Other Charges for Services 7 5% t% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com General Fund $9,000,000 $8,000000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 nCapita5 C)Lrtlay $756,181 $144,116 $89,688 $32,869 $19,330 sGeneral Goverment 1,270,891 1.565,831 1,398,786 1,516,406 1,609,931 mPublic Works 2,002,737 1,785,332 5,895,327 2,184,378 2,464,014 ■Public Safety 3,473,661 3,570,994 3,870,487 3,879,402 4,151,845 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY 8 bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com General Fund Expenditures Public Safety 50% Public Works 30% Capital Outlay General Government Less than 1% 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY 9 bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com ........................................................................................................... I Expenditures - 2017 ........................................................... ............................................................ ..................................... ........................................... ............................................ ............... Ire .............................................................. ................................................................ ................ ...................... ................................................................ ........................ ................................ .............. .................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ................. .................. ................. .................. ................. .................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ ................. ................ ................ ............... ................ ............... ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............ ........... ............ ..................................... .................................... ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... ........................................ ....................................... ......................... ........................................ .......................... .......... ........................................ ....................... .............. ............... ................................ ....................... ............. .............. .......................................... ....................... ............ ................................... ......................................... .................................... .......................................... ........................................... ........................................... .......................................... .......................................... ........................................... ........................................... .............................................................. ........................................................................................................... • Rama I Eli: OperationsEERIE lllll� BREMEN FIE Mll Ire II�■■■ I..i .�■■■■ISI I� ■I�■ I ................ ............................................................................................. $23,623,069 $22,008,867 Ill $20,019,0, 37.83% 34.92% 35.14% 35-35% 6$6,339,135 $6,732,169 S7,166,136 /I .. ...................................... Par 3 Golf Course Fund ........................................... "NEW $175.000 $150,000 $125;000 $100,000 $75,000 $56x.000 $25,000 $(25.000) 2014 2015 201E 2017 2018 a Operating Revenues $151,214 $167,300 $145245 $147,187 $132,066 a Operating Expenses 157,963) 147,299 154,901 161,672 137,3124 ■Operating Income(Loss) (6,749) 20,001 (9,656) (14,485) (5,258) ■Operating Income(Loss) Excluding Depreciation 3,332 27,882 (1,775) (7,242) 7,099 ■Unrestricted Net Position 1 31,630 4-1,691 42,9314 36,739 444364 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY 13 bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com Sewer Fund ....................................................... $2.500.000 $2.000,000 $1.500,000 $1,000,000 $500.000 S(500.000) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ■Charges for SeiMces 51,597,522 51,675,008 $1,692,646 $1.749,743 X2,012107 ■Operating Expenses 1.563.864 1.759.242. 1.683.068 1.930.921 1.954,960 ■Operating Income(Loss) 33,658 (84,234) 9.578 (181,178) 57,147 •Operating Income(Loss) 200,469 82,755 182,559 (6,704) 240,509 Excluding Depreciation PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY 14 bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com Storm Water Fund Wil""I'll""I'll"'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� WNW $644,044 $500.040 $400M0 $300,000 - $204,000 $104.044 wt- 2014 2415 2416 2417 2018 ■Charges for Services $453,655 $445,569 $446,114 $456,503 $541,173 ■operating Expenses 193,292 291,847 266,476 255,338 285,058 ■Operating Income 264,363 1131,722 139,668 241,165 216,115 ■Operating Income Excluding 296,000 149,359 180,2.41 244,429 268,811 Depreciation PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY 15 bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com n Quest 'ions �► Matthew Mayer 952-563-6873 Matt. Mayer@berganKDV. com yy. • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THE MIDWEST WAY � bergankdv.com I info@bergankdv.com p yr. Y t�. � I c 1J Ali - u mow" LET'S ORE, TOGETHER. *Zo u Y . . BerganKDVis a leading professional services firm with a contagious culture, where growth is fostered and making a difference means something. Our values drive our decisions, and our passion is empowering people and creating a wow experience for our clients. We are powered by people who do business the Midwest way delivering comprehensive business,financial and technology solutions including business planning and consulting, tax, assurance and accounting, technology, wealth management and turnaround management services. From tax reform to technology, we go beyond so you can... b e anKDV DO MORE. 9 •- •• • • #storthere City of Mendota Heights Annual Report and Basic Financial Statements December 31, 2018 City of Mendota Heights Table of Contents Elected Officials and Administration 1 Independent Auditor's Report 2 Management's Discussion and Analysis 5 Basic Financial Statements Government-Wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Position 16 Statement of Activities 17 Fund Financial Statements Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds 18 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position – Governmental Funds 21 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds 22 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities – Governmental Funds 24 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual – General Fund 25 Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds 26 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position – Proprietary Funds 27 Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds 28 Notes to Financial Statements 29 Required Supplementary Information Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios 64 Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability General Employees Retirement Fund 65 Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund 65 Schedule of City Contributions General Employees Retirement Fund 66 Schedule of City Contributions Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund 66 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 67 Supplementary Information Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds 72 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Nonmajor Governmental Funds 76 Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds 79 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position – Internal Service Funds 80 City of Mendota Heights Table of Contents Supplementary Information (Continued) Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds 81 Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual – General Fund 82 Minnesota Legal Compliance 85 1 City of Mendota Heights Elected Officials and Administration December 31, 2018 Elected Officials Position Term Expires Neil Garlock Mayor December 31, 2018 Joel Paper Council Member December 31, 2020 Jay Miller Council Member December 31, 2020 Ultan Duggan Council Member December 31, 2018 Liz Petschel Council Member December 31, 2018 Administration Mark McNeill City Administrator Appointed Lorri Smith City Clerk Appointed Kristen Schabacker Finance Director Appointed 2 Independent Auditor's Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights, Minnesota Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business- type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the Table of Contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. 3 Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2018, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof, and the budgetary comparison for the General Fund for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Implementation of GASB 75 As discussed in Note 17 to the financial statements, the City has adopted new accounting guidance, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis, which follows this report letter, and Required Supplementary Information as listed in the Table of Contents be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City of Mendota Heights' basic financial statements. The accompanying supplementary information identified in the Table of Contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. 4 Other Matters (Continued) Other Information (Continued) The accompanying supplementary information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting, and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. Minneapolis, Minnesota May 28, 2019 City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 5 As management of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), we offer readers of the City's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the year ended December 31, 2018. FINANCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTS The assets of the City exceeded liabilities at the close of the most recent year by $42,869,786 (net position). Of this amount, $6,488,601 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. The City's total net position increased by $1,718,797. Governmental activities resulted in an increase of net position of $1,161,580. Business activities had net position increase of $557,217. As of the close of the current year, the City's governmental funds reported a combined ending fund balance of $14,155,358, an increase of $794,904 from the prior year. At the end of the year the General Fund had an unassigned fund balance of $8,412,047, or 102.2% of total General Fund expenditures. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-Wide Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements on page 16 and 17 are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City's net position changed during the most recent year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future periods (e.g. uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 6 OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) Government-Wide Financial Statements (Continued) Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) and from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, and public works. The business-type activities of the City include sewer, storm water, and the Par 3 Golf Course. Fund Financial Statements A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: Governmental Funds and Proprietary Funds. Governmental Funds Governmental Funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resource, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financial requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statement. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the City's near-term financial decisions. Both the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains three individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and in the Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for the following major funds: General Fund Special Assessments Debt Service Fund Street Capital Projects Fund Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 7 OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) Governmental Funds (Continued) The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages 18 through 25 of this report. Proprietary Funds The City maintains three enterprise funds and three internal service funds as a part of its proprietary fund type. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its sewer, storm water operations and Par 3 Golf Course. Proprietary Funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the following funds: Enterprise Funds Sewer Utility Fund Storm Water Utility Fund Par 3 Golf Course Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City's various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for compensated absences and city hall functions. The internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on pages 26 through 28 of this report. Notes to Financial Statements The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to financial statements can be found on 29 through 60 of this report. Other Information The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non-major governmental funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information on budgetary comparisons. Combining and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on pages 72 through 84 of this report. City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 8 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities by $42,869,786 at the close of the most recent year. The largest portion of the City's net position ($31,687,479 or 73.9%) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, machinery and equipment, sewer main lines and storm sewers and infrastructure) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. Net Position 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 Assets Current and other assets 18,093,147$ 17,170,289$ 1,274,936$ 1,041,687$ 19,368,083$ 18,211,976$ Capital assets 28,692,825 28,592,649 16,930,972 16,683,864 45,623,797 45,276,513 Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 2,655,401 3,440,167 21,117 39,850 2,676,518 3,480,017 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 49,441,373$ 49,203,105$ 18,227,025$ 17,765,401$ 67,668,398$ 66,968,506$ Liabilities Long-term liabilities outstanding 18,063,968$ 18,214,430$ 139,250$ 169,942$ 18,203,218$ 18,384,372$ Other liabilities 2,717,388 2,490,163 61,712 126,175 2,779,100 2,616,338 Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 3,778,292 4,189,989 38,002 41,264 3,816,294$ 4,231,253 Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources 24,559,648$ 24,894,582$ 238,964$ 337,381$ 24,798,612$ 25,231,963$ Net Position Net investment in capital assets 14,756,507$ 14,791,345$ 16,930,972$ 16,683,864$ 31,687,479$ 31,475,209$ Restricted 5,949,206 5,979,074 - - 5,949,206 5,979,074 Unrestricted 4,176,012 3,538,104 1,057,089 744,156 5,233,101 4,282,260 Total net position 24,881,725$ 24,308,523$ 17,988,061$ 17,428,020$ 42,869,786$ 41,736,543$ City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota's Net Position Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals A portion of the of the City's net position ($5,949,206) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position ($5,233,101) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 9 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Governmental Activities Governmental activities increased the City's net position by $1,161,580. Key elements of this increase are as follows: City's Changes in Net Position 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 Revenues Program revenues Charges for services 2,063,762$ 2,306,672$ 2,670,040$ 2,389,817$ 4,733,802$ 4,696,489$ Operating grants and contributions 443,789 446,791 - - 443,789 446,791 Capital grants and contributions 590,142 1,384,990 - - 590,142 1,384,990 General revenues Taxes 8,586,886 7,986,851 - - 8,586,886 7,986,851 Unrestricted investment earnings 152,119 107,304 15,403 14,460 167,522 121,764 Gain on sale of asset - - 8,778 - 8,778 - Total revenues 11,836,698 12,232,608 2,694,221 2,404,277 14,530,919 14,636,885 Expenses General government 2,027,404 2,215,942 - - 2,027,404 2,215,942 Public safety 3,940,953 4,113,449 - - 3,940,953 4,113,449 Public works 4,092,510 3,718,579 - - 4,092,510 3,718,579 Interest on long-term debt 373,913 369,377 - - 373,913 369,377 Sewer - - 1,954,960 1,930,921 1,954,960 1,930,921 Storm water - - 285,058 255,338 285,058 255,338 Par 3 golf course - - 137,324 161,672 137,324 161,672 Total expenses 10,434,780 10,417,347 2,377,342 2,347,931 12,812,122 12,765,278 Increase (decrease) in net position before transfers 1,401,918 1,815,261 316,879 56,346 1,718,797 1,871,607 Transfers (240,338) (597) 240,338 597 - - Increase (decrease) in net position 1,161,580 1,814,664 557,217 56,943 1,718,797 1,871,607 Net position - beginning 24,308,523 22,493,859 17,428,020 17,371,077 41,736,543 39,864,936 Change in accounting principle (588,378) - 2,824 - (585,554) - Net position - beginning restated 23,720,145 22,493,859 17,430,844 17,371,077 41,150,989 39,864,936 Net position - ending 24,881,725$ 24,308,523$ 17,988,061$ 17,428,020$ 42,869,786$ 41,736,543$ Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 10 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and expenditures: Charges for Services 17%Operating Grants and Contributions 4% Capital Grants and Contributions 5% Taxes 73% Unrestricted Investment Earnings 1% Governmental Activities - Revenues General Government 19% Public Safety 38% Public Works 39% Interest and Fees on Long-Term Debt 4% Governmental Activities - Expenses City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 11 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Business-Type Activities Business-type activities increased net position by $557,217. Below are graphs showing the business-type activities revenue and expense comparisons: Charges for Services 99% Unrestricted Investment Earnings 1% Business-Type Activities - Revenues Sewer 82% Storm Water 12% Par 3 Golf Course 6% Business-Type Activities - Expenses City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 12 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FUNDS Governmental Funds The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the year. At the end of the current year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $14,155,358. Nonspendable fund balances are already allocated for prepaid items ($266,859) and inventory ($22,135). Approximately 28.77% ($4,072,008) constitutes restricted fund balance. Restricted fund balance would include Debt Service, Special Park, and Street Light District Funds, all of which have specific uses for the funds they receive. The City also has a committed fund balance of $605,204. This represents fund balance that is to be used for the water system and civil defense needs. The City has assigned fund balance of $1,579,709 (11.16%). This number represents the fund balances for the capital projects that the City has ongoing and an amount allocated for insurance reserves. The remaining category of fund balance is the unassigned fund balance. The City has $7,609,443 of unassigned fund balance which is approximately 53.76% of the combined governmental fund balance at December 31, 2018. The General Fund increased by $749,102 in 2018. Revenues were greater than anticipated and expenditures were lower than budgeted amounts. The Special Assessments Debt Service Fund increased by $87,475 in 2018. This fund accounted for debt service payments for prior street improvement projects that were financed through the issuance of bonds. The Street Capital Project Fund increased by $37,608. This fund accounted for the costs and resources associated with the Lexington Highlands street project. The nonmajor governmental funds decreased by $79,281. These funds received revenues from water surcharges and park dedication fees. Nonmajor funds account for the Special Park, Civil Defense, and Street Light District activity. The City also has nonmajor funds for future purchases of equipment, facility needs, fire hall remodel and minor infrastructure projects. Proprietary Funds The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. The unrestricted net position in the respective Proprietary Funds are sewer $703,854, storm water $308,871 and $44,364 for the Par 3 Golf Course. The Sewer Utility Fund had an increase in net position in 2018 of $295,359, the Storm Water Utility Fund had an increase in net position in 2018 of $189,493 and the Par 3 Golf Course Fund had an increase in net position of $72,365. City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 13 BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS General Fund The General Fund budget was not amended during 2018. During the year, revenues exceeded budgeted estimates by $340,746, while expenditures were less than anticipated by $687,548. The General Fund experienced greater than budgeted revenues in most categories. The City continued to receive higher than anticipated revenues for licenses and fees, due in large part to an increased level of building construction activity. There were smaller differences in most of the remaining revenue categories. The General Fund expenditures were lower than budgeted in all categories. The General Government function was under budget, due primarily to lower than anticipated IT costs. The Public Safety function also experienced expenditures which were less than the budgeted amounts, due to smaller than expected staffing costs. Finally, the Public Works function was close to the budgeted expenditures. Overall, the General Fund balance increased by $749,102, an increase of approximately 9.3%. CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION Capital Assets The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2018, amounts to $45,623,797 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, machinery and equipment, sewer main lines and storm sewers and infrastructure. Capital Assets (Net of Depreciation) 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 Land 6,150,895$ 6,150,895$ 2,531,475$ 2,531,475$ 8,682,370$ 8,682,370$ Construction in progress 2,420,917 2,960,110 - 445,129 2,420,917 3,405,239 Buildings and structures 820,703 581,519 127,599 134,636 948,302 716,155 Machinery and equipment 1,951,388 2,044,546 179,021 56,372 2,130,409 2,100,918 Other improvements 640,052 617,444 - - 640,052 617,444 Sewer main lines and Storm sewers - - 14,092,877 13,516,252 14,092,877 13,516,252 Infrastructure 16,708,870 16,238,135 - - 16,708,870 16,238,135 Total capital assets 28,692,825$ 28,592,649$ 16,930,972$ 16,683,864$ 45,623,797$ 45,276,513$ Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 5. City of Mendota Heights Management's Discussion and Analysis 14 CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED) Long-Term Debt At the end of the current year, the City had total long-term debt outstanding of $14,970,000, a decrease of $115,000 from 2017. $14,970,000 for general obligation (G.O.) improvement debt which is supported in part by special assessments. Outstanding Debt G.O. Improvement Bonds, G.O. Bonds and Revenue Bonds: 2018 2017 G.O. Improvement Bonds 13,725,000$ 13,555,000$ G.O. Bonds 1,245,000 1,530,000 Total 14,970,000$ 15,085,000$ Governmental Activities The City maintains an AAA rating from Standard & Poor's. Minnesota Statutes limit the amount of G.O. debt a Minnesota city may issue to 2% of total estimated market value. The current debt limitation for the City is $42,046,557. Of the City's outstanding debt, $1,245,000 is counted within the statutory limitation. Additional information on the City's long-term debt can be found in Note 6. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budgets and Rates In 2018, the taxable market value for the City was $2,102,327,860. This represents an increase of 5.9% from 2017. The City is expecting an increase in taxable market value for 2020. These factors were considered in preparing the City's budget for 2019. Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Director of Finance, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118. 15 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS City of Mendota Heights Statement of Net Position December 31, 2018 Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Assets Cash and investments (including cash equivalents) 14,924,343$ 485,553$ 15,409,896$ Property tax receivable 51,079 - 51,079 Accounts receivable 36,435 626,820 663,255 Interest receivable 22,801 810 23,611 Due from other governments 326,406 - 326,406 Special assessments receivable Delinquent 7,410 5,014 12,424 Unearned 2,331,700 26,237 2,357,937 Inventories 22,135 - 22,135 Prepaid items 274,738 130,502 405,240 Land held for resale 96,100 - 96,100 Capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) Land and improvements 6,150,895 2,531,475 8,682,370 Construction in progress 2,420,917 - 2,420,917 Capital assets being depreciated Infrastructure 16,708,870 14,092,877 30,801,747 Buildings and structures 820,703 127,599 948,302 Other improvements 640,052 - 640,052 Machinery and equipment 1,951,388 179,021 2,130,409 Total assets 46,785,972 18,205,908 64,991,880 Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 2,555,924 20,445 2,576,369 Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 99,477 672 100,149 2,655,401 21,117 2,676,518 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 49,441,373$ 18,227,025$ 67,668,398$ Liabilities Accounts and contracts payable 592,133$ 28,853$ 620,986$ Due to other governments 201,696 7,089 208,785 Salaries and benefits payable 136,715 4,553 141,268 Interest payable 144,490 - 144,490 Developers' escrow deposits 8,011 - 8,011 Bond principal payable Payable within one year 1,245,000 - 1,245,000 Payable after one year 13,946,818 - 13,946,818 Compensated absences payable Payable within one year 389,343 21,217 410,560 Payable after one year 121,901 11,216 133,117 Other post employment benefits (OPEB) payable 935,277 15,251 950,528 Net pension liability 3,059,972 112,783 3,172,755 Total liabilities 20,781,356 200,962 20,982,318 Deferred Inflows of Resources Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 3,778,292 38,002 3,816,294 Net Position Net investment in capital assets 14,756,507 16,930,972 30,431,979 Restricted for Debt service 5,169,345 - 5,169,345 Street light maintenance 19,453 - 19,453 Park dedication 760,408 - 760,408 Unrestricted 4,176,012 1,057,089 6,488,601 Total net position 24,881,725 17,988,061 42,869,786 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and net position 49,441,373$ 18,227,025$ 67,668,398$ See notes to financial statements.16 Program RevenuesExpensesCharges for ServicesOperating Grants and ContributionsCapital Grants and ContributionsGovernmental ActivitiesBusiness-Type ActivitiesTotalGovernmental activitiesGeneral government2,022,289$ 222,449$ 13,708$ -$ (1,786,132)$ -$ (1,786,132)$ Public safety3,941,637 762,376 279,226 - (2,900,035) - (2,900,035) Public works 4,096,941 1,078,937 150,855 590,142 (2,277,007) - (2,277,007) Interest on long-term debt373,913 - - - (373,913) - (373,913) Total governmental activities10,434,780 2,063,762 443,789 590,142 (7,337,087) - (7,337,087) Business-type activitiesSewer1,954,960 2,030,548 - - - 75,588 75,588 Storm water285,058 506,973 - - - 221,915 221,915 Par 3 Golf Course 137,324 132,519 - - - (4,805) (4,805) Total business-type activities2,377,342 2,670,040 - - - 292,698 292,698 Total governmental and business-type activities12,812,122$ 4,733,802$ 443,789$ 590,142$ (7,337,087) 292,698 (7,044,389) General revenuesProperty taxes8,586,886 - 8,586,886 Unrestricted investment earnings152,119 15,403 167,522 Gain on sale of asset- 8,778 8,778 Total general revenues8,739,005 24,181 8,763,186 Transfers (240,338) 240,338 - Change in net position 1,161,580 557,217 1,718,797 Net position - beginning 24,308,523 17,428,020 41,736,543 Change in accounting principle (Note 12) (588,378) 2,824 (585,554) Net position - beginning, restated 23,720,145 17,430,844 41,150,989 Net position - ending24,881,725$ 17,988,061$ 42,869,786$ 17See notes to financial statements.Functions/ProgramsNet (Expense) Revenues and Changes in Net PositionCity of Mendota HeightsStatement of Activities Year Ended December 31, 2018 City of Mendota Heights Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds December 31, 2018 General Fund Special Assessments Debt Service Assets Cash and investments (including cash equivalents)8,577,044$ 2,792,614$ Taxes receivable - delinquent 42,665 5,340 Special assessments receivable Delinquent 742 6,668 Deferred 3,287 2,005,572 Accounts receivable 18,111 - Interest receivable 11,755 5,018 Due from other funds - - Due from other governments 315,110 - Inventories 22,135 - Prepaid items 266,537 - Land held for resale - - Total assets 9,257,386$ 4,815,212$ Liabilities Accounts and contracts payable 199,475$ -$ Due to other funds - - Due to other governments 31,598 - Salaries and benefits payable 135,008 - Developers' escrow deposits 8,011 - Total liabilities 374,092 - Deferred Inflows of Resources Unavailable revenue - property taxes 42,665 5,340 Unavailable revenue - special assessments 4,029 2,012,240 Total deferred inflows of resources 46,694 2,017,580 Fund Balances Nonspendable 288,672 - Restricted - 2,797,632 Committed - - Assigned 135,881 - Unassigned 8,412,047 - Total fund balances 8,836,600 2,797,632 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 9,257,386$ 4,815,212$ See notes to financial statements.18 Street Capital Projects Other Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds 36,735$ 2,908,627$ 14,315,020$ - 3,074 51,079 - - 7,410 312,767 10,074 2,331,700 - 18,324 36,435 821 5,058 22,652 - 350,454 350,454 7,136 4,160 326,406 - - 22,135 - 322 266,859 - 96,100 96,100 357,459$ 3,396,193$ 17,826,250$ 276,587$ 109,570$ 585,632$ - 350,454 350,454 - 170,000 201,598 - - 135,008 - - 8,011 276,587 630,024 1,280,703 - 3,074 51,079 312,767 10,074 2,339,110 312,767 13,148 2,390,189 - 322 288,994 - 1,274,376 4,072,008 - 605,204 605,204 - 1,443,828 1,579,709 (231,895) (570,709) 7,609,443 (231,895) 2,753,021 14,155,358 357,459$ 3,396,193$ 17,826,250$ 19 20 (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) City of Mendota Heights Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position - Governmental Funds December 31, 2018 Total fund balances - governmental funds 14,155,358$ Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as assets in governmental funds. Cost of capital assets 53,217,392 Less accumulated depreciation (25,092,883) Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported as liabilities in the funds. Long-term liabilities at year-end consist of: General obligation (G.O.) bond principal payable (14,970,000) Unamortized bond premium (221,818) OPEB payable (930,509) Net pension liability (3,008,919) Deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are created as a result of various differences related to pensions and OPEB that are not recognized in the governmental funds. Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions (3,761,090) Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 2,546,669 Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 99,267 Delinquent receivables will be collected in subsequent years, but are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds. Property taxes 51,079 Special assessments 7,410 Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds. Deferred special assessments 2,331,700 Governmental funds do not report a liability for accrued interest until due and payable.(144,490) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of engineering, compensated absences and City Hall expenses to individual funds. The net position of the funds are considered governmental and included in the government-wide Statement of Net Position. 602,559 24,881,725$ See notes to financial statements.21 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position Total net position - governmental activities are different because: General Fund Special Assessments Debt Service Revenues Property taxes 7,237,908$ 934,277$ Special assessments - 398,658 Licenses and permits 515,103 - Intergovernmental 469,417 - Charges for services 643,095 - Fines and forfeitures 103,829 5,044 Miscellaneous Investment income 78,430 33,488 Other 169,932 - Total revenues 9,217,714 1,371,467 Expenditures Current General government 1,609,931 - Public safety 4,151,895 - Public works 2,464,014 - Debt service Principal - 945,000 Interest and other charges - 359,076 Capital outlay General government - - Public safety - - Public works 19,330 - Total expenditures 8,245,170 1,304,076 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 972,544 67,391 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Issuance of debt - 1,080,000 Bond premium - 45,124 Transfers in 47,550 - Transfers out (270,992) (1,105,040) Total other financing sources (uses) (223,442) 20,084 Net change in fund balances 749,102 87,475 Fund Balances Beginning of year 8,087,498 2,710,157 End of year 8,836,600$ 2,797,632$ See notes to financial statements.22 City of Mendota Heights Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 Street Capital Projects Other Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds -$ 426,145$ 8,598,330$ 253,789 - 652,447 - - 515,103 - - 469,417 - 127,161 770,256 4 73 108,950 5,467 33,742 151,127 - 478,952 648,884 259,260 1,066,073 11,914,514 - 57,316 1,667,247 - - 4,151,895 - 66,945 2,530,959 - 250,000 1,195,000 - 32,909 391,985 - 86,527 86,527 - 239,735 239,735 1,437,594 380,095 1,837,019 1,437,594 1,113,527 12,100,367 (1,178,334) (47,454) (185,853) - - 1,080,000 - - 45,124 1,215,942 197,247 1,460,739 - (229,074) (1,605,106) 1,215,942 (31,827) 980,757 37,608 (79,281) 794,904 (269,503) 2,832,302 13,360,454 (231,895)$ 2,753,021$ 14,155,358$ 23 794,904$ Capital outlays are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful lives as depreciation expense. Capital outlays 1,999,572 Depreciation expense (1,712,731) Book value of disposed assets (20,440) Assets contributed to enterprise funds (320,545) Governmental funds recognized pension contributions as expenditures at the time of payment whereas the Statement of Activities factors in items related to pensions on a full accrual perspective.180,125 OPEB are not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds because they do not require the use of current financial resources; instead, they are expensed in the Statement of Activities.60,853 Principal payments on long-term debt are recognized as expenditures in the governmental funds but have no effect on net position in the Statement of Activities.1,195,000 Premiums on the issuance of long-term debt provide current financial resources to governmental funds and have no effect on net position. These amounts are reported in the governmental funds as an other financing source and constitute long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position.(45,124) Premiums are recognized when debt is issued in the governmental funds but amortized over the life of the debt in the Statement of Activities.22,610 Interest on long-term debt in the Statement of Activities differs from the amount reported in the governmental funds because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due and thus requires use of current financial resources. In the Statement of Activities, however, interest expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due.(4,538) Proceeds from long-term debt are recognized as an other financing source in the governmental funds but have no effect on net position in the Statement of Activities. Bonds payable (1,080,000) Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds.(78,808) Activities of the internal service funds are presented separately from the governmental funds. However, the functions, from a government-wide perspective, are governmental.170,702 1,161,580$ See notes to financial statements.24 Change in net position - governmental activities Net change in fund balances - governmental funds Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities City of Mendota Heights are different because: Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities - Governmental Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 City of Mendota Heights Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund Year Ended December 31, 2018 Budgeted Amounts Variance with Original Actual and Final Amounts Revenues Property taxes 7,189,437$ 7,237,908$ 48,471$ Licenses and permits 364,750 515,103 150,353 Intergovernmental 440,902 469,417 28,515 Charges for services 650,879 643,095 (7,784) Fines and forfeitures 64,000 103,829 39,829 Miscellaneous revenues Investment income 30,000 78,430 48,430 Other 137,000 169,932 32,932 Total revenues 8,876,968 9,217,714 340,746 Expenditures Current General government 1,720,468 1,609,931 (110,537) Public safety 4,714,412 4,151,895 (562,517) Public works 2,497,838 2,464,014 (33,824) Capital outlay Public works - 19,330 19,330 Total expenditures 8,932,718 8,245,170 (687,548) Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (55,750) 972,544 1,028,294 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in 55,750 47,550 (8,200) Transfers out - (270,992) (270,992) Total other financing sources (uses)55,750 (223,442) (279,192) Net change in fund balance -$ 749,102 749,102$ Fund Balance Beginning of year 8,087,498 End of year 8,836,600$ See notes to financial statements. 25 Final Budget - Over (Under) City of Mendota Heights Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds December 31, 2018 Sewer Utility Storm Water Utility Par 3 Golf Course Total Internal Service Funds Assets Current assets Cash and investments 233,198$ 204,129$ 48,226$ 485,553$ 609,323$ Special assessment receivable Delinquent 5,014 - - 5,014 - Deferred 26,237 - - 26,237 - Accounts receivable 500,045 126,380 395 626,820 - Interest receivable 288 458 64 810 149 Prepaid expenses 125,298 - 5,204 130,502 7,879 Total current assets 890,080 330,967 53,889 1,274,936 617,351 Noncurrent assets Capital assets Land - - 2,531,475 2,531,475 25,000 Buildings - - 208,490 208,490 2,137,837 Sewer main lines and storm sewers 15,060,033 4,585,343 - 19,645,376 - Improvements other than buildings - - - - 40,781 Machinery and equipment 214,811 - 107,319 322,130 66,969 Total capital assets 15,274,844 4,585,343 2,847,284 22,707,471 2,270,587 Less accumulated depreciation (5,165,649) (497,963) (112,887) (5,776,499) (1,702,271) Net capital assets 10,109,195 4,087,380 2,734,397 16,930,972 568,316 Total assets 10,999,275 4,418,347 2,788,286 18,205,908 1,185,667 Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 16,500 3,060 885 20,445 9,255 Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 481 66 125 672 210 Total deferred outflows of resources 16,981 3,126 1,010 21,117 9,465 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 11,016,256$ 4,421,473$ 2,789,296$ 18,227,025$ 1,195,132$ Liabilities and Net Position Current liabilities Accounts and contracts payable 27,833$ 605$ 415$ 28,853$ 6,501$ Salaries and benefits payable 3,639 562 352 4,553 1,707 Due to other governments 6,694 - 395 7,089 98 Noncurrent liabilities due within one year 21,217 - - 21,217 389,343 Total current liabilities 59,383 1,167 1,162 61,712 397,649 Noncurrent liabilities Compensated absences 32,433 - - 32,433 511,244 OPEB payable 10,920 1,487 2,844 15,251 4,768 Net pension liability 91,019 16,880 4,884 112,783 51,053 Less amount due within one year (21,217) - - (21,217) (389,343) Total noncurrent liabilities 113,155 18,367 7,728 139,250 177,722 Total liabilities 172,538 19,534 8,890 200,962 575,371 Deferred Inflows of Resources Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 30,669 5,688 1,645 38,002 17,202 Net Position Investment in capital assets 10,109,195 4,087,380 2,734,397 16,930,972 568,316 Unrestricted 703,854 308,871 44,364 1,057,089 34,243 Total net position 10,813,049 4,396,251 2,778,761 17,988,061 602,559 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and net position 11,016,256$ 4,421,473$ 2,789,296$ 18,227,025$ 1,195,132$ See notes to financial statements.26 Sewer Utility Storm Water Utility Par 3 Golf Course Total Internal Service Funds Operating revenues Charges for services 2,012,107$ 501,173$ 132,066$ 2,645,346$ 216,940$ Operating expenses Wages and salaries 142,763 21,249 62,455 226,467 65,560 Employee benefits 61,432 5,507 (2,740) 64,199 22,852 Materials and supplies 20,315 21 4,955 25,291 - Repairs and maintenance 114,255 31,034 20,299 165,588 - Professional services 21,946 147,079 10,681 179,706 1,359 Insurance 8,387 - 3,834 12,221 5,991 Utilities 32,629 - 10,962 43,591 42,595 Depreciation 183,362 52,726 12,357 248,445 79,714 Travel 16 - - 16 - Miscellaneous 26,143 27,442 14,521 68,106 53,733 Sewer charges - MCES 1,343,712 - - 1,343,712 - Total operating expenses 1,954,960 285,058 137,324 2,377,342 271,804 Operating income (loss) 57,147 216,115 (5,258) 268,004 (54,864) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Investment income 11,922 3,056 425 15,403 992 Fines and forfeitures 390 - - 390 - Special assessments 4,253 - - 4,253 - Gain on sale of asset 5,778 - 3,000 8,778 - Other income 13,798 5,800 453 20,051 - Total nonoperating revenues 36,141 8,856 3,878 48,875 992 Change in net position before capital contributions and transfers 93,288 224,971 (1,380) 316,879 (53,872) Capital contributions 213,221 107,324 - 320,545 - Transfers in - - 73,745 73,745 224,574 Transfers out (11,150) (142,802) - (153,952) - Change in net position 295,359 189,493 72,365 557,217 170,702 Net position Beginning of year 10,514,825 4,206,447 2,706,748 17,428,020 430,822 Change in accounting principle (Note 12)2,865 311 (352) 2,824 1,035 Beginning of year, as restated 10,517,690 4,206,758 2,706,396 17,430,844 431,857 End of year 10,813,049$ 4,396,251$ 2,778,761$ 17,988,061$ 602,559$ See notes to financial statements.27 Year Ended December 31, 2018 City of Mendota Heights Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position - Proprietary Funds Sewer Utility Storm Water Utility Par 3 Golf Course Total Internal Service Funds Cash Flows - Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users 1,967,150$ 489,525$ 131,726$ 2,588,401$ 216,940$ Payments to suppliers (1,578,274) (270,610) (69,766) (1,918,650) (181,072) Payments to employees (195,180) (27,633) (77,529) (300,342) 4,680 Miscellaneous revenue 12,772 5,800 453 19,025 - Net cash flows - operating activities 206,468 197,082 (15,116) 388,434 40,548 Cash Flows - Noncapital Financing Activities Transfer from other funds - - 73,745 73,745 224,574 Transfer to other funds (11,150) (142,802) - (153,952) - Net cash flows - noncapital financing activities (11,150) (142,802) 73,745 (80,207) 224,574 Cash Flows - Capital and Related Financing Activities Proceeds from sale of capital assets 11,999 - 3,000 14,999 - Acquisition of capital assets (72,748) (31,736) (76,745) (181,229) (234,033) Net cash flows - capital and related Financing activities (60,749) (31,736) (73,745) (166,230) (234,033) Cash Flows - Investing Activities Interest and dividends received 11,900 2,901 424 15,225 1,035 Net change in cash and cash equivalents 146,469 25,445 (14,692) 157,222 32,124 Cash and Cash Equivalents Beginning of year 86,729 178,684 62,918 328,331 577,199 End of year 233,198$ 204,129$ 48,226$ 485,553$ 609,323$ Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Flows - Operating Activities Operating income (loss) 57,147$ 216,115$ (5,258)$ 268,004$ (54,864)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows - operating activities Operating activities Miscellaneous revenue 12,772 5,800 453 19,025 - Depreciation expense 183,362 52,726 12,357 248,445 79,714 Accounts receivable (47,611) (11,648) (340) (59,599) - Due from other governments 2,654 - - 2,654 - Prepaid items (9,201) - (4,034) (13,235) 14,073 Accounts and contracts payable 4,704 (34,197) (501) (29,994) (91,471) Due to other governmental units (6,374) (30,837) 21 (37,190) 4 Salaries payable 880 105 229 1,214 210 OPEB payable 1,991 255 297 2,543 826 Pension related items 2,581 (1,237) (18,340) (16,996) (4,455) Compensated absences payable 3,563 - - 3,563 96,511 Total adjustments 149,321 (19,033) (9,858) 120,430 95,412 Net cash flows - operating activities 206,468$ 197,082$ (15,116)$ 388,434$ 40,548$ See notes to financial statements.28 City of Mendota Heights Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 29 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Reporting Entity The City of Mendota Heights is a statutory city governed by an elected mayor and four council members. The accompanying financial statements present the government entities for which the government is considered to be financially accountable. The financial statements present the City and its component units. The City includes all funds, organizations, institutions, agencies, departments, and offices that are not legally separate from such. Component units are legally separate organizations for which the elected officials of the City are financially accountable and are included within the basic financial statements of the City because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City. The City is considered financially accountable for a component unit if it appoints a voting majority of the organization's governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization by significantly influencing the programs, projects, activities, or level of services performed or provided by the organization, or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to or impose specific financial burdens on, the City. As a result of applying the component unit definition criteria above, the City has no component units. B. Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the City. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Interest on general long-term debt is considered an indirect expense and is reported separately in the Statement of Activities. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Internally dedicated revenues are reported as general revenues rather than program revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. The Internal Service Funds are presented in the internal service fund financial statements. Because the principal user of internal services is the City's governmental activities, the financial statements of the Internal Service Fund is consolidated into the governmental column when presented in the government- wide financial statements. The cost of these services is reported in the appropriate functional activity. 30 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment matures. Property taxes, franchise taxes, licenses, and interest associated with the current period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. Description of Funds: Major Governmental Funds: General Fund – This fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Assessments Debt Service Fund – This fund receives all special assessment payments and is dedicated for the repayment of debt incurred on a specific project. Street Capital Projects Fund – This fund is used to account for the proceeds and disbursements of funds for street improvement expenditures. Proprietary Funds: Sewer Utility Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's sewer utility. Storm Water Utility Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's storm water utility. Par 3 Golf Course Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's operation of the Par 3 Golf Course. 31 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) Description of Funds: (Continued) Additional Fund Types: Internal Service Funds – These funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments of the City on a cost-reimbursement basis. The City's Internal Service Funds account for compensated absences and City Hall expenses. As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges between the City's utility functions and various other functions of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Proprietary Funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City's Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for the Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, the City uses restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. Further, the City applies unrestricted funds in this order if various levels of unrestricted fund balances exist: committed, assigned, and unassigned. D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity 1. Deposits and Investments The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short- term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. Investments for the City are reported at fair value. Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, agencies, and instrumentalities, shares of investment companies whose only investments are in the aforementioned securities, obligations of the State of Minnesota or its municipalities, bankers' acceptances, future contracts, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and commercial paper of the highest quality with a maturity of no longer than 270 days and in the Minnesota Municipal Investment Pool. Minnesota Statutes requires all deposits made by cities with financial institutions to be collateralized in an amount equal to 110% of deposits in excess of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance. 32 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity (Continued) 1. Deposits and Investments (Continued) Certain investments for the City are reported at fair value as disclosed in Note 3. The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The Hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs. 2. Receivables and Payables All trade and property tax receivables are shown at a gross amount since both are assessable to the property taxes and are collectible upon the sale of the property. The City levies its property tax for the subsequent year during the month of December. December 28 is the last day the City can certify a tax levy to the County Auditor for collection the following year. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. The property tax is recorded as revenue when it becomes measurable and available. Dakota County is the collecting agency for the levy and remits the collections to the City three times a year. The tax levy notice is mailed in March with the first half of the payment due on May 15 and the second half due on October 15. Taxes not collected as of December 31 each year are shown as delinquent taxes receivable. The County Auditor prepares the tax list for all taxable property in the City, applying the applicable tax rate to the tax capacity of individual properties, to arrive at the actual tax for each property. The County Auditor also collects all special assessments, except for certain prepayments paid directly to the City. The County Auditor submits the list of taxes and special assessments to be collected on each parcel of property to the County Treasurer in January of each year. 3. Inventories Inventories are valued at cost, which approximates market, using the first in, first out (FIFO) method. Inventory consists of expendable supplies held for consumption. Inventories of governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Inventory – land held for resale represents land owned by the City with the intent to sell to developers. This land is recorded at the lesser of historical cost or expected net realizable value. 4. Prepaid Items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. 33 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity (Continued) 5. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, intangible, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, sidewalks, easements, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000, and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at acquisition value at the date of donation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Property, plant, and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Assets Years Buildings 15-100 Other improvements 10-40 Machinery and equipment 3-25 Infrastructure 30-100 6. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until that time. The City presents deferred outflows of resources on the Statement of Net Position for deferred outflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB for various estimate differences that will be amortized and recognized over future years. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position and fund financial statements will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has two items that qualify for reporting in this category. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from two sources: property taxes and special assessments. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. The City presents deferred inflows of resources on the Statement of Net Position for deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB for various estimate differences that will be amortized and recognized over future years. 34 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity (Continued) 7. Compensated Absences\Severance The City allows employees to accrue vacation based on years of service to carry over to the next year. Accrued vacation shall be used in the year following the year which said time is earned and any time accrued will be paid out at termination. At the end of the year the vacation balance cannot exceed 200 hours. All permanent full-time employees accrue personal leave at the rate of 4 hours per month, to a maximum of 320 hours. Any balances in excess of 320 hours will be converted to cash compensation or additional vacation time at a ratio of 50%. All compensated absences pay is accrued when incurred in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured as a result of employee termination or similar circumstances. These liabilities are paid by the governmental fund the employee provided most of its service to. The unused vacation and sick leave of the proprietary funds is included in accrued liabilities of the respective fund. 8. Long-Term Obligations In the government-wide financial statements, and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type Statement of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight-line method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. 9. Pensions For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and the relief association and additions to/deductions from PERA's and the relief association's fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA and the relief association except that PERA's fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. 35 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity (Continued) 10. Fund Equity a. Classification In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purpose for which amounts in those funds can be spent. Nonspendable Fund Balance – These are amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in spendable form or they are legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. Restricted Fund Balance – These are amounts that are restricted to specific purposes either by a) constraints placed on the use of resources by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or b) imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Committed Fund Balance – These are amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by the City Council (highest level of decision making authority) through resolution. Assigned Fund Balance – These are amounts that are constrained by the City's intent to be used for specific purposes but are neither restricted nor committed. Assignments are made by the City's Administrator or Finance Director based on the City Council's direction. Unassigned Fund Balance – These are residual amounts in the General Fund not reported in any other classification. The General Fund is the only fund that can report a positive unassigned fund balance. Other funds would report a negative unassigned fund balance should the total of nonspendable, restricted and committed fund balances exceed the total net resources of that fund. b. Minimum Fund Balance The City will strive to maintain a General Fund unassigned fund balance of 75% of the following year's budgeted operating expenditures. 36 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) D. Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity (Continued) 11. Net Position Net position represents the difference between assets and deferred outflows of resources; and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources in the government-wide financial statements. Net investment in capital assets consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation reduced by the outstanding balance of any long-term debt used to build or acquire the capital assets. A reclassification of $1,483,000 was made between this net position class and unrestricted net position in the total column on the Statement of Net Position to recognize the portion of debt attributable to capital assets donated from governmental activities to business-type activities. Net position is reported as restricted in the government-wide financial statement when there are limitations on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. 12. Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Estimates also affect the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures/expense during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. E. Budgetary Information The City Council adopts an annual budget for the General Fund and certain special revenue and capital project funds. The amounts shown in the financial statements as "budget" represent the original budgeted amount and all revisions made during the year. The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. The City Administrator prepares and presents to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget included proposed expenditures and means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. The City Council deliberates on and adopts the budget on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and legally enacts the budget by passage of a resolution. 4. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year. 5. The City Council must approve any budget appropriation transfers between departments and any increases in budget appropriations to the extent actual revenues exceed estimated revenues. 6. Reported budget amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by City Council approved supplemental appropriations and budget transfers. Annual appropriations lapse at year-end. No revisions were made to the budgets during the year. 37 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 2 – STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY A. Deficit Fund Balances The following funds had deficit fund balances or net position at December 31, 2018: Street Capital Project 231,895$ Other Nonmajor Capital Projects Fund Special Assessment Capital Project 322,022 TIF District No. 2 8,952 Fire Hall Remodel 239,735 NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS Cash balances of the City's funds are combined (pooled) and invested to the extent available in various investments authorized by Minnesota Statutes. Each fund's portion of this pool (or pools) is displayed on the financial statements as "cash and cash equivalents" or "investments." For purposes of identifying risk of investing public funds, the balances and related restrictions are summarized below A. Deposits In accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at depository banks authorized by the City Council. Custodial Credit Risks – Deposits: For deposits, this is the risk that in the event of bank failure, the City's deposits may not be returned to it. The City addresses custodial credit risk by having the authority from the City Council to maintain deposits with various financial institutions that are members of the Federal Reserve System. The City's policy states all deposits must be collateralized in compliance with Minnesota Statutes 118A. As of December 31, 2018, the City's bank balance was not exposed to custodial credit risk because it was insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). As of December 31, 2018, the City had deposits as follows: Checking 131,101$ Savings 642 Certificates of deposit 14,048 Total deposits 145,791$ 38 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) B. Investments As of December 31, 2018, the City had the following investments: Fair Credit Value Less Than 1 - 5 1 - 6 Investment Type Ratings 12/31/18 1 Year Years Years Negotiable Certificates of Deposits NR 5,445,526$ 2,279,858$ 2,930,328$ 235,340$ Mutual Funds NR 7,966,602 7,966,602 - - Brokered Cash and Money Markets NR 859,122 859,122 - - US Agency Securities Aaa 991,955 - 991,955 - Total 15,263,205$ 11,105,582$ 3,922,283$ 235,340$ Investment Maturities Credit Risk: This is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. State law limits investments in commercial paper and corporate bonds to be in the top two ratings issued by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. The City's investment policy addresses credit quality by allowing the City to invest only in instruments permitted by Minnesota Statutes 118A.04-05. Concentration of Credit Risk: This is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of an investment in a single issuer. The City's policy states the City will attempt to diversify its investments according to type and maturity. The policy states the portfolio will contain both short-term and long-term investments and will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Custodial Credit Risk – Investments: For an investment, this is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City's investment policy states that to ensure safety when considering an investment it is verified to make certain funds in excess of insurance are not made at the same institution. The City's brokers carry SIPC and private insurance to cover the City's investment holdings; however, given the size of the City's portfolio in relation to the insurance, it is unlikely the City would receive the full value of their investments upon default of the counterparty. Interest Rate Risk: This is the risk that market values of securities in a portfolio would decrease due to changes in market interest rates. As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising from rising interest rates, the City's investment policy states the City will hold investments with laddered maturities so that funds become available on a regular schedule. The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of December 31, 2018: $15,263,205 of investments are valued using a matrix pricing model (Level 2 inputs) 39 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) C. Deposits and Investments The following is a summary of total deposits and investments: Deposits (Note 3. A.)145,791$ Investments (Note 3.B.)15,263,205 Petty cash 900 Total cash and investments 15,409,896$ Deposits and investments are presented in the December 31, 2018, basic financial statements as follows: Statement of Net Position Cash and investments 15,409,896$ NOTE 4 – INTERFUND ACTIVITIES A. Interfund Receivables and Payable The following is a summary of the City's due to/due from other funds at December 31, 2018: Fund Due to Due from Reason Special assessment capital project 161,612$ -$ Cash deficit Fire hall remodel 179,890 - Cash deficit TIF District No. 2 8,952 - Cash deficit Facility reserve - 179,890 Cash deficit Water tower capital project - 170,564 Cash deficit Total 350,454$ 350,454$ The balances above will be repaid as financing becomes available. 40 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 4 – INTERFUND ACTIVITIES (CONTINUED) B. Interfund Transfers The composition of interfund transfers as of December 31, 2018, was as follows: Transfers In Street Other Internal Capital Governmental Par 3 Service General Projects Funds Golf Course Fund Total Transfers out General -$ -$ 197,247$ 73,745$ -$ 270,992$ Special assessments debt service 22,250 1,082,790 - - - 1,105,040 Other governmental funds 4,500 - - - 224,574 229,074 Sewer utility 11,150 - - - - 11,150 Storm water utility 9,650 133,152 - - - 142,802 Total 47,550$ 1,215,942$ 197,247$ 73,745$ 224,574$ 1,759,058$ The purpose of the above transfers is to distribute bond proceeds and to provide funding for capital improvement projects, capital outlay, and operating purposes. 41 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2018, was as follows: Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Governmental activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land and improvements 6,150,895$ -$ -$ 6,150,895$ Construction in progress 2,960,110 1,927,118 2,466,312 2,420,916 Total capital assets not being depreciated 9,111,005 1,927,118 2,466,312 8,571,811 Capital assets being depreciated Buildings and structures 4,073,210 355,312 - 4,428,522 Machinery and equipment 5,506,980 239,346 129,421 5,616,905 Other improvements 2,283,173 89,010 - 2,372,183 Infrastructure 32,729,971 1,768,586 - 34,498,557 Total capital assets being depreciated 44,593,334 2,452,254 129,421 46,916,167 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings and structures 3,491,691 116,128 - 3,607,819 Machinery and equipment 3,462,434 312,063 108,981 3,665,516 Other improvements 1,665,729 66,403 - 1,732,132 Infrastructure 16,491,836 1,297,851 - 17,789,687 Total accumulated depreciation 25,111,690 1,792,445 108,981 26,795,154 Total capital assets being depreciated, net 19,481,644 659,809 20,440 20,121,013 Governmental activities capital assets, net 28,592,649$ 2,586,927$ 2,486,752$ 28,692,824$ 42 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS (CONTINUED) Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Business-type activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land 2,531,475$ -$ -$ 2,531,475$ Construction in progress 445,129 3,768 448,897 - Total capital assets not being depreciated 2,976,604 3,768 448,897 2,531,475 Capital assets being depreciated Buildings and structures 208,490 - - 208,490 Machinery and equipment 248,134 149,493 75,497 322,130 Sewer main lines and storm sewers 18,847,966 797,410 - 19,645,376 Total capital assets being depreciated 19,304,590 946,903 75,497 20,175,996 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings and structures 73,854 7,037 - 80,891 Machinery and equipment 191,762 20,622 69,275 143,109 Sewer main lines and storm sewers 5,331,714 220,785 - 5,552,499 Total accumulated depreciation 5,597,330 248,444 69,275 5,776,499 Total capital assets being depreciated, net 13,707,260 698,459 6,222 14,399,497 Business-type activities capital assets, net 16,683,864$ 702,227$ 455,119$ 16,930,972$ Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows: Governmental activities General government 134,025$ Public safety 101,490 Public works 1,477,216 Internal service funds 79,714 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities 1,792,445$ Business-type activities Sewer utility 183,360$ Storm water utility 52,726 Par 3 golf course 12,358 Total depreciation expense - business-type activities 248,444$ 43 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 6 – LONG-TERM DEBT A. G.O. Bonds The City issues G.O. bonds to provide for financing street improvements, major capital equipment purchases and utility improvements. Debt service is funded through property taxes, special assessments, and utility charges. G.O. bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City. B. Components of Long-Term Liabilities Interest Original Final Principal Due Within Rates Issue Maturity Outstanding One Year Long-term liabilities Government activities G.O. Improvement Bonds, including Refunding Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2010 0.86%-3.75% 1,055,000$ 02/01/30 695,000$ 60,000$ G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2011 0.40%-3.40% 2,970,000 02/01/31 1,755,000 230,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2012 2.00%-2.70% 2,630,000 02/01/32 2,255,000 90,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2013 2.00%-4.00% 1,685,000 02/01/34 1,330,000 120,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2014A 0.85%-3.40% 1,030,000 02/01/35 860,000 75,000 G.O. Refunding Bond, Series 2014B 1.50%-3.00% 885,000 02/01/27 620,000 70,000 G.O Improvement Bonds 2015A .90%-3.00% 1,200,000 02/01/25 1,110,000 70,000 G.O. Refunding Bond, Series 2015C 2.00%-2.50% 1,995,000 02/01/28 1,660,000 170,000 G.O. Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016A 1.00%-2.50% 1,020,000 02/01/37 1,020,000 75,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2017A 2.00%-2.50% 1,340,000 02/01/30 1,340,000 - G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2018A 3.00%-4.00% 1,080,000 02/01/30 1,080,000 - Total improvement bonds 13,725,000 960,000 G.O. Bonds, including refunding bonds G.O. Bonds of 2009 1.50%-3.50% 745,000 02/01/20 165,000 80,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2015B 2.00%-3.00% 1,475,000 02/01/23 1,080,000 205,000 Total G.O. Bonds 1,245,000 285,000 Net Premium on Bonds 221,818 - Compensated absences payable 511,244 389,343 Total governmental activities 15,703,062 1,634,343 Business-type activities Compensated absences payable 32,433 21,217 Total all long-term liabilities 15,735,495$ 1,655,560$ Long-term bonded indebtedness listed above were issued to finance acquisition and construction of capital facilities or to refinance (refund) previous bond issues. Debt Service Funds will be used to pay general government principal and interest liabilities. The General Fund and Sewer Utility Fund will pay for the corresponding compensated absence liability. 44 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 6 – LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED) C. Changes in Long-Term Liabilities Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2018, was as follows: Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year Governmental activities Bonds payable G.O. Improvements Bonds 13,555,000$ 1,080,000$ 910,000$ 13,725,000$ 960,000$ G.O. Bonds 1,530,000 - 285,000 1,245,000 285,000 Compensated absences payable 414,733 443,210 346,698 511,245 389,342 Total governmental activities 15,499,733 1,523,210 1,541,698 15,481,245 1,634,342 Business-type activities Compensated absences payable 28,870 22,207 18,644 32,433 21,217 Total government 15,528,603$ 1,545,417$ 1,560,342$ 15,513,678$ 1,655,559$ D. Long-Term Debt The annual requirements to amortize all bonded debt outstanding follows: Year Ending December 31, Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total 2019 960,000$ 320,171$ 1,280,171$ 285,000$ 28,425$ 313,425$ 2020 1,030,000 311,755 1,341,755 295,000 21,388 316,388 2021 1,200,000 288,594 1,488,594 215,000 15,650 230,650 2022 1,265,000 260,439 1,525,439 220,000 10,200 230,200 2023 1,235,000 231,266 1,466,266 230,000 3,450 233,450 2024-2028 5,335,000 729,664 6,064,664 - - - 2029-2033 2,330,000 188,028 2,518,028 - - - 2034-2037 370,000 15,499 385,499 - - - Total 13,725,000$ 2,345,416$ 16,070,416$ 1,245,000$ 79,113$ 1,324,113$ Governmental Activities G.O. BondsImprovement Bonds 45 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 7 – OPERATING LEASE The City leases eight squad cars under a noncancelable operating lease. The following is a schedule by years of future minimum payments required under the leases as of December 31, 2018: Year Ending December 31, 2019 52,258$ 2020 31,441 2021 6,300 Total 89,999$ NOTE 8 – CONDUIT DEBT From time-to-time, the City has issued Industrial Development and Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds in accordance with the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act. These obligations are issued to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The obligations are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the obligations, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private-sector entity served by the debt issuance. Neither the City, the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof, is obligated in any manner for the repayment of the obligations. Accordingly, the Bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. The aggregate amount of all conduit debt obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2018, was $17,444,852. 46 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 9 – FUND BALANCE DETAIL Fund equity balances are classified below to reflect the limitations and restrictions of the respective Funds. Special Street Other General Assessment Capital Governmental Fund Debt Service Projects Funds Total Nonspendable Inventories 22,135$ -$ -$ -$ 22,135$ Prepaid items 266,537 - - 322 266,859 Restricted Park dedication fees - - - 760,408 760,408 Street light maintenance - - - 18,974 18,974 Debt service - 2,797,632 - 494,994 3,292,626 Committed Water system maintenance - - - 487,706 487,706 Emergency preparedness and civil defense - - - 117,498 117,498 Assigned Capital projects - - - 1,443,828 1,443,828 Insurance reserve 135,881 - - - 135,881 Unassigned 8,412,047 - (231,895) (570,709) 7,609,443 Total 8,836,600$ 2,797,632$ (231,895)$ 2,753,021$ 14,155,358$ NOTE 10 – RISK MANAGEMENT The City purchases commercial insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) with other cities in the state which is a public entity risk pool currently operating as a common risk management and insurance program. The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT for its insurance coverage. The LMCIT is self-sustaining through commercial companies for excess claims. The City is covered through the pool for any claims incurred but unreported, however, retains risk for the deductible portion of its insurance policies. The amount of these deductibles is considered immaterial to the financial statements. There were no significant reductions in insurance or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for any of the past three years. Workers compensation coverage is provided through a pooled self-insurance program through the LMCIT. The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT. For workers compensation, the City is not subject to a deductible. The City's workers compensation coverage is not retrospectively rated. However, the actual premium is adjusted based on audited payroll amounts. 47 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS Public Employees' Retirement Association The City participates in various pension plans. Total pension expense for the year ended December 31, 2018, was $236,522. The components of pension expense are noted in the following plan summaries. A. Plan Description The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by PERA. PERA's defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 ad 356. PERA's defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. General Employees Retirement Plan (General Employees Plan, accounted for in the General Employees Fund) All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by the General Employees Plan. General Employees Plan members belong to the Coordinated Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security. Public Employees Police and Fire Plan (Police and Fire Plan (accounted for in the Police and Fire Fund) The Police and Fire Plan, originally established for police officers and firefighters not covered by a local relief association, now covers all police officers and firefighters hired since 1980. Effective July 1, 1999, the Police and Fire Plan also covers police officers and firefighters belonging to a local relief association that elected to merge with and transfer assets and administration to PERA. B. Benefits Provided PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. General Employees Plan benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA's Coordinated Plan members. Members hired prior to July, 1 1989, receive the higher of Method 1 or Method 2 formulas. Only Method 2 is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under Method 1, the accrual rate for a Coordinated members is 1.2% for each of the first ten years of service and 1.7% for each additional year. Under Method 2, the accrual rate for Coordinated members is 1.7% for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989, normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66. 48 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) B. Benefits Provided (Continued) General Employees Plan Benefits (Continued) Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Increases are related to the funding ratio of the plan. If the General Employees Plan is at least 90% funded for two consecutive years, benefit recipients are given a 2.5% increase. If the plan has not exceeded 90% funded, or have fallen below 80%, benefit recipients are given a one percent increase. A benefit recipient who has been receiving a benefit for at least 12 full months as of June 30, will receive a full increase. Members receiving benefits for at least one month but less than 12 full months as of June 30, will receive a pro rata increase. Police and Fire Plan Benefits Benefits for the Police and Fire Plan members first hired after June 30, 2010, but before July 1, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after five years up to 100% after ten years of credited service. Benefits for Police and Fire Plan members first hired after June 30, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after ten years up to 100% after twenty years of credited service. The annuity accrual rate is 3% of average salary for each year of service. For Police and Fire Plan who were first hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal at least 90. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Police and Fire Plan benefit recipients receive a future annual 1.0% increase. An annual adjustment will equal 2.5% any time the plan exceeds a 90% funded ratio for two consecutive years. If the adjustment is increased to 2.5% and the funded ratio falls below 80% for one year or 85% for two consecutive years, the post-retirement benefit increase will be lowered to one percent. A benefit recipient who has been receiving a benefit for at least 12 full months as of June 30 will receive a full increase. Members receiving benefits for at least one month but less than 12 full months as of June 30 will receive a pro rata increase. For retirements after May 31, 2014, the first increase will be delayed two years. C. Contributions Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. General Employees Fund Contributions Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 6.5%, of their annual covered salary in calendar year 2018. The City was required to contribute 7.5% for Coordinated Plan members in calendar year 2018. The City's contributions to the General Employees Fund for the year ended December 31, 2018, were $146,272. The City's contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. 49 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) C. Contributions (Continued) Police and Fire Fund Contributions Plan members were required to contribute 10.8% of their annual covered salary and the City was required to contribute 16.20% of pay for members in fiscal year 2018. The City's contributions to the Police and Fire Fund for the year ended December 31, 2018, were $266,168. The City's contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. D. Pension Costs General Employees Fund Pension Costs At December 31, 2018, the City reported a liability of $1,558,873 for its proportionate share of the General Employees Fund's net pension liability. The City's net pension liability reflected a reduction due to the State of Minnesota's contribution of $16 million to the fund in 2018. The State of Minnesota is considered a non-employer contributing entity and the State's contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $51,096. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2018, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City's proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City's contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA's participating employers. At June 30, 2018, the City's proportion share was 0.0281%, which was a decrease of 0.0009% from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2017. City's proportionate share of the net pension liability 1,558,873$ State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City 51,096 Total 1,609,969$ For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City recognized pension expense of $90,432 for its proportionate share of General Employees Plan's pension expense. Included in the amount, the City recognized $7,275 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota's contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Fund. 50 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) D. Pension Costs (Continued) General Employees Fund Pension Costs (Continued) At December 31, 2018, the City reported its proportionate share of the General Employees Plan's deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, related to pensions from the following sources: Differences between expected and actual economic experience 42,523$ 50,967$ Changes in actuarial assumptions 166,929 178,998 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings - 141,637 Changes in proportion - 153,655 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date 73,136 - Total 282,588$ 525,257$ Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources $73,136 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2019. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Year Ending Pension Expense December 31,Amount 2019 3,206$ 2020 (143,182) 2021 (143,293) 2022 (32,536) Total (315,805)$ 51 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) D. Pension Costs (Continued) Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs At December 31, 2018, the City reported a liability of $1,613,882 for its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Fund's net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2018, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City's proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City's contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA's participating employers. At June 30, 2018, the City's proportion was 0.1527%, which was an increase of 0.0027% from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2017. The City also recognized $13,743 for the year ended December 31, 2018 as revenue and an offsetting reduction of the net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota's on-behalf contributions to the Police and Fire Fund. Legislation passed in 2013 required the State of Minnesota to begin contributing $9 million to the Police and Fire Fund each year, starting in fiscal year 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City recognized pension expense of $266,168 for its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Fund pension expense. At December 31, 2018, the City reported its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan's deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the sources below and on the following page. Differences between expected and actual economic experience 64,934$ 403,838$ Changes in actuarial assumptions 2,054,022 2,354,676 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings - 326,749 Changes in proportion 41,741 205,774 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date 133,084 - Total 2,293,781$ 3,291,037$ Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources 52 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) D. Pension Costs (Continued) Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs (Continued) $133,084 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2019. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Year Ending Pension Expense December 31,Amount 2019 (74,577)$ 2020 (150,299) 2021 (237,696) 2022 (668,478) 2023 710 Total (1,130,340)$ E. Actuarial Assumptions The total pension liability in the June 30, 2018, actuarial valuation was determined using the entry age normal actuarial cost method and the following actuarial assumptions: Inflation 2.50 % Per year Active member payroll growth 3.25 Per year Investment rate of return 7.50 Salary increases were based on a service-related table. Mortality rates for active members, retirees, survivors, and disabilitants for all plans were based on RP 2014 tables for males or females, as appropriate, with slight adjustments to fit PERA’s experience. Cost of living benefit increases after retirement for retirees are assumed to be 1.25% per year for the General Employees Plan, 1.0% per year for the Police and Fire Plan, and 2.0% per year for the Correctional Plan. Actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2018 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The most recent six-year experience study in the General Employees Plan was completed in 2015. The most recent four-year experience study for Police and Fire Plan was completed in 2016. The five-year experience study for the Correctional Plan, prepared by a former actuary, was completed in 2012. The mortality assumption for the Correctional Plan is based on the Police and Fire Plan experience study completed in 2016. Economic assumptions were updated in 2017 based on a review of inflation and investment return assumptions. 53 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) E. Actuarial Assumptions (Continued) The following changes in actuarial assumptions occurred in 2018: General Employees Fund The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017. The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.0% per year through 2044 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.25% per year. Police and Fire Fund The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017. As set by statute, the assumed post-retirement benefit increase was changed from 1.0% per year through 2064 and 2.5% per year, thereafter, to 1.0% for all years, with no trigger. The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: Domestic stocks 36 %5.10 % International stocks 17 5.30 Bonds 20 0.75 Alternative assets 25 5.90 Cash 2 0.00 Total 100 % Asset Class Long-Term Expected Real Rate of ReturnTarget Allocation 54 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued) F. Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2018 was 7.5%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from Plan members and employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on those assumptions, the fiduciary net position of the General Employees Fund and the Police and Fire Fund was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current Plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. G. Pension Liability Sensitivity The following table presents the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate: 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in City's proportionate share of the General Employees Fund net pension liability 2,533,368$ 1,558,873$ 754,455$ 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in City's proportionate share of the Police and Fire Fund net pension liability 3,475,986$ 1,613,882$ 73,998$ Discount Rate (6.5%) Discount Rate (7.5%) Discount Rate (8.5%) Discount Rate (6.5%) Discount Rate (7.5%) Discount Rate (8.5%) H. Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position Detailed information about each pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained on the Internet at www.mnpera.org. 55 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 11 –PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED) Defined Contribution Pension Plan – Volunteer Fire Fighter's Relief Association The Mendota Heights Firefighter's Relief Association is the administrator of a single employer defined benefit pension plan established to provide benefits for members of the Mendota Heights Fire Department per Minnesota State Statutes. The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained by writing to Mendota Heights Firefighter's Association, 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 or by calling 651-249- 7640. The City contributes to the Mendota Heights Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association (the "Association") that provides pension benefits to its members under a single employer defined contribution plan. Since fire department members are volunteers, contributions to the Association are not based on payroll but rather on years of active service. All active firefighters may apply for membership in the Association and shall become a member immediately upon approval by the Board of Trustees. Under an Annual Contribution Agreement, the City's contribution to the Association is determined by multiplying $4,000 by the number of years of active service completed by members of the Association for the plan year, prorated by months for members who did not complete a full year of active service. The City also contributes a portion of the Association's administrative fees each year. For 2018, the total contribution was $128,680. Required and actual employer contributions to the plan during 2018 were $128,680. In addition, the City passes through state aid allocated to the plan in accordance with state statutes. For 2018, the state aid was $100,975. Members of the Association are not allowed to make voluntary contributions to the plan. Members are not vested in their accounts until they attain 10 years of active service, at which time they become 60% vested. Thereafter, the vested portion of their accounts increases by 4% annually until they achieve 100% vesting after having served for 20 years. Plan provisions were established and may only be amended by amendments to the Association bylaws which require a majority vote by the Board of Trustees. NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN A. Plan Description The City provides a single-employer defined benefit healthcare plan to eligible retirees (as required by Minnesota Statue 471.61) and police or firefighters disabled in the line of duty (as required by Minnesota Statute 299A.465). The required contributions are based on projected pay-as- you-go financing requirements. As of December 31, 2018, there were 8 retirees participating in the City’s healthcare plan. 56 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED) B. Benefits Provided Retirees and their spouses contribute to the healthcare plan at the same rate as City employees. This results in the retirees receiving an implicit rate subsidy. Contribution requirements are established by the City, based on the contract terms with Blue Cross Blue Shield and Delta Dental. C. Contributions The City makes direct subsidy payments towards retiree health insurance premiums. For the year 2018, the City contributed $100,149. D. Members As of December 31, 2018, the following were covered by the benefit terms: Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits12 Active employees 46 Total 58 E. Actuarial Assumptions The total OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of December 31, 2018, using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified: Investment rate of return 3.30%, net of investment expense Inflation 2.50% Healthcare cost trend increases Mortality assumption RP-2014 White Collar Mortality Tables with MP-2017 Generational Improvement Scale (with Blue Collar adjustment for Police and Fire Personnel) Key Methods and Assumptions Used in Valuation of Total OPEB Liability 6.5% initially, grading to 5% over 6 years The actuarial assumptions used in the December 31, 2018 valuation were based on the results of an actuarial experience study for the period January 1, 2017 – January 1, 2018. The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 3.30% based on 20 year municipal G.O. Bonds. 57 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED) F. Total OPEB Liability The City's total OPEB liability of $950,528 was measured as of January 1, 2018, and was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. Total OPEB Liability Balance at January 1, 2017 988,900$ Changes for the year Service cost 24,002 Interest 31,883 Benefit payments (94,257) Net changes (38,372) Balance at January 1, 2018 950,528$ Changes of assumptions and other inputs reflect a change in the discount rate from 4.00% in 2017 to 3.30% in 2018. G. OPEB Liability Sensitivity The following presents the City's total OPEB liability calculated using the discount rate of 3.30% as well as the liability measured using 1% lower and 1% higher than the current discount rate. 1% decrease Current 1% increase (2.30%)(3.30%)(4.30%) 1,000,633$ 950,528$ 903,910$ Total OPEB Liability/(Asset) The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1% lower and 1% higher than the current healthcare cost trend rates. 58 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED) G. OPEB Liability Sensitivity (Continued) 1% decrease Current 1% increase 900,415$ 950,528$ 1,005,958$ Total OPEB Liability/(Asset) (5.5% decreasing to 4.0%) (6.5% decreasing to 5.0%) (7.5% decreasing to 6.0%) H. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City recognized OPEB expense of $55,885. At December 31, 2018, the Distract reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources: Deferred Deferred Outflows of Inflows of Resources Resources Subsequent contributions 100,149$ -$ Total 100,149$ -$ NOTE 13 – TOWN CENTER – THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS The City temporarily has title to certain real properties in Town Center. The City currently has title to land valued by Dakota County at $720,600. Once the project is complete all parcels, except the out lots which are included in the City's capital assets, will be developed and owned privately, and thus the land is not reported in the City's financial statements. NOTE 14 – JOINT VENTURES A. Dakota Communications Center The City is a member of the Dakota Communication Center (DCC). The DCC was created by a joint powers agreement between Dakota County and several cities. Its purposes include the establishment, operation, and maintenance of joint law enforcement, fire, EMS and other emergency communications systems. Members are obligated to pay their proportional share of operating and capital expenditures on an annual basis. The City paid $201,972 for 2018. Members do not maintain an equity interest other than if the DCC were to terminate. Withdrawing members forfeit any interest in the DCC. Information regarding the DCC can be obtained at the website www.mn-dcc.org. 59 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 14 – JOINT VENTURES (CONTINUED) B. Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) The consortium of approximately 30 government entities provides computerized data processing and support services to its members. LOGIS is a legally separate entity; the entities appoint a voting majority of its board, and the consortium is fiscally independent of the City. For 2018, the City paid $255,303 for computer application support and computer hardware for the City's network. Complete financial statements of the consortium may be obtained at the LOGIS offices located at 5750 Duluth Street, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. NOTE 15 – CONTINGENCIES The City has various claims and litigation that arise in the normal course of business. The City has evaluated the impact of these items for the December 31, 2018, financial statements and determined they do not have a material effect on financial position or changes in financial position. NOTE 16 – COMMITED CONTRACTS At December 31, 2018, the City had commitments of $604,589 for uncompleted construction contracts. NOTE 17 – CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions. This resulted in an adjustment to the beginning net position on the Statement of Activities of $585,554 to add the beginning total OPEB liability NOTE 18 – TAX INCREMENT FINANCING The City has entered into a Tax Increment Financing agreement which meet the criteria for disclosure under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 77 Tax Abatement Disclosures. The City's authority to enter into these agreements comes from Minnesota Statute 469. The City entered into this agreement for the purpose of redevelopment. Under this agreement, the City and developer agree on an amount of development costs to be reimbursed to the developer by the City though tax revenues from the additional taxable value of the property generated by the development (tax increment). A "pay-as-you-go" note is established for this amount, on which the City makes payments for a fixed period of time with available tax increment revenue after deducting for certain administrative costs. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the City generated $0 in tax increment revenue and made $0 in payments to developers. 60 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 19 – SUBSEQUENT EVENT On May 8, 2019, the City authorized the sale of General Obligation Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2019A in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000. The bonds will be used to remodel and expand the fire station. NOTE 20 – NEW STANDARDS ISSUED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED GASB Statement No. 83, Certain Asset Retirement Obligations establishes criteria for determining the timing and pattern of recognition of a liability and a corresponding deferred outflow of resources for Asset Retirement Obligations (AROs). This statement requires that recognition occur when the liability is both incurred and reasonably estimable. The determination of when the liability is incurred should be based on the occurrence of external laws, regulations, contracts, or court judgments, together with the occurrence of an internal event that obligates a government to perform asset retirement activities. Laws and regulations may require governments to take specific actions to retire certain tangible capital assets at the end of the useful lives of those capital assets, such as decommissioning nuclear reactors and dismantling and removing sewage treatment plants. Other obligations to retire tangible capital assets may arise from contracts or court judgments. Internal obligating events include the occurrence of contamination, placing into operation a tangible capital asset that is required to be retired, abandoning a tangible capital asset before it is placed into operation, or acquiring a tangible capital asset that has an existing ARO. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2019. GASB Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities establishes criteria for identifying fiduciary activities of all state and local governments. The focus of the criteria generally is on (1) whether a government is controlling the assets of the fiduciary activity and (2) the beneficiaries with whom a fiduciary relationship exists. Separate criteria are included to identify fiduciary component units and postemployment benefit arrangements that are fiduciary activities. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2019. GASB Statement No. 87, Leases establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Under this statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments’ leasing activities. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2020. GASB Statement No. 88, Certain Disclosures Related to Debt, Including Direct Borrowings and Direct Placements improves the information that is disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. It also clarifies which liabilities governments should include when disclosing information related to debt. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2019. GASB Statement No. 89, Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred Before the End of a Construction Period enhances the relevance and comparability of information about capital assets and the cost of borrowing for a reporting period and simplifies accounting for interest cost incurred before the end of a construction period. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2020. 61 City of Mendota Heights Notes to Financial Statements NOTE 20 – NEW STANDARDS ISSUED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED (CONTINUED) GASB Statement No. 90, Majority Equity Interests improves the consistency and comparability of reporting a government's majority equity interest in a legally separate organization and to improve the relevance of financial statement information for certain component units. This statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2019. 62 (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 63 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION December 31, 2018 Total OPEB Liability Service cost 24,002$ Interest 31,883 Benefit payments (94,257) Net change in total OPEB liability (38,372) Beginning of year 988,900 Total OPEB Liability 950,528$ 3,359,305$ 28.30% Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 64 City of Mendota Heights Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios Covered-employee payroll Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered-employee payroll City's Covered Payroll 2015 0.0322% 1,668,771$ -$ 1,668,771$ 1,859,307$ 89.8% 79.5% 2016 0.0315% 2,557,644 33,392 2,591,036 1,954,600 130.9% 75.9% 2017 0.0290% 1,851,341 23,303 1,874,644 1,870,160 99.0% 68.9% 2018 0.0281% 1,558,873 51,096 1,609,969 1,887,853 82.6% 78.2% Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) City's Covered Payroll City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 2015 0.1530% 1,738,438$ 1,359,920$ 127.8% 88.8% 2016 0.1550% 6,220,420 1,496,272 415.7% 85.4% 2017 0.1500% 2,011,679 1,543,389 130.3% 63.9% 2018 0.1527% 1,613,882 1,609,556 100.3% 86.6% Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 65 City of Mendota Heights Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Last Ten Years Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability General Employees Retirement Fund City's Proportionate Share (Percentage) of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) City's Proportionate Share (Amount) of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability (Asset) as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability Last Ten Years For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, State's Proportionate Share (Amount) of the Net Pension Liability Associated with the City City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liablility and the State's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liablility Associated with the City Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund 2015 149,420$ 149,420$ -$ 1,992,267$ 7.5% 2016 139,806 139,806 - 1,864,080 7.5% 2017 137,806 137,806 - 1,837,413 7.5% 2018 146,272 146,272 - 1,950,293 7.5% Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 2015 237,655$ 237,655$ -$ 1,467,006$ 16.2% 2016 245,917 245,917 - 1,518,006 16.2% 2017 251,584 251,584 - 1,552,988 16.2% 2018 266,168 266,168 - 1,643,012 16.2% Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 66 Schedule of City Contributions - Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund Fiscal Year Ending December 31, City of Mendota Heights Schedule of City Contributions - General Employees Retirement Fund Last Ten Years Contribution Deficiency (Excess) City's Covered Payroll Last Ten Years Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll Statutorily Required Contribution Statutorily Required Contribution Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Required Contributions Contribution Deficiency (Excess) Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Required Contributions Fiscal Year Ending December 31, City's Covered Payroll Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll City of Mendota Heights Notes to Required Supplementary Information 67 GENERAL EMPLOYEES FUND 2018 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017. The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.0% per year through 2044 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.25% per year. 2017 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The CSA loads were changed from 0.8% for active members and 60% for vested and non- vested deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now 0.0% for active member liability, 15% for vested deferred member liability and 3% for non-vested deferred member liability. The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year for all years to 1.0% per year through 2044 and 2.5% per year thereafter. 2016 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, the inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. 2015 Changes Changes in Plan Provisions On January 1, 2015, the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund was merged into the General Employees Fund, which increased the total pension liability by $1.1 billion and increased the fiduciary plan net position by $892 million. Upon consolidation, state and employer contributions were revised. Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2030 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter. City of Mendota Heights Notes to Required Supplementary Information 68 POLICE AND FIRE FUND 2018 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017. As set by statute, the assumed post-retirement benefit increase was changed from 1.0% per year through 2064 and 2.5% per year, thereafter, to 1.0% for all years, with no trigger. 2017 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2016 experience study. The net effect is proposed rates that average 0.34% lower than the previous rates. Assumed rates of retirement were changed, resulting in fewer retirements. The CSA load was 30% for vested and non-vested deferred members. The CSA has been changed to 33% for vested members and 2% for non-vested members. The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 fully generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale AA to Scale MP-2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for healthy retirees. Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3% for the first three years of service. Rates beyond the select period of three years were adjusted, resulting in more expected terminations overall. Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65% to 60%. Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for male members (wives assumed to be three years younger) and female members (husbands assumed to be four years older) to the assumption that males are two years older than females. The assumed percentage of female members electing Joint and Survivor annuities was increased. The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1% for all years to 1% per year through 2064 and 2.5% thereafter. 2016 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate changed from 7.9% to 5.6%. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. City of Mendota Heights Notes to Required Supplementary Information 69 2015 Changes Changes in Plan Provisions The post-retirement benefit increase to be paid after attainment of the 90% funding threshold was changed, from inflation up to 2.5%, to a fixed rate of 2.5%. Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2030 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% per year thereafter. OPEB 2018 Changes The discount rate decreased from 4.00% in 2017 to 3.30% in 2018. There are no assets accumulated in a trust. 70 (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 71 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Water Revenue Special Park Civil Defense Street Lighting Assets Cash and investments 484,221$ 788,952$ 117,330$ 20,492$ Taxes receivable - delinquent - - 160 479 Special assessments receivable Deferred - - - - Accounts receivable - - - - Interest receivable 699 1,195 168 - Due from other funds - - - - Due from other governments 2,786 - - - Prepaid items - - 322 - Land held for resale - - - - Total assets 487,706$ 790,147$ 117,980$ 20,971$ Liabilities Accounts and contracts payable -$ 29,739$ -$ 1,518$ Due to other funds - - - - Due to other governments - - - - Total liabilities - 29,739 - 1,518 Deferred Inflows of Resources Unavailable revenue - property taxes - - 160 479 Unavailable revenue - special assessments - - - - Total deferred inflows of resources - - 160 479 Fund Balances Nonspendable - - 322 - Restricted - 760,408 - 18,974 Committed 487,706 - 117,498 - Assigned - - - - Unassigned - - - - Total fund balances 487,706 760,408 117,820 18,974 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 487,706$ 790,147$ 117,980$ 20,971$ Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2018 72 Special Revenue City of Mendota Heights Combining Balance Sheet - Debt Service Par 3 G.O. Bonds Equipment Certficates Equipment Replacement Reserve Infrastructure Reserve Facility Reserve Water Tower Capital Project Pilot Knob Improvement 355,262$ 139,205$ 415,730$ 61,073$ 181,880$ 323,456$ 959$ 1,725 350 232 120 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 352 175 401 135 550 1,100 - - - - - 179,890 170,564 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 357,339$ 139,730$ 416,363$ 61,328$ 362,328$ 495,120$ 959$ -$ -$ -$ 850$ 2,973$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 850 2,973 - - 1,725 350 232 120 8 - - - - - - - - - 1,725 350 232 120 8 - - - - - - - - - 355,614 139,380 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 416,131 60,358 359,347 495,120 959 - - - - - - - 355,614 139,380 416,131 60,358 359,347 495,120 959 357,339$ 139,730$ 416,363$ 61,328$ 362,328$ 495,120$ 959$ 73 Capital Projects 74 (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) Pre-1998 Non- Increment p Assessment Capital Project TIF District No. 2 Fire Hall Remodel Nonmajor Governmental Funds Assets Cash and investments 20,067$ -$ -$ -$ 2,908,627$ Taxes receivable - delinquent - - - - 3,074 Special assessments receivable Deferred - 10,074 - - 10,074 Accounts receivable - 18,324 - - 18,324 Interest receivable 106 177 - - 5,058 Due from other funds - - - - 350,454 Due from other governments - 1,374 - - 4,160 Prepaid items - - - - 322 Land held for resale 96,100 - - - 96,100 Total assets 116,273$ 29,949$ -$ -$ 3,396,193$ Liabilities Accounts and contracts payable 4,360$ 10,285$ -$ 59,845$ 109,570$ Due to other funds - 161,612 8,952 179,890 350,454 Due to other governments - 170,000 - - 170,000 Total liabilities 4,360 341,897 8,952 239,735 630,024 Deferred Inflows of Resources Unavailable revenue - property taxes - - - - 3,074 Unavailable revenue - special assessments - 10,074 - - 10,074 Total deferred inflows of resources - 10,074 - - 13,148 Fund Balances Nonspendable - - - - 322 Restricted - - - - 1,274,376 Committed - - - - 605,204 Assigned 111,913 - - - 1,443,828 Unassigned - (322,022) (8,952) (239,735) (570,709) Total fund balances 111,913 (322,022) (8,952) (239,735) 2,753,021 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 116,273$ 29,949$ -$ -$ 3,396,193$ 75 Capital Projects City of Mendota Heights Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds December 31, 2018 City of Mendota Heights Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 Special Revenue Water Revenue Special Park Civil Defense Street Lighting Revenues Property taxes -$ -$ 24,890$ 50,385$ Charges for services 127,161 - - - Fines and forfeitures - - 14 - Miscellaneous Investment income 4,663 7,971 1,118 - Other - 358,100 - - Total revenues 131,824 366,071 26,022 50,385 Expenditures Current General government 16,562 - 10,542 19,928 Public works - 11,776 - - Debt service Principal - - - - Interest and other charges - - - - Capital outlay General government - - - - Public safety - - - - Public works - 140,981 - - Total expenditures 16,562 152,757 10,542 19,928 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 115,262 213,314 15,480 30,457 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in - - - - Transfers out (3,000) (1,500) - - Total other financing sources (uses)(3,000) (1,500) - - Net change in fund balances 112,262 211,814 15,480 30,457 Fund Balances Beginning of year 375,444 548,594 102,340 (11,483) End of year 487,706$ 760,408$ 117,820$ 18,974$ 76 Debt Service Par 3 G.O. Bonds Equipment Certficates Equipment Replacement Reserve Infrastructure Reserve Facility Reserve Water Tower Capital Project Pilot Knob Improvement 242,876$ 54,938$ 33,282$ 19,774$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - 28 20 11 - - - 2,347 1,166 2,678 898 3,670 7,341 - - - - - - 67,210 - 245,223 56,132 35,980 20,683 3,670 74,551 - - - - - - - - - - 10,131 45,038 - - - 205,000 45,000 - - - - - 28,625 4,284 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 187,117 - - 6,324 - 233,625 49,284 197,248 45,038 - 6,324 - 11,598 6,848 (161,268) (24,355) 3,670 68,227 - - - 197,247 - - - - - - - - - (224,574) - - - 197,247 - - (224,574) - 11,598 6,848 35,979 (24,355) 3,670 (156,347) - 344,016 132,532 380,152 84,713 355,677 651,467 959 355,614$ 139,380$ 416,131$ 60,358$ 359,347$ 495,120$ 959$ 77 Capital Projects Pre-1998 Non- Increment Special Assessment Capital Project TIF District No. 2 Fire Hall Remodel Total Other Governmental Funds Revenues Property taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ 426,145$ Charges for services - - - - 127,161 Fines and forfeitures - - - - 73 Miscellaneous Investment income 709 1,181 - - 33,742 Other 53,642 - - - 478,952 Total revenues 54,351 1,181 - - 1,066,073 Expenditures Current General government 10,284 - - - 57,316 Public works - - - - 66,945 Debt service Principal - - - - 250,000 Interest and other charges - - - - 32,909 Capital outlay General government 86,527 - - - 86,527 Public safety - - - 239,735 239,735 Public works - 44,079 1,594 - 380,095 Total expenditures 96,811 44,079 1,594 239,735 1,113,527 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (42,460) (42,898) (1,594) (239,735) (47,454) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in - - - - 197,247 Transfers out - - - - (229,074) Total other financing sources (uses) - - - - (31,827) Net change in fund balances (42,460) (42,898) (1,594) (239,735) (79,281) Fund Balances Beginning of year 154,373 (279,124) (7,358) - 2,832,302 End of year 111,913$ (322,022)$ (8,952)$ (239,735)$ 2,753,021$ 78 City of Mendota Heights Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 Capital Projects Compensated Absences City Hall Sinking Fund Total Assets Current assets Cash and investments (including cash equivalents)497,686$ 111,637$ 609,323$ Interest receivable - 149 149 Prepaid expenses - 7,879 7,879 Total current assets 497,686 119,665 617,351 Noncurrent assets Capital assets Land - 25,000 25,000 Buildings - 2,137,837 2,137,837 Improvements other than buildings - 40,781 40,781 Machinery and equipment - 66,969 66,969 Construction in progress - - - Total capital assets - 2,270,587 2,270,587 Less accumulated depreciation - (1,702,271) (1,702,271) Net capital assets - 568,316 568,316 Total assets 497,686 687,981 1,185,667 Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB - 210 210 Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions - 9,255 9,255 Total deferred outflows of resources - 9,465 9,465 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 497,686$ 697,446$ 1,195,132$ Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts and contracts payable -$ 6,501$ 6,501$ Salaries and benefits payable - 1,707 1,707 Due to other governments - 98 98 Noncurrent liabilities due within one year 385,026 4,317 389,343 Total current liabilities 385,026 12,623 397,649 Noncurrent liabilities Compensated absences 497,686 13,558 511,244 OPEB payable - 4,768 4,768 Net pension liability - 51,053 51,053 Less amount due within one year (385,026) (4,317) (389,343) Total noncurrent liabilities 112,660 65,062 177,722 Total liabilities 497,686 77,685 575,371 Deferred Inflows of Resources Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions - 17,202 17,202 Net Position Investment in capital assets - 568,316 568,316 Unrestricted - 34,243 34,243 Total net position - 602,559 602,559 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources and net position 497,686$ 697,446$ 1,195,132$ 79 December 31, 2018 Combining Statement of Net Position - Internal Service Funds City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota Heights Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position - Internal Service Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 City Hall Sinking Fund Total Operating revenues Charges for services 216,940$ 216,940$ Operating expenses Wages and salaries 65,560 65,560 Employee benefits 22,852 22,852 Professional services 1,359 1,359 Insurance 5,991 5,991 Utilities 42,595 42,595 Depreciation 79,714 79,714 Miscellaneous 53,733 53,733 Total operating expenses 271,804 271,804 Operating loss (54,864) (54,864) Nonoperating revenues Investment income 992 992 Loss before transfers (53,872) (53,872) Transfers in 224,574 224,574 Change in net position 170,702 170,702 Net position Beginning of year 430,822 430,822 Change in accounting principle (Note 12) 1,035 1,035 Beginning of year, as restated 431,857 431,857 End of year 602,559$ 602,559$ 80 Compensated Absences City Hall Sinking Fund Total Cash Flows - Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users -$ 216,940$ 216,940$ Payments to suppliers - (181,072) (181,072) Payments to employees 95,007 (90,327) 4,680 Net cash flows - operating activities 95,007 (54,459) 40,548 Cash Flows - Noncapital Financing Activities Transfer from Other Funds - 224,574 224,574 Net cash flows - noncapital financing activities - 224,574 224,574 Cash Flows - Capital And Related Financing Activities Acquisition of capital assets - (234,033) (234,033) Cash Flows - Investing Activities Interest and dividends received - 1,035 1,035 Net change in cash and cash equivalents 95,007 (62,883) 32,124 Cash and Cash Equivalents Beginning of year 402,679 174,520 577,199 End of year 497,686$ 111,637$ 609,323$ Reconciliation of Operating Loss to Net Cash Flows - Operating Activities Operating loss -$ (54,864)$ (54,864)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating Loss to net cash flows - Operating activities Depreciation expense - 79,714 79,714 Prepaid items - 14,073 14,073 Accounts payable - (91,471) (91,471) Due to other governmental units - 4 4 Salaries payable - 210 210 OPEB payable - 826 826 Pension related items - (4,455) (4,455) Compensated absences payable 95,007 1,504 96,511 Total adjustments 95,007 405 95,412 Net cash flows - operating activities 95,007$ (54,459)$ 40,548$ 81 City of Mendota Heights Combining Statement of Cash Flows - Internal Service Funds Year Ended December 31, 2018 Budgeted Amounts Variance with Original Actual And final Amounts Revenues Property taxes 7,189,437$ 7,237,908$ 48,471$ Licenses and permits 364,750 515,103 150,353 Intergovernmental revenue State grants and aids PERA aid 9,070 9,073 3 Fire aid 99,000 100,975 1,975 Police aid 135,000 137,752 2,752 Other grants and aids 197,832 221,617 23,785 Total intergovernmental revenue 440,902 469,417 28,515 Charges for services 650,879 643,095 (7,784) Fines and forfeitures 64,000 103,829 39,829 Miscellaneous revenues Investment income 30,000 78,430 48,430 Other 137,000 169,932 32,932 Total miscellaneous revenues 167,000 248,362 81,362 Total revenues 8,876,968 9,217,714 340,746 Expenditures General government Mayor and council Salaries and benefits 24,335 24,439 104 Contracted services 9,000 14,359 5,359 Administration and finance Salaries and benefits 703,115 695,094 (8,021) Materials and supplies 17,100 18,543 1,443 Contracted services 445,134 371,302 (73,832) 82 City of Mendota Heights Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - Final budget - over (under) General Fund Year Ended December 31, 2018 Budgeted Amounts Variance with Original Actual Final budget - And final Amounts Over (under) Expenditures (Continued) General government (continued) Elections Salaries and benefits 58,995$ 65,045$ 6,050$ Materials and supplies 9,785 10,186 401 Contracted services 6,100 5,465 (635) Information technology Materials and supplies 109,372 14,014 (95,358) Contracted services 72,635 79,401 6,766 Planning and zoning Salaries and benefits 131,847 131,310 (537) Materials and supplies 4,000 3,502 (498) Contracted services 100,250 60,413 (39,837) Recycling Salaries and benefits - 21,617 21,617 Contracted services 28,800 12,199 (16,601) Miscellaneous Contracted services - 83,042 83,042 Total general government 1,720,468 1,609,931 (110,537) Public safety Police protection Salaries and benefits 2,987,320 2,637,960 (349,360) Materials and supplies 225,000 167,039 (57,961) Contracted services 743,333 606,286 (137,047) Fire protection Salaries and benefits 290,319 261,009 (29,310) Materials and supplies 96,100 135,564 39,464 Contracted services 372,340 344,037 (28,303) Total public safety 4,714,412 4,151,895 (562,517) 83 General Fund Year Ended December 31, 2018 (Continued) Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - City of Mendota Heights Budgeted Amounts Variance with Original Actual Final budget - And final Amounts Over (under) Expenditures (Continued) Public works Code enforcement Materials and supplies 2,475$ 4,380$ 1,905$ Contracted services 111,375 99,027 (12,348) Street maintenance Salaries and benefits 981,324 917,263 (64,061) Materials and supplies 101,600 147,598 45,998 Contracted services 469,579 461,671 (7,908) Parks Salaries and benefits 492,535 533,197 40,662 Materials and supplies 184,650 181,719 (2,931) Contracted services 154,300 119,159 (35,141) Capital outlay - 19,330 19,330 Total public works 2,497,838 2,483,344 (14,494) Total expenditures 8,932,718 8,245,170 (687,548) Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (55,750) 972,544 1,028,294 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfer in 55,750 47,550 (8,200) Transfer out - (270,992) (270,992) Total other financing sources (uses) 55,750 (223,442) (279,192) Net change in fund balance -$ 749,102 749,102$ Fund Balance Beginning of year 8,087,498 End of year 8,836,600$ 84 Year Ended December 31, 2018 (Continued) Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund City of Mendota Heights 85 Minnesota Legal Compliance Independent Auditor's Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated May 28, 2019. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65, contains seven categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions and tax increment financing. Our audit considered all of the listed categories. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota failed to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City's noncompliance with the above referenced provisions. The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota May 28, 2019 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-46 to either Deny [or Approve] a Variance for property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-14) Introduction City Council is 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 1562 Wachtler Avenue, while the other approves the variance with amended findings supporting said approval. Background The subject property is owned by Mr. Jim Carlson, and consists of 1.77 acres (total) of land area, with a 5,345 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling. The owner is seeking to build a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard area, and needs a variance to required side-yard setbacks for a new driveway extension to the garage. City Code requires all driveways or parking areas in residential zones to be 5-feet from side lot lines. Mr. Carlson is proposing to install an 11’-3” wide driveway (near the closest corner of the current attached garage), leaving a setback of 2.5 feet. The variance would allow for this reduced setback on the driveway. At the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the variance item was presented for consideration under a public hearing; and after public comments and discussion with staff, the commission elected to table the matter to the next meeting, and directed staff to work with the homeowner and determined if there are any alternatives to reducing or eliminating the variance. A copy of the 05/28/19 Planning Staff Report and meeting minutes are all appended to this council memo report. At the June 25th follow-up meeting, staff reported they inspected the site closer; explored and investigated other options, such as relocating the garage to the south; wrapping a driveway all around the back/rear yard; installing a pass-through door on the back-side of the attached 3rd stall; and other suggestions. Staff indicated that the most feasible option for providing a driveway to the new garage in this back-yard should come from the north side of the home/garage areas - as requested by Mr. Carlson and presented on his plans. Staff further stated we will work with Mr. Carlson to ensure stormwater drainage is properly mitigated, and reduce any visual impacts to neighboring properties. 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. page 92 Recommendation After re-opening the public hearing, and upon considerable discussion with staff, the applicant, and taking additional public comments, the Planning Commission chose to recommend denial (by 6-1 vote) of the variance request from Mr. Carlson and the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue, based on the findings of facts as noted in the draft resolution of denial included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation of denial, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-46 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE; or If the Council wishes to reverse this recommendation, make a motion to adopt alternative RESOLUTION NO. 2019-46 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE, based on the 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 93 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-46 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-14) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-14, Mr. Jim Carlson (the “Owner/Applicant”) applied for a variance for reduced driveway setbacks on the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue, (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 install a new driveway that would encroach 2.5 ft. into the required 5-ft. setback standard for driveways from side-yard property lines, 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 May 28, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon comments from the public and discussion with the Applicant, the commission elected to table the item to the next meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Planning Commission re-opened the public hearing, allowed for additional comments from the public and applicant, closed the hearing, and whereupon concluding their discussion on this item, the planning commission elected to recommend denial of the Variance (on 6-1 vote), 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 as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-14 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: page 94 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 a Variance to allow the driveway to encroach up to 3.5 feet into the side yard, leaving a 2.5 foot setback from the side lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed driveway encroachment is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to provide a suitable and less intrusive driveway for the proposed (and permitted) detached garage structure in the rear-yard; ii.) the location of the home as it sits today was developed and built by others, thus making a somewhat unique situation for the homeowner he did not create. This situation therefore provides a unique circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of variance on the reduced driveway setbacks; and iii.) approving the proposed driveway, with a reduced setback under this variance request, does not change or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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 1562 Wachtler Avenue 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. 2019-14, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2019-46. 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 95 proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway or parking pad area. 2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 2.5-feet from the side lot line. 3. The Applicant shall provide permeable pavers (or similar drainable features) for the driveway surface area located along the existing attached garage structure. 4. The Applicant shall provide additional vegetative screening along the reduced setback area to screen the driveway from neighboring properties. 5. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-14, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 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 96 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-03800-32-010 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 32, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, Minnesota page 97 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-46 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-14) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-14, Mr. Jim Carlson (the “Owner/Applicant”) applied for a variance for reduced driveway setbacks on the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue, (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 install a new driveway that would encroach 2.5 ft. into the required 5-ft. setback standard for driveways from side-yard property lines, 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 May 28, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon comments from the public and discussion with the Applicant, the commission elected to table the item to the next meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Planning Commission re-opened the public hearing, allowed for additional comments from the public and applicant, closed the hearing, and whereupon concluding their discussion on this item, the planning commission elected to recommend denial of the Variance (on 6-1 vote), 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 as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-14 is hereby denied, with the following findings of fact: page 98 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 a reduced driveway setback. The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large size; 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 1562 Wachtler Avenue, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-14, is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 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 99 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-03800-32-010 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 32, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, Minnesota page 100 page 101 Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) MEETING DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-14 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Jim Carlson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019 (extended to August 29, 2019) INTRODUCTION This variance application item appeared before the Planning Commission at the May 28, 2019 regular meeting. The Applicant is seeking a variance to setbacks for a driveway along his side-yard, which would eventually lead back to a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard. The original May 28th Planning Staff Report is attached again for reference. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing at the May 28th meeting, and after comments from the Applicant and neighboring owners, the Commission tabled the matter to this June 25th meeting. The Commissioners stated the reasons for tabling included the following: There have been questions asked and answers not given; Discuss the possibility of building on the other side of the house; There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation is, etc.; There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: o An ugly building would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood; and o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. INFORMATION City staff (public works director and community development director) visited the site after the last meeting, and later met with the applicant to discuss options. 1) Staff has determined that a small, block retaining wall – built up to or near the side property line along the length of the attached garage, is feasible and possible. By providing this new wall, the applicant has stated he will keep the concrete “walkway” surface intact, and provide permeable pavers with crushed rock layers between, in order to maintain or provide positive drainage between the properties. (see photo below): page 102 Once the driveway clears the back side of the garage, the applicant will continue with permeable pavers or hard surfaced driveway to the new garage structure in the back corner. 2) Staff agreed the grades on the opposite side of the house (west and south side of home) are too severe and would require a lot of fill material to be brought in to provide a suitable, buildable structure, and would definitely alter the look and feel of the natural grades in these areas. Wrapping a driveway from the front of the home and all the way around the back of the home (traversing steep slopes along the way) would be excessive and would again likely alter the natural character and environment of the back yard space. 3) Mr. Carlson was also asked if he could make an opening in the rear of his 3rd stall garage (as indicated in the image-below), which would lead to a drive-through garage and access to the back detached garage. This idea was rejected by Mr. Carlson as he feels this would drastically alter the architecture and character of the existing home; and is too prohibitive (in costs and design) – as the driveway leading out from the back of the garage would destroy the stand of mature trees and gardens he has located directly behind the attached garage area. 4) There were a number of comments related to the design or aesthetics of the proposed detached garage. In fact, it was stated: “There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.” As was pointed out in the May 28th report, the new 928 sq. ft. detached garage proposed by Mr. Carlson is a permitted use by right, page 103 since his property is more than 1.5 and less than 2.5 acres; and City Code allows owners an additional detached garage up to 1,000 sq. ft.in size. Per City Code Sect. 12-1D-3 C.1.(5): Detached private garages must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure, including exterior design, materials and colors. Most of Mr. Carlson’s home is constructed of very nice earth-tone bricks and a small rear addition with earth tone stucco. Mr. Carlson has stated he will construct the new garage with matching colors (and tones) as the existing home, but in materials more suited for a garage, such as double-lap vinyl siding and matching shingles. As long as the new garage meets the spirit and intent of this Ordinance provision, there should be no reason to believe this structure would “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concedes that if not for the new garage, the driveway would not be needed, and therefore no variance to consider. The fact remains however, the driveway and its reduced setbacks are the only issues that should be given attention in this variance review. The commission must determine if the reduced setback of the driveway is reasonable; the need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property; and if the driveway does or does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. If the Commission feels that one or more of these variance test parameters have been met, including economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty, then the Commission may elect to recommend approval of the variance as presented, based on the following findings of facts (with conditions of approval noted therein): 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 a Variance to allow the driveway to encroach up to 3.5 feet into the side yard, leaving a 2.5 foot setback from the side lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed driveway encroachment is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to provide a suitable and less intrusive driveway for the proposed (and permitted) detached garage structure in the rear-yard; ii.) the location of the home as it sits today was developed and built by others, thus making a somewhat unique situation for the homeowner he did not create. This situation therefore provides a unique circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of variance on the reduced driveway setbacks; and iii.) approving the proposed driveway, with a reduced setback under this variance request, does not change or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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. page 104 D. Approval of this Variance is for 1562 Wachtler Avenue 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- 14, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (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: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway or parking pad area. 2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 2.5-feet from the side lot line. 3. The Applicant shall provide permeable pavers (or similar drainable features) for the driveway surface area located along the existing attached garage structure. 4. The Applicant shall provide additional vegetative screening along the reduced setback area to screen the driveway from neighboring properties. 5. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. If the Commission feels this variance has not met the practical difficulties tests, then the commission may elect to 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 a reduced driveway setback. The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large size; 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). page 105 C) PLANNING CASE #2019-14 JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at the Commissions meeting on May 28, 2019. This involves a variance to allow a reduced setback for a proposed driveway for the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue. Mr. Benetti provided a brief background on the application as was heard at the May 28, 2019 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing at that time, and after hearing comments from the Applicant and neighboring owners, the Commission tabled the matter. The reasons for tabling included: There were questions asked and answers not given Discuss the possibility of building on the other side of the house There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation is, etc. There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage was going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood o An ugly building would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Community Development Director Tim Benetti visited the site since the last Commission meeting and later met with the applicant to discuss options. Staff determined that a small, block retaining wall – built up to or near the side property line along the length of the attached garage, is feasible and possible. This new wall would help retain and provide a suitable drive surface, also utilizing part of the concrete walkway and permeable pavers. Staff suggested and would like to see permeable pavers and crushed rock with a perforated drain tile system underneath so that any stormwater that would hit that driveway would not wash off but penetrate in and carried out. Staff also looked at the grades on the opposite side of the house and determined that they are too severe and would require a lot of fill material to be brought in to provide a suitable, buildable structure and would definitely alter the look and feel of the natural grades in these areas. As was suggested at the last Commission meeting, they looked at creating an opening in the rear of the third stall garage, which would lead to a drive-through garage and provide access to the back detached garage. The applicant rejected this idea as he felt it would drastically alter the architecture and character of the existing home. It would also be prohibitive in costs and design as the driveway leading out from the back of the garage would destroy the stand of mature trees and gardens located directly behind. page 106 As for the appearance of the new garage structure, the 928 square foot detached garage proposed is a permitted use by right since the property is more than 1.5 and less than 2.5 acres in size and the City Code allows an additional detached garage up to 1,000 square feet in size. Also, City Code stipulates that detached private garages must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure, including exterior design, materials and colors. The applicant has stated that he would construct the new garage with matching colors and tones as the existing home, but with materials more suited for a garage. Chair Magnuson asked what the approximately distance was from the back end of the current garage (the third stall) into where there would be any kind of dramatic impact of the tree and garden area. Mr. Benetti replied that it is approximately 10-12 feet off the back edge of the garage; possibly a little more. Commissioner Toth noted that he met with the homeowners at 792 and 786 and stated that off of the corner of the current garage, it drastically slopes down. There is a small block wall in that corner which would have to come down and then be rebuilt with some type of block grid or geo- grid because as they continue to drive that soil condition is going to change and would continue to slope. He then asked what type of plan would be implemented to provide a stable surface so it would not slough off. Mr. Benetti replied that the builder of the wall would know what they are doing and it should be done right and meet construction standards. Chair Magnuson noted that the Commission was considering a variance from the five foot setback requirement. Without suggesting that she is in favor of this necessarily; she stated that it seemed to her that there is a small area where there could be the need for the variance. But as they get back closer to the proposed garage she asked where it moved to five feet. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide a definitive answer but provided a guestimate. Mr. Benetti noted that staff received another letter of support from a neighbor and some valuation information from a real estate appraiser on behalf of a neighbor to the north. All of this information has been made a part of the public record. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to reopen the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION NOONAN, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Mr. Jim Carlson had nothing to add to the staff report. Mr. Allen Weslander, 798 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that the back of his property runs along Mr. Carlson’s property. He has lived there for 25 years and has made a lot of improvements; however, they are pretty fussy. Mr. Carlson, in the years that he has lived there, everything that he has done that they have seen has been top notch. He does a quality job with whatever he does. It makes sense that Mr. Carlson needs to get back behind his house someway and it just makes sense page 107 to put that driveway where they want. It does butt up against his property and he does not have a problem with that because he knows Mr. Carlson will do a quality job. Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that his opposition to this request has not changed. He does not believe there is a practical difficulty since this driveway can be placed on the right of his house. Mr. Carlson was nice enough to allow him to come over and look at his property. Mr. Trojack shared an image of the drive next to the right side of the home with two automobiles. This is a relatively level area that the driveway could access for a garage. There is no reason why there would have to be a driveway all of the way around to the present location. The small shed that is currently on the right side would have to come down no matter which way the driveway went. There is access that goes right up there and could come around. He has walked that property and does not see why it could not be placed on the right side without the need for a variance of any kind. Mr. Trojack continued by explaining that the grade seems to be all right because he has already put a driveway there; it would have to be widened probably and then come around to the level piece of property. He did not see any reason why that could not be done; this would not require a variance and would not require running a driveway across the entire length of the back yard. Mr. Trojack spoke to Mr. Carlson about the stand of three very large trees on the way to the proposed garage and he indicated that they would all come down. Mr. Trojack believed that would change the nature of that entire area and diminish the rural atmosphere they have come to enjoy since moving to Mendota Heights. There is not circumstance unique to the property requiring the granting of a driveway variance. The need for a larger garage is created by the owner and is not unique to the property. The need for the driveway on the side proposed is unique to the owner; he wants it there. He wants it there because he believes that putting it on the right side of his property would not be aesthetically pleasing. That should not be a reason for granting the variance. The building and the driveway running across his own rear yard would not be aesthetically pleasing to him; and neither is the potential problems of long-term maintenance for that driveway along the back side of his property. The old building will be torn down in any event, the placement of the new building is strictly the owner’s choice and not a unique situation, and the removal of the trees would change the character of the neighborhood. There are no special conditions existing topographically; in fact, the fact that the driveway has already been put up the right side of the property indicates that there is the ability to go up that topography and maybe he would have to put in some fill, but it would almost be the same level of work required to install the retaining walls and adjustments on his side of the property. He believed the essential character of the neighborhood would be changed and they did not expect to have an alley put down the back of their property, something very common in urban cities. He did not believe there was any property in Cherry Hill with a driveway immediately adjacent to their rear property. page 108 He emphasized the fact that this would be a permanent change; not something that can be reversed later on when different neighbors move in. The applicant, Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, came forward to address the concerns raised. He shared an image taken by Mr. Trojack from his back yard and indicated the shed, which could hardly been seen. Also, the new garage could not be put down by the house where Mr. Trojack suggested. The proposed location is a good spot and there is an existing shed there now – it just would take a bigger footprint. As for driving back there all of the time, no he would not be. This garage would be more of a storage shed for his boat, his riding lawn mower, his attachments, and probably his brother’s car over the winter. Since Mr. Trojack’s property is lower, he will not be able to see the driveway or the permeable pavers installed. Chair Magnuson pointed out a fence on the image and asked if the fence belonged to Mr. Carlson and if he intended to leave it up. Mr. Carlson replied that he is the owner of the fence and that he plans to leave it up. When asked how that would work with the retaining wall, Mr. Carlson replied that they would either have to put the fence on top of the retaining wall or put the landscaping blocks on the other side of the fence. It’s workable, it just needs to get planned out. Additional discussions occurred on the placement of the retaining wall relative to the fence, the height of the fence, the tight pinch in the driveway, and the tight pitch of the slope. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-14 VARIANCE 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.” page 109 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 a reduced driveway setback. The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large size; 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). Commissioner Corbett explained that his reason for recommending denial was because he believes there are alternatives and after viewing the property he did not believe it to be a requirement. As little as he says he is going to use it, it would be no inconvenience to have to pull his car out and drive through the back to that garage. He also did not know if the cost would be any different than putting in the retaining wall and the other work that would need to be done to install the driveway where he is requesting. Commissioner Katz also raised concerns about the location of the driveway as proposed and the neighbors there. He understands and probably would agree with the comments about Mr. Carlson maintaining his property very well; however, he did have concerns for Mr. Trojack and what the effects would be on his property as well as what would happen when there other people who would move in or out of those homes around this area that would be affected by the variance request. He believed there were alternatives that could enable Mr. Carlson to erect a structure to store his things and not require a variance. Commissioner Toth stated that he had the opportunity to meet with the residents at 782 Upper Colonial Drive and 786 Upper Colonial Drive. When looking back at the practical difficulties tests, it says if the variance were granted it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This would have an impact on the neighborhood. From 782 and 786, presently standing in their backyards and looking to where this garage would be situated it would be partially covered with the foliage that is there. However, in the fall and winter months when the trees lose their leaves, that garage structure would be more visible to the neighbors. Also, on the fence line that cuts the Carlson property and the other residents’ properties, there is a power line. Sooner or later, no matter who owns the power line, they are going to come in and clear cut that; they are going to top the trees, remove the shrubs, or remove other foliage because they do not want trees to grow into their power lines. Many times when they do that the foliage dies. He reiterated his opinion that this driveway and garage would alter the characteristics of the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson cautioned the Commission in that they are being asked to look at a variance from the setback requirements for a driveway. They are not in a position to necessarily offer any opinion or decision on the garage itself. He can build the garage whether he has a driveway to it or not. page 110 She continued to say that her issue was the lack of practical difficulties. She understands what Mr. Carlson wants to do and understands all of the reasons why he wants to do it and they are all good and reasonable. However, the granting of the variance is a convenience to the applicant. It is not necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty of the property. She did not want to get into the position of granting variances because people prefer to have a driveway in one location of they prefer to have a 10-foot dining room versus an 8-foot dining room and the 10-foot dining room is going to encroach but they do not want an 8-foot dining room. They get lost in the possibility of going down that slippery slope of granting variances because it becomes a matter of personal convenience to the homeowner rather than the actual practical difficulty of the property. Her concern here was that there has not been a necessary demonstration of that there is a practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property, not caused by the property owner himself. Commissioner Petschel took a contrary view since they are not considering the garage whatsoever. He cited other times the Commission has approved variance, although not necessarily unanimously, and he understood that there is no such thing as precedence per discussions had earlier and previously. To him this request was not that much different. Commissioner Noonan agreed with Chair Magnuson when she said that the Commission should not take their jurisdictional responsibilities lightly by simply granting variances because it is a matter of convenience. The Commission has to be challenged to find the practical difficulties and he is not seeing it in this case. They have heard that this is what the homeowner desires to do and there are other alternatives; just because the homeowner does not want to do those other alternatives does not rise the threshold of meeting the practical difficulties test. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if he had an approximate number for what the vertical drop is from the sidewalk to the base of the fence. Mr. Benetti replied that he would defer to the homeowner but assumed it was 2.5 to 3 feet. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the staff report says they would leave a setback of 2.5 feet because the driveway would be 11.5 feet wide. One cannot drive on top of a retaining wall so the retaining wall would have to be on the outside of that 11.5 feet. Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Mazzitello continued by saying that if they installed a small block retaining wall that are eight inches per block, set back inches per block, three feet in depth they would need at least six courses. So now you are talking 24 inches off of that 11.5 foot, the toll of that retaining wall is going to come within inches of that property line. So they are not leaving a setback of 2.5 feet; they are eliminating the entire setback because the retaining wall would have to be included as part of the driveway. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the installation of the retaining wall could be right on the property line, and small retaining walls can be constructed vertically. They do not need to be stepped back. Commissioner Mazzitello’s point was that the retaining wall eats more into the setback than the 11.5 foot driveway as presented. page 111 There being no more discussion, Chair Magnuson called for the vote AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. page 112 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-14 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Jim Carlson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019 INTRODUCTION The applicant is building a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard area, and is seeking a variance to required setbacks for a new driveway extension to said garage. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. This item was originally noticed (both published and mailed letters) as a variance with a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a larger detached garage structure. However, staff later determined this CUP was not necessary, because the lot is large enough to allow a new detached garage as a permitted use instead of with a CUP approval. Explanation will follow in this report. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 1.77 acres in size, and contains 5,345 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling. The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development. page 113 Mr. Carlson currently has a 1,153 sf. 3 car attached garage to the home, and is wishing to build a new 29’ x 34’ (928-sq. ft.) detached garage in the back rear corner . In order to provide durable access to this garage, Mr. Carlson intends to extend an additional hard-surfaced driveway out along the side yard area of the current attached garage to the new detached garage structure. The driveway extension is approximately 130-ft. in length. Per Section 12-1D-3, all single family residential dwellings are allowed an attached garage up to 1,200 sq. ft. Larger residential lots are allowed to have an additional (one) detached private garage by permitted use or conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. Mr. Carlson’s survey indicates the unplatted subject parcel is “1.99 acres, more or less, including road right of way”. ” Factoring out the road ROW leaves the parcel with a net area of 1.77 acres (same as Dakota County Assessor records). When this application and site plan for new garage was submitted to the city, staff may have misread or misinterpreted the lot size on the survey, and originally directed Mr. Carlson to submit a CUP application to allow for the larger detached garage. Because the subject lot is 1.77 acres, Mr. Carlson is permitted to have one detached garage not to exceed 1,000-sf. Therefore, the proposed 29’ x 34’ (928 sf.) garage on the plan meets this standard, and the CUP is no longer needed in this review. Mr. Carlson intends to slightly widen and extend a new driveway off to the side of the existing [concrete] driveway surface, wrap it around the side area of the attached garage, and extend it back to the new detached garage structure in the rear yard. The existing attached garage sits 13.9-ft. from the side-yard lot line (see survey image – below). . Mr. Carlson wishes to install an approximate 12-ft. wide driveway along this side-yard. The driveway tapers down to 11’-3” near this closest corner of the attached garage, leaving a setback of 2.5 feet. The variance would allow or grant this reduced setback for the driveway (see site plan image – below). page 114 In order to alleviate or prevent any drainage issues that may occur due to the added hard surfaced driveway between the existing garage and rear yard property of 792 Wachtler Avenue, Mr. Carlson has offered to look into installing permeable pavers or some other features along this area to help reduce or prevent any impacts. Mr. Carlson is also offering to provide vegetative screening, such as upright junipers, pampas grass plants, or similar along the 2.5-foot area for added screening if necessary or requested. 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 115 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Without a variance for the driveway, access to the new garage would require putting a driveway in on the opposite side of the house which would run across the entire length of the backyard. Without a variance for the garage size, I would not have enough room to store my yard equipment (riding lawnmower and attachments) and fishing boat, it would have to be parked outside and would be an eye sore. Staff’s Response: Mr. Carlson noted to city staff that this location of a new driveway along this north side of his home is the only logical and reasonable place to put in the driveway. Wrapping the driveway around the south side and around the back area of the home would take up a lot of open/green space, (with 3-4 times more concrete/hard surface). A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed 3.5-ft. encroachment into the 5-foot setback for the driveway is reasonable. One important reason for keeping a 5-foot setback for driveways and parking spaces in residential zones is to provide or maintain adequate drainage between properties, and ensure access for certain utilities. When residential lot subdivisions are approved, drainage and utility easements are typically shown and platted along the lot lines. Since this lot is unplatted, there are no drainage/utility easements present. The adjacent residential lots to the north (798, 792 and 786 Upper Colonial Drive) have a 6-ft. D & U easement along their back lot lines. City Code Section 12-1D-4: C: Allowed Encroachments; Sub.1.c allows for “Uncovered and/or open terraces, steps, porches or decks, accessibility ramps, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and do not extend closer than two feet (2') from any lot line.” The new driveway could “technically” meet this rule, and the Commission may wish to determine if the owners can be afforded a reduced setback allowance up to 2.5 feet, similar to this “allowable encroachment” section provided in City Code. While it may seem “reasonable” to have this driveway along the side area of a home, the standards of the Zoning Code are clear for requiring a 5-foot setback, and the Planning Commission will need to determine if this requested variance is reasonable, and is in harmony with the general purpose and spirit of the Code. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: I need a larger garage, my existing garage is not big enough. I park my work vehicle, car, and companion’s vehicle in the attached garage. That does not leave any room for my yard equipment and storage. I don't like clutter (eye sores) out in my yard. Staff’s Response: The city must determine if the requested variance to allow a reduced setback of a new driveway is “unique” enough to support such approval. It appears (once again) that had the house been originally built or located more centrally in the lot, or moved slightly down towards the center, this side-yard lot line issue would not exist. This is a large parcel, and there is plenty of room to maneuver and develop within the lot. Even though the homeowner/applicant could easily extend or wrap the driveway around on the south side of the home, the grades from the front to the rear yard areas are severe; and coupled with much more pavement, grading and design on this wrap-around driveway, it would appear to be too much just for this small garage project. 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 variance would not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The driveway will not be visible from the street. The garage will match the existing style of the house. page 116 Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is all residential in character. Even though this property, and the properties to the south and east are larger than most normal single family residential lots, the character should not change due to the addition of the garage or driveway. However, the city can determine if the encroaching driveway would alter the essential character of this neighborhood. 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 a Variance to allow the driveway to encroach up to 3.5 feet into the side yard, leaving a 2.5 foot setback from the side lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed driveway encroachment is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to provide a suitable and less intrusive driveway for the proposed (and permitted) detached garage structure in the rear-yard; ii.) the location of the home as it sits today was developed and built by others, thus making a somewhat unique situation for the homeowner he did not create. This situation therefore provides a unique circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of variance on the reduced driveway setbacks; and iii.) approving the proposed driveway, with a reduced setback under this variance request, does not change or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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 1562 Wachtler Avenue 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- 14, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (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: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway or parking pad area. page 117 2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 2.5-feet from the side lot line. 3. The Applicant shall provide permeable pavers (or similar features) for the driveway surface area located along the existing attached garage structure. 4. The Applicant shall provide additional vegetative screening along the reduced setback area to screen the driveway from neighboring properties. 5. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 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 a reduced driveway setback. The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large size; 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. Site Pictures page 118 SITE PHOTOS – 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE page 119 page 120 page 121 1562 WACHTLER LANE (J. CARLSON RES.) Property Information September 18, 2017 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 122 page 123 D 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. D If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted . D 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 0 NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to · use the property in a reasonable manner below: Without a variance for the driveway, access to the new garage would require putting a driveway in on the opposite side of the house which would run across the entire length of the backyard . Without a variance for the garage size , I would not have enough room to store my yard equ i pment (riding lawnmower and attachments) and fishing boat, it would have to be parked outs ide and would be an eye sore . Variance Application (2019) Page 2of4 page 124 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? DYES D NO Please describe or identif 2) I need a larger garage, my existing garage is not big enough . I park my work vehicle, car, and companions vehicle in the attached garage . That does not leave any room for my yard equipment and storage . I don't like clutter (eye sores) out in my yard . 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? DYES ONO Not? Please ex lain how the re uest fits with the character of the nei hborhood. 3) The variance would not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The driveway will not be visible from the street. The garage will match the existing style of the house . 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 of 4 page 125 page 126 page 127 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-14 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Jim Carlson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019 INTRODUCTION The applicant is building a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard area, and is seeking a variance to required setbacks for a new driveway extension to said garage. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. This item was originally noticed (both published and mailed letters) as a variance with a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a larger detached garage structure. However, staff later determined this CUP was not necessary, because the lot is large enough to allow a new detached garage as a permitted use instead of with a CUP approval. Explanation will follow in this report. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 1.77 acres in size, and contains 5,345 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling. The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development. page 128 Mr. Carlson currently has a 1,153 sf. 3 car attached garage to the home, and is wishing to build a new 29’ x 34’ (928-sq. ft.) detached garage in the back rear corner . In order to provide durable access to this garage, Mr. Carlson intends to extend an additional hard-surfaced driveway out along the side yard area of the current attached garage to the new detached garage structure. The driveway extension is approximately 130-ft. in length. Per Section 12-1D-3, all single family residential dwellings are allowed an attached garage up to 1,200 sq. ft. Larger residential lots are allowed to have an additional (one) detached private garage by permitted use or conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. Mr. Carlson’s survey indicates the unplatted subject parcel is “1.99 acres, more or less, including road right of way”. ” Factoring out the road ROW leaves the parcel with a net area of 1.77 acres (same as Dakota County Assessor records). When this application and site plan for new garage was submitted to the city, staff may have misread or misinterpreted the lot size on the survey, and originally directed Mr. Carlson to submit a CUP application to allow for the larger detached garage. Because the subject lot is 1.77 acres, Mr. Carlson is permitted to have one detached garage not to exceed 1,000-sf. Therefore, the proposed 29’ x 34’ (928 sf.) garage on the plan meets this standard, and the CUP is no longer needed in this review. Mr. Carlson intends to slightly widen and extend a new driveway off to the side of the existing [concrete] driveway surface, wrap it around the side area of the attached garage, and extend it back to the new detached garage structure in the rear yard. The existing attached garage sits 13.9-ft. from the side-yard lot line (see survey image – below). . Mr. Carlson wishes to install an approximate 12-ft. wide driveway along this side-yard. The driveway tapers down to 11’-3” near this closest corner of the attached garage, leaving a setback of 2.5 feet. The variance would allow or grant this reduced setback for the driveway (see site plan image – below). page 129 In order to alleviate or prevent any drainage issues that may occur due to the added hard surfaced driveway between the existing garage and rear yard property of 792 Wachtler Avenue, Mr. Carlson has offered to look into installing permeable pavers or some other features along this area to help reduce or prevent any impacts. Mr. Carlson is also offering to provide vegetative screening, such as upright junipers, pampas grass plants, or similar along the 2.5-foot area for added screening if necessary or requested. 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 130 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Without a variance for the driveway, access to the new garage would require putting a driveway in on the opposite side of the house which would run across the entire length of the backyard. Without a variance for the garage size, I would not have enough room to store my yard equipment (riding lawnmower and attachments) and fishing boat, it would have to be parked outside and would be an eye sore. Staff’s Response: Mr. Carlson noted to city staff that this location of a new driveway along this north side of his home is the only logical and reasonable place to put in the driveway. Wrapping the driveway around the south side and around the back area of the home would take up a lot of open/green space, (with 3-4 times more concrete/hard surface). A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed 3.5-ft. encroachment into the 5-foot setback for the driveway is reasonable. One important reason for keeping a 5-foot setback for driveways and parking spaces in residential zones is to provide or maintain adequate drainage between properties, and ensure access for certain utilities. When residential lot subdivisions are approved, drainage and utility easements are typically shown and platted along the lot lines. Since this lot is unplatted, there are no drainage/utility easements present. The adjacent residential lots to the north (798, 792 and 786 Upper Colonial Drive) have a 6-ft. D & U easement along their back lot lines. City Code Section 12-1D-4: C: Allowed Encroachments; Sub.1.c allows for “Uncovered and/or open terraces, steps, porches or decks, accessibility ramps, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and do not extend closer than two feet (2') from any lot line.” The new driveway could “technically” meet this rule, and the Commission may wish to determine if the owners can be afforded a reduced setback allowance up to 2.5 feet, similar to this “allowable encroachment” section provided in City Code. While it may seem “reasonable” to have this driveway along the side area of a home, the standards of the Zoning Code are clear for requiring a 5-foot setback, and the Planning Commission will need to determine if this requested variance is reasonable, and is in harmony with the general purpose and spirit of the Code. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: I need a larger garage, my existing garage is not big enough. I park my work vehicle, car, and companion’s vehicle in the attached garage. That does not leave any room for my yard equipment and storage. I don't like clutter (eye sores) out in my yard. Staff’s Response: The city must determine if the requested variance to allow a reduced setback of a new driveway is “unique” enough to support such approval. It appears (once again) that had the house been originally built or located more centrally in the lot, or moved slightly down towards the center, this side-yard lot line issue would not exist. This is a large parcel, and there is plenty of room to maneuver and develop within the lot. Even though the homeowner/applicant could easily extend or wrap the driveway around on the south side of the home, the grades from the front to the rear yard areas are severe; and coupled with much more pavement, grading and design on this wrap-around driveway, it would appear to be too much just for this small garage project. 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 variance would not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The driveway will not be visible from the street. The garage will match the existing style of the house. page 131 Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is all residential in character. Even though this property, and the properties to the south and east are larger than most normal single family residential lots, the character should not change due to the addition of the garage or driveway. However, the city can determine if the encroaching driveway would alter the essential character of this neighborhood. 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 a Variance to allow the driveway to encroach up to 3.5 feet into the side yard, leaving a 2.5 foot setback from the side lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed driveway encroachment is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to provide a suitable and less intrusive driveway for the proposed (and permitted) detached garage structure in the rear-yard; ii.) the location of the home as it sits today was developed and built by others, thus making a somewhat unique situation for the homeowner he did not create. This situation therefore provides a unique circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of variance on the reduced driveway setbacks; and iii.) approving the proposed driveway, with a reduced setback under this variance request, does not change or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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 1562 Wachtler Avenue 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- 14, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (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: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway or parking pad area. page 132 2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 2.5-feet from the side lot line. 3. The Applicant shall provide permeable pavers (or similar features) for the driveway surface area located along the existing attached garage structure. 4. The Applicant shall provide additional vegetative screening along the reduced setback area to screen the driveway from neighboring properties. 5. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 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 a reduced driveway setback. The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large size; 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. Site Pictures page 133 SITE PHOTOS – 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE page 134 page 135 page 136 1562 WACHTLER LANE (J. CARLSON RES.) Property Information September 18, 2017 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 137 page 138 D 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. D If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted . D 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 0 NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to · use the property in a reasonable manner below: Without a variance for the driveway, access to the new garage would require putting a driveway in on the opposite side of the house which would run across the entire length of the backyard . Without a variance for the garage size , I would not have enough room to store my yard equ i pment (riding lawnmower and attachments) and fishing boat, it would have to be parked outs ide and would be an eye sore . Variance Application (2019) Page 2of4 page 139 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? DYES D NO Please describe or identif 2) I need a larger garage, my existing garage is not big enough . I park my work vehicle, car, and companions vehicle in the attached garage . That does not leave any room for my yard equipment and storage . I don't like clutter (eye sores) out in my yard . 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? DYES ONO Not? Please ex lain how the re uest fits with the character of the nei hborhood. 3) The variance would not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The driveway will not be visible from the street. The garage will match the existing style of the house . 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 of 4 page 140 D) PLANNING CASE #2019-14 JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jim Carlson would like to build a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard of his property at 1562 Wachtler Avenue and needs a Variance to required setbacks for a new driveway extension to that garage. This item had originally been noticed as a Variance with a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a larger detached garage. However, it was determined that the Conditional Use Permit was not necessary because he meets all of the requirements for a larger detached garage structure under 1,000 square feet because the lot is large enough. This item was presented under public hearing and notice was published in the Pioneer Press and letters were mailed to all owners within 350 feet of the subject property. One letter was received from the property owner immediately to the north; a copy of which was provided to the Commissioners and is part of the public record. The property is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.77 acres in size, and has a 5,345 square foot single family residential home with a 1,153 square foot 3-car attached garage. All single family properties are allowed to have up to 1,200 sq. ft. attached garage; and for larger lots between 1.5 to 2.5 acres in size, one additional detached garage is allowed up 1,000 sq. ft. in size. The proposed garage by the applicant meets this size limit. Mr. Carlson provided a detailed survey showing the location of the existing driveway where it sits today at 12.5, 13.9, and 19 feet off the north property line. The proposed site plan showed the driveway extension coming off of the side of the garage, the new garage in the back corner meeting the 10-foot setbacks as required by code, and the location of the proposed driveway extension. At the closest point is an 11 foot 3 inch wide driveway, requiring the 2.5 foot variance from the side yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property, noting the possible need for a retaining wall along the side because of the grade differences. The shed shown in the rear yard would be removed as part of this project. He also pointed out the grade differences between the proposed location of the driveway and the other side of the property. In Mr. Carlson’s opinion, it fits better in the proposed location. Mr. Carlson indicated to staff that, as far as any alleviating any screening or potential visual impacts to the neighbor, he would provide for some type of screening measures such as some evergreens or some pampas grasses or something else of that nature. He is also looking at providing for some permeable pavers to ensure that this area will handle some of the stormwater drainage if requested or required. Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met when considering a Variance request and explained how this request met those standards. page 141 Commissioner Corbett asked for confirmation that the land the proposed driveway would be on is graded towards the neighbor’s property. Mr. Benetti confirmed and stated that more than likely, he would have to provide for some type of grading and a retaining wall along that side to ensure that the driveway is nice and level. Chair Magnuson asked who owned the fence along that side. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed that Mr. Carlson did. He plans on retaining the fence. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if he was reading the new schematic correctly in that there would be 11’3” between the pavement edge and the property line; and 2.5 feet between the pavement and the property line. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Mazzitello noted in the packet a survey that had been completed in April 2019; however, he was not seeing any drainage or utility easements around the property lines. He asked if they existed. Mr. Benetti replied that this is Lot 32 of the Auditors Subdivision No. 3 but he did not believe there were any utility easements; probably due to the time it was platted. Without any geographical reference, Commissioner Katz asked if it had been evaluated whether or not the driveway could be put down Wachtler, in the opposite corner. Mr. Benetti replied that he possibly could; however, this area has a creek and there is also a considerable grade difference. Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, commented that he does not like leaving things outside. He believes in a garage as a way of keeping the neighborhood looking nice and preventing his neighbors from staring at his junk. He would like to store his fishing boat, riding lawn mower with attachments, snowplow, and other items if he decided to obtain them. He also stated that it would mostly be used for cold storage in the winter and that he would probably not even plow that part of the driveway. Commissioner Corbett stated that he was having a conflict in terms of the usage and the needing a concrete driveway for it if was not going to be used in the wintertime. His thinking was that in needing a concrete driveway to go to the shed, why wouldn’t the shed not be part of an expansion of the existing garage, which already has a driveway to it; or building out from that garage if its intended use was for garage storage and not as a traditional shed. Mr. Carlson replied this his existing garage has a stairway going down through the basement in the front of the garage. He would rather have a garage out in back dedicated where he could put his items in it and not have to deal with them being in the garage and the house. As for the concrete driveway, he really did not want to put in a concrete driveway; however, Mr. Benetti had brought it up to him that there were permeable pavers. He went to a supply company and there are nice pavers that are 2’ x 2’ sections with holes. He could put them down, put dirt back in them and plant grass and he believed it would blend into the yard pretty well. He is leaning more towards the permeable pavers now rather than concrete. Commissioner Petschel asked if there was any reason why he did not consider putting the new garage in the opposite corner of his lot. Mr. Carlson replied that the creek area is down there, it is wooded, and can be seen from the street. The proposed location already has a shed, it is screened and it would look good back there and not take away from the beauty of the property. page 142 Chair Magnuson asked if it would be possible to simply add a section on the back of the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that there is a staircase in the garage that starts right in the middle of the garage and goes down to the basement; so they would not get much out of that. Chair Magnuson explained her confusion in that he already stores his work vehicle, his vehicle, and his companions vehicle in the garage; clearly the stairs are not in the way of those items and she wondered why it would cause a problem with expanding the garage. Mr. Carlson pointed out on the survey image the location of the staircase. He also stated that he has a nice tree garden on the rear that would be lost. Commissioner Toth noted that the dimension of the planned garage is 2 9’ x 34’; he then asked what the peak of the roof would be. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not know that yet. Mr. Benetti replied that detached garages could not be more than 15 feet in height. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Carlson used the pavers, would they count as impervious surface. Mr. Benetti replied that the city does not have an impervious surface percentage calculation requirements. He asked for commentary on the transition between pavers and a concrete driveway – one that would necessitate a permit and one that would not. Would the move from a concrete driveway to 2’ x 2’ pavers negate the need for the variance. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because a driveway is a driveway, whether it’s concrete or some other material. Mr. Carlson needs a driveway to access the garage, the city does not want people driving back and forth across their yards to access their detached garages. Commissioner Petschel then asked if it was part of their functional definition of a garage is that it has to have a driveway. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. If it looks like a garage it needs to be permitted as a garage and it has to have a drivable surface to it. He had suggested the permeable pavers just because of the impact of that side yard and looking where the drainage would obviously go. He felt it would be a better solution to maintaining the drainage pond as much as possible. Commissioner Corbett asked how many of the trees along the fence line would be removed; it appears that every tree along that fence line that may be blanketing the garage from the neighbors view would have to be removed. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not believe that many would be removed. He estimated at least two or three of the ten located there. It is a beautiful site and he has no desire to remove very many trees at all. If he did have to remove any he hoped to plant some back in again afterwards. Commissioner Toth asked what materials the proposed garage would be made of. Mr. Carlson replied that he had no plans at the moment; but he had thought about vinyl siding that would match the house or maybe stucco. He would not want white but possibly a sand color to match the brick on the house. Steel shingles like on the house are pretty expensive and he probably could not do that; however, he would try to make it fit into the motif. When asked, Mr. Benetti replied that the garage has to match architecturally the principal building. The city does allow for color matching if the house is brick or stucco and they want to page 143 match it with vinyl, lapboard, or wood siding. The city would like for the roofing material to match as close as possible. When asked if he would consider building off of the front of the current garage, Mr. Carlson replied that it would not look good and would take away from the beauty of the neighborhood and the property. His neighbors would kick him out. Chair Magnuson asked if he had considered a smaller driveway. Mr. Carlson replied that his fishing boat is an 18’ Lund and it requires a truck to back it into the garage. He questioned if he could accomplish that with a narrower driveway. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he did realize until this evening that there was no need for a Conditional Use Permit for the garage building. He assumed the reason it was accepted is because of the size of the lot. The reason that would be the case was that it was not expected that the building would be built right on top or close to a neighbor’s property with that size of a lot. One would think that there could be a building a ways away. He and his wife have been living on his property since 1988; 30 or more years. They moved from Macalester-Groveland where they had alleys up and down behind the buildings. This driveway is as close to an alley as he has ever experienced. One of the reasons they moved to Mendota Heights was because they liked the open space. The property behind him had a great stand of trees and the previous owner, before he died, took very good care of the place. They would hate to see what they would consider an alley put in right behind their property and then have this large building, which has to be served by the driveway. They do not see why it could not be moved away from their property and the driveway put in a different direction. Mr. Carlson currently has a driveway apron on the other side of his home where two cars are normally parked. If the property was so problematic that he could not have a building on that same side, why would he consider it level enough for a nice concrete apron. Mr. Trojack did not believe it was reasonable, considering the size of the lot, to do what is proposed. He did not believe it serve the neighborhood to have this kind of a precedence set where they could put an alley driveway right behind someone else’s property. This plan is also detrimental to Mr. Trojack’s property values, as indicated in his letter. He spoke to his appraiser and was told that this would definitely decrease the value of his home. Also, there is a good stand of trees behind the fence on Mr. Carlson’s property and Mr. Trojack did believe that most of them would be standing afterwards. In summary, Mr. Trojack stated that this would be very damaging to the neighborhood, there is a good alternative on the other side of the property that should be considered, and he believed they should not have this place next to their property. Mr. Chris Shepard, 792 Upper Colonial Drive, said that initially when Mr. Carlson came by and proposed this his reaction was OK because it was his property. He did not know to what extent page 144 this would affect his own property. He was concerned about the drainage and asked that the Commission make recommendations to prevent snow buildup and then runoff and water runoff under any wet weather event. He understands that impervious pavers is probably better than concrete and he was happy to hear that was in play. The other concern were the sight lines; he pointed out the trees on the shared image. If they were to build a driveway there, they were hoping to have some sort of privacy fence be included or something that would account for the shrubs, etc. that are in place now. As to Mr. Trojack’s idea of placing the garage on the other side of the house, he would be in favor of that position. Mr. Carlson returned and stated that as of right now, there they are talking about water runoff. There is a grade right now that when it rains the water is running into Mr. Shepard’s yard. He wants to put a retaining wall in there to raise it up because it is hard to mow and dirt is washing away. Also, what Mr. Trojack pointed out on the south side of the house is not level. There is a steep bank going down into the driveway and then when you hit the yard there is a great big hill on the side. It would be hard to be tearing up all of the landscaping to put a garage in there. A person would have to haul in a lot of dirt and fill to get the grades. It would be pretty tough; it is not flat like he claimed. Chair Magnuson asked what the plans were for the chain link fence. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not want to take the chain link fence out because of the open sight lines and he likes seeing his neighbors. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-14 VARIANCE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION REVIEW PERIOD. Commissioner Noonan provided his reasons as follows: There have been questions asked and answers not given There has been considerable discussion about the possibility of building on the other side of the house There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation is, etc. There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. page 145 o An ugly building can be erected and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood He did not feel comfortable with the information to be had to make an informed decision Commissioner Toth provided his reasons as well: He felt he could not make a decision as this time as he wanted to look at the property There are too many unanswered questions, the same as mentioned by Commissioner Noonan Councilmember Petschel asked under what circumstances the Commission would approve this. What is the pass/fail criteria with which to approve this? Commissioner Katz noted that they do not have enough information to approve this. The other points and the seconded of the motion is that the Commission wants more information before making a decision. Commissioner Noonan stated that one of the findings they need to make is does it fundamentally alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He did not have enough information to make that determination. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019. As a point of order, Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that they were considering a side-yard setback Variance for a driveway. The garage has nothing to do with the question they were being asked to consider. Commissioner Noonan replied that but for the garage, the driveway would not be necessary. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed and stated that the garage could be discussed; however, it could not be considered as part of the Commission’s decision on the driveway. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the garage was not proposed the driveway would not be either, so they are connected. Chair Magnuson agreed. Commissioner Corbett suggested to the owner, since the third bay in the current garage was not blocked by the stairwell to the basement, he could put in a second garage door on the backside and extend a drive through garage from the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that he had thought about that but he would end up knocking down more trees, ruining the appearance of the nice tree garden out there right now. He pointed out on the photographs why it would not feasible. Further discussion occurred on alternatives and the Commission suggested that they be brought back for due consideration. page 146 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-47 Approving a Preliminary Plat of “Sweeney Addition” (Planning Case No. 2019-17) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a new preliminary plat of a new subdivision to be titled “Sweeney Addition”. The applicant and property owner is Mr. Ed Sweeney. Background The subject property is generally located at the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue (a/k/a Dakota County Road No. 8), and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. The overall property consists of 3.22 acres, of which approx. 0.68 acres is assigned as county road right-of-way. Mr. Sweeney is requesting a simple three (3) lot subdivision. The proposed lots will meet the R-1 District standards for lot area (size) and width. Mr. Sweeney is electing to remain and reside on the middle parcel (Lot 2) for now, and may request splitting this larger lot into two lots (four lots total) sometime in the future. Due to the location of this plat along Dakota Road No. 8, this plat is scheduled to be reviewed before the Dakota County Plat Commission on Monday, July 8, 2019. Subject to the outcome or recommendations made by the county [plat commission], the city will ensure the final plat meets all city and county requirements and standards prior to any future final plat consideration and approvals. Staff anticipates the final plat will be presented to the planning commission and city council in the near future. At the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this preliminary plat item; and a public hearing was conducted. There were no comments or objections from the public. A copy of the 06/25/19 Planning Staff Report, plat map and meeting minutes are all appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition, with findings of fact and certain conditions, as noted in the attached resolution. Action Required Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-47 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SWEENEY ADDITION LOCATED AT 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 147 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF “SWEENEY ADDITION” LOCATED AT 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-17) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-17, Edward M. Sweeney (the “Owner/Applicant”) applied for a new preliminary plat (subdivision) of lands to be titled “Sweeney Addition”, for the property located at 777 Wentworth Avenue (the “Subject Property”), and which is legally described in attached Exhibit A: and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Subject Property into three (3) new parcel legally described and illustrated on the proposed preliminary plat titled “Sweeney Addition” and which is attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 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 7-0 vote) of the subdivision request, with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary plat subdivision of Sweeney Addition as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-17, and for the property located at 777 Wentworth Avenue, can be approved based on the following findings of fact: page 148 A. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. B. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. D. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 3 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by th e Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary plat subdivision of Sweeney Addition as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-17, and for the property located at 777 Wentworth Avenue, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $8,000.00 (for each new lot) and in lieu of land dedication, is collected after City Council approval and before the final plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate necessary right-of-way along Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue, per the direction of the Dakota County Plat Commission and/or County Surveyor; and reflect those dedications on the final plat. 3. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R- 1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 4. No development, grading or construction activity on Lot 3 will occur on slopes over 33% as shown in the hatched area of the preliminary plat. 5. All new construction and grading activities on Lots 1 and 3 will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. The existing (and non-conforming) 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure on the back corner of Lot 1 must be removed within 6-months after final plat approval and prior to the city allowing any new single-family dwelling building permit to occur on said lot. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. page 149 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 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 150 EXHIBIT A Property Legal Description PID# 27-03800-35-010 All that part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1 /4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-three (23), described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said quarter section, thence running East along the South line of said quarter section four hundred seventy-nine ( 479) feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said quarter section two hundred ninety-two and thirty-six hundredths (292.36) feet; thence West on a line parallel with the South line of said quarter section four hundred seventy-nine ( 479) feet, more or less, to the West line of said quarter section, thence South on said West line two hundred ninety-two and thirty-six hundredths (292.36) feet, more or less, to the place of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof, known as Lot Thirty-five (35), of Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property page 151 EXHIBIT B page 152 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-17 PRELIMINARY PLAT of SWEENEY ADDITION APPLICANT: Edward M. Sweeney PROPERTY ADDRESS: 777 Wentworth Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 28, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to replat his personal property into three (3) separate lots. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue (Dakota Co. Road No. 8) and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. As of the submittal of this report, there have been no comments or objections to this subdivision request. BACKGROUND The applicant’s survey/plat map indicates the total area of the property is shown as 3.22 +/- acres. Of this, approximately 0.68 +/- acres is considered County Road #8 right-of-way. The subject property contains an existing single-family dwelling of 2,108 sq. ft. (finished), with a two-car tuck-under garage, a 20’ x 40 detached garage, an 8’ x 16’ shed, and another 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure in the back northeast corner of the parcel (see attached planning base/aerial map). The proposed preliminary plat creates three new lots from the larger subject parcel. Lots 1 and 3 will be platted to create two new single-family lots for future development. Lot 2 is being created to keep and maintain Mr. Sweeney’s residential property for now; as he has decided to remain in place and live at the home for now. In the future, Lot 2 may be sold off, and split into 2 separate lots if so desired by Mr. Sweeney or by others. page 153 ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is scheduled to remain guided LR-Low Density Residential under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject property into three parcels, consisting of 0.6 acres, 1.33 acres and 0.61 acres (2.54 of total net developed acres) is consistent with the intent of a single-family residential maximum density of 2.9 units per acre: [Calc.: 3 units @ 2.54 ac. = 1.2 u/a – OR – 4 units @ 2.54 ac. = 1.58 u/a] Preliminary Plat Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below and based on the preliminary plat drawings, all proposed parcels, including the lot with the existing dwelling and potential building pad meet the applicable R-1 District standards: Standard Lot 1 Lot 2: Existing Dwelling Lot 3: New Parcel Lot Area 15,000 sf. 26,236 sf. 57,775-sf. 26,433-sf. Lot Width1 100 ft. 100 ft. 224.1-ft. 124.95-ft. Front Yard2 Minimum: 30 ft. 66+/- ft. 79.4-ft. 75-ft. Side Yard3 10 ft. (min.) 15 ft. (max.) 22.5-ft. & 6.5-ft. 110-ft. (west) 35.1 ft. (east) 67-ft. (west) 12.5 ft. (east) Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater 135+/- ft. 145-ft. 95-ft. 1 The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth 2 In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be increased by an amount not less than one-half (1/2) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30') of the front yard of the nearest building 3 10' on each side or 1/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15' Pursuant to City Code Section 11-2-3, the plat was required to identify any wetland features and any existing slopes greater than 33% in grade. There is an existing creek channel within proposed Lot 3, and the plat map includes a “hatched” layer or area illustrating the slopes of 33% or greater in this part of the lot. This area is being shown so when any new development occurs on Lot 3, this area will not be impacted or allowed to have any structures or surfaces in this area. The plat illustrates drainage and utility easements along the front, back and side lot lines, and includes the “hatched area” in and around the creek channel, noted previously. There is an east-west trail running along the north side of Wentworth Avenue, which makes slight curve northward near the intersection, but dead-ends approximately 100-ft. from the corner. This trail is actually owned and maintained by the City of Mendota Heights (even though located inside county ROW). The trail crosses over to the opposite (west) side of Wachtler Avenue, where it continues northward along this west side until it reaches State Hwy 13 to the north. The trail appears to encroach over the southerly line of Lot 2 on the preliminary plat map (see plat map image – below): page 154 The lot line arrangements on the south sides of this plat appear to be consistent with Dakota County GIS mapping (see Dak. Co. GIS image – below): City staff was initially intending to withhold any conditions or recommendations on this trail encroachment, until Dakota County engineering or DC Surveyor provided comments or made any recommendations. Unless the County requires this ROW line be readjusted, the city will request the Applicant provide a separate trail easement along the southerly borders of Lots 1 and 2, which can be the same 10-foot width as the new drainage and utility easements in this area. Dakota County Review The plat shows the dedication of right-of-way to Dakota County for both segments of County Road #8 (Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue). The ROW parcel begins at the extended easterly lot line of Lot 1 and continues westerly along Wentworth Avenue as a 30-ft. wide strip of land, which meets up with the large triangular shaped area in the northeasterly corner of the Wentworth and Wachtler Avenue intersections; and continues northward along Wachtler Avenue by a 33-ft. wide strip of land. On Thursday morning, June 20th, city staff received notice from County Surveyor Todd Tollefson that the Dakota County Plat Commission was set to review this preliminary plat at the next meeting of July 8th. Surveyor Tollefson also added a note: “The right-of-way needs along CR 8 are 50 feet of half right of way, which should be dedicated on the plat. The Plat Commission/Dakota County will be reviewing the proposed driveway access locations along CR 8 .” page 155 Should the county commission require this 50-foot dedication in this plat, it appears all lots will still be compliant for size and area, widths and setbacks in the underlying R-1 zoning district. Staff can either make the final Dakota County findings a part of the conditions of approval, or the planning commission may choose to table the plat request; wait for the final outcome of the Plat Commission findings and recommendations; and have the plat brought back to next month’s planning commission meeting. Please note, since this is only a preliminary plat, the final plat map will likely be presented in the near future to the Planning Commission for follow-up review. The final plat will become the final plan (or map) that shows the approved lot line layouts, easements and ROW dedications. Concept Site Plan The Applicant provided a concept site plan for two new homes on Lot 1 and Lot 3 respectively. Water, sewer and gas are available to the site, and each lot should be able to tie into each of the systems accordingly. Any and all work inside the county right-of-way will need to be permitted and approved by Dakota County. The two new homes on each side of the existing dwelling that is to remain appear to be matching in front setbacks to each other, which is reflective of the average setback or “string -line” rule required for development of new houses in previously developed areas/neighborhoods. The home pad for Lot 1 is shown with an easterly side-yard setback of approximately 6.5-feet. As the above table reflects, Zoning Code requires a minimum 10-ft. setback – or a distance equal to one-half (1/2) the height of the home. Since this dwelling height is unknown or not established yet, any new home plan will need to meet one of these setbacks to be complaint. Title 12-2 of the Code requires a wetlands permit for any construction/grading activities or vegetation removal within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area. Based on the location of the potential building pad on Lot 3, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to this wetland. In this case, since no construction is being proposed on Lot 3 at this time, the future property owner (or builder) will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits prior to any applicable development activities. According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than thirty-three percent (33%) in grade. Slopes over 33% on Lot 3 are shown on the plan. The potential building pad is shown outside of this area and is compliant with the Code. A condition of approval is included that prohibits construction or grading on slopes over 33% on Lot 3 as part of and future (proposed) building plans. The concept plan also shows the new house pad at 32.2-ft. from the creek (wetland) edge. Code requires a 25-ft. buffer from any wetland edge. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition, based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition based on certain revised or determined findings of fact (by the Planning Commission); OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from city staff, the Applicant or Dakota County. page 156 RECOMMENDATION In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed preliminary plat is reasonable, and fits in with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhoods. If this is the case, the Planning Commission may forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition, with the following conditions: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $8,000.00 (for each new lot) and in lieu of land dedication, is collected after City Council approval and before the final plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate necessary right-of-way along Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue, per the direction of the Dakota County Plat Commission and/or County Surveyor; and reflect those dedications on the final plat. 3. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 4. No development, grading or construction activity on Lot 3 will occur on slopes over 33% as shown in the hatched area of the preliminary plat. 5. All new construction and grading activities on Lots 1 and 3 will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. The existing (and non-conforming) 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure on the back corner of Lot 1 must be removed within 6-months after final plat approval and prior to the city allowing any new single-family dwelling building permit to occur on said lot. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. Attachments 1. Site Photos 2. Site map 3. Preliminary Plat Map – Sweeney Addition 4. Site/Concept Plans page 157 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition 777 Wentworth Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. 4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 3 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. page 158 EXISTING DWELLING – 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE (Mr. Sweeney’s Residence) LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS RESIDENCE page 159 LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY –FRONT AREA OF LOT 1 LOOKING NORTHERLY - BACK SIDE OF LOT 1 (SHED IN BACKGROUND) page 160 LOOKING WESTERLY – REAR YARD AREA OF RESIDENCE LOOKING WESTERLY page 161 LOOKING NORTHERLY - REAR AREA OF NEW LOT 3 LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARD CREEK (AREA OF LOT 3) page 162 LOOKING NORTHERLY – CORNER OF WENTWORTH AND WACHTLER AVE’S (NOTE THE TRAIL) LOOKING NORTHERLY – FRONT EDGE OF LOT 3 page 163 page 164 755 777 1562 790 1595 768774780 760 861 800 766798 792 786 776780 770 1570 1564 1566 760 1632 861 1595 1627 1562 1623 855 815 1560 Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights0130 SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/17/2019 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. Edward M. Sweeney 777 Wentworth Ave. (Planning Case No. 2019-17) page 165 page 166 479.00 S89°43'15"W292.56N00°41'46"E479.00 N89°43'15"E 292.56S00°41'46"WG:\01-Charles Cudd Co. L.L.C\04-Designs_Preliminary Plans (No Job Number)\98XX-Edward Sweeney\Civil\two new units-98XX-Edward Sweeney property lot layout-061019.dwg, 6/10/2019 4:05:27 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3page 167 479.00 S89°43'15"W292.56N00°41'46"E479.00 N89°43'15"E 292.56S00°41'46"WG:\01-Charles Cudd Co. L.L.C\04-Designs_Preliminary Plans (No Job Number)\98XX-Edward Sweeney\Civil\9901-Edward Sweeney property lot layout-061019.dwg, 6/10/2019 4:04:52 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3page 168 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 25, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 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 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 28, 2019 Minutes The following edits to the minutes were noted: Page 9; Findings of Fact E) the resolution number needs to be completed Page 14; Condition 3 should read “. . . and shall not drain directly . . .” Page 18; middle paragraph should read “. . . moved from Macalester-Groveland . . .” COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2019, AS AMENDED AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-17 EDWARD SWEENEY, 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request from Mr. Ed Sweeney to replat his personal property into three separate lots. The property is located on the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published in the local paper and notices were mailed to everyone within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received no written comments or objections to this application. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the subject property and noted that it is 3.22 acres, with 0.7 acres considered as County Road #8 right-of-way. There is an existing 2,108 square foot single-family page 169 dwelling with a two-car tuck-under garage, a detached garage, and shed, and another accessory shed/structure. If approved, all three lots would meet the applicable R-1 District standards. Lot 2, with the existing dwelling, could potentially be split in the future into two conforming residential lots under a separate lot split request and consideration. The proposed lot 3 has an existing creek channel and no new development, surfaces, or structures would be permitted to impact that area. This area would be subject to a Wetlands Permit. The trail along Wentworth Avenue encroaches over what would be considered the new property line for Lot 2. Unless the County requires this right-of-way line to be readjusted, the city will request the Applicant provide a separate trail easement along the southerly borders of Lots 1 and 2, which can be the same 10-foot width as the new drainage and utility easements in this area. Dakota County is scheduled to review this preliminary plat at their next meeting of July 8, 2019. Should the county determine that they would require a 50-foot dedication, the lots would still be compliant for size and area, widths and setbacks in the R-1 zoning district. Commissioner Noonan asked if the County recommended the 50-foot right-of-way would the city have the discretion to adopt or not to adopt the recommendation. Mr. Benetti replied that since it is a Dakota County right-of-way they have the right to ask for or require whatever dedication they desire. He then asked if they were intending to, sometime in the future, make that roadway a four- lane road instead of the current two-lane road. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide an answer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the County standard right-of-way is 100 feet so they would be asking for half of the right-of-way. He was unaware of any plans by the County to urbanize Wentworth and Wachtler. Commissioner Petschel, referring to the recommendations in the Findings of Fact #4, asked if Lot 3 refers to the current Lot 3 (future Lot 4). Mr. Benetti replied that it only refers to the current Lot 3. There is no proposed Lot 4 at this point. The concept drawing with the four lots was only a rendering of potential future plat locations. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that Dakota County has standards for access distances from intersections and asked if, in discussion with them, if they made any comments about a minimum distance requirement from Wachtler. Mr. Benetti replied that when staff meet with Mr. Sweeney and his representative they wanted to ensure that, before they provided any type of driveway entrances on the Wentworth side, they worked those out with the County. The concept renderings shows the driveway coming out as far away as they could from the intersection. However, the County has the final say and can locate the driveway where they want it to be. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that, based on the grading on the site, there would probably not be access available onto Wachtler. Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Mazzitello then noted, just for information for the public, the city ordinance does allow for lot splits when the parent property is owned by the same person. He then asked for an explanation of why this is a plat versus a lot split. Mr. Benetti replied that it is because there are three lots being created. The ordinance says one can only split one parcel into two. Initially the page 170 discussion was for a four-lot subdivision. Staff directed them to prepare a preliminary and final plat. By the time they submitted the application they came up with this three-lot design because Mr. Sweeney decided he wanted to stay in his home for now. Chair Magnuson noted that in the recommendations there is a reference to what Dakota County does with respects to the right-of-way; however, there is not contingency for possibility that an easement might be required if they remain at the 30-feet rather than 50-feet. She then asked if they needed to do that or if it could be dealt with in the final plat. Mr. Benetti replied that trail easements are done by separate document – they cannot be shown on the plat. He believed that to be a county rule. If the city determines that this right-of-way line would remain as is, he and Mr. Ruzek would recommend the city create a new trail easement across Lot 2. That would eliminate the encroachment issue. If that is known after the County meeting, staff could come back under the Final Plat and make that as part of the conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of this application. Mr. Edward Sweeney, 777 Wentworth Avenue and Mr. John Sonnek (5417 Centerville Dr., Minnetonka) of Charles Cudd Co. were available for questions. Mr. Sweeney noted that he would give the easement. They had no additions to the staff report. 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 NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-17 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SWEENEY ADDITION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. 4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 3 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are o negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $8,000.00 (for each new lot) and in lieu of land dedication, is collected after City Council approval and before the final plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. page 171 2. The Applicant shall dedicate necessary right-of-way along Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue, per the direction of the Dakota County Plat Commission and/or County Surveyor; and reflect those dedications on the final plat. 3. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 4. No development, grading or construction activity on Lot 3 will occur on slopes over 33% as shown in the hatched area of the preliminary plat. 5. All new construction and grading activities on Lots 1 and 3 will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. The existing (and non-conforming) 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure on the back corner of Lot 1 must be removed within 6-months after final plat approval and prior to the city allowing any new single-family dwelling building permit to occur on said lot. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. page 172 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-48 Approving [or Denying] Variances for Henry Sibley High School located at 1897 Delaware Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-18) 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 two separate variances for Henry Sibley High School, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, while the other provides an alternative for denying the variance with amended findings. Background Independent School District No. 197, acting on behalf of Henry Sibley High School, applied for a variance to increase the structure heights for a proposed new aquatics center, a gymnasium addition and a main (front) entryway addition to the high school facility, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. On June 25, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. Upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission elected to table/postpone any recommendation on the variance associated with the proposed aquatics center (in order to give the Applicant additional time to work with neighboring residents to address landscaping, screening, lighting and sound mitigation measures), but elected to go forward with a recommendation on the gymnasium addition and front entryway additions, since no one from the public spoke out or against these improvements. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a special meeting Thursday, July 11th at 7:00 PM, City Hall Council Chambers to reconsider the aquatics building variance request only, and review updated plans and information from the school district. A copy of the 06/25/19 Planning Staff Report, along with the 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. page 173 Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Variance on the new gymnasium addition not to exceed 50’-5” in height, and the front entryway addition not to exceed 31’-2” in height; based on findings of facts noted in the draft resolution included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-48 APPROVING THE VARIANCES FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AND FRONT ENTRY WAY ADDITION AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE; or The Council can reverse this recommendation and adopt alternative RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 48 DENYING THE VARIANCES FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AND FRONT ENTRY WAY ADDITION AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE. Either action to approve one of the two resolutions requires a simple majority vote. page 174 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AND FRONT ENTRY WAY ADDITION AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL - 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-18) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-18, Independent School District No. 197 (as “Applicant”) and acting on behalf of Henry Sibley High School, applied for a variance to increase the structure heights for a proposed new aquatics center, a gymnasium addition and a main (front) entryway addition to the high school facility, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided S-School [Institutional] in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential Districts; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1E-3.D states no structures or building shall exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in height in the single-family residential zones; 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, the Applicant is seeking permission to construct the new aquatics center addition with a height not exceed 35’-8”, the gymnasium addition with a height not to exceed 50’- 5” and the front entryway addition with a height not to exceed 31’-2”, all proposed in the plan set submitted with Planning Case No. 2019-18 and made part of the June 25, 2019 Planning Staff Report to the Mendota Heights Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission elected to table/postpone any recommendation on the variance associated with the proposed aquatics center (in order to give the Applicant additional time to work with neighboring residents to address landscaping, screening, lighting and sound mitigation measures), but elected to forward a favorable recommendation of approval (by page 175 7-0 vote) for a variance on the new gymnasium addition not to exceed 50’-5” in height and the front entryway addition not to exceed 31’-2” in height; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variances for the new gymnasium addition height and entryway additions height, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-18, can be approved 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 a Variance to allow the construction of the new gymnasium addition building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits to a height of 50-ft.-5-in., and the front (main) entryway addition to exceed the 25-ft. height limits to a height not to exceed 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i.) the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; iii.) the excess heights of the new gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility improvements, including this gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. page 176 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 Variances 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 these Variances for the gymnasium addition and front entryway addition will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) 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. 2019-18, dated and presented June 25, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2019-48. 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: 1) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2) The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 3) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variances for the new gymnasium addition height and entryway additions height, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-18, are both hereby approved. page 177 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 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 178 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1897 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights MN 55118 Henry Sibley High School Dakota County Parcel ID Nos. 270250002010,270250001030, 270250001020, 270250001040, 270250001050, 270250001060, and 270250003010 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED The South 7 acres of the North 12 acres of the East one-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three. AND The West 426 feet of the North one-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section twenty-five, Township twenty-eight North, Range twenty-three West, except the North 40 feet thereof. AND The West One-Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three, Dakota County. AND The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three. AND The Southerly One Hundred feet of the Easterly Two Hundred Twenty feet of the North One half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty- five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three, subject to the rights of the Public over the Easterly Thirty feet thereof for Roadway purposes. Commonly known as "Delaware Avenue". AND The South One Hundred feet of the North One Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty- three, except the West Four Hundred Twenty-Six feet, and also except the East Two Hundred Twenty feet thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. AND The South Eight Acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight North, Range Twenty- three West. page 179 EXCEPT The West 40 feet of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N, R23W, excepting the North 40 feet for street. ALSO EXCEPT That portion of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N, R23W. Commencing at the NW comer of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4 thence east 40 feet, thence South 262.50 feet, thence Southeasterly 221.97 feet along an arc of 1,106.28 feet radius concave Northeasterly, thence Sl1° 30'E, 95.16 ft., thence Southerly 238.03 feet along an arc of 1,186.28 feet radius concave Southwesterly, thence South 384 feet more or less to the North right of way line of T.H. 110, thence Westerly 105.0 feet to the West line of said SE 114 NE 114, thence North 1,197.00 feet more or less, to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT All that part of the following described tract: The southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, township 28 north, range 23 west, except highways; which lies southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of said section 25, distant 364.03 feet north of the east quarter comer thereof; thence run westerly at an angle of 90°17'45" with said east section line (when measured from north to west) for 41.28 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 16°00' curve (delta angle 40°00') for 250 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 101.75 feet; thence deflect to the right on an 8°00' curve (delta angle 40°00') for 500 feet thence on tangent to said curve for 600 feet and there terminating. ALSO EXCEPT The east 30.00 feet of the North 112 of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23, dedicated on the Plat of Delaware. Property is located in Dakota County, Minnesota. page 180 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-48 RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AND FRONT ENTRY WAY ADDITION AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL - 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-18) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-18, Independent School District No. 197 (as “Applicant”) and acting on behalf of Henry Sibley High School, applied for a variance to increase the structure heights for a proposed new aquatics center, a gymnasium addition and a main (front) entryway addition to the high school facility, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided S-School [Institutional] in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential Districts; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1E-3.D states no structures or building shall exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in height in the single-family residential zones; 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, the Applicant is seeking permission to construct the new aquatics center addition with a height not exceed 35’-8”, the gymnasium addition with a height not to exceed 50’- 5” and the front entryway addition with a height not to exceed 31’-2”, all proposed in the plan set submitted with Planning Case No. 2019-18 and made part of the June 25, 2019 Planning Staff Report to the Mendota Heights Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission elected to table/postpone any recommendation on the variance associated with the proposed aquatics center, in order to give the Applicant additional time to work with neighboring residents to address landscaping, screening, lighting and sound mitigation measures; but elected to forward a favorable recommendation of approval (by 7- page 181 0 vote) related to the variance on the new gymnasium addition not to exceed 50’-5” in height and the front entryway addition not to exceed 31’-2” in height; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby reversed, and the Variances for the new gymnasium addition height and entryway additions height, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-18, should be denied 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 City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of these variances for increased height of structures in the R-1/R-1A District. The City finds the proposed additions are not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; 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 Variances for the new gymnasium addition height and entryway additions height, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-18, are both hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor page 182 ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 183 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1897 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights MN 55118 Henry Sibley High School Dakota County Parcel ID Nos. 270250002010,270250001030, 270250001020, 270250001040, 270250001050, 270250001060, and 270250003010 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED The South 7 acres of the North 12 acres of the East one-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three. AND The West 426 feet of the North one-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section twenty-five, Township twenty-eight North, Range twenty-three West, except the North 40 feet thereof. AND The West One-Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three, Dakota County. AND The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three. AND The Southerly One Hundred feet of the Easterly Two Hundred Twenty feet of the North One half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty- five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three, subject to the rights of the Public over the Easterly Thirty feet thereof for Roadway purposes. Commonly known as "Delaware Avenue". AND The South One Hundred feet of the North One Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty- three, except the West Four Hundred Twenty-Six feet, and also except the East Two Hundred Twenty feet thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. AND The South Eight Acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight North, Range Twenty- three West. page 184 EXCEPT The West 40 feet of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N, R23W, excepting the North 40 feet for street. ALSO EXCEPT That portion of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N, R23W. Commencing at the NW comer of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4 thence east 40 feet, thence South 262.50 feet, thence Southeasterly 221.97 feet along an arc of 1,106.28 feet radius concave Northeasterly, thence Sl1° 30'E, 95.16 ft., thence Southerly 238.03 feet along an arc of 1,186.28 feet radius concave Southwesterly, thence South 384 feet more or less to the North right of way line of T.H. 110, thence Westerly 105.0 feet to the West line of said SE 114 NE 114, thence North 1,197.00 feet more or less, to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT All that part of the following described tract: The southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, township 28 north, range 23 west, except highways; which lies southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of said section 25, distant 364.03 feet north of the east quarter comer thereof; thence run westerly at an angle of 90°17'45" with said east section line (when measured from north to west) for 41.28 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 16°00' curve (delta angle 40°00') for 250 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 101.75 feet; thence deflect to the right on an 8°00' curve (delta angle 40°00') for 500 feet thence on tangent to said curve for 600 feet and there terminating. ALSO EXCEPT The east 30.00 feet of the North 112 of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23, dedicated on the Plat of Delaware. Property is located in Dakota County, Minnesota. page 185 DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-18 Variances to Exceed Maximum Height of Structures in the R-1 One Family Residence District APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Henry Sibley High School PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1897 Delaware Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential & R-1A One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional) ACTION DEADLINE: July 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is requesting variances in order to construct a new aquatics (pool) center, gymnasium addition, and entry addition to the Henry Sibley High School (HSHS) facilities, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved (with a 62% favorable vote) a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and handicapped accessibility. This public hearing was duly noticed by a legal publication in the Pioneer Press, the city’s official newspaper, and notice letters of this request and public hearing were mailed to all properties within 700 feet (twice the standard 350-ft. distance), including property owners in nearby West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. The city received one letter of objection on this project, which is appended to this report. BACKGROUND The school campus property consists of eight separate parcels, totaling 73.61 acres (according to Dakota County/GIS records). The applicant’s survey however, indicates the gross area of 67.6 acres and net area of 66.2 acres. The high school contains up 60 classrooms, with enrollment of approx. 1,450 students. Records show the original 3-story high school building was approved and constructed in 1970-1971. The main school facility is centrally located on the campus, with three main access points off Delaware Avenue to the east, and a secondary access off Warrior Drive to the west. The campus contains 573 parking spaces most of which are located on the north side of the school building, with added parking along the east and far southeast corner of the campus. page 186 The campus contains a number of different outdoor athletic fields, including 12 asphalt tennis courts; and a variety of baseball, softball and soccer fields (4) on the north side, which included an older 8-lane running track and football field with limited seating stands. On October 4, 2018, ISD 197 presented plans to reconstruct the football/track field area, along with other athletic fields in this north campus area, which was requested under a similar variances to certain height standards, including the lights, stadium booth, and number of accessory structures. These variances were eventually reviewed, accepted and approved on October 16, 2018 when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-78. This work is now in progress and will continue throughout the summer. During these earlier variance presentations, it was mentioned publicly that HSHS was intending to return next year to request similar approvals of a proposed aquatics center and gymnasium addition, but those plans were not ready yet – and are now being considered under this separate variance application request. page 187 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The school is seeking to build a 110’ x 190’ aquatics center along the east side of the main school building (see Google Street image-below). The facility will house a new Olympic sized swimming pool with locker/changing rooms and visitor viewing stands to watch swimming events. The new 135’ x 180’ gymnasium addition will take place on the south side of where the existing gymnasium is located (see Google Street image-below). The overall projected height of this new gym is 50-ft. -5” measured at the east and south elevations. A space for loading/storage is still planned underneath the gym addition, with the loading doors facing out towards Delaware Avenue (east). The project also includes a small extension and addition to the front (main) school entryway, which will have an overall height of 31-ft. – 2-inches. page 188 Finally, the project also includes a new Administration Addition to the west side of the school facility. This addition is only a one-story, 16-ft.-4-inches in height, and is not part of the structure height variances requested under this application. The plans for these improvements are illustrated and presented for review on the attached site and elevation plans, prepared by the school’s design team LSE Architects. ANALYSIS Zoning / Land Use The high school property is currently zoned a combination of R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential District. Public and parochial schools are considered permitted uses under the R-1 zoning. The school site however, is guided “S-School” under the general Institutional land use category of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a new P/S- Public/Semi-Public land used category, which will reflect a very similar “school” or “institutional” category for this and other school properties; with a desire by staff in creating a new and separate zoning district for such uses. For all intents and purposes, schools as a use– along with all associated facilities and improvements such as classroom buildings, gymnasium, auditorium, cafeteria, vehicle/bus parking areas, athletic fields, etc., tend to make them a very unique and specialized use within an established and dedicated “single-family” zoning district. Most schools do not resemble or function anywhere near to typical single-family dwellings or uses. However, the fact remains that if a use is located or situated inside a specific zoning district, then those district standards must be applied to all uses, unless the City Code provides for different standards or specific rules related to such special uses. At this time, the current R-1 and R-1A zoning remains the applicable standards to apply and review under this variance review process. Structure Heights (Requested Variances) Aquatic Center Pursuant to Code Section 12-1E-3.D, any structure or building in the R-1 District must not exceed two (2) stories in height or twenty-five feet (25’) in height. Flat-roofed structures such as these are measured at the upper-most edge of the building. As noted previously, the new aquatics center addition is proposed with a maximum height of 35-ft.-8-inches (measured on the south elevation – see image below): page 189 On the north side of the facility. the height is shown with a 25’-4” height, due to part of the facility at the north end will be built into the existing berm- seen in the first Google Street image phots on page 3 (above). The aquatic center will be connected to the main school building by the “New Connection Link”, which will provide a covered/enclosed walkway for students and visitors walking to and from the main building. The upper panels on the roof are solar panels, and are not subject to the height limitations, as city code provides certain exemptions to certain roof-top structures, such as mechanicals, chimneys, or elevator penthouses. Gymnasium Addition The new gym addition will be built on the south side of the current gym facilities, and is intended to be built with a maximum height of 50-ft.-5-inches. The new gym will exceed the current gym building height by just over 5-feet. page 190 Entry Addition The school plans to provide a new and larger fully enclosed entryway, with full glass curtain wall along the north front main entry into the school. This addition will be 31-ft.-2-inches when completed. Traffic & Parking As was noted in the previous October 2018 Planning Report, a “high school” use is required to provide at least 1 space for each student; plus 1 space for each 3 classrooms. According to ISD-197 officials, student enrollment is approximately 1,450 students, with 60 classroom. Parking calculates as follows: [Students: 1450 @ 7= 208 spaces] + [60 rooms @ 3 = 20 spaces] or 228 spaces needed. When the city reviewed the athletic field improvements last October, it was noted that the entire campus had approx. 573 spaces, and included a provision that “…97 new spaces will be added under the new aquatics center addition….”which bumped the total number to 670 parking spaces. City Code also requires “Athletic Fields” to have at least 1 space for each 3 seats of design capacity. The October report indicated the new football field would have a seating capacity of 2,000 seats, so 667 spaces were needed. City Code Section 12-1D-17 gives the city the ability to ask a developer/applicant to submit a traffic study “…for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing or planned land use.” As part of the previous athletic field improvement requests last fall, ISD 197 submitted a traffic (and parking demand) report from Spack Consulting, which essentially found that the “proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant transportation impact to the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community.” In order to avoid any possible over-parking the campus, school representatives indicated they would not double-book or schedule same day/night extra-curricular and athletic events, such as a football/basketball games, wrestling/volleyball matches, concerts-theater productions, student/teacher conferences – or swim meets, when the new aquatic center opened. One of the conditions made part of Res. 2018-78 was “The Applicant shall not hold another event on the site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” The Planning Commission and City Council eventually found the existing and projected (new) parking would be sufficiently handled and maintained on the school property; and that traffic would not be an issue as part of these overall athletic field improvements; and approved the variances accordingly. As part of this new aquatic /gym addition project, the school is still planning to install the 97 new stalls to the south of the aquatic center as originally noted last October 2018; and reconfigure/restripe the central page 191 parking area between school and aquatic center, from 50 spaces to 36 spaces. The combined parking for this area will be 133 spaces. According to the architects, the new aquatic center is scheduled to have a seating capacity for 416 spectators. Utilizing the same standards of 1 space per 3, the aquatic center alone would need to have 139 spaces. The 97 + 36 spaces equals 133 spaces around or near this pool facility. The Planning Commission should decide if these 133 spaces, plus the “regular school” parking spaces will be adequate and sufficient to handle the parking needs for this aquatic use if full capacity is ever reached. 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 pr operty 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): 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The height of the existing Henry Sibley High School is 65’-0” to the top of the existing penthouse. The height of the new gym addition is 50’-5”. The heights of the new front entry addition is 31’-2”. The heights of the new Admin. Addition is 16’-4”, and the Aquatics Addition is 34’-8” in height. (See attached building elevations for context). Staff’s response: The use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a high school, even with the additional aquatics center and gym addition remains consistent with the City Code of Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. The district made it clear that the 2018 building bods would be used to fund and support the development of these new additions and improvements, and provide up-to-date and state of the art athletic facilities for their students, staff and the communities that support this school. These new building additions will be nice improvements to the existing high school facilities, and the fact these additions are still within height limits already established by the school facility today, makes the requested variance for heights justifiable and even reasonable in this case. page 192 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 granting of this variance is consistent with the current circumstances unique to this existing property. Those current circumstances are that the new additions proposed either match the existing building heights at the entry addition, and the ISD Administration addition, are slightly tallest as is the case of the new gymnasium addition. . Staff’s response: One of the primary reasons for the recent school bond approval, was to provide upgrades and additional space for the students that utilize this high school, and provide an added level of athletic and extra-curricular space for students and visitors. The plight of the landowner and restrictions on building heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Therefore, granting a variance is warranted. 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 heights of the proposed HSHS additions area all less than the current height of the existing high school. New addition buildings finishes and colors are similar to those of the existing HSHS. . Staff’s response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this high school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance requests, 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 a Variance to allow the proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 35-ft.-8-in., the proposed gymnasium addition to 50-ft.-5-in., and the entryway addition to 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i.) the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; page 193 iii.) the excess heights of the new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility improvements, such as this aquatics center, gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. 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 Variances 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 Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) 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- 18, dated and presented June 25, 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: 1) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2) The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 3) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4) “The Applicant shall not schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” page 194 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 fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of these variances for increased height of structures in the R-1/R-1A District. The City finds the proposed additions are not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Variances to be considered for this new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition - as requested by the Applicant, and if the Commission wishes to approve the Variances as presented herein and add or modify the conditions as noted herein you may choose Alternative No. 1 noted above. If the Commission wishes to deny the variances as presented, or request more information, you may choose to select either Alternative No. 2 or 3 - noted above as well. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Planning Application, including Narrative 3. Aquatics Center / Gym Addition Site Plan 4. Elevation Plans (Aquatics Center / Gym Addition / Entryway / Admin. Addition) 5. Floor Plans page 195 2019-18300.00500.0005/28/201907/28/2019page 196 2019-18ISD #197Henry Sibley High Schoolpage 197 page 198 page 199 John and Adrienne Meyers 491 Deer Run Trail West Saint Paul, MN 55118 June 19, 2019 Mr. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Benetti: As concerned neighbors of Henry Sibley High School, we write to oppose the variance to exceed the maximum allowable height of 25’ for the new aquatics center requested by Independent School District No. 197, which will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2019 (Planning Case No. 2019- 18). We respectfully ask that the variance be denied because the District has not established there are practical difficulties in complying with the 25’ height restriction. • The variance, if granted, will fundamentally alter the essential character of the area. Delaware Avenue is a residential street. A 35’ tall structure will be out of scale and inconsistent with the locality. The proposed height of the aquatics center must be considered in the context of its proposed length (more than 150’ long) and setback (only 30’ from Delaware Avenue). This context distinguishes the aquatics center from the existing Sibley buildings that exceed the height restriction to which the District refers in its application. Those buildings are located on the interior of the Sibley campus, hundreds of feet from the property line, thereby diminishing the effect of the height of those buildings on the locality. • The variance is not reasonable. The District has not explained why a structure intended to house an underground pool must exceed 25’ in height, why—if the structure must exceed that restriction—it could not be located farther from the setback, or why the structure cannot be partially built below ground level or elsewhere with a lower topographical elevation. • There is no circumstance unique to the property that would prohibit the District from lowering the height of the aquatics center to 25’ or locating the structure elsewhere on the property. In fact, the proposed location of the structure on the relatively high elevation of the Delaware site is a unique circumstance that weighs against the requested variance. The “unique circumstance” identified by the District in its application (the height of existing buildings) was a circumstance created entirely by the District and therefore may not be considered. In addition, the variance will result in a structure that is not consistent with Mendota Heights’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which describes Mendota Heights as “natural,” “open,” “spacious,” and “green.” The intent of the Plan is to “protect the quiet, secluded feel” of the City’s neighborhoods. A wall measuring 35’ high by at least 150’ feet long, set back only 30’ from Delaware Avenue, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to be heard. Yours truly, s/John Meyers s/Adrienne Meyers John Meyers Adrienne Meyers page 200 FIELD (185' x 335') 12 18 8 259 12 24 101026 34 17 1 2 3 PC 30.0' SETBACK 364.8' SETBACK 365.1' SETBACK 1044.8' SETBACK1076.3' SETBACK704.3' SETBACK674.0' SETBACKDELAWARE AVENUEFUTURE AQUATICS PARKING EXPANSION EXISTING HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL FUTURE AQUATICS ADDITION MULTI- PURPOSE ATHLETIC FACILITY WARRIOR DRIVECALLAHAN PLACEADDITION NEW LEVEL 2 ADDITIONS NEW ENTRY ADDITION ISD ADDITION ALT. - 01 140'-0" NEW PLAZA ENTRY page 201 Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 1234568910111419202122232425262728293031323334353637 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 8'18'23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 13 730.6 ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING 12 INFILL DEMOLISHED OPENING TO MATCH EXIST. ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING 15161718 ANOD. ALUM. ENTRY DOOR & SIDELITE W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING INSULATED H.M. FRAME AND FRP DOOR PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. 23.826.3 TRANSLUCENT PANEL SKYLIGHTS. E.25 31' - 2"31'-2" NEW ENTRY ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE EXISTING PENTHOUSE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 8'18'23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6137 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. TRANSLUCENT PANEL @ CLERESTORY 30.6 ANOD. ALUM. CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING MP-1 NEW SIGNAGE NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. 12 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. 15 16 17 18 NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. EXIST. MAS. VENEER INSUL. SPANDREL PANEL MTL-1 PREFINISHED MTL. MECH. LOUVER 23.8 26.3E.25 50' - 5"EXISTING GYMNASIUMNEW GYMNASIUM ADDITIONEXISTING CLASSROOM WING EXISTING PENTHOUSE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EEJHGF T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" L M' MP-1 ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS NEW ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS (ALTERNATE -01) ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS BEYOND EDCBAB'C'D'E' NEW ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS PREFINISHED MTL. COPING A'' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING INSUL. H.M. FRAME AND FRP DOOR E.8E.4D'.8 LAMBS TOUNGE WALL SCUPPER LAMBS TOUNGE WALL SCUPPER E.18 PREFINISHED MTL. MECH. LOUVER E.26 50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE EXISTING CLASSROOM WING POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" LOWER LEVEL 90' -8" Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" KMNPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCDDEE J H G F T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" LM' NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. MP-1 INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR E D C B AB'C'D'E' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING ANOD. ALUM. CURTAIN WALL W/ 1" INSULATED GLAZING A'' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING PREFINISHED METAL MECH. LOUVER E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18E.26 50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION EXISTING GYMNASIUMS EXISTING PENTHOUSE NEW ENTRY ADDITION 31' - 1"Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" H G FG'E D C BC'D'E' ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING SALVAGED VENEER MAS. AT ISD ADDITION PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCK TO MATCH EXIST. PREFINISHED MTL. COPING TO MATCH EXIST. E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18 INDICATES EXISTING BEYOND 16' - 4"NEW ADMINISTRATION ADDITION EXISTING Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 2223242526272823' PREFINISHED MECHANICAL LOUVER MP-1 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR 23.826.3 Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" WXYX' POOL ROOF 127' -8" Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" EE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" EE NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. PREFINISHED MTL. COPING INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR 34567 SALVAGED BRICK MAS. AT ISD ADDITION ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. PRECAST. CONC, SILL BLOCK TO MATCH EXIST. CONC. RETAINING WALL INDICATES EXISTING BEYOND 16' - 4"EXISTING PENTHOUSE NEW ADMINISTRATION ADDITION Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 05/24/2019 100% CONST. DOC'S. 24228 5/24/2019 4:27:51 PMC:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.01 May 24, 2019 Author Checker A400 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAMMED LAWAL 05/24/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A400 1" = 20'-0" 1 NORTH - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 4 SOUTH - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 6 WEST - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 10 EAST - OVERALL N A B C D E F A400 1" = 20'-0" 5 EAST - ALTERNATE - 01 A400 1" = 20'-0" 8 NORTH - PENTHOUSE NORTH A400 1" = 20'-0" 3 NORTH - PENTHOUSE WEST A400 1" = 20'-0" 9 WEST STAIR A400 1" = 20'-0" 7 EAST STAIR A400 1" = 20'-0" 2 PARTIAL NORTH - ALTERNATE - 01 page 202 Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 242526272829303132333435363738 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 30.6 26.3 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8"31' - 2"31'-2" NEW ENTRY ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE 11' - 10"20' - 0"NEW AQUATICS ADDITION BEYOND NEW CONNECTING LINK BEYOND Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" KMNPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCDDEE J H G F T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" LM'E D C B AB'C'D'E'A'' E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18E.26 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8"50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION BEYOND EXISTING GYMNASIUMS BEYOND EXISTING PENTHOUSE BEYOND NEW ENTRY ADDITION BEYOND 31' - 1"31' - 8"25' - 4"NEW CONNECTING LINK Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T.O. Slab 158' -0" Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" LOWER LEVEL 90' -8" EXISTING GYMNASIUM NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION NEW AQUATICS ADDITION 35' - 8"50' - 5"45' - 2"NEW CONNECTING LINK Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 05/24/2019 100% CONST. DOC'S. 24228 5/24/2019 4:28:00 PMC:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.01 May 24, 2019 Author Checker A402 AQUATICS OVERALL ELEVATIONS HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAMMED LAWAL 05/24/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A402 1" = 20'-0" 1 NORTH - OVERALL AQUATICS A402 1" = 20'-0" 2 EAST - OVERALL AQUATICS A402 1" = 20'-0" 3 SOUTH - OVERALL AQUATICS page 203 985 9 8 0 980 975 970965 987 986 984983982 981 981 982 9 7 9 9 7 7 972968968 967 966 964 UP UP UP ALIGN PROPERTY LINEDELAWARE AVENUEEXIST. LOADING SLOPED WALK AND CIP CONC RETAINING WALL DROP OFF 97 6 36 BUS DROP OFFHENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL 100'-0" = 968.7' D C A 2 E F 71 B PAINT LINES, TYP CURB AND GUTTER W/ CONCRETE WALK, TYPICAL RECEIVEPLANTING AREA CIP CONCRETE RETAINING WALL HC HC HC HC HC HC COVERED CONNECTION TO HIGH SCHOOL AT POOL'S UPPER LEVEL 112' - 8"152' - 8"33' - 8"BITUMINOUS WALK30' - 0" NEW PARKING LOT Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N 6/19/2019 3:10:11 PMC:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_POOL_AR-18_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.09 June 28, 2019 Author Checker A010 SITE PLAN HENRY SIBLEY AQUATICS MOHAMMED LAWAL 06/28/2019 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A010 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 EXTERIOR NORTH 0'40'20' page 204 UP UP 1 A410 126 ELEC 123 POOL A4001 A400 2 A400 4 A400 3 2 A410 D C A 3 3 2 4 6 E F 71 5 B DRINKING FOUNTAINS 112' - 8"ADA POOL ACCESS116 SWIM OFFICE 102 COMM. ED.101 LOBBY 114 GIRLS TEAM 119 BOYS 106 HALLWAY 129 HALLWAY 3 A410 4 A410 104 CONF.202' - 4"103 OFFICE 117 SHOWERS 121 SHOWERS 118 RESTROOM 120 RESTROOM 113 HALL 3.4 E.9 E.7 E.6 E4 E.3 E.2 33' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0"112' - 8" 5 A201 100 VESTIBULE 105 JAN 128 STORAGE 122 POOL DECK 206 HALL 130 FAMILY 131 FAM 132 OFFICE 133 OFFICE 134 REST. 135 REST. 139 BOYS HALLWAY 140 GIRLS HALLWAY 4 A201 194' - 4"152' - 8"41' - 8"8' - 4"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA26' - 8"STADIA24' - 4"9' - 6"24' - 10"100' - 0" A710 12 A711 1 2 A4051 A405 2 A405 3 A405 4 TEAM SEATINGTEAM SEATING120 RESTROOM 143 GIRLS 1 A410 2 A410 D C A 32 201 MEZZ. ROOF ACCESS 216 MEZZ. 217 SEATING 4 E E F 715 B OPEN TO BELOW GLASS GUARD RAIL, TYP. 4" CMU CHASE TBD ADA SEATING, TYP SCORE BOARD 3 A410 4 A410 204 CONCESSIONS 218 VESTIBULE WALL MOUNTED POOL COVER ROLLS 112' - 8" 2' - 4"23' - 4"34' - 8"25' - 0"27' - 4"202' - 4"152' - 8"16' - 4"17' - 4"8' - 0"8' - 0"RTU SCREENING 3.4 E.9 E.7 E.6 E4 E.3 E.2 RTU SEE MECH 86' - 0" 5 A201 SPECTATORS BENCHES 404 ADA + COMPANIONS 12 416(7) @ 10 = 7015' - 0"(5) @ 22 + (2) @ 11 = 13233' - 0"(5) @ 22 + (2) @ 11 = 13233' - 0"(7) @ 10 = 7015' - 0"17' - 0"4 A201 194' - 4"152' - 8"41' - 8"8' - 4"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA26' - 8"STADIA24' - 4"9' - 6"24' - 10"POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" 3 7 LOWER LEVEL 91' -0"4' - 0"27' - 8"123 POOL 217 SEATING 134 REST. 63' - 0 1/4"9' - 0" 122 POOL DECK 2 A410321 E.7 E.6 POOL EQUIP 91' - 0" 4 A201 SURGE TANK POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" 32 71 LOWER LEVEL 91' -0" 123 POOL 122 POOL DECK 217 SEATING 126 ELEC 216 MEZZ. 141 POOL EQUIP SOLAR THERMAL PANELS Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N 6/19/2019 3:10:25 PMC:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_POOL_AR-18_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.09 June 28, 2019 Author Checker A201 OVERALL PLANS HENRY SIBLEY AQUATICS MOHAMMED LAWAL 06/28/2019 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 OVERALL A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL 2 OVERALL NORTH 0'16'32' A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 5 NATATORIUM - E/W SECTION LOOKING NORTH. A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 LOWER LEVEL OVERALL A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 4 NATATORIUM - E/W SECTION LOOKING NORTH @ EQUIP 1 9/21/2018 Schematic update page 205 UP UP UP UP K M N P Q R S J H G F 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 G' 36.6 L M' 3 A410 F200 VESTIBULE F201 SECURITY VEST ? ? D211 GYMNASTICS C230 CIRCULATION C231 SRO D203 BOYS D205 GYMNASIUM D206 GYMNASIUM D210 STORAGE D217 VESTIBULE D210S STAIR C231A ELEC. F202 SECURITY 1/A226 1/A223 1/A2231/A2241/A224 1/A225 30.6 1/A2261/A224E E'72' - 4 3/4"40' - 0"D211A D212 D213 D209 STAIR D214 STORAGE D213 STORAGE D215 TOILET D216 CUST. S T H8 1 A412 D212HM-23T M12 91' - 0" D219 SPECTATOR 1 A750 .C233A7165 17' - 3 5/8"14' - 8"8' - 0"D221 STORAGED221 S T H8 S T A8 BLEACHERS, N.I.C. - BY OWNER BLEACHERS, N.I.C. - BY OWNER7' - 0"3' - 0"7' - 0"42' - 0"5' - 10"2' - 3" 4' - 0" 4' - 0"42' - 0"4' - 7"13' - 11"BEAM TEAM MAT VAULT4' - 0"17' - 6"4' - 0"8' - 0"PARALLEL BARS PARALLEL BARS 5' - 6"17' - 6"2' - 0"17' - 6"4' - 0" 11' - 0"15' - 0"11' - 0" 4' - 0" BEAM D2178' - 5"74' - 2"8' - 5"5 1/2"6' - 0"E.8 E.4 CW -1 CW-3CW -2 CW-26CW-24CW-25 S T M8 S T B6 S T G4 S T H8 S T WALL PADS W1 W2 W2 3' - 0"F201BF202F201AF1WALL MOUNT SHELVING N.I.C. RAIN LEADER - SEE MECH. A850 3 . 22 A423 21 A423 1/A223 1/A225 1/A226 1/A223 16 A424 1 1 Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:33:18 AMC:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A224 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - AREA D HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A224 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - AREA D N A B C D E F 1 03/05/19 ADDENDUM #1 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT page 206 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UPUP UP UP UP FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G'G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2111/A2121/A2111/A2131/A214 1/A215 1/A213 1/A215 E104 FACS CHILD SEW E101A CULINARY ARTS E102B PANTRY E141 KILN E142A STORAGE E108 3D ART E144 DESIGN CENTER E129 MANUFACTURING E126 STORAGE E127 STORAGE E128 STORAGE E130 STORAGE E134 STORAGE E125 POWER MECHANICS E115 CONFERENCE E116A STORAGE E117A BUILDING/GROUNDS E118 OFFICE E119 OFFICE E120 STORAGE E116B STORAGE E124 RECEIVING E124 OFFICE E121 BREAK E101 COMMONS E133 STORAGE E131 STORAGE E132 MANUF. STORAGE E134 LAB C123 CAFETERIA A136 CLASSROOM A137 CLASSROOM A138 CLASSROOM A139 CLASSROOM A172 CLASSROOM A173 CLASSROOM A174 CLASSROOM A175 COMP. LAB A176 DASH ROOM A163 CLASSROOM A164 CLASSROOMA133 CLASSROOM A134 CLASSROOM A155 DIST PROD A153 DIST TECH C105 DISTRICT STORAGE C110 DRY STORAGE C117 KITCHEN D149 MOTOR D146 CLASSROOM A110 SUPT A111 S.A. A120 STAFF A118 OFFICE A117 OFFICE A116 OFFICE A142 OFFICE A141 OFFICE A140 OFFICE C101 ELECTRICAL C123A SNACK BAR A129 FLEX SPACE A119 OFFICE A125 OFFICE A165 SPEC ED A147 ISS A150 HALLWAY A151 OFFICE A152 OFFICE A154 WORK ROOM A156 SERVER A157 WORK ROOM A159 SPEC ED A160 SPEC ED A155A RESOURCE A155B RESOURCE C103 ELEC/TRASH ROOM C113 COOLER C111 TRASH C106 STORAGE C112 FREEZER C114 DISH ROOM C115 PREP C116 OFFICE C108 CIRCULATION D123 LAUNDRY C118 SERVING C131A DIST. FOOD D100 LAUNDRY C124 GIRLS C125 BOYS D145 ASD C102 CIRCULATION C109 CIRCULATION A130S STAIR A120S STAIR B44 STOR.C132E FREIGHT ELEV. D133 CIRCULATION A106B CIRCULATION A121 STAFF TOILET A170S VESTIBULE A110S STAIR A126 OFFICE A127 OFFICE A128 OFFICE A156B STOR. A158 EL. EQUIP. C122 COFFEE SHOP A177 TOILET A140S STAIR C159A CIRCULATION C130S STAIR D110S STAIR C120 STORAGE C100 ELECTRICAL JUNCTION C014 STORAGE A149 OFFICE A148 STOR. A148B OFFICE C119 CIRCULATION C104A TOILET C104 STAFF LOCKER B154 AUDITORIUM B154A CONTROL ROOM B154B TICKETS B150S STAIR B151A STORAGE C129A STOR. B120 BLACK BOX B104 BAND B106 WORK RM/LIB B107 ORCHESTRA ? ? B134 EXISTING SCENE SHOP B130 DRESS 1 B132 DRESS 2 B115 CHOIR C130 CIRCULATION E100 CIRCULATION A162 COMMONS A123A CIRCULATION B108 INSTRUMENT STOR. B112 WORK RM/LIB A132 PRINTER A131 SMALL GROUP A161 PRINTER A166 SMALL GROUP 1/A212 1 A420 3 A420 30.6 A115 OFFICE A114 STORAGE A104 RECEPTION A113 CLASROOM A105 CONFERENCE A100S STAIR A103 VESTIBULE A146 OFFICE A145 OFFICE A144 OFFICE A143 OFFICE 14 A750 1 A421 DN A4005 B159 STORAGE 2 A420 C132 COMMONS C126 CLASSROOM C127 ELEC/STORAGEC128 S. G. C129 CLASSROOM C120 CLASSROOM C131 SMALL GROUP D141 P.E. LOCKERS E122 CIRCULATION B150 CIRCULATION 12 E109 TEAM ROOM E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B'B' C'C' D'D' E'E' B140 STAFF OFFICE B155 HAND WASH B114 WORK RM/LIB B168 PRACTICE B169 PRACTICE B131 TOILET 1 B133 TOILET 2 2 A412 E127S STAIR B110 VESTIBULE E108S STAIR 2' - 0"A100 MECH. B156 ELECTRICAL B146 SMALL GROUP B146 SMALL GROUP D107 CAGE STORAGE D127 COACH OFFICE D129 CAGE STORAGE D136 DRY STORAGE E140 2D ART E143 STORAGE D143 JANITOR D142 JANITOR B147 BOOK STORAGE B155A JANITOR C125S STAIR D137 BOYS TEAM D150 CALM D147 DAPE D151 ASD A400 8 A401 8 A135 COMMONS E102A COOLERS C121 CIRCULATION B103S STAIR D100S STAIR D140S STAIR E101A CULINARY ARTS A'' D152 COACH OFFICE A100A STORAGE B160 PRACTICE B161 PRACTICE B162 PRACTICE B165 PRACTICE 4 A730 A400 9 A4007 7 A731 5 A731 E.8 D104 IDF D105 ELEV EQUIP. A106C CIRCULATION A106A CIRCULATION A107 OFFICE A109 OFFICE E137 STAFF E152 IDF E153 ELEC D126 GIRLS TEAM D128 P.E. LOCKERS E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E142B STORAGE B105 DRAMA/STORAGE B148 COMMONS B157 CIRCULATION A108 OFFICE E.18 1/A2131/A2141/A2121. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:31:28 AMC:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A210 LEVEL 1 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A210 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 - OVERALL A B C D E F N 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT page 207 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD UP FD FD K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2211/A2221/A2221/A2261/A2211/A2231/A224 1/A225 1/A223 1/A225 1/A2261/A2241/A226 1/A223 E205 FITNESS E214 CIRCULATION E212 MULTI-PURPOSE D212 WRESTLING D211 GYMNASTICS E201 FITNESS B233 PHYSICS 1 B234 BIOLOGY 1 B236 BIOLOGY 2 B242 PHYSICAL 9TH 1 B244 PHYSICAL 9TH 2 B245 PHYSICAL 9TH 3 B230 SCIENCE COMMONS A236 CLASSROOM A235 CLASSROOM A245 EDIT A239 AV STORAGE A229 CLASSROOM A231 SPEC ED A232 CLASSROOM A237 CONFERENCE A247 CONF. A248 CONF. A234 COMMONS A228 CLASSROOM A246 MEDIA A243 MEDIA CENTER A244 AV WORK A240 S.R.O. A219 COMMONS F227 LOBBY F200 VESTIBULE C200 CAREER C201 FILE C202 OFFICE C203 OFFICE C204 OFFICE C205 OFFICE C206 A.P. C207 PRINCIPAL C208 CONFERENCE C209 OFFICE C210 STORAGE C211 ACT C212 WOMEN C213 MEN C214 WOMENC215 MEN C216 NURSE C217 TREATMENT C218 OFFICE C219 GENERAL OFFICE C220 WORKROOM C221 SEC. STOR. C222 CONF. ROOM C223 OFFICE C224 OFFICE C225 OFFICE C226 OFFICE C230 CIRCULATION C231 SRO C233A CIRCULATION D203 BOYS D204 GIRLS D205 GYMNASIUM D206 GYMNASIUM D207 GYMNASIUM D208 STORAGE D209 STAIR D210 STORAGE D217 VESTIBULE D210S STAIR C233B MECHANICAL C231A ELEC. B232 ENTRY COMMONS B240S STAIR B227 BALCONY B228S STAIR B229 IDF/STORAGE B230A CIRCULATION B230B CIRCULATION C200S STAIR C210S STAIR A200 CUST. A201 MEN A202 WOMEN A203 CIRC. A200S STAIR A205 STORAGE A206 O.T. A207 SPEC ED OFFICE A208 SPECIAL ED. A209 SPECIAL ED. A211 SPEC ED A213 SPECIAL ED. A214 STAFF A216 WOMEN A220 SPEC ED A222 SPEC ED A222A SPEC ED A222B STAFF KITCH A223 SPEECH/O.T. A220S STAIR A226 CLASSROOM A227 CLASSROOM A230S STAIR A251 AV SPEC A250 LECTURE ROOM A249A CIRCULATION A210S STAIR B16 CIRC. A250A IDF/STOR. A250B STOR. A215 MEN A221 SPEC ED A242 AV MECHANICAL MECHANICAL C249 CIRC. F201 SECURITY VEST F225S STAIR B243 PREP B240 PHYSICS 2 F202 SECURITY E206 STORAGE E202 CONCESSIONS A233 PRINT A230 SMALL GROUP A218 PRINT A212 SMALL GROUP 1 A420 3 A420 4 A420 B235 PREP 30.6 1 A421 PAINT NEW BLEACHERS AT EXISTING GYMS SAND AND REFINISH EXISTING FLOORS NEW DISTRICT ADD'N STRUCTURE TO ACCOMODATE FUTURE 2ND LEVEL E227S STAIR OPEN TO BELOW A4005 2 A420 12 D213 STORAGE D214 STORAGE D215 TOILET D216 CUST. E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B' C' D' E' B217 CIRCULATION B248 INNOVATION LAB A238 FLEX 2 A412 146 SF B226 ELECTRICAL 96 SF B225E FAMILY 54 SF B225D HANDICAP 54 SF B225C HANDICAP E213 BASKETBALLE211 BASKETBALL 1 A412 7' - 1 3/4"B232 SMALL GROUP B231 STAFF PREP B224 JANITOR B237 CHEMISTRY 1 B238 PREP B239A CHEMISTRY 2 C233 CIRCULATION A400 8 CANOPY ABOVE A401 8 E217 ELEC B239B CHEM. LAB 2 E251S SHIPS LADDER B242C I.D.F. D241 CIRCULATION E209 STORAGE E207 OFFICE/EXAM A'' E210 HYDRO B225 HAND WASH 4 A730 A400 9 A4007 7 A731 E.8 E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E.18 1/A2231/A2241. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:32:43 AMC:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A220 LEVEL 2 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A220 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 - OVERALL A B C D E F N 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT page 208 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP FD UP K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 7 A732 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2311/A2321/A2321/A2261/A2311/A2331/A234 1/A235 1/A233 1/A235 1/A2261/A234A305 E.S.L. A300 CUST. A301 MEN A302 WOMEN A306 E.S.L. A307 E.S.L. A310 OFFICE A321 SPECIAL ED. A320 CLASSROOM A319 CLASSROOM A325 CLASSROOM A326 CLASSROOM A327 CLASSROOM A328 CLASSROOM A330 CLASSROOM A331 CLASSROOM A334 CLASSROOM A335 CLASSROOM A339C E.B.O. A309 SERVER A313 STAFF A311 PSYCH. A312 STAIR A314 TOILET A315 TOILET A322 SPEC ED C301 MEN C302 WOMEN C305 MEN C308A FLEX C303 CUST. C304 WOMEN C319 OFFICE A346 LECTURE A336 SPEC ED A330S STAIR C310 ELECTRIC A320S STAIR A310S STAIR C330S STAIR C309 CIRCULATION C310S STAIR A341 CONF. A343 CONF. A308 CIRCULATION A300S STAIR A344 CAREER A342 CONF. D300 PENTHOUSE C311 CLASSROOM C312 CLASSROOM C315 CLASSROOM C314 CLASSROOM A332 PRINTER A316 CIRCULATION A337 SMALL GROUP A317 PRINTER A329 SMALL GROUP A318 COMMONS A333 COMMONS 1/A233 1 A420 3 A420 4 A420 30.6 OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW EXIST ROOF A339A CALM 1 A421 NEW ROOF BELOW NEW SKYLIGHTS NEW ROOF NEW ROOF AND VESTIBULE LID BELOW EXIST ROOF OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW NEW ROOF OPEN TO BELOW A4005 2 A420 12 E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B' C' D' E' A345 IDF/STORAGE 2 A412 1 A412 NEW ROOF EXIST ROOF C322 PERC 1 A450 RD. OD. 13 A450 @ LOW ROOF 1 A450RD.OD.13 A450 @ LOW ROOF A303 OFFICE A400 8 A401 8 A339B STAIR CANOPY ABOVE C320 CONFERENCE C308B SITTING A'' 1 A450 OFS A339B IDF A400 9 A4007 E.8 E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E.18 1/A226 1/A233 1. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:33:49 AMC:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A230 LEVEL 3 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A230 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 3 - OVERALL N A B C D E F 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT page 209 B) PLANNING CASE #2019-18 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #197 – HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request, from Independent School District #197, was for a number of variances for construction of a new aquatics (pool) center, gymnasium, and entry to the Henry Sibley High School located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published in the local paper and notices were mailed to everyone within 700 feet of the subject property. Staff received one letter of objection, a copy of which was provided to the commissioners. The Henry Sibley High School facility is located in the R-1/R-1A District and is guided as School/Institutional in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It will eventually become a Public-Semi- public site under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Public schools are considered a permitted use in the R-1 zones. Background and New Requests In May 2018, the voters approved a $117M bonding bill for the school improvements, including some of the improvements under consideration at this meeting. In October 2018, the school district presented plans to reconstruct the football/track field area, along with other athletic fields in the north campus, which were requested under variances to certain height standards. The City Council approved this request under Resolution 2018-78 and that work is now in progress. The proposed new aquatic center would be 110 feet by 190 feet along the east side of the main school building and would house a new Olympic sized swimming pool with locker/changing rooms and visitor viewing stands. The aquatic center is proposed to be 35 feet 8 inches in height. The proposed new gymnasium addition would be 135 feet by 180 feet along the south side of where the existing gymnasium is located. The projected maximum height of this new gym is 50 feet 5 inches measured at the east and south elevations. They also plan to have a loading/storage area underneath the gym with loading doors facing out towards Delaware Avenue. This proposal included a small extension and addition to the front school entryway with an overall height of 31 feet 2 inches. City Code Section 12-1E-3.D says that any structure or building in the R-1 District must not exceed two stories, or twenty-five feet, in height; thus the need for these variance requests. Flat roof structures are measured at the edges; items such as solar panels or mechanicals are exempt. Lastly, this proposal included a new one-story administration addition to the west side of the school facility, but at 16 feet 4 inches in height it is not included in the structure height variances requested under this application. page 210 Parking As indicated in the October 2019 meeting, high schools require one parking space per seven students plus one for three classrooms. Based on the current student and room count, they only need approximately 228 spaces. They currently have 573 parking spaces and plan to install 97 new spaces under the aquatic center. They also plan to restripe the central parking area between the school and the aquatic center, from 50 spaces to 36 spaces. The combined parking would be 133 spaces. Utilizing the same space configuration required for Athletic Fields (1 space for each 3 seats), the aquatic center alone would require 139 spaces. The Planning Commission was tasked with determine if these 133 available spaces, plus the ‘regular school’ parking spaces, would be adequate and sufficient to handle the parking needs of the aquatic center if full capacity is ever reached. Considering this Athletic Field calculation requirement, the October report indicated the new football field would have a seating capacity of 2,000 seats, so 667 spaces were needed; the current number of 573 plus the new spaces under the aquatic center would equate to 670 spaces; meeting the zoning requirement. School representatives have indicated that they would not double-book or schedule same day/night extra-curricular and athletic events; thereby avoiding any possible over-parking of the campus. This was also made as a condition in Resolution 2018-78 “The Applicant shall not hold another event on the site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” Traffic As part of the October 2018 Athletic Field improvement request, the district provided a traffic report from Spack Consulting, which essentially found that the ‘proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant transportation impact to the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community.’ Variance Considerations Mr. Benetti explained the practical difficulties tests that must be met in order to approve a Variance request: The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The staff report included responses from the applicant and staff to these tests. Other variables the city can consider when granting or denying a Variance are as follows: Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community page 211 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 Staff recommended approval of this application. Chair Magnuson noted that the recommendations for approval or denial, as listed by staff, were in block; not variance by variance. However, they really are considering three difference variance requests; one for the aquatic center, one for the gymnasium, and one for the entryway. Mr. Benetti confirmed and noted that the Commission could either approve all three together under one motion or they could separate them out into three motions. Chair Magnuson stated that she did not understand why the traffic report was included in this application since it is not really dealt with in the recommendations. Mr. Benetti replied that this was provided to address the ‘effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community’ and ‘existing and anticipated traffic conditions’ as listed under Other Variables. It was m ore for assurance. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation or clarification on the following three points: The traffic considerations and the parking requirements were for the site as a whole The parking requirements for the aquatic center are not limited to what is being added There is an access point off of the main parking lot into the school where people could use the pedestrian breezeway to get to the aquatic center Mr. Benetti confirmed all three points were true. Commissioner Mazzitello then noted signage on both the gymnasium addition and the aquatic addition. He asked if the approval/denial this evening would predicate the need to apply for a sign permit for the new signage on campus. After brief discussion, it was determined that the current building sign had been approved under a Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello, in an effort to ensure all bases were covered, asked that Condition #1 be amended to read “The Applicant shall obtain a building permit and/or sign permits for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein.” Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Toth, referencing the Friendly Hills Middle School gymnasium addition, noted that at the time Mr. Benetti explained that the height of the new had to be equal with the existing. However, in this application is says that the new gymnasium would exceed the current gym building height by just over five feet. Mr. Benetti replied that this was the way Friendly Hills designed their new addition; however, if they had desired to go higher by 15-20 feet they could have. Commissioner Toth then asked if the solar panels, mechanical, and equipment for the building was included in that five foot additional height. Mr. Benetti was unable to answer as the building height page 212 included an upper parapet wall. There is not a parapet wall on the aquatic center so the solar panels will be seen and are not part of the building height variance. Commissioner Noonan noted a discrepancy in the height of the aquatic center; page 7 says 34 feet 8 inches and the drawing on page 5 says 35 feet 8 inches. Mr. Benetti confirmed that the height is 35 feet 8 inches. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the three changes being proposed, asked if a variance was not requested they would be able to do this as a right. Mr. Benetti replied that if they could build in the 25-foot height restriction, then yes they could. Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects provided the following clarifications: The height of the existing building is actually 65 feet There are parapets within the elevation of the aquatics and those are shown in the walls themselves – the 35 feet 8 inch height includes the parapet There was a question regarding the functionality and the heights and if it could be accommodated at a lower elevation – the heights that they have proposed have all been driven based on function. In order to achieve the 25 foot clear structural height within the gymnasium that is required for high school basketball, the depth of the structure required, the roof thickness and the parapet that is required – that is why the 35 feet 8 inches. Chair Magnuson asked the question that was included in the letter of opposition – if there was going to be an in-ground pool, why the building had to be 35 feet; why couldn’t it be lower and closer to the 25-foot level. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied by referencing the section drawings. The site changes in grade along that edge. On one side they are actually closer to being 20 feet in height; it is the other side that is at 35 feet. They are trying to balance the soils and the structure within that angle. The pool is in-ground and then some of the height is dictated by the functionality – spectator seating, one-meter boards, three-meter board – all having required NCAA clearances. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Adrienne Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, lives directly across Delaware Avenue from the proposed aquatic center. She was reluctant to comment as she supports an aquatic center for the school, she voted for it, and as a community member she hopes to be able to use it. She would much rather have engaged in the dialogue with the school district about the proposed height variance and the effects on their locality than to hear about it for the first time in a letter from the city a mere 10 days ago. They would have like to share with the district their concerns about the traffic noise bouncing off of a 35-foot wall that is 190 feet long, blocks sunlight to her property, light pollution from signage, and loss of privacy and reached a consensus on some mitigation efforts. That did not happen so here she is – reluctantly. The tests for approving a variance is the practical difficulties test. The district has the burden to establish there are practical difficulties in complying with the 25 foot height restriction. It has not met its burden. First and foremost, the variance would fundamentally alter the essential character of their locality. The proposed 35 foot height of the aquatic center must be considered in the context of its proposed length – more than 190 feet long; and setback – the minimum of 30 feet from the page 213 property line. Delaware is a residential street from Cherokee Park to Argenta Trail. Please picture in your mind the tree-lined avenue of established homes, a country club, and parks. By contrast, picture a massive 3.5 story concrete paneled wall looming over Delaware for almost 200 feet, two- thirds the length of a football field. There is no question that the scale of the wall is extensive and would be far out of scale with the other building along Delaware. The districts asks the Commission to only consider only the Sibley Campus as the relevant locality; not the adjacent neighborhood. The district says there are other buildings on the Sibley Campus that exceed the height restriction; however, those buildings are located on the interior of a 67-acre campus hundreds of feet from the property line. Thereby mitigating the effect of the height of those buildings on the locality. Those buildings are buffered by great expanses of hills, earthen berms, landscaping, and trees. There is presently no building on the Sibley Campus of any height near the setback line. On the plans submitted by the district, there is no room for earthen berms and little room for trees or landscaping, all of which surround Sibley on its western and northern borders. The height of the wall would also alter the essential character of their locality by causing a direct and substantial loss of sunlight and a reverberation of traffic noise into the neighborhood. She requested the Commission consider the precedence they would bet setting – to allow buildings built on a setback line to exceed the height restriction by 10 feet. The second factor of the practical difficulties test is reasonableness. The district has not established that its request for the height variance is reasonable. The district has not satisfactorily explained by a building for an underground pool and a 3-meter board needs to exceed 25 feet in height. Third, there are no circumstances unique to the property weighing in favor of the variance. To the contrary, the relatively high elevation of Delaware and the Delaware sites compared to the other elevations on this 67-acre campus, is a unique circumstance that weighs against the requested variance. For these reasons, the district has not met its burden to obtain the variances and she asked the Commission to recommend denial of the request. As she mentioned earlier, they have had little opportunity to talk to the district about the variances and their effects. They would welcome the opportunity to speak with them, whether the variance is approved or not. She spoke with Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations last week in response to an email she sent to Superintendent Peter OlsonSkog. Mr. Fortman asked her to email him their concerns and ideas, which she did last Thursday [June 20]. She has not received a response. So while she believes the district has not met its burden to obtain the variance, if the Commission is inclined to approve it she asked that they table it to next month so they could have a meaningful dialogue with the district. She also asked that they impose conditions on the variance that relate directly to, and are directly proportional to the effects that would be created by a 35-foot high 190-foot long wall: page 214 Move the aquatic center further away from Delaware to mitigate the loss of sunlight, allow for earthen berms, trees, and landscaping and provide for sound buffering and visual screening. Require building materials and design modifications to provide acoustic mitigation from traffic noise echoing off of the wall Prohibit lights and signage on the wall facing Delaware to enhance the aesthetics of a wall that would be facing a residential neighborhood and prevent light pollution Prohibit windows on the wall from which spectators or other users brought by the aquatic center to peer down into their yards and windows Mr. Pete McCall, 460 Nature View Court, lives directly across from Sibley High School. He supported what was said by Ms. Meyers. However, he had a few questions also. The traffic study referenced earlier only dealt with traffic from the football stadium and stated that it would not represent a significant transportation impact. He asked if they also included or should they have included, or should the Commission request an updated study to combine the aquatic center together with the multi-use. Commissioner Noonan replied that there is a condition that the stadium use would not be at the same time as the aquatic use. The multi-purpose stadium represents the worst case traffic condition. Mr. McCall asked about the creation of pedestrian crossings. Now there is significantly more traffic with three entry points to the campus off of Delaware. He understood that none of those were being changed. If one were to look at the two entry points to the north, there are no pedestrian crossings lines. This was brought up earlier by residents of his community and they were rejected. He asked the Commission to have a dialogue about this. He is concerned about pedestrian access from their neighborhood to the pathways in Mendota Heights. He asked what considerations have been given to help pedestrians. The third point he wished to make was the public use of the pool. It was represented by the school district that – and he wanted assurances that the availability of the pool would be open to the public at certain hours of the week. He would like to have a condition put on that would mandate public use at some reasonable hours and times. Chair Magnuson, with respect to the crosswalks, she has been informed that Delaware is a State Aid Highway; therefore, the city has no jurisdiction. They can ask the county to consider some pedestrian crosswalks but they cannot mandate it or impose it as a condition. If they request was in conjunction with the school district request it might have more impact. Mr. John Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, is proud Henry Sibley High School graduate. He too voted for the bonding bill and supports a new pool. He was on the pool committee where they discussed this three times approximately eight months ago. The pool they discussed in those meetings sort of resembles this pool; however, many changes have been incorporated. Specifically, where the pool is located. He provided hand-outs for the Commission and shared them on the screen. He stated that the location for the pool addition, as it is called on the map created by the district, is what the page 215 stakeholders of ISD 197 voted for. An addition adjacent to the existing gym, with plenty of green space buffering the building from Delaware Avenue. An addition rising from the elevation of the existing building and grounds parking lot – not from the elevation of Delaware Avenue. Referring to Planning Report 2019-18 sent out by Mr. Benetti, specifically the applicant’s response to the third practical difficulties test that reads “The heights of the proposed HSHS additions are all less than the current height of the existing high school. New addition buildings finishes and colors are similar to those of the existing HSHS.” He believes this is comparing apples to oranges. There is a building in the center of practically 70 acres of land and now they are talking about a new building that is set 30 feet or 10 yards from Delaware Avenue. This does not make sense to him. Sibley does not have a single structure, not a dugout, not a shed, anywhere near this close to any roads surrounding the property. And now they are talking about putting this massive structure right there. Sibley proposes pushing a 36-foot high 190-foot long structure as close to Delaware as possible; and they equate that to the school which is 100 yards away from Delaware Avenue. He asked the Commissioners to consider if a 36-foot high 190-foot long structure directly across the street from their home would alter the essential character of their neighborhood. None of the residents living along Delaware Avenue have any structures – or even fences – as close to the road as the school is proposing. In fact, as you drive closer to Sibley the homes are sit so far back into the woods they cannot be seen. So this is really not in keeping with the character of any neighborhood on Delaware Avenue, let alone the one right across the street. He also asked the Commission to consider the traffic noise that would bounce off of that wall. The increase in noise and traffic, unlike the noise from the football stadium, would be constant and would clearly change the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that the pool be pushed back away from Delaware Avenue and towards the school another 10 yards it would allow for noise reducing berms and foliage. Having the aquatic center moved closer to the school and built into the berm that is already there – it would be a good thing because that is what the pool committee agreed to months ago and this is what people voted on. He requested the Commission also keep in mind the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which states “protect the quiet secluded feel of the city’s neighborhoods,” and vote to deny this request. Commissioner Katz asked for clarification that Mr. Meyers was really requesting that the building be moved back 10 yards. Mr. Meyers replied that he was not asking that it be put way down on the far corner by Warrior Drive. He is just requesting that the district work with the community and help them out a little bit. Commissioner Katz asked if that was in the email sent to the district that has not been responded to yet; as mentioned by Ms. Adrienne Meyers earlier. Mr. Meyers replied in the affirmative. Mr. Pat O’Reilly, 467 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, asked if there was anything wrong with having the pool where it was originally planned at the height it was originally planned. If it was page 216 built as originally indicated, the people living on Deer Run Trail would probably not see it. If it is built where the plans now indicate, everyone will see it coming and going from Deer Run Trail. He also supported the bonding bill and supports the school. He just wanted to know why it cannot be built the way it was originally supposed to be. Mr. Daniel Tkach, 492 Deer Run Trail, supported the comments made by Mr. and Mrs. Meyers as the points they brought out were very important. He added that the solar panels planned for the aquatic center would really stand out and look very commercial and he would agree with the aesthetic concerns of that. His other point, and what brought him to the area, was the really nice parcels of land and are set back from the road. Having this building so close would certainly detract from the community feel of the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson invited Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects to return and address some of the concerns raised. She also asked Ms. Anderson-Tuttle to explain why the location of the aquatic center had changed. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that the diagram shown earlier was done approximately two years ago and was prior to them having a survey or design of the space. It was really a graphic representation. It did not have the full build-out of square footage determined and they hadn’t yet run the models for how that existing loading dock would operate. One of the criteria that has been used to locate the addition was maintaining that existing loading dock access. She also stated that the current location is really not that much different than the original. Right now they are showing a 30-foot setback from the property line; in addition to that there is an approximate 20-foot distance from the property line to the curb edge – so it is approximately 50 feet to the curb, which they feel is more than an adequate amount of green space to include some additional berming and landscaping. The district has spoken with some of the residents who have spoken about willingness to work with them to develop a denser landscaping plan that would address some of the cosmetic, scale, and acoustic issues that they have suggested. Commissioner Noonan stated that this would have been a useful document to have because it is obviously a major concern of the neighbors. For the Commission to address their concerns they are not really seeing the full picture based upon what she said. It would have been nice to have the full package brought to them. Commissioner Corbett asked for more detail about how the loading dock is inoperable. He could not understand why the aquatic center could not abut the existing gymnasium and eliminate the walkway up the side and switch the parking lot. He could not see how that would prohibit any usage in the dock. Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations replied that early on that was looked at in the design process but there are some utilities that come into the building there (fiber optics and allocation) and there is not quite enough space with where the bus drop off is to get to where the hill drops off – they would end up with a gigantic retaining wall. It was decided to re-site the page 217 aquatic center due to cost considerations. Also, that is the central district receiving for the entire district – food comes in and out of there – and they need that turn space for the semi-trucks. Mr. Fortman also stated that he had a real nice conversation with some of the people, one of them being here tonight and had some comments, the district has always intended to be good neighbors at all of their sites in all of the cities they are in. They would continue to work with residents to be good neighbors. Commissioner Noonan asked what the timing was for the undertaking of these projects. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that right now they are working on finalizing a shell packet, which his intended to go out within the next week or so for the pre-cast panels. Construction would start in September 2019. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that when they were considering the football stadium there were neighborhoods meetings. Mr. Fortman confirmed. Commissioner Noonan referenced the suggestion to table this application for one month to allow face-to-face discussions between the district and the neighbors and asked if that would be fatal to their schedule. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that it would not be as fatal as a denial of the request. Commissioner Toth asked what the other options were for putting the aquatic center somewhere else. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that they looked at a number of locations; some of the drivers of this particular location were existing parking being able to support to that space, secured access for entrance into the site, also trying to create some separation between community access and use and the security of the students within the building by not sharing access points, maintaining all existing athletic fields as they are in high demand, and utility locations. All of the other locations reviewed were in this same general area; it was a matter of where it landed within this side of the building. It was really because of the grade changes and a desire to have the access not conflict bus traffic and drop off and that service drive. Commissioner Petschel asked why it could not be part of the new addition to the gym. Mr. Fortman replied that area on the south side is used as hockey training and football training; accessibility from people’s parking – it’s a parking access thing. Commissioner Petschel, in reference to the loading dock, asked if there was another loading dock over by where the new level two additions are. Mr. Fortman replied that there is only one loading dock at Sibley. Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that the far east side of the aquatic center would be located approximately 50 feet off of the curb line; 30 feet from the property line. Looking at the distance between the aquatic center and the loading dock, there is approximately a distance of 140 feet – he asked if there was a way to squeeze additional footage to move the aquatic center closer to the loading dock. Mr. Fortman did not know the turning radius exactly. As far as the berm, which is not part of the design currently, that is what he offered to work with the residents, the civil engineer, and the architect. page 218 Commissioner Katz brought up the concern raised by a resident that the windows of the aquatic center would be allowing people in the aquatic center to looking down into residents’ yards or homes and asked if there were alternatives. Mr. Fortman replied that the bleacher seating is on the opposite side of the building and they would not be able to look down out of any of the windows; all of the windows are higher than what seating would be at. There is no possibility to look down. They are only to let in natural light. In talks with some residents they understood that they did not want a blank wall, they wanted some windows or something to break the line of the wall. Also, the wall will have some patterning to it so it would not be a plain wall; there would be some scale and relief and design into the wall itself. Discussions also included the fact that placing the aquatic center in this location would screen the view of the loading dock. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that the windows would be on the Delaware side of the building; so if he lived on Deer Run Trail and it is 10:00 p.m., how are they going to mitigate light and glare coming from those windows. Mr. Fortman replied that, as they are doing in all of their parking lots in the district, they are switching over to LED lighting. As they have talked about with the multi-purpose athletic field, they are required to have zero foot-candles at the property line. In their buildings they will have LED lighting that are hung. Currently, at night they run with dark lights inside and motion sensors that come on when coming through the entry points – only emergency lights. He did not foresee them having a lot of activities late at night unless they have something like a community swim night or something along those lines. Also, they would not light purposefully away from the pool, the pool wants to be lit down. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle also noted that landscaping and trees would be a great filter for any lighting from those windows as well. Chair Magnuson asked if they would be willing to work with the neighbors in developing their landscaping plan so that they have some input into the size of the berm and the types of plantings that would go in there. Mr. Fortman replied that they would welcome discussions and working with the neighbors. Commissioner Katz wondered if they had actually spoken with anyone from the Police Department about their suggestions or patterns that they have noticed. He has been to several Neighborhood Watch meetings and have talked to police officers who do patrol the city at night and they have brought up the activity that occurs at Sibley at night and what transpires in the parking lot. Mr. Fortman replied that they speak with Officer Mario Reyes, former detective of Mendota Heights, as their hired safety consultant. He is involved in their crisis planning during every step of the planning process. They also have Mr. Steve Meyers from the Mendota Heights Police Department as part of their district crisis team. Commissioner Noonan asked how available would the aquatic center be for the community. Mr. Fortman replied that their intent would be to have this as a community building; so much so that they are going to house the Community Ed Department in that building so they can operate their programming for the community during the day and be able to manage what is happening in there. Currently, with the Heritage School Facility, where they do not have any ability to control that during the daytime, the community uses are limited after-school or before-school. This way they could enhance that activity or enhance that access. page 219 Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any way to recess the building or the pool more by making the pool lower by 10 feet and then lowering the roof line by 10 feet; or if they have considered having a sloped roof. Mr. Fortman replied that the building is back into the hill to the high point is at the southwest corner of the building; so it is closer to 25 feet on the northeast corner of the building. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle noted that a few other things that has been challenging with setting that elevation has been accessibility and balancing soils. Trying to move dirt from the north end to the south end to try to keep it balanced so the district is not exporting a lot of additional soils. It would be cost prohibitive. Pointing to the elevation site plan. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle explained that on the one edge the height is closer to 20 feet because of the grades; it slopes. However, there is not any reason why, within that 50 foot setback, they couldn’t screen some additional building edge with both berms and landscaping. Mr. Fortman also pointed out the screening on the top of the building for the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out that this has been a lot to digest and they have spoken a little bit about their schedule. He believed it to be critical that this Commission see a landscape plan for the area between the aquatic center and Delaware Avenue, after meeting with area residents and coming up with a proposed plan that they can live with. He would even be willing to hold a special meeting rather than waiting until next month. He asked if they would be willing to bring that back to the Commission as a way of communicating with the neighbors to address their concerns, including a description of the acoustic buffering on the outside of the building. This would enable them to speak with residents and still be on course with the start of construction in September 2019. Mr. Fortman replied that he would be willing. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle asked if the Commission would consider recommending approval pending the negotiations to take place on the landscaping design; just to keep this moving forward to the Council meeting next week and having a landscape plan for City Council. Commissioner Petschel noted that they Commission could recommend denial and they could still go to the City Council meeting next week with their landscape plan. The only difference is if the Council votes to deny, they would have to wait a year before they could apply again. Commissioner Corbett asked if both Ms. Anderson-Tuttle and Mr. Fortman were on the pool committee; which they replied that they both were and attended every meeting. They denied agreeing with the comments made that the plans had changed since that time. If they put the diagram up next to the plan they would see that it is located in the same spot. While they would be willing to send out an informational packet to all of the 200+ residents who have had input on the planning, although as they have seen the hardship for the district is some of the existing conditions, the height, that is required for the function of the space, which they inherit being an educational facility and height requirements for diving that are such as they are. So short of changing the design, which is not part of the variance application, they would like to work on things like the landscaping, the buffering, sharing some of those exterior materials and do that while they move forward, if possible. page 220 Commissioner Petschel noted that they would encounter significant additional costs if they did a re-site or redesign. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle absolutely agreed. Mr. Benetti interjected, looking at calendars, noted that if the Commissioner were to consider a special meeting the week of July 8 – the next Council meeting would be July 16. Theoretically, if they held a special meeting on July 8, 9, 10, or 11 they could probably easily turn that around and provide that recommendation back to the City Council on July 16. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if that would give them enough time to meet with the residents and decide on a landscaping plan for the outside of this structure. Ms. Joann Mansur, 1700 Lilac Lane, is the chair of the school board and stated that the district really has in good faith worked with the neighbors to the north with regards to the stadium. She wanted to assure the Commission that is absolutely something they would do and would have done it prior to this conversation anyway. She has had communication with residents on Delaware who have requested trees and buffering and believes that is something the district should do. She believes the building is going to be beautiful and not look like a huge industrial anything. They will do whatever they can from a landscaping plan to ensure that the residents and the Council feel comfortable. Commissioner Noonan stated that the direction is for Ms. Anderson-Tuttle and Mr. Fortman to continue to engage with the neighbors and bring a landscaping, screening, and buffering plan, along with exterior materials and texturing for sound abatement purposes for their examination at their meeting yet to be scheduled during the week of July 8, 2019. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle asked if they would be willing to approve the variance requests for the gymnasium and the entryway and only table the aquatic center portion of the application. The Commission was willing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GYMNASIUM AND ENTRYWAY PORTIONS OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR THE GYMNASIUM HEIGHT AND THE ENTRYWAY HEIGHT AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL AS PART OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, REMOVING ANY REFERENCE TO THE AQUATIC CENTER AND ADDING TO CONDITION F1: The Applicant shall obtain a building and sign permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 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 221 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 a Variance to allow the proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 35-ft.-8-in., the proposed gymnasium addition to 50-ft.-5-in., and the entryway addition to 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i. the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; iii. the excess heights of the new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility improvements, such as this aquatics center, gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. 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 Variances 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 Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) 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. 2019-18, dated and presented June 25, 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. page 222 CONDITIONS RELATED TO THIS TRANSACTION ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a building and sign permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. “The Applicant shall not schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” CHAIR MAGNUSON MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BY STRIKING THE AQUATIC CENTER PORTIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS (as stricken by the transcriber). THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECOND. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. The public hearing for the Aquatic Center has not been closed. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO TABLE THE AQUATIC CENTER PORTION OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT UNTIL THE MEETING YET TO BE SCHEDULED DURING THE WEEK OF JULY 8, 2019; THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO MEET WITH AREA RESIDENTS AND DEVELOP A LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLAN FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THE AQUATICS CENTER, AS WELL AS TO BRING BACK DETAILS ON THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS FOR MITIGATION OF NOISE Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 page 223 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance No. 542 – Amending Title 12, Chapter 1, Article D General Zoning Provisions Regarding Certain Fence Regulations and Standards (Planning Case No. 2019-16) Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a new ordinance approving a number of amendments to certain fence regulations and standards found under City Code Title 12-1D-6: Fences. Background Due to an ever increasing number of requests (and complaints) from local residents and fence installers, city staff initiated an application to consider amending the city’s fence standards. Most of these inquiries were related to allowing residential fences to be 100% opaque – or solid screen panels. City Code Section 12-1D-6: Subpart A.3.b states all residential (privacy style) fences must have at least 30% of the wall panel open. Chain-liked style fences easily meet this 30% open rule; and as for privacy fences, the city has historically allowed fences to consist of an alternating board or shadow-box style fence- commonly seen throughout the community. Residents also expressed complaints on the city’s front-yard fence height limits of 36-inches (3-ft.); and have continually requested fences (usually chain-linked or decorative) be allowed up to 4-ft. in height. At the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a report along with a comparison matrix of 24 metro communities, along with some of these cities fence handouts and related fence handouts. Staff also presented a first draft of the prospered Ordinance No. 542, with suggested language amendments and changes. The 05/28/19 Planning Report, attachments and meeting minutes are appended to this council memo report. The Commission elected to table the ordinance discussion that night, and requested staff find out if the city’s fire chief and police chief had any issues or concerns (from a public safety standpoint) to allowing solid screen fences in residential areas. Both individuals expressed no concerns or issues. At the follow-up June 25th planning commission meeting, staff presented additional information, along with an updated Ordinance No. 542 version to consider. After re-opening the hearing, allowing for more public comments and discussion with staff, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) that the proposed Ordinance No. 542 be approved [adopted] by the City Council. The 06/25/19 Planning Report and meeting minutes are also appended to this memo report. Discussion page 224 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, and make a motion to adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 542 as presented. This item requires a simple-majority vote of the council. page 225 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: A. Fence in All Districts: 3. Construction and Repair: b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. Fences on industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height. Section 2. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: B. Fences in Residential Districts: (See figure 1D-6.1 of this section.) 1. Height, Style And Location: a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required front yard setback. b. Interior Lot Line: Fences up to and including six feet (6') in height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines. page 226 c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot may be fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’). d. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or an open decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box style fence. e. Gates: Where a gate is proposed to obstruct access to a driveway in a yard abutting a street or other public right of way, such gate shall require the approval of a conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions: Section 3. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: C. Fences in Business and Industrial Districts: 1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height of six feet (6'). 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected a measurable distance from the property line not to exceed six inches (6”), shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque, and not exceed six feet (6') in height, except for those provided in section 12-1D-6.C.3 of this chapter. 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and or fences with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. Section 4. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. page 227 Section 5. 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 ______________, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk (Note: 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 228 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: A. Fence in All Districts: 3. Construction And Repair: b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. Fences on industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height. Section 2. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: B. Fences in Residential Districts: (See figure 1D-6.1 of this section.) 1. Height, Style And Location: a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required front yard setback. b. Interior Lot Line: Fences up to and including six feet (6') in height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines. page 229 c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot may be fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’). d. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or an open decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box style fence. e. Gates: Where a gate is proposed to obstruct access to a driveway in a yard abutting a street or other public right of way, such gate shall require the approval of a conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions: Section 3. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: C. Fences In Business And Industrial Districts: 1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height of six feet (6'). 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected a measurable distance from the property line not to exceed six inches (6”), shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque, and not exceed six feet (6') in height, except for those provided in section 12-1D-6.C.3 of this chapter. 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and or fences with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. Section 4. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. page 230 Section 5. 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 ______________, 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 231 Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) MEETING DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT –FENCE STANDARDS APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights ACTION DEADLINE: N/A INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is considering a number of amendments to certain fence regulations and standards found under City Code Title 12-1D-6: Fences. This item was originally presented under a public hearing process at the May 28th regular meeting, where it was tabled and asked to be brought back to this month’s meeting. ANALYSIS Staff is presenting for this follow-up review the following added changes from the May 28th Draft Ordinance No. 542 (added changes noted in yellow highlighted text): Added the term “open” to the “…decorative style fence, such as picket, wrought iron…” provision in Sect. 12-1D-6 B Revised Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business and Industrial Districts: Subpart 2 as follows: 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and at least six feet (6') in height. to 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and not to exceed six feet (6') in height, except for those provided in section 12-1D-6.C.3 of this chapter. page 232 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and or fences with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requested the city’s public safety personnel (police chief and fire chief) review and provide any comments or concerns to these proposed fence standard changes – particularly the 30% open rule standard, which would allow 100% opaque/solid screened fences in residential zones. Both individuals expressed no concerns or objections to the proposed fence standard changes at this time. At the May 28th meeting, the matter was tabled and the public hearing was also tabled (not officially closed). The Commission will need to make a motion to re-open the public hearing; allow for any added public comments; close the hearing; deliberate the proposed amendments, and make a recommendation accordingly. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendments as presented under the updated Draft Ordinance No. 542 (presented herein). . Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 542 (Updated) 2) Copy of May 28th Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-16 3) City Code Section 12-1D-6 FENCES (ordinance in its current form) 4) Example of Other Cities Fence Regulations/Ordinances page 233 Vers. #2 (06/25/19) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: A. Fence in All Districts: 3. Construction And Repair: b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. Fences on industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height. Section 2. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: B. Fences in Residential Districts: (See figure 1D-6.1 of this section.) 1. Height, Style And Location: a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required front yard setback. page 234 b. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or an open decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box style fence. c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot may be fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’). Section 3. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: C. Fences In Business And Industrial Districts: 1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height of six feet (6'). 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and not to exceed six feet (6') in height, except for those provided in section 12-1D-6.C.3 of this chapter. 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and or fences with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. Section 4. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. page 235 Section 5. 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 ______________, 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 236 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT –FENCE STANDARDS APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is considering a number of amendments to City Code Title 12-1D-6 Fences. In the past few months, city staff have been approached or requested by a number of fence company installers and residents to consider changes to the city’s current fence standards, specifically the “opacity rule” and front- yard fence heights. 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 Title 12-1D-6 Fences in its entirety is included as Attachment–A. Staff is requesting review and consideration of the following zoning code sections (yellow highlighted text for emphasis) pertaining to residential and commercial fences: Section 12-1D-6: Subpart A.3.b states: “all fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open.” Section 12-1D-6: Subpart B.1 states: ”Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required front yard setback.” Section 12-1D-6: Subpart C.2 states: “Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.” page 237 Section 12-1D-6: Subpart D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways states: “Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes.” Typically every spring and throughout the summer months, the city responds to numerous inquiries and helps process a number of fence permits, primarily those submitted by professional fence installers, or in some case private homeowners. The State of Minnesota Building Code exempts fences under 7-feet in height from building permitting requirements. By this rule, any fence over 7-feet in height must be approved by a building permit. Cities however, have the right or choice to limit fences to any height, and are allowed to issue permits we deem necessary. The City of Mendota Heights issues a Zoning Permit, which is different from a building permit, and charges a standard $25.00 review and processing fee. Section 12-1D-6: Subpart A.3.b states all residential (privacy style) fences must have at least 30% of the wall panel open. Anecdotally, this “openness” or opacity rule may have come into being due to cities wanting to make sure fences along a shared property line allowed some form or minimal amount of light, air or wind movement through such structures. Chain-liked style fences more than meet this 30% open rule. As for privacy fences that homeowners desire, the City has historically allowed fence companies and residents to install an alternating board or shadow-box style fence (see images – below), which staff felt met the 30% openness rule. Residents and fence companies have now asked if the City would be willing to revise or eliminate this 30% open rule, so they can provide or install a 100% opaque fence style, shown in the example images below: page 238 Fence companies and residents have also expressed some reservations and complaints on the City’s front - yard fence height limits of 36-inches (3-ft.). Residents have stated that when they have requested to fence off their front yards, the 3-ft. high fence is not adequate enough to contain certain sized dogs or active children/toddlers playing or using the front yard space. Many residents have requested at least a 4-foot high fence, and a large majority of these fence requests usually involve a chain-linked style. From a planning and zoning standpoint, staff does not believe allowing a fence from 3-ft. to 4-ft. will make much of a difference, and would support such change, and would ask the Planning Commission to decide if you wish the city to keep or apply an openness rule standard for front yard fences only. The following comparison matrix table provides a quick reference to certain fence standards (with respect to heights and styles) in other communities: METRO-NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES - COMPARISON MATRIX CITY FENCE HEIGHTS FENCE STANDARD (Solid vs. Open Rules) Apple Valley 3.5’ FY / 6’ to 8’ in RY Solid screen allowed Arden Hills 3’ FY / 6’ FY & SY Solid screen allowed Brooklyn Center 4’ FY / 7’ RY Solid screen allowed Brooklyn Park 3.5’ FY / 7’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed Burnsville 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & RY 75% open in FY area; solid allowed in other areas Chaska 4’ FY (Decorative only) / 6’ RY 8’ PRIVACY in SY & RY (buildable area only) Solid screen allowed (except for front decorative style) Cottage Grove 2.5’ FY / 6’ SY & FY 50% transparent in Front Yard Fences; solid in Rear Yards Crystal 4.5’ FY / 6.5’ SY & FY Solid screen allowed Eagan 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & FY Solid screen allowed Edina 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed Farmington 4’ FY / 6’ SY & FY Solid screen allowed Hopkins 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY -Wood & Chain Linked- 25% open; -Fences next to state/county roads 100% opaque Hudson 4’ FY and SY along streets / 6’ SY and RY Solid screen allowed Inver Grove Heights 3.5’ FY / 7’ SY & RY - Front Yard fences at 75% open - Solid screen in Side and Rear Yards Mahtomedi 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed Maplewood 6’ in all YARDS 80% opaque in FY and along streets Oakdale 4’ FY / 6’ - 8’ RY Solid screen allowed Richfield 7’ in all yards Solid screen allowed Rosemount 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed South St. Paul 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed Vadnais Heights 4’ FY / 6’ SY & FY - 25% Open allowed on line - more than 25% must meet setbacks White Bear Lake 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY 30% Open West St. Paul 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY - 25% Open for fences in front yards - Solid screen in other yards. Woodbury 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed page 239 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS Staff is offering the following amendment: 1) Regarding Section 12-1D-6: A. Fences in All Districts, under Subpart 3. Construction And Repair, staff is suggesting striking (deleting) this entire sub-provision b. Construct Of Fences: b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. Fences on industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height. This deletion will remove the 30% opacity rule; and moves the provisions for fences on industrially zoned property (next to residential uses) to another section. 2) Staff is suggesting changes to front yard fence standards as follows: Section Title 12-1D-6: B Fences in Residential Districts: Height, Style And Location: a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required front yard setback. b. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box style fence. c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot may be fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’). 3) Staff is suggesting changes to fences in the business and industrial districts as follows: Section Title 12-1D-6: C. Fences In Business And Industrial Districts: 1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height of six feet (6'). 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and at least six feet (6') in height. 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height [or] [and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. page 240 4) Regarding Section 12-1D-6: Subpart D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways, this provision does not get used very often, but in certain cases, it does greatly help those residents on corner or through lots where a busy traveled public street exists. One particular case was the new residence built at 688 Evergreen Knolls (SW corner of Dodd Road and Evergreen Knolls – see aerial image – below). The homeowner would have had to set his fence back considerably inside their corner side yard, which would have left a much smaller, useable rear yard for their family. Under this provision, the public works director approved the fence permit with the permitted encroachment shown. Staff is suggesting the following changes: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION The Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval (either partially or whole) the requested Zoning Code Amendments as noted in the attached Draft Ordinance No. 542; or 2. Recommend denial (either partially or whole) of the requested Zoning Code Amendments noted in in the attached Draft Ordinance No. 542; based on 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. page 241 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing; allow for public comments; and discuss with city staff these suggested changes. Following the public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendments as presented under the Draft Ordinance No. 542. Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 542 2) City Code Section 12-1D-6 FENCES (ordinance in its current form) 3) Example of Other Cities Fence Regulations/Ordinances page 242 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: A. Fence in All Districts: 3. Construction And Repair: b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. Fences on industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height. Section 2. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: B. Fences in Residential Districts: (See figure 1D-6.1 of this section.) 1. Height, Style And Location: a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required front yard setback. page 243 b. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box style fence. c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot may be fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’). Section 3. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: C. Fences In Business And Industrial Districts: 1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height of six feet (6'). 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and at least six feet (6') in height. 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height [or] [and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) Section 4. Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. page 244 Section 5. 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 ______________, 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 245 page 246 page 247 Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 1 City of Arden Hills * 1245 West Highway 96 * (651) 792-7800 Fences, Walls, and Hedges The Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance has general provision about fences, walls, and hedges: Fences and solid walls in side or rear yards may not exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts. Fences and solid walls may not exceed three (3) feet in height in the front yard of any City district. Fences, walls and hedges on corner lots are subject to traffic visibility requirements, which states, on all lots, “nothing shall be placed in the clear vision area, and nothing shall be allowed to grow in such a manner as to materially impede vision now or in the future between a height of two and one-half (2-1/2) and ten (10) feet in the clear vision area.” The clear vision area is defined as “an area within a triangle that is measured along the edge of the driving surface of the road at the intersection of two roads (public or private) and extending thirty (30) feet in each direction from the intersection with a line connecting the two end points.” No above grade fence shall have barbs or spikes or be of metal construction, which is charged or connected with electrical current within any district of the City. These fencing types shall only be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. Fences may be placed up to the lot line provided no damage results to the abutting property. The City recommends setting back fences at least two (2) feet from the lot line so homeowners may maintain the outside of their fence without having to traverse adjacent properties. That side of the fence considered to be the front (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face toward adjoining properties. No fence, wall or hedge may be placed in a public right-of-way. A Zoning Permit is required for fences. A Building Permit is required for all walls greater than four (4) feet. This handout is written as a guide to common questions and problems. It is not intended, nor shall it be considered, a complete set of requirements. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call Twin Cities Metro Area: 612.454.0002 Minnesota Toll Free: 800.252.1166 page 248 Residential Fences, Hedges, Retaining Walls Locate Property Lines. Be certain of where your property lines are before you install any fence or dig fence-post holes. Power poles, trees, existing fences and other physical objects do not always indicate or mark true property corners or boundaries. Locate where your front yard ends and the public right-of-way/ boulevard begins, as lots seldom border the street. It is worth the investment to have a registered surveyor or engineer assist with locating property lines. The City does not provide this service. Neighborhood Considerations. The City recommends you discuss with adjoining neighbors your intent of installing a fence along any shared property line, and indicate where you intend to install the fence. The City will not arbitrate neighbor property line disputes, as this is a civil matter between neighbors. If you find yourself involved in a property line dispute or concern on the location of a fence, you may contact Community Mediation Services at (763) 561-0033 to help resolve any disputes or differences. Community Mediation Services is a non-profit organization that provides low and no- cost mediation services to Northern and Western Hennepin County residents. BE SAFE! Before you dig, please contact Gopher State One-Call at (800) 252-1166 or [www.gopherstateonecall.org.] to help locate and mark underground utility lines. This is a FREE service to all residents provided by the local utility companies. City Contact Information Fence Regulations & Enforcement Community Development Dept. (763) 569-3330 Zoning Regulations Community Development Dept. (763) 569-3330 Building Permit Requirements Community Development Dept. (763) 569-3330 After-Hours or Weekend Reporting of an Immediate Safety Hazard Police Department 911 (Officer Assistance & Emergencies) This brochure contains general information about fence requirements and is intended as a guide only. Other regulations and requirements may apply. City codes are available on the city website at www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Phone: (763) 569-3300 TTY/Voice: 711 Fax: (763) 569-3360 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Revised 3-6-19 page 249 Proper placement and construction of your fence will assure your fence meets community standards. Permits. No permit is required for any fence 7-ft. in height or less. However, a building permit is required for: all fences over 7-ft. in height; retaining walls that exceed 4-ft. in height measured from the bottom of the footing; retaining walls less than 4-ft. in height holding back retained soil or other materials. It is recommended that a fence be located 6 to 12-inches inside the property line in order to provide lawn and maintenance service on both sides of the fence. No fence or wall shall be placed in the public right-of-way or street boulevard. This is for safety and for utility/street maintenance. The City of Brooklyn Center recommends that the finished side of the fence be placed on the outside. Fences or retaining walls should be constructed of durable materials such as rust-resistant metal, masonry, poly-vinyl, pressure treated wood, or wood naturally resistant to decay such as cedar and redwood. The use of barbed wire, hog/pen wire, or electric fences is not permitted. No fence, hedge, wall, or other safety hazard shall be allowed which creates an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrian or vehicles. (City Code 35-400.8.a). Refer to the following “Clear-View Triangle” information in this brochure. Height Limitations. Opaque fences, hedges, or walls along front yard property lines bordering streets shall not exceed 4-ft. in height, except when located along an interior property line. Fences, hedges, or walls may exceed 4-ft. A building permit is required when the height of the fence exceeds 7-ft. Clear-View Triangle. On corner lots, fences are not allowed in the clear view or sight triangle, defined as an area bounded by the corner property lines and a straight line joining points along said corner lot lines 25-ft. from their intersection - OR - 55-ft. along the intersecting street curb lines. The above diagram includes a typical corner sight triangle. Nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, maintained, or allowed to grow which will impede vision between 2.5 ft. to 10 ft. above the center line of the street in the sight triangle. This includes 4-ft. fences or shrubs. (City Code 35-560.) page 250 BROOKLYN PARKpage 251 page 252 page 253 page 254 "Listen Respectfully, Think Ahead, Act Responsibly" TRAFFIC VISABILITY No fences, shall be permitted to exceed thirty inches (30”) in height within any front or side yard areas on a corner lot which may interfere with the visibility across the corner. A minimum sight triangle shall be established on each corner lot at every street intersection through which motorists shall have reasonable unobstructed view. The adjacent sides shall be located along the curb line or along the gutter line of streets without curb and gutter, and shall be fifty feet (50’) in length. The third side shall be a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides. The City may order re- moval of vision obstructions located within the minimum sight triangle. RESIDENTIAL FENCE REQUIREMENTS PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: Building permits are not required for the construction of fences which are seven feet (7’) in height or less. LOCATIONS Fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the persons con- structing the fence unless the owner of the property adjoining agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on the division line of the respective properties. The City may require the owner of prop- erty with an existing fence to establish the boundary lines of his property by a survey. The owner of the property is re- sponsible for verifying their property lines. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE Fences shall be constructed in a workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably suited for its intended purpose. Every fence shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not be allowed to be- come or remain in a condition of disrepair or dan- ger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. Any such fence which is, or has become, dan- gerous to the City health or welfare, or is a public nuisance, the City may commence proper pro- ceedings for the abatement thereof. Electrical fences shall not be permitted. Barbed wire fenc- es shall only be permitted on farms or for special security requirements by Conditional Use Permit. Residential Fences DIAGRAM OF FENCE HEIGHTS AND BUILDABLE AREAS Property Line 6’ Max. Fence Hgt. Nothing exceeding 30” in height allowed in this area. Buildable area line 8’ Max. Fence Hgt. 50’ 50’ Curb Street House Fence Line Property Line Street Front Yard 42” Max. Fence Hgt. page 255 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS Except as provided herein, fences outside the buildable area of a lot may not exceed six feet (6’) in height. Except as provided herein, fences within the buildable area of a lot or in the case of the rear lot line at least ten feet (10’) from the rear lot line, may not exceed eight feet (8’) in height. Fences over 7’ in height require a building permit. Fences extending across front yards shall not exceed three and one-half feet (3½’) in height and shall be at least seventy five per- cent (75%) open space for passage of air and light. "Listen Respectfully, Think Ahead, Act Responsibly" Minnesota State law requires that anyone digging in the vicinity of buried underground utilities call Gopher State One Call to have them located. You must call at least 48 hours before you plan to dig. (651) 454-0002 You are responsible for locating all private, un- derground utilities. A private locating service list is available at www.Gopherstateonecall.org CALL BEFORE YOU DIG; IT’S THE LAW!! RESIDENTIAL FENCE REQUIREMENTS 100 Civic Center Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337-3817 Phone: (952) 895-4444 Fax: (952) 895-4512 permits@burnsvillemn.gov Fences for special purpose and fences differing in con- struction, height or length may be permitted in any district by Conditional Use Permit. Find- ings shall be made that the fence is necessary to protect, better or improve the premises. SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCES Residents of Burns- ville who wish to in- stall a fence are urged to relay their intentions to their abutting neighbors and agree on exact property line loca- tions. With wood fences, it is suggested that they be located so that both sides of the fence can be maintained without leaving your prop- erty. Also, fences with one finished side should be located towards your neighbors. GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY All swimming pools for which a permit is required and granted shall be provid- ed with safeguards to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access. This can be accomplished with fencing, screening or other enclosure, or any combination thereof, of sufficient density as to be impenetrable. If fences are employed, they shall be at least four feet (4‘) in height. The bottoms of the fences shall not be more than four inches from the ground. Fences shall be of a noncorrosive mate- rial and shall be constructed so as to be not easi- ly climbable. All fence openings or points of entry into the pool enclosure shall be equipped with gates or doors. All gates or doors to swimming pools shall be equipped with self-closing and self- latching devices placed at a sufficient height so as to be inaccessible to small children. SWIMMING POOL PROTECTION page 256 page 257 CITY OF CHASKA FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION .: Site Address: __________________________________________ Permit No _________________ Installer: __________________________________________ Date: _________________ __________________________________________ __(______)_________________ Installer’s Address Installer’s Phone ______________________ __________________ City State Zip Signed: _________________________________________ REQUIRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS: Site plan showing fence location Description of fence ZONING: All ‘R’ (Residential) Classifications: Sec. 9.20.3 Rear Boundary Fence: Shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within the limits of the rear yard, except where rear yard access from the principal building is achieved from an entrance/exit to a side yard. In such instances, a six (6) foot boundary fence is permitted in the side yard to a distance not greater than three (3) feet beyond the entrance/exit in the direction of the front yard. [Sec. 9.20.3.2 (b)] Decorative Fence: Shall not exceed four (4) feet in height within the limits of the front and side yards. Shall have an opacity of no greater than 50 percent. (This is the only type of fence allowed within the limits of the front and side yards.) A decorative fence erected on a corner lot shall be subject to additional traffic visibility requirements in Sec. 9.20.3.3. Privacy Fence: Shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. Located only within the buildable area of the rear yard. (Shall meet rear and side yard setbacks.) Commercial, Industrial, and Public: See City Planner and Sec. 9.20.4. General Information: •The side of the fence considered to be the face shall face abutting property. The face shall be defined as the finished side of the fence rather than the side with structural supports. [Sec. 9.20.2 (a)] •There is a 10 feet fence setback from all public trails. CITY OF CHASKA ONE CITY HALL PLAZA CHASKA, MN 55318 ph: (952) 448-9200 fax: (952) 448-9300 website: www.chaskamn.com Approved for Issuance by: Fee: $10.00 __________________________ Initials __________________________ Date [Sec. 9.20.3.2] [Sec. 9.20.3.3] [Sec. 9.20.3.4] It is the homeowner’s responsibility to locate property corners to show that the fence is located on their property. For City of Chaska Use Only Paid by: Check Accepted by:_______________ Cash Dated: _______________ BLDGDEPT\NEWFORMS\PERMITAPPLICATIONS REVISED APRIL 2011 page 258 Fence, as defined by ordinance, is any partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure and located within a boundary or within the required yard. Fences are allowed in any required yard or along any property line. The entire fence structure and supporting footings must be within the property boundaries. The owner of a fence is responsible for verifying the location of their property lines. Fence height is limited to a maximum of six feet along rear or side property boundary lines and four feet in the front yard. If the fence is within 15 feet from the front property line, then the fence must be less than 30 inches in height and not less than 50 percent transparent. Fences for agricultural uses must not be greater than six feet above grade level and may be located along all property boundary lines. A fence cannot obstruct the safe view from any driveway or street. On corner lots, no structure or planting in excess of 30 inches above the curb line or less than ten feet above the curb line is permitted within the clear view triangle. A clear view triangle is described as that area that begins at the intersection of the front or rear property line and corner side property line and is measured back 10 feet along both property lines. Those points are then connected with a straight line. Clear View Triangle Fences are allowed in drainage and utility easements, but repair or replacement is the responsibility of the homeowner should construction activity be required within the easement. Fences must be setback a minimum of one foot from a public walkway. page 259 Fencing construction material types are not currently regulated by the City, but it is required that all fencing be kept structurally sound and maintained in good condition. The finished side of a fence must face abutting property or public right-of-way. No fence can have boards, planks, or panels larger than one foot in width. All chain link fences must have a top rail, barbed ends must be placed at the bottom of the fence, and vertical posts must be spaced at intervals not to exceed ten feet. Barbed wire and electrical fences are allowed for parcels that are five or more acres in area and used to fence livestock. Razor wire fences are prohibited in all districts. Fences are required around swimming pools having a depth greater than 18 inches. The minimum required height is 4 feet. Any gates must be self-closing/latching and capable of being locked. A building permit is not required for the installation of fences. However, you must call Gopher State One Call at 651-454-0002 before you dig to identify any underground utility locations. The above information is excerpted from Cottage Grove City Code Titles 11-3-4, 11-3-5, 11-6-7, and 9-11-4. Other criteria may apply where development restrictions and private covenants prevail. page 260 page 261 page 262 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD | EAGAN, MN 55122-1810 (651) 675-5675 TDD: (651) 454-8535 FAX: (651) 675-5694 buildinginspections@cityofeagan.com FENCES This handout is written only as a guide; it is not intended nor shall it be considered a complete set of requirements. Information sheets are available at the City's Building Inspections Division or on www.cityofeagan.com. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.org Required Permits A Zoning Permit is required for residential fences. A Building Permit is required for commercial fences greater than seven (7) feet in height. Height The City requires a maximum height of six feet (6’) for residential property and a maximum of eight feet (8’) for commercial property. Fences that extend into front or side yards must not impair traffic visibility or exceed forty two inches (42”) in height. Installation The finished side of all fences shall face away from the fence owner’s lot. Property Lines & Setbacks It is the responsibility of the homeowner to determine property lines prior to installing a fence. All portions of a fence, including the footings, must be installed inside the property line. Easements A fence may be allowed in an easement. Please contact the Engineering Department at (651) 675-5646 regarding easements before the installation of your fence. Boulevard Contact the City of Eagan’s Engineering Department at (651) 675-5646 regarding boulevard widths (see diagram below). Maintenance See reverse side. Covenants The City of Eagan does not enforce covenants; however, you should contact the Dakota County Government Center at (651) 437-3191 to find out if there are covenants regulating fencing in your subdivision. House # Curb # Property Line (Fence Line) 30 feet30 Feet# Nothing exceeding 30" high allowed in this area StreetStreet6' maximum fence height 42" maximum fence height page 263 2 of 2 Construction and Maintenance Every fence shall be maintained in accordance with the building and structure safety and appearance regulations noted below. No temporary fence, such as a snow fence or an erosion control fence, shall be permitted on any property for a period in excess of thirty (30) days unless otherwise approved by the City for good cause. Above ground electric boundary fences shall be permitted only in the Agriculture (A) district when the property is an active farm. The finished side of all fences shall face away from the fence owner’s lot. Residential District Fences In parts of the City that are zoned residential, boundary fences shall be subject to the following requirements: Fences on all corner lots erected within thirty feet (30’) of the intersecting curb line shall be subject to traffic visibility requirements noted below. In side or rear yards, fences shall not exceed a maximum height of six feet (6’). In front yards, fences shall not exceed forty-two inches (42”) in height. Barbed wire fences shall be permitted only in non-residential zoning districts. Commercial District Fences In parts of the City that are zoned commercial, boundary fences shall be subject to the following requirements: Property line fences within all business and industrial districts shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height, except by Conditional Use Permit. Traffic Visibility On all corner lots in all districts, no structure or planting in excess of thirty (30) inches above the abutting curb line shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the project curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty (30) feet along one curb diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning of the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Building and Structure Appearance and Maintenance Requirements For purpose of this section, “fence” means any structure, wall, or gate erected as a permanent dividing marker, partition, visual or physical barrier, or enclosure, excluding any permitted temporary fence , within a parcel of land regardless if the parcel is platted or unplatted. Any fence is a public nuisance if it does not comply with the following requirements: The fence shall be firmly fastened and anchored in order that it is not leaning or otherwise in the stage of collapse. The fence shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from deterioration, loose or rotting pieces, or holes, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the fence. The fence shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the fence hazardous. All exterior wood surfaces of any fence, other than decay resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements by paint or other protective surface covering or treatment, which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the intended protection from the elements. No fence section shall have peeling, cracked, chipped or otherwise deteriorated surface finish, including but not limited to: paint or other protective covering or treatment, on more than twenty percent (20%) of any one linear ten-foot (10’) section of the fence. page 264 EDINA FENCE REGS. 2.What regulations apply to fences? Residential Fencing Regulations? In the City of Edina Fences cannot exceed four (4) feet in height in the front yard and side street setback areas. In the City of Edina maximum fence height in the side and rear yard is six (6) feet. Finished side of fence is to face neighboring properties. If a corner lot, or lot with special circumstances (i.e. abutting commercial, industrial or busy street) please contact the Planning Division at 952-826-0369. The City of Edina requires pools to be entirely fenced with a non-climbable fence with a minimum height of four (4) feet. The fence gate is to be self-closing and self-latching. page 265 City of Farmington Fences 430 Third Street Information Sheet Farmington, MN 55024 Questions? Please call 651-280-6822 City Code Section 10-6-12: Fences Fences shall be permitted in all yards subject to the following: (A)Residential Fence Heights: In residential districts four foot (4') fences may be located on any lot line except that fences on interior lots may be six feet (6') in height on the side and rear lot lines beginning at the nearest front corner of the principal building. (B)Corner Lots: Fences up to six feet (6') in height may be constructed on the side and rear lot lines behind the nearest front corner of the principal building subject to the following: 1.The front corner of the principal building is defined as beginning at the widest point of the structure's front street facing foundation as determined by its street address. 2.No fence over four feet (4') in height shall be located within the triangle of visibility which is that area within a triangle created by measuring from a point on the curb or edge of the street closest to the center of the intersection, down the front curb lines or edge of the intersecting streets thirty feet (30'), and then connecting these end points with a straight line. 3.When a fence is adjacent to a driveway of a neighboring lot, a 5 feet triangle of visibility or a 5 feet setback along the street side shall be provided at the intersecting lot lines. (C)Varying Setbacks: Should the fence be located between principal buildings with varying setbacks on adjacent lots, a fence up to six feet (6') in height may not extend beyond the average setback of the two (2)buildings. (D)Variance: A variance is required for fences over six feet (6') and up to eight feet (8') in height when constructed within the buildable areas of lots in residential districts. (E)Commercial And Industrial Districts: Fences located within commercial and industrial districts may be located on any lot line up to a height of eight feet (8') except in the required front yard. (F)Site Plan; Building Permit: A site plan or legal survey with the location of the proposed fence shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Division for approval for all fences over four feet (4') in height. An application for a building permit is required for all fences exceeding seven feet (7') in height. (G)Materials: Fences in all districts, except agricultural, shall be constructed of materials widely accepted in the fencing industry. No plywood boards, canvas, plastic sheeting, metal sheeting or similar material shall be used for any fence construction. (H)Maintenance: All fences shall be maintained in good condition and vertical position, and any missing or deteriorated wood slats, pickets, other fencing material, or structural elements shall be replaced in a timely manner with the same quality of material and workmanship. The City of Farmington does not provide surveying services to locate property corners; it is the homeowner’s responsibility to identify property lines. A survey of your property may be on file at City Hall. Placement of fences must be totally within the property boundary. Fences may tie into adjoining properties with the written permission and understanding of both property owners; current and future property owners should be made aware of any agreement(s). page 266 Homeowners with corner lots may place their fence along the property line when an adjacent homeowner’s driveway is not adjacent to the fence. In the case that a driveway is adjacent to a proposed fence one of the following two options must be used. 5' f rom co rne r of P L Allows Angle of Visibility to Street6' f enc e Hou se Hou se Drive w ay Driv e wayStreet Street PL (p ro per ty lin e)curbcu rbboulevardbouleva rd wi dest po int of ho us e Option 1: With Adjacent Driveway Fence Angled at Property Corner 5 feet Allows Angle of Visibility to Street6' f enc e Hou se Hou se Drive w ay Driv e wayStreet Street PL (p ro per ty lin e)curbcu rbboulevardbouleva rd wi dest po int of ho us e5' from property lineOption 2: With Adjacent Driveway Fence set 5 feet from Property Line Hou s e Drive wa y Street Hou s e 6' F en ce W id es t Po rtion o f H o use Interior Lot page 267 HOPKINS - FENCES Residential Fences Before building a fence in Hopkins, you must have a fence permit. Complete the Fence Permit Application (PDF) and return with $10 permit fee to Hopkins City Hall. Requirements The following is a summary of zoning code requirements for residential fences in Hopkins. For complete information, see Hopkins City Code 520.13 (PDF). Location Boundary line fences must be located entirely on your private property unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that a fence may be built on the division line of both properties. The City may require any applicant for a fence permit to establish the boundary lines of his/her property by a survey to be made by any registered land surveyor. Fence Height In a residential district, no boundary line fence can be more than 4 feet in height except in the following cases: Side Property Lines A fence on a side property line can be as tall as 6 feet for the distance starting from the rear lot line and going to a point where it meets the rear wall line of the house on either side of the fence. If there is more than one rear wall line, this point is determined by the one closest to the rear property line (See illustration, line B). If a house on an adjacent lot is located within 50 feet of the fence line and its rear wall line is closer to the rear property line of the fence, that determines the point from which the fence can no longer exceed 4 feet in height. See illustration, lines A and B). page 268 Rear Property Line Abutting Rear Property Line Fences along any rear property line which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot can be as tall as 6 feet. Rear Property Line Abutting Side Lot Line Fences along a rear property line which is the side lot line of an abutting lot can be as tall as 6 feet for a distance calculated as in "Side Property Lines" above. Otherwise they can not exceed 4 feet in height. Side Street Lot Lines Fences on side street lot lines can be as tall as 6 feet for the distance starting from the rear lot line and proceeding to a point 40 feet distant from the front lot line. In no case can the fence extend forward of the front line of the house. (See illustration, line C.) Corner Lots Fences on any corner lot erected within 30 feet of the intersecting curb line are subject to Hopkins City Code 520.11 (PDF) (Traffic Visibility). Enclosing Swimming Pools Fences enclosing swimming pools must be at least 4 feet in height and not more than 6 feet, subject to the other provisions listed here. Construction A fence must be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material suitable for the fence's purpose. page 269 Link Fences: Link fences, wherever permitted, will be constructed so that the barbed end is at the bottom of the fence and the knuckle end is at the top. Fence support: The side of the fence facing the public right-of-way cannot contain the structure and/or support of the fence. Barbed Wire: Barbed wire fences are permitted only in areas zoned as industrial districts. (See zoning maps on the Hopkins Zoning page.) Open Space on Fence Plane Residential fences must be constructed so that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. In calculating the percentage, distances of 50 feet may be averaged beginning at the permitted point opposite the house. Wood fence and chain link fence - 25% open. The side(s) of residential properties next to a state or county road may have an opaque fence. Maintenance Your fence must be kept in good condition. Poorly kept fences will not be allowed. Any fence which becomes dangerous to public safety, health or welfare will be considered a public nuisance and the City may start proper proceedings for an abatement. page 270 page 271 page 272 page 273 page 274 page 275 page 276 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Planning Department 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Phone (651) 249-2300 Fax (651) 249-2319 www.MaplewoodMN.gov FENCING GUIDELINES Building permits are not required for fences 6 feet tall or under. Barbed wire is prohibited except in farm zones where livestock is raised. You may adjoin your fence to your neighbor’s fence with written consent of your neighbor. A fence in the front yard or along a public street that is at least 80% opaque (solid) must be approved by the city. There are no regulations on most types of fence materials. The fence and all supports must be built on your own property (not on your neighbor’s). Fences over 2.5 feet tall in the front yard on corner lots cannot be located within the triangular area bounded by the property lines located 25 feet from a point of intersection of the property lines on 2 intersecting streets. Property Line No fence setback is required from any property line. Supports must be on the inside of the fence. Front Property Line Street page 277 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1584 Hadley Avenue N Oakdale, MN 55128 Phone: 651-739-5150 Fax: 651-730-2820 www.ci.oakdale.mn.us RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE (Owner’s Copy) All Fences 1. Fence permits are required for all property line fence installations. 2. Fence height: Maximum 4 feet in front yards; Maximum 8 feet in rear yards 3. The more attractive side of the fence faces the neighbor and the most exposed area of the fence post faces the permitted resident. 4. Fences on corner lots shall be given special consideration for traffic sight lines. The inspection is to be performed before the permit is issued. Owners must stake the location of the fence on their property, then call 651-739-5150 for an inspection. Fences over six (6) feet 1. Fences greater than six (6) feet in height require a certificate of survey and the permit holder must locate the survey stakes and identify the boundary line. OR have a registered land surveyor locate the property stakes. 2. A footing inspection is required after all postholes are dug and before posts are installed. All survey pins are to be shown and visible to the inspector at the time of the footing inspection. 3. A minimum 42” frost footings are required. BEFORE YOU DIG – CALL GOPHER ONE: 811 page 278 This handout is written as a guide to common questions and problems. It is not intended nor shall it be considered a complete set of requirements. City of Richfield ● 6700 Portland Avenue South Inspections Division (612) 861-9860 ● Planning & Zoning Division (612) 861-9760 Revised 2017 Fences, Walls, and Hedges Building Inspections The Minnesota State Building Code and Richfield City Code provide minimum standards for creating an environment of health and safety for all Richfield residents. The Richfield City Code has general provisions about fences, walls and hedges in residential areas: Definitions: “Hedge” – A row of shrubbery which forms or is intended to form a barrier. “Wall” – This term includes retaining walls, freestanding walls, and decorative or privacy walls. Where can I place a fence on my lot? Your property line is typically 12 – 14 feet behind the curb. Fences may be constructed on private property up to, but not on, the property line. (Your side of the property line). If, however, the fence will be located along a public right of way containing a street, alley, or sidewalk, it may be placed on private property at a location at least three feet from the nearest edge of the street, alley or sidewalk. Fences are not encouraged on City property and may not be placed in the right-of-way without first obtaining a permit from the City of Richfield Engineering Division (612-861-9793). Height: Fence height is measured to include the body of the fence, plus allowing a maximum of six inches (on average between posts) above the natural grade (i.e. for drainage purposes). Fence posts are permitted to extend a maximum of six inches above the body of the fence. No fence, wall, or hedge more than four feet in height shall be constructed or permitted to grow forward of the front line of the principal building extended to the side lot lines; No fence or wall more than six feet in height shall be constructed elsewhere on the lot except that in “C- 2” and “I” Zoning Districts, the maximum height shall be eight feet. A building permit is required for fences and walls over seven feet in height; and Whenever a fence or wall is used in combination, or placed upon a berm, the combined height shall not exceed the permitted heights outlined in the above paragraphs. Prohibitions: Barbed wire and electric wire fences are prohibited in all districts. Fences shall not be constructed from chicken wire, welded wire, branches, or materials originally intended for other purposes, unless a showing of a high degree of architectural quality is achieved through the use of such, and prior approvals granted by the Director. page 279 This handout is written as a guide to common questions and problems. It is not intended nor shall it be considered a complete set of requirements. City of Richfield ● 6700 Portland Avenue South Inspections Division (612) 861-9860 ● Planning & Zoning Division (612) 861-9760 Revised 2017 Chain link: Chain link fences shall have a top rail and the barbed ends shall be toward the ground. Inserts or slats, which are woven through such fences, shall be kept in a good state of repair. Posts: Posts and stringers on any fence located on or near the lot line shall be on the inside of the fenced area unless designed as an integral part of the fence. Posts for wooden fences shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed eight feet. Posts for chain link fences shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed ten feet. Corner lots: Fences, walls and hedges located on any corner lot are subject to traffic visibility regulations. No fence, wall, or hedge greater than 30 inches in height (above the abutting curb line of the intersecting streets) shall be placed in the “sight triangle” area, as shown on the diagram below. Construction and maintenance: All fences and walls shall be constructed of durable, weather resistant materials which are properly anchored. All fences and walls shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair, danger, or constitute a nuisance. A permit is not required for fences, walls, or hedges less than 7 feet in height, but they must meet all of these guidelines. Call Gopher State One Call prior to digging postholes – call 811 or (651) 454-0002. page 280 Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Fence Information Permits Permits are required for all fences installed in Rosemount. Fence permit fees are $75.00 Plan Submittals Include permit application and a drawing of your property indicating where your fence is to be placed. Maximum Height The maximum height of any fence installed within the City of Rosemount is 6 feet. Fences installed around swimming pools from ground up must be a minimum of 4 feet high and non-climbable with a self-closing/self latching gate. Setbacks All fences may be installed up to but not on the property line. For setback information on properties that have wetlands or ponding areas call Engineering at 651-322-2055. Establish property lines The City of Rosemount does not provide surveying services. It is up to the homeowner to establish the location of the lines and make these available upon request of the inspector. Special consideration Fences that extend into front yards of corner lots MUST NOT impair traffic visibility. See figure #1. Fences that extend into rear yards must consider abutting properties. If your rear yard abuts adjacent properties front yard then the fence in the front yard setback area must not exceed 42 inches. Covenants The City of Rosemount does not enforce the private covenants of subdivisions. Homeowners should always check the covenants in their areas for additional fence requirements. Inspections A final inspection is required upon completion for all fences. The city reviewed plans must be onsite during the final inspection. page 281 page 282 Example Plot Plan City of South St. Paul City of South St. Paul Permit & Inspections Department 125 3rd Avenue North South St. Paul, MN 55075 Phone: 651-554-3220 Fax: 651-554-3211 www.southstpaul.org FENCE CHECKLIST A permit is required when installing a fence on your property.Listed below are the requirements that need to be met in order to obtain a permit. page 283 Requirements: Permit Application:Along with the permit application you must submit a plot plan that shows the following information: A.Location of fence B.Height of fence C.Type of fence material Permit Review:The City Planner must review all fence permits for approval. Permit Fee:The fee for a fence permit is $30.00,payable to the City of South St. Paul. Height (Residential):Fences along side and rear property lines shall be a maximum height of 6 feet (measured from the existing grade). Fences along front and side property lines within the front setback area shall be a maximum height of 42 inches. *If your property is on a corner lot further restrictions may apply. Fence Material:The following materials are approved for fence construction: - Wrought iron - Aluminum (wrought iron design) - Wood - Vinyl -Chain link with approved posts and cap The following materials are not approved for fence construction: - Farm fence of any kind - T-posts and pipes Property Lines:The property owner is responsible for verification of the property lines. Water Meter:If the water meter reader is inside the fence area,the City will move it at no charge to outside of the fence area.Please call the City at (651)554-3225 to have it moved. Additional Information An inspection of the fence is required when the installation is complete. All fences shall be kept in good repair,painted,and well maintained. The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property. No fences shall be permitted on public right-of-ways. Fences may be placed along property lines provided no physical damage of any kind results to the abutting property. Please Note:Items listed in this brochure are intended for informational purposes,further building and/or zoning code guidelines or restrictions may be applicable. WHERE DO I OBTAIN A PERMIT? Building Inspections City of South St. Paul 125 3rd Avenue North South St. Paul, MN 55075 QUESTIONS? Please contact our office between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 4:30 p.m.at 651-554-3220. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG Verify underground utility locations at least 2 days before you dig.Call Gopher State One at (651) 454-0002. page 284 \\HEIGHTS\administration\Website\Forms & Applications\Building\docs\fencecover.doc FENCING INFORMATION SHEET Department of Building Safety The City of Vadnais Heights 800 East County Road E • Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: 651.204.6015 • Fax: 651.204.6100 www.cityvadnaisheights.com INFORMATION SHEET Permits Permits are required for the construction, addition, or alteration of an y fence. Building permit required for fences over 6 feet. Zoning permit required for fences 6 feet or under. Construction & Maintenance • Fences shall be constructed in a workmanship like manner. • Fences shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair. • Fences shall have no barbed ends on the top except in industrial areas. • The face or finished side of the fence must face abutting property. • Electrical and barbed fences are prohibited except in functioning agricultural uses. • Fences restricting access from a front yard to a back yard shall have a minimum 3-foot wide gate. Heights Fences in residential districts shall be a maximum of 6-feet high. Fences in front yards shall be a maximum of 4-feet high. Setbacks Fences that are 25% or more open (opacity) may be constructed anywhere inside the boundary of the subject property. Fences that are less than 25% open (opacity) are required to meet setbacks as required for accessory structures. Corner Lots No fence or planting 30-inches or more in heights is permitted within the triangular vision area forty feet from an intersection. Rear/Side Lot Lines Fences along a rear lot line, that is also a side lot line of an abutting property, shall be a maximum height of 4 feet in the front setback area of the abutting property. Tennis Courts Chain link fences enclosing tennis courts may be a maximum of 10-feet high. A design must be submitted for the construction details of any fence more than 6-feet high. page 285 White Bear Lake Community Development Department White Bear Area Department of Inspections 4701 Highway 61, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Zoning 651-429-8561/Inspections 651-429-8518/Fax 651-429-8503 www.whitebearlake.org Fences January 2017 This handout is a summary of the permit & inspection process as well as standard requirements based on City Regulations and State Building Code regarding Fences. Plans are subject to review and approval by the City Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector for compliance with Code Requirements. Information contained herein does not contain all of the specific codes for construction, and shall only be used as a guide. NOTE: A fence permit is required for any fence four (4) feet and over in height. Fences under 48” in height, do not require a permit but are required to follow the same guidelines listed below. Permit Submission Requirements: • Completed zoning permit application. • Two copies of a Site Plan (which includes lot lines and dimensions, the location and dimensions of the principle structure and any other relevant structure(s), location and dimensions of proposed fence, fence detail (height, style and material of fence) and any additional information that may be required). See Site Plan Example. • During busy times, permit approval may take approximately 7 to 10 business days. Please plan accordingly. Fence Permit Fee: The permit fee is $50.00 Inspection Requirements: The inspection card and approved plans must be on site upon the start of work until the final inspection has been performed and passed. All construction work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection until approved by the Building Inspection Department. All required inspections will be listed on the permit card. A final inspection is required upon completion of project and approvals for all other inspections have been complete; please call 651-429-8518 to schedule an inspection. A minimum of 24 hour notice is required for all inspections (time frame may lengthen during busy times). *A fence footing & property pin exposure inspection is required prior to pouring concrete. Information and Guidelines: a) Solid walls in excess of four (4) feet above adjacent ground grades shall be prohibited. The term “solid wall” refers to retaining walls or above grade walls constructed of stone, boulders, concrete, modular block or other similar materials. b) Fences shall be at least thirty (30) percent open through the structure to allow for passage of light, air, and wind or have an approved foundation. Fences that are less than 30% open require a substantial footing to support the fence during windy conditions. A substantial footing shall be a footing with a depth below grade equal to or greater than 50% of the fence height. c) Fences located within the buildable area of a lot may be up to eight (8) feet in height. (Principal structure setbacks, not accessory structure setbacks.) No fences shall be permitted on public right-of-ways. page 286 d) Fences may be permitted along property lines & within required non-buildable setback areas, subject to the following: e) Fences may be placed along (not on, but just inside of) property lines, provided no construction, grading, or drainage damage results to abutting property. f) Fences in commercial and industrial districts may be erected along the side and rear lot lines to a height of eight (8) feet with or without a security arm for barbed wire. In no case shall a fence or security arm extension encroach over the property line. g) In residential districts, no fences or wall more than forty-eight (48) inches in height shall be constructed within any required front yard. Near street intersections, visibility triangles may limit fence height to 36 inches (see Municiapl Code Section 904.010). h) On corner lots, in residential districts, a fence up to six (6) feet in height may be allowed within a front yard which qualifies as an equivalent side yard abutting a public right-of-way, provided that it is set back at least 12 feet from the property line and does not impede safety by obstructing vision for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. i) Chain link is not allowed in the front yards of residential property – it is allowed in rear and side yards only. j) The property owner is responsible for providing proof of property line location. Existing survey stakes exposed at grade level with a string pulled between the stakes to define the line is considered acceptable proof of property line. Where property lines are not clearly defined, a certificate of survey may be required by the Zoning Administrator to establish location of the property line. See “How to Find Your Property Pins” handout. k) In those instances where a boundary line fence exists as an enclosure that restricts access from the front yard, a gate, identifiable, collapsible section, or other such means of recognizable ingress shall be provided for emergency vehicles. Such ingress points shall be unobstructed and a minimum of ten (10) feet in width. The location of such ingress points shall be positioned at any point paralleling the front lot line, between the side lot property line and the principle structure. l) Chain link fences (without slat screens) used for the enclosure of tennis courts or other such recreational purposes shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height and shall be located in a rear yard only. m) Pool safety fencing for in-ground or above-ground pools shall meet the pool safety barrier requirements. See pool handout. n) Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. For example, temporary fences, such as wire mesh, are not appropriate as permanent boundary line fences. Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not, by reason of age, decay, accident or otherwise, be allowed to become and remain in a state of disrepair to be or tend to be a nuisance to the injury of the public or any abutting property. Any fence that is dangerous due to of its construction or state of disrepair or is otherwise injurious to the public safety, health, or welfare is a nuisance, and any such fence that has become or tends to be a nuisance shall upon order of a competent court be repaired or removed as necessary to abate the nuisance caused. This document is for informational purposes only and is not intended to address every situation for the permitting and plan review process. page 287 INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOTS • On a corner lot, the shorter of two sides abutting a street is considered the front. • Fences may be located on any side or rear lot line to a height of six (6) feet above finished grade, beginning at the front building line of principle structure • Chain link allowed in rear and side yards only. • Electric and barbed wire fences are prohibited in residential districts. • Fence supports must be placed on owner’s property – a 6” setback is recommended. • Supports to be installed on inside of fence – finished side of fence must face abutting property. • Maximum fence height of fence in side and rear yard is 6 ft. • Maximum fence height of fence in front yard is 4 ft. • Fences erected within yards that abut any navigable lake, channel or stream shall not exceed forty-eight (48) inches in height. • Fences less than 48” do not require a fence permit, but must still meet all the requirements of the code. (6-FOOT TALL) page 288 Residential Fence Summary Permit A building permit is required for the construction of all fences. Along with the permit application submit the following: Plat, Survey or County Arial view plan showing the location of the proposed structure building plans showing cross section and construction materials Location Fences must be placed inside the property lines. It is the owner’s responsibility to verify the location of the property lines. It is suggested to have a surveyor locate property lines before installing fences. The city does not have surveyors on staff to perform this service. If the property has been previously surveyed, metal pins may be buried at the corners of the property. The metal pins can typically be located with the use of a metal detector. Height A fence up to 6 feet in height may be erected on the rear lot line, the side lot lines and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. Fences along the side yard property line shall be located at least five feet from any principal structure located on either side of the property line. If a fence is located closer than five feet from a principal structure located on either side of the property line, the fence shall not exceed four feet in height. A fence up to 4 feet in height may be erected in the Front Yard. On a corner lot, Fences along the Side Yard abutting the Street shall not exceed 4 feet in height. Fences along the Rear Yard shall not exceed four feet in height from the front Building Line of the abutting Lot to the front Lot Line or parcel line of the abutting Lot. Privacy Fences Privacy Fences are only allowed in the Side and Rear Yard. All Fences in the Front Yard are required to be at least 25 percent open. Appearance Fence construction shall be of good workmanship, with material reasonably suited for its intended purpose. Fences shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not be in or remain in the condition of disrepair, including, but not limited to, leaning or sagging The side of the fence considered to be the face (the finished side) shall face adjoining property. Barbed wire fences are not permitted All fences shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance and safety. City Hall 1616 Humboldt Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55118-3972 651-552-4100 FAX 651 -552 -4190 TDD 651 -322 -2323 www.wspmn.gov page 289 8301 Valley Creek Road • Woodbury, MN 55125-3300 • www.ci.woodbury.mn.us (651) 714-3500 • TDD (651) 3568 • building@ci.woodbury.mn.us Fence Ordinance Summary 1. A fence up to six feet in height may be erected on the rear and side lot lines, and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. 2. A fence not exceeding four feet in height may be erected on the side lot lines, forward of the front corner of the principal building. 3. Fences in excess of 30 inches in height extending across front yards are not permitted in residential platted areas. 4. No fence shall be constructed in a manner that would block the view of vehicular traffic, or restrict snow plowing of streets. 5. Fences may be placed up to property lines. It is the owner’s responsibility to verify the location of the property lines. 6. The side of the fence considered to be the face, the finished side, shall face adjoining property. 7. Barbed wire fences are not permitted in platted areas. 8. All fences shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance and safety. 9. Swimming pools shall be protected by a fence at least four feet high, with a self- closing, self-latching, lockable gate. It shall be built so that a four inch sphere cannot pass through. 10. It is suggested to have a surveyor locate property lines before installing fences. The city does not have surveyors on staff to perform this service. J:\Data\WP\Building\Web\Fence Ordinance Summary page 290 D) PLANNING CASE #2019-16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was reconsidering the amendments discussed at the May 28, 2019 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to Title 12-1D-6 Fences of the City Code. This item was presented under public hearing and tabled at that meeting. The Commission was asked to undertake a follow-up review of the changes added from the May 28, 2019 Draft Ordinance No. 542. Mr. Benetti then briefly reviewed those additions, as well as other alterations. After discussion, the Commission determined that Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business and Industrial Districts: Subpart 2 should be as follows: 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected up to, but not on, the property line and at a measurable distance from the property line, not to exceed six inches (6”), shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque, and at least six feet (6’) in height. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS VIA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. page 291 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Par 3 Irrigation Control System INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to approve the purchase of a new Irrigation Control System for the Mendota Heights Par 3. BACKGROUND To properly maintain the golf course, Par 3 staff utilize an irrigation system to ensure the course is kept in a healthy state. The equipment is owned and maintained by the City and is approximately 30 years old. Over the course of the past month, city staff along with MTI’s golf irrigation team have put considerable time into resolving system operation issues that were a result of a power outage and likely lighting strike. The system is currently failing to take commands from the central control, which has resulted in random watering of the course or the course not being watered at all. Staff has worked with MTI technicians to reprogram the entire system multiple times but this has not resolved the issues. Inconsistencies in the system have resulted in brown greens and dying grass. Currently, staff is manually watering and relying on Mother Nature to sustain the course. An irrigation system is key for operating and maintaining the golf course. The existing system has reached the end of its useful hardware and software life, and is need of replacement. MTI has reviewed the course’s needs and has recommended the installation of a Toro Lynx SE Basic Irrigation Control System with two satellite stations. The proposed system meets the needs of the Par 3 and offers significant improvement in programming including app-based mobile control, which will allow for programming and status monitoring from remote locations. The City will be also be able to install a rain gauge on the system, a feature the old system did not have, and is now a State-requirement. MTI has provided a cost proposal for the system in the amount of $28,485.83. This is the base level system. Other added features would cost significantly more. page 292 BUDGET IMPACT MTI procures through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing contract and under Sourcewell (f/k/a National Joint Powers Alliance). As a result, the competitive purchasing requirement has been satisfied. The Par 3 budget does not include funding for the replacement of irrigation system equipment. However, because of a favorable balance in the City’s general fund, a one-time transfer of funds from the General Fund to the Par 3 Golf Course fund is available. In consultation with the City Administrator a transfer from the General Fund balance to the Par 3 Golf Course Fund is recommended as the source of funding. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize staff to move forward with the purchase and installation of the recommended Par 3 irrigation system in the amount of $28,485.83. If approved by the Council, there is a lead time of three weeks before the new controls could be added. In the meantime, staff would have to continue to manually water, and hope for favorable weather conditions. ACTION REQUESTED If the Council agrees, it should, by motion authorize the purchase and installation of a new Par 3 irrigation system in the amount of $28,485.83. page 293 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Review of the Mendota Heights Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Plan COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to review and comment on the Capital Improvement Plan of the Mendota Heights Municipal State Aid streets (MSA). BACKGROUND Every year, staff reviews and updates the city five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In the summer of 2018, representatives from West St. Paul, Dakota County, and Mendota Heights met to discuss reconstructing Delaware Avenue from Marie Avenue to Dodd Road. Dakota County is also proposing a mill and overlay of this section in 2019 (this year), West St. Paul wants to delay the overlay and instead have the road reconstructed. The meeting last summer, ended with a schedule of supporting the Dakota County Delaware Avenue Rehabilitation in 2019, initiating a feasibility study in 2023 and reconstructing the road in 2027. DISCUSSION West St. Paul is now requesting that the mill & overlay not happen, and that the roadway instead be reconstructed in 2023 per Dakota County or 2025 per West. St. Paul. The attached CIP shows the impacts if this road was to be reconstructed in 2025. Dakota County has a cost share policy and this project would fall under the category of 75 percent County, 25 percent City resulting in Mendota Heights being responsible for 12.5 percent of the project costs. The current reconstruction plan would provide a shared use pedestrian trail that would run from Dodd Road and connect with the existing trail at Marie Avenue for improved walkability to Henry Sibley. No capacity improvements are planned for the roadway but it would be upgraded to an urban section with curb & gutter. As you can see on the attached CIP, projects already programmed will deplete the City MSA account after 2022. This project would incur additional negative costs to the account. Current projects include the Marie Avenue project (possibly moved to 2020), the Dodd Road trail (2019), Centre Pointe Curve (2021), Victoria Curve (2022), Potential intersection improvements on Dodd Road at Marie and Wentworth including a trail from Mager Ct to Wentworth (2023), and a potential reconstruction and realignment of Decorah Lane with Wagon page 294 Wheel Trail (2024). Other projects may also include the Keokuk/Pagel/Bluebill intersection, and the major Dodd Road and Highway 62 intersection. Possible reductions to the city costs may include a Dakota County share of the Wentworth/Dodd intersection, MnDOT cost share of the intersection improvements, a grant to construct a trail, or a revision of the County cost share policy. During a meeting with MnDOT in May, the city may be able to proceed with an intersection improvement to the Dodd and Highway 62 intersection in 2021 or 2022 which would be funded completely by MnDOT if selected by an alternative design board. In addition, other projects may also be realized within the next several years. BUDGET IMPACT The city has the ability to borrow from future funds in its MSA account and Dakota County has offered to withhold billing until the city has funds available. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council discuss the CIP and offer recommendations on placement of the future projects. ACTION REQUIRED Direct staff on any recommended changes to the CIP and whether the Council supports the reconstruction of Delaware Avenue prior to the agreed upon year of 2027. This recommendation will then allow the County to decide on the mill and overlay of the Delaware in 2019. page 295 STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2019-2023CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSMUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) STREET FUNDAvailable Balance (6/1/2019)$1,165,5582018 Expenditures$100,000Total Available (12/31/2018)$1,065,558Revenue2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Cash Balance $1,065,558 $65,558 $118,123 $170,688 $223,253 -$299,182 -$596,617 -$744,052Annual Construction Allotment From State$0 $452,565 $452,565 $452,565 $452,565 $452,565 $452,565 $452,565Total Revenue$1,065,558 $518,123 $570,688 $623,253 $675,818 $153,383-$144,052 -$291,487ExpendituresProj. #2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242025 2026Marie Avenue Rehabilitation 2110 $750,000 $400,000$0$0$0$0$0$0Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation111 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Dodd Road Trail/Relocate Maple Street304 $250,000 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0Centre Pointe & Commerce Drive Rehabilitation 112 $0$0$400,000$0$0$0$0$0Sylvandale Road Neighborhood Rehabilitation 113 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Brompton/Winston Water Main Replacement107 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Victoria Curve 114 $0$0$0$400,000 $0$0$0$0Marie/Dodd Mini Roundabout119 $0$0$0$0 $450,000 $0$0$0Wentworth/Dodd Mini Roundabout120 $0$0$0$0 $450,000 $0$0$0Friendly Hills Water Main Replacement106 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Decorah Realignment w/Wagon Wheel121 $0$0$0$0$0 $500,000$0$0Dodd & Highway 62 Intersection - Super street 122 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Delaware Reconstruction - Marie to Dodd$0$0$0$0 $75,000 $250,000 $600,000 $0Total Expenditures$1,000,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $975,000 $750,000 $600,000 $0Unreserved Cash Balance (12/31)$65,558 $118,123 $170,688 $223,253 -$299,182 -$596,617 -$744,052 -$291,487page 296 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 2 , 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-44 Rejecting Bids for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements and Authorizing an Advertisement for Bids for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2019-44 rejecting bids for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvement Project and authorizing an advertisement of bids for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND The Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvement project was authorized to be bid at the City Council meeting on May 21, 2019 which set a bid opening date of June 26, 2019. Bids were opened and tabulated per Statute. One bid was received for the project. The bid received from GMH Asphalt Corporation was $2,841,905.40 which exceeds the engineer’s estimate of $2,228,615.40 or 28 percent above the estimate. The accompanying letter highlights the bid results and reasons for the lack of bids and higher costs. DISCUSSION The recommendation from TKDA, city consultant, is to reject the bid from GMH asphalt and rebid the project without Marie Avenue. The project scope would be reduced to the Wesley Neighborhood improvements and the Dodd Road Trail. This proposal will allow Marie Avenue to only be closed during one season, although the roadway has a failing surface and will require additional city resources to fill the potholes ahead of a planned 2020 construction. BUDGET IMPACT The Wesley Neighborhood Improvements are proposed to be financed by Special Assessments, Municipal Bonds, and Utility Funds. The Engineer’s estimate on this project is not expected to change substantially. A financial update for the two phases of Marie Avenue will be presented at a later date. page 297 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council reject the bids for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements and authorize an advertisement for bids on the Wesley Neighborhood Improvement Project. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON THE WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 298 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-44 A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON THE WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed construction of bituminous pavement reclamation, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, concrete curb and gutter repair, catch basin repair, bituminous surfacing, land bridge work, pond excavation, watermain, storm sewer, and appurtenant work of rehabilitating Marie Avenue, Wesley Lane, Wesley Court, Spring Creek Circle, Mager Court, and South Lane including trail Improvements on Marie Avenue and Dodd Road, 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 GMH Asphalt Corporation $2,841,905.40 and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the bid submitted by GMH Asphalt Corporation of Chaska, Minnesota, be rejected, and WHEREAS, Mendota Heights desires that the Wesley Neighborhood improvements be advertised for construction in 2019. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the bids for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvement project are hereby received and rejected. 1. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for improvements on the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, July 31, 2019, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of July, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ___________________________ _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor page 299 page 300 page 301 page 302 page 303 page 304 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Park and Recreation Commission Resignation Date: July 2, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to accept the resignation of Ira Kipp from the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, and give direction as to filling the vacancy. Background: Ira Kipp has served on the Parks and Recreation Commission since February 1, 2012. His most recent term was set to expire 1/31/2021. Mr. Kipp has provided staff with his notice to resign immediately from the Commission, as he has accepted a position on another (non-city) board, the meeting time of which conflicts with the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission. Because of that, he has indicated his desire to resign immediately, so that someone else can fill the position. His knowledge and passion for the Mendota Heights parks system will be missed. Discussion: His departure will leave an unexpired term of approximately 19 months. A replacement should be determined. Unless the Council wants to leave the vacancy unfilled until the 2020 selection process next January, it has three options: 1. Select and appoint a candidate without advertising. 2. Advertise the availability of the seat, and select from amongst those candidates. (Staff is aware of at least one new candidate who is interested). 3. Contact the seven individuals who were interviewed, but not selected during the January, 2019 interview process. The Council could either re-interview those, or select one of those without interviewing, based on the previous process. Recommendation: The Council should accept, with regret, the resignation of Ira Kipp from the Parks and Recreation Commission, and give direction to staff as to the preferred replacement process. page 305 Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept with regret the resignation of Ira Kipp from the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission, effective July 2, 2019. Further, it should give direction to staff as to its preferred method to select a replacement. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 306