2019-08-07 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of July 16, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c. Acknowledge the July 11, 2019 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
d. Acknowledge the March 20, 2019 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes
e. Acknowledge the May 14, 2019 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes
f. Approval of Temporary Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy, Sept 25-27, 2019
g. Approve Resolution 2019-55 Acceptance of MOMS Club Donation
h. Approve Police Officer Hire
i. Approve Purchase Order for Hagstrom King Park Basketball Expansion
j. Approve Purchase Order for Marie Park Pickle Ball Striping
k. Resolution 2019-56 Accept Plans and Authorize an Advertisement for Bids on the Town
Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements
l. Acknowledge Fire Synopsis from June 2019
m. Approval of Claims List
6. Citizen Comment Period
*see guidelines below
7. Presentations
a. Proclamation Recognizing the Saint Thomas Academy Class AAA Baseball State Tournament
Championship
b. Presentation of Recognition Plaque to Ira Kipp for His Service on the Parks and Recreation
Commission
8. Public Hearings-none
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2019-53 Approving a Critical Area Permit for New Garage/Living/Deck Additions
to 1175 Orchard Place (Planning Case No. 2019-21)
b. Resolution 2019-54 Approving a Conditional Use Permit with Variance for Oversized
Garage Structure located at 2319 Swan Drive (Planning Case No. 2019-22)
c. Resolution 2019-57 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Wesley Neighborhood
Improvements
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, July 16, 2019
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel
were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
A moment of silence was held in memory of Police Officer Scott Patrick (EOW July 30, 2014).
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
A) UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL BY PAUL OBERHAUS, CPMI
Mr. Paul Oberhaus, Construction Manager, stated that the power lines at the Fire Station site have now
been relocated and the rest of the site has been cleared. The footings for the foundation of the north
addition and for the museum addition on the east side have been installed.
Coming up, the block work and backfilling will be completed, and the walls will be erected along the
perimeter. Toward the end of this month, the hope is to have the precast plank fit to form the mezzanine
floor. In early August, the bar joists and deck will be going up on the roof.
He said that the project is currently running behind schedule, but the goal is to have the building enclosed
before the onset of winter.
page 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar for approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval, pulling
items f.) Approve Purchase Orders for the Control of Invasive Plant Species within Valley Park, Rogers
Lake Park, Copperfield Ponds Park, and the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Site and k.) Approval of
Claims List.
a. Approval of July 2, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of July 9, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes – City Attorney Interviews
c. Approval of July 9, 2019 Joint Council–Parks Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes
d. Approve Temporary Liquor License for Holy Family Maronite Church for Sept 6-8, 2019
e. Approve Agreement with Seminole Funding Resources, LLC, and Northfield Solar LLC, relating to a
subscription to a solar garden in Rice County
f. Approve Purchase Orders for the Control of Invasive Plant Species within Valley Park, Rogers Lake
Park, Copperfield Ponds Park, and the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Site
g. Approve Out of State Travel for Fire Department
h. Acknowledge May 2019 Fire Synopsis
i. Acknowledge April – May Par 3 Financial Reports
j. Approval of the Building Activity Report
k. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
F) APPROVE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES
WITHIN VALLEY PARK, ROGERS LAKE PARK, COPPERFIELD PONDS PARK, AND THE
OȞÉYAWAHE /PILOT KNOB HISTORIC SITE
Councilor Duggan requested a review of the plans for the removal of the invasive species. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the city has been working with Great River Greening for several years
on controlling invasive species. At Valley Park, the focus has been on removing buckthorn and garlic
mustard. Xcel Energy has proposed to have an Xcel employee volunteer event, which will help to offset
some of the costs for hauling the Buckthorn out of the area.
At Rogers Lake Park, this is the third year for treatment of buckthorn removal. This year, the focus would
be on the western edge of the lake. At Copperfield Ponds Park, this is the first year for treatment. The
work will include removing some undesirable trees and buckthorn. They hope to open up oak grove vistas
and contain some maples. They will also do a reduction of the dogwoods. At the Pilot Knob Historic Site,
they plan to begin phase four. The city has been working on converting this area back to native prairie.
Councilor Duggan asked if Mr. Ruzek believed these efforts are being successful. Mr. Ruzek replied in
the affirmative, however, it is very challenging.
Councilor Miller asked if there was a date set for the Xcel Energy event. Mr. Ruzek replied that the actual
date has not been set. This would be an Xcel event and not open to the public.
page 4
Councilor Duggan moved to authorize purchase orders for the control of invasive plant species within
Valley Park, Rogers Lake Park, Copperfield Ponds Park, and the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Site.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
K) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST
Councilor Duggan asked for the number of trees that had been removed for the payment of $4,975 to
Savatree. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that the city had budgeted $30,000 for tree removal,
primarily emerald ash. This bill was for the removal of three large boulevard trees.
At this time the city is having a tree survey completed of the city’s parks that may indicate that emerald
ash borer is spreading throughout the community. It is anticipated that the city will see similar invoices in
the future and staff will likely recommend increasing the annual budget amount for next year’s budget.
Councilor Miller asked if the trees had been replaced. Mr. McNeill replied that at this point, the cost was
only for the removal. Staff will be looking at the possibility of replacements later.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve the Claims List.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
PUBLIC HEARING
A) RESOLUTION 2019-50 ORDER PLANS FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE BOULDER
RETAINING WALLS IMPROVEMENTS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek introduced Mr. Anthony Sellner of Stonebrooke Engineering, who
explained the Town Center/Village boulder retaining wall improvement project. In 2004, these boulder
walls were constructed on Outlot E, located at Oak Street and Market Street. In 2018, it was identified
that the walls were failing and jersey barriers were added for safety along the trail. It is believed that the
cause of the failure was due to the improper sizes of the boulders based on the height of the wall and due
to some backfill issues.
Additionally, it is proposed to reconstruct the wall at Victoria Road and Walsh Lane at the same time,
which was constructed in 2015. It was identified as failing in 2018. There is an inch of block separation
currently, due to lack of geo-grid installation on this four to five-foot high wall.
page 5
Stonebrooke Engineering has proposed a boulder wall replacement on Outlot E with larger rocks. The
Outlot E retaining wall reconstruction, including indirect costs, is estimated to be $411,701. Funding for
the Outlot E would be through assessments and municipal bonds.
The Victoria Rd S–Walsh Lane modular block wall reconstruction, including indirect costs, is estimated
to be $58,415. They hope to salvage and reinstall most of the block in place. They would install wire
fences and ornamental fences and reestablish landscaping on the site. This would be funded with
municipal bonds.
It is anticipated that the reconstruction would be completed by November 2019.
Councilor Miller asked if the boulders being removed from Outlot E would be repurposed elsewhere.
Mr. Sellner replied that there are options available for the reuse of the boulders. They could be used for
the upper layers of the new wall, or they could be reused for another project. The cost for the contractor
to move the boulders to another site for storage has been factored into the cost.
Councilor Miller noted that he would prefer that the city stockpile the boulders for future use.
Councilor Paper asked for the approximate number of square feet of the wall on Victoria Curve. Mr.
Sellner replied that it is approximately 805 square feet. Councilor Paper asked if they would reuse the
bottom rows of block. Mr. Sellner replied that the block seems to be in good shape and they intend to
reuse as much as possible.
Regarding the Village, Councilor Paper asked if there would be enough space to get large equipment in
there to move the boulders. Mr. Sellner answered that with the parking lot behind the commercial
properties and the trail, they would have plenty of room for the equipment.
Councilor Paper asked what would ensure that the city could find a contractor willing to do this work.
Mr. Sellner replied that there is never a guarantee for securing a contractor. Many contractors for
building boulder walls are one man crews. Because of the stacking that is required, a second person may
be needed.
When asked what they would do differently to prevent wall failure, Mr. Sellner replied that they would
be installing their own select stock and would control what kind of backfill would go behind the wall.
The fence at the top of the wall would be one to two feet back from the top edge of the wall.
Councilor Duggan asked if there would be any contact with the residents in the area being impacted. Mr.
Ruzek replied that most of the impacted neighbors in The Village are being notified as this is a specially
assessed project. The Homeowners Association has been very involved with this project. As for Walsh
Lane, the City plans to notify the one landowner who would be impacted.
Councilor Petschel moved to open the public hearing.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 6
No one wished to be heard on this issue.
Mayor Garlock moved to close the public hearing.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-50 ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TOWN
CENTER/VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT #201810).
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2019-51 APPROVING (OR DENYING) A VARIANCE TO ISD NO. 197 FOR
NEW AQUATICS CENTER AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL, 1870 DELAWARE
AVENUE (PLANNING CASE 2019-18)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that on July 11, 2019, the Planning
Commission held a special public hearing to reconsider the variance request for the aquatic center. Mr.
Benetti shared architectural renderings and conceptual site plans showing the building elevations, the
landscaping, and the berm.
Councilor Petschel noted the addition of the pollinator friendly landscaping and that the lights and
signage on the east side of the building were addressed.
Councilor Duggan asked for confirmation that the School District and the School Board had been
apprised of the changes in the resolution. Mr. Benetti confirmed that they have been informed.
Councilor Duggan expressed his appreciation to the efforts put in by the community, school district, and
the staff in coming up with an excellent product.
Mayor Garlock stated that he received many emails and texts from residents expressing their approval of
this project and variance request.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-51 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A
NEW AQUATIC CENTER AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE
AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-18).
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 7
B) RESOLUTION 2019-46 DENYING (OR APPROVING) A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED
DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2091-14)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Mr. Jim Carlson for
property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue. Mr. Carlson is looking to build a new detached garage in his
rear yard and is asking for a variance to the required side-yard setback for a new driveway to the new
garage. City Code requires all driveways in residential zones to be 5-feet from the side lot lines. Mr.
Carlson’s proposed driveway would leave a setback of only 2.5 feet.
The subject property is 1.77 acres in size with a 5,345 square foot single-family residential dwelling
with an attached garage. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the site and indicated the location of the home,
the current driveway, the proposed new garage, and proposed new driveway.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on May 28, 2019 and tabled it. They
directed staff to work with the applicant on alternatives to reduce or eliminate the need for the variance.
This item was presented again at the Planning Commission’s June 25th meeting where staff reported the
most feasible option for the driveway location was as originally requested. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of this application by a vote of 6-1.
Councilor Duggan asked if there would be enough of a driveway entrance for a fire truck to access the
new garage should a fire break out. Mr. Benetti replied probably not. Councilor Miller noted that the
firefighters would most likely drive in as far as possible and then pull a hose to the site of the fire. From
a firefighter perspective, he did not have any concerns.
Councilor Duggan stated, having walked the property quite a bit, that he could not see any other way
this could be done reasonably. He suggested that the language in the third WHEREAS in the resolution
of approval should read . . .”encroach 50% in the required five-foot setback . . .” He also stated that the
property is currently well screened and he expected that would continue in the future.
Councilor Paper stated that the intent of the rule to allow an extra garage on a large property seems to be
that if one had a large property, they would have flexibility. In this case, there are trees in the back
corner and it also does not seem reasonable. However, looking at a garage on the other side of the
property, along Wachtler, seems like something that could be done without encroaching on any
neighbor. He questioned the water runoff if a significant rainfall were to occur; and the pressure that
would be put on the retaining wall.
Mr. Benetti replied that this would require a variance to the front yard setback. Although the home is
situated at an angle, it appears this area is the side yard and it is actually the front yard because it is
along the Wachtler Avenue right-of-way and a garage cannot be built in the front yard.
Additional discussion occurred between the Council and Mr. Benetti on the need for significant fill due
to the grade of the property if the garage and/or driveway were located elsewhere on the property.
Councilor Miller pointed out the second ‘practical difficulties’ test that states that “the plight of the
property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner”;
page 8
however, there are opportunities to find alternatives. He understands the ease the proposed location
would provide, however, he cannot agree with it.
Councilor Petschel stated that her major concern with this application was the drainage between this lot
and the neighbors. Making a change to the backyard aesthetics may become necessary to accomplish a
desired action and still be in compliance.
Mayor Garlock also walked the property and talked to Mr. Benetti about the pavers and the ability to
drain the water.
Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, stated that he has started building a retaining wall, to correct
the drainage issue. His neighbor has expressed appreciation for it because he has been getting water into
his basement. The new garage would add five to seven feet of space on each side of the existing shed’s
footprint. Putting the new garage near Wachtler Avenue would ruin the entire view of the yard. By
putting a garage door on the backside of the current garage would be problematic. The easiest way to get
into the new garage is via the proposed driveway.
Councilor Duggan asked if the new garage would have the appropriate setbacks. Mr. Benetti replied that
Mr. Carlson’s 186 square foot garage would require a 10-foot setback off of the north and 10-foot
setback off of the east line. The proposed building meets that.
Councilor Paper asked for clarification on the permeable pavers that are to be used. Mr. Carlson replied
that he believed them to be approximately 5-inches in depth, 2-feet wide by 2-feet long. He then asked if
the retaining wall, because of the height and width and then the addition of load, needed some kind of
stabilization. Mr. Carlson replied that the wall would only be three feet high and they plan to put in class
five recycled concrete and back-fill. He just needs enough space to get past the house.
Councilor Paper asked what was preventing them from having an 8.9-foot driveway at the corner of the
garage (pinch point). Mr. Carlson said he could probably do that. Councilor Paper pointed out that if that
was done, he would not need a variance. Councilor Paper asked for confirmation that an 8-foot 10.5-
inch driveway off of the corner of the garage would not need a variance. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, spoke at the Planning Commission meeting and most of
his comments are already in the record there. He shared an image of the subject property and indicated
where a current driveway is already located and a flat area of the rear yard where he believed the new
garage could be placed. It seemed to him that there were other options for this garage.
To him, the installation of a driveway per Mr. Carlson’s request would equate to an alley being installed
behind his property. Mr. Carlson states that he would most likely only use the driveway once or twice a
year, which does not seem reasonable to him. Mr. Carlson would not be living on the property forever
and this would be a permanent change, a permanent alley.
Mr. Trojack addressed Planning Commissioner Mazzitello’s comments from the Planning Commission
meeting regarding the retaining wall. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that because a retaining wall
could not be driven on, the wall would have to be placed on the outside of the 11.5 feet driveway.
page 9
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that they would not be leaving a setback of 2.5 feet; they would be
exhausting the entire setback area.
Mr. Allen Weslander, 798 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that his property runs along Mr. Carlson’s
property. By building this retaining wall, installing permeable blocks, and putting in a driveway, the
erosion issues would be eliminated. He explained that Mr. Carlson has made a lot of improvements on
this property and this proposed roadway and garage would be top notch.
Councilor Paper asked Mr. Carlson to confirm that the fence sits on his property. Mr. Carlson
confirmed. Councilor Paper asked if the fence was going to stay or if he would be putting the retaining
wall up to the edge of the property line to gain as much space as possible.
Councilor Duggan noted that if the retaining wall eliminates the entire setback, he would not be in
support. He would prefer that the applicant come back with engineering drawings. He explained that
Mr. Carlson has the right to build a garage. However, having the need to store stuff is not a sufficient
reason to approve a variance for the installation of the driveway to get to the garage, when there are
other options available to solve the problem.
Councilor Petschel expressed her concerns about the strength of the retaining wall to drive upon. She
was not against the retaining wall itself. However, they could put in the retaining wall without the
installation of the driveway – they are not necessarily tied together.
Councilor Paper asked what kind of blocking he was proposing to use. Mr. Carlson stated that he chose
the largest block from Menards, 65 lbs. each. Councilor Paper concluded that he was concerned about
the additional load being put on the retaining wall at the pinch point. Mr. Carlson stated that he would
work with the installer on that since he is the expert.
Councilor Duggan stated that he believed the Council should consider tabling this request and have Mr.
Carlson return with designs and additional information. This would allow the Council to address what is
going to be done.
Councilor Petschel expressed her desire to make a clear decision now and if the Council is wavering on
any issues then they should deny the request and they could waive the year waiting period before Mr.
Carlson could return.
Councilor Paper stated that if Mr. Carlson were to come up with an alternative plan that did not need a
variance, then he would not need to come back at all.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-46 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR
REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO.
2019-14).
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion, and proposed a friendly amendment to add to the motion,
waiving the waiting period to return to Council. Councilor Duggan agreed to the friendly amendment.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 10
C) RESOLUTION 2019-52 APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that with the resignation of Mr. Ira Kipp from the Parks and
Recreation Commission, the Council directed staff to contact each of the seven candidates who applied
to the Commission in January 2019. Five of the previous seven candidates were still interested in the
position. The Council was asked to determine which of these five individuals should be appointed to the
vacant position. The position’s term would expire on January 31, 2021.
Mayor Garlock nominated Mr. Patrick Cotter to the Park and Recreation Commission.
Councilor Petschel seconded the nomination.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-52 APPOINTING MR. PATRICK COTTER
TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) APPROVE CONTRACT FOR MUNICIPAL LAW SERVICES
WITH BEST AND FLANAGAN
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that City Attorney Andrew Platt resigned from the law firm
of Eckberg-Lammers in May 2019 to take a new position with Best and Flanagan. The city then sent out
Requests for Proposals for legal services. Mr. Platt agreed to serve as City Attorney during the interim.
Nine firms responded to the RFP and the City Council interviewed four of them. The consensus of the
City Council was to approve Best and Flanagan, with Mr. Pratt serving as the primary attorney.
Councilor Petschel asked for confirmation that an indemnity paragraph was included in the contract. Mr.
McNeill confirmed.
Councilor Paper asked if there had been any discussion with Best and Flanagan about the per-meeting
rate to be $200 rather than $300. Mr. McNeill replied that Best and Flanagan does not charge for travel
time as some firms do. Staff felt that if they did not charge for travel time, then the $300 per-meeting
rate would be acceptable.
Councilor Petschel moved to authorize the execution of a Contract for Legal Services with the law firm
of Best and Flanagan.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 11
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the final two concerts for the Summer Concert Series
in Mendakota Park will be held on July 24 – Kids Dance and August 8 – Goombas. The Cliff Timm
Memorial Fishing Derby will be held on August 1, 2019. Night to Unite is taking applications for block
parties. He reminded residents to register on the city’s website. The next City Council meeting will be
held on Wednesday, August 7th, due to Night to Unite being held on Tuesday, August 6th. He reminded
residents to check the MnDOT website for work being done on I-494 and possible closings of lanes and
ramps. Observance of the 5th anniversary of the passing of Officer Scott Patrick will be held on July 30th
at the West St. Paul site where the incident occurred at 12:20 p.m.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Mayor Garlock expressed his appreciation to the City of Mendota for allowing Councilor Paper and
himself to walk in their parade last weekend.
Councilor Paper stated that this was a good meeting. He expressed his appreciation and looks forward to
the high school swimming pool moving forward.
Councilor Duggan congratulated the school on the new aquatic center to be built. He requested Chief
McCarthy address the upcoming changes in the law regarding hands-free driving and use of cell phones.
Chief McCarthy noted that on August 1, 2019, it will be against the law to have a cell phone in hand while
driving. This would be a moving violation. The only exception would be for emergency phone calls. If
the cell phone is on a stand on the dashboard, it must be one-touch activation. A person cannot be typing
or moving between apps on a cell phone. It must be voice controlled or one-touch only.
Councilor Duggan announced that his son has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
ATTEST: Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 12
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 26
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 13
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 26
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 14
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 26
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 15
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 26
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.
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
page 16
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 26
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.
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.”
page 17
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 26
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
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
page 18
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 26
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
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
page 19
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 26
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
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.
page 20
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 26
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 Olson-Skog. 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:
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
page 21
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 26
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
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.
page 22
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 26
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
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.
page 23
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 26
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
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
page 24
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 26
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.
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
page 25
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 26
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.
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.
page 26
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 26
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.
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.
page 27
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 26
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
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
page 28
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 26
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.
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.
page 29
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 26
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
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.
page 30
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 26
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.
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
page 31
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 26
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
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
page 32
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 26
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.
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
page 33
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 26
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.”
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
page 34
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 26
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.
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
page 35
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 26
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.
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.
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.
page 36
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 26
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.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
Planning Case #2019-10
Southview Design, Property next to 2383 Pilot Knob Road
Interim Use Permit
Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Case #2019-12
Check Mastel, 1341 Cherry Hill Road
Variance
Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Case #2019-13
Mark & Stacy Roszkowski, 660 Hidden Creek Trail
Wetlands Permit
Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Case #2019-15
Nona Mosvick, 1133 Orchard Place
Lot Split – Subdivision
Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Upcoming in July:
Metro Storage, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
1175 Orchard Place, Wetlands Permit
page 37
June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 26
2319 Swan Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
1133 Orchard Place, Critical Area Permit
July 11, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. – Special Meeting re: the HSHS Aquatic Center Variance
Joint Workshop Meeting with City Council is to be scheduled
The Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council with minor adjustments
and is currently under the six month review period with the adjacent and affected
jurisdictions. Three reviews have been received currently.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:58 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 38
July 11, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 6
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2019
The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, July
11, 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
Hearing Continuation
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-18
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #197 – HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL
VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT
Upon seeing quite a few residents in attendance, Chair Magnuson clarified for the record that this
was a request for a height variance; it is not about whether or not there would be a swimming pool.
There is no need for a lot of conversation about the need for a pool. What they do need to talk
about is the design. The conversations that the school district has had with the area residents who
were concerned about the siting of the facility, the landscaping, and other issues. She requested
the attendees limit their comments to the item under consideration; which was the height variance.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked for a show of hands of how many of the attendees were in favor
of the height variance and were in support of the construction of the Aquatic Center. Mr. Mazzitello
reported approximately 90% of the attendees raised their hands.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Independent School District #197
on behalf of Henry Sibley High School requested three Variances to Exceed Maximum Height of
Structures in the R-1 One Family Residential District; for each for the Aquatic Center, the
Gymnasium, and the Entryway. At the June 25, 2019 regular meeting of the Planning Commission,
they elected to recommend approval of the Variance requests for the Gymnasium and the
Entryway. However, due to questions and concerns raised regarding the Aquatic Center Variance
request, it was pulled and the public hearing left open to allow the school district and the developer
to meet with residents.
Mr. Benetti noted for the record that the City Council took action on the two variances related to
the gymnasium and entryway at their July 2, 2019 regular meeting; they adopted Resolution 2019-
48 approving the variances by a vote of 3-1.
Returning to the topic of the Aquatic Center, Mr. Benetti explained that the original request was
for a 35-foot 8-inch height variance; they have lowered that to a 31-foot 8-inch height.
page 39
July 11, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 6
The building was originally placed at a 30-foot setback from Delaware Avenue; it is now being
placed at a 35-foot setback. The school district has also agreed to install a small earthen berm along
the westerly edge of Delaware Avenue in order to provide natural screening of the aquatics
building from the residents.
Mr. Benetti shared images or renderings of the aquatic center building and the landscape plan. He
also shared the Traffic & Parking Analysis and the Variance Process shared at the last Planning
Commission Meeting.
Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects came forward and expressed her appreciation
for the Planning Commission taking time for this special meeting to help with the progress of this
project. She shared the following things that have taken place since the June 25, 2019 meeting:
Three neighborhood meetings – positive and collaborative discussions
Worked diligently and found ways to work balancing both the district’s need to stay within
a very fiscally responsible budget and accommodate being a very good neighbor
Moved the building down by four feet
o They did not lower the original height of the building because of the height required
for the space within it
o They are excavating more soil away to bring the elevation of the building itself down
Added the berms along the side of the building
Created a dense landscaping buffer
Talked with residents about window locations and the use of day lighting
Moved the building back 5 additional feet from Delaware Avenue
Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent stated that he too believed the conversations and meetings
with the neighbors was very positive and collaborative.
Commission Mazzitello expressed his appreciation for the school district working with the
neighbors on the modifications made. He asked if moving the building down by four feet create
any accessibility issues or anything that would put accessibility to the building in jeopardy. Ms.
Anderson-Tuttle replied in the negative and stated that the district has made a real strong
commitment to accessibility on all of the projects; that would not have been something that they
would have been able to do – it actually helped a little bit by elevating the need for some ramping.
Commissioner Noonan noted that the renderings showed the transition in the height of the building
and asked how much of the elevation is above the 25 foot height. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle pointed out
the answer on the rendering.
Commissioner Noonan then asked about the berm and the height thereof; which Ms. Anderson-
Tuttle replied that anything over three feet in height would require a retaining wall. He then asked
about the mature trees being installed, which Ms. Anderson-Tuttle shared the number, height, and
types of trees to be installed.
Chair Magnuson, referencing concerns raised at the last meeting about lights emitting from the
windows, asked if they came to some kind of resolution in their discussions. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle
replied that the discussion had was that the district would be very receptive to including some kind
page 40
July 11, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 6
of window treatments to eliminate night lighting. There was really no discussion about what types
those would be. Shades were committed to but what type of shades has not been determined.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing first to anyone who was in opposition of the variance
request. There were no speakers in opposition to the variance request.
Chair Magnuson then stated that the Commission could take testimony from folks who were in
support of the variance request; and the Commission certainly did not want to preclude anyone
from the opportunity to express themselves. However, given the hands that were raised before the
Commission has a pretty good indication of where the attendees are at on this request; 99.9% of
the people in the room are in support. She opened the floor for anyone who wished to speak but
noted that the Commission understands their position and it would be taken into consideration
during the Commission’s deliberations.
Ms. Adrienne Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, lives directly across Delaware Avenue
from the proposed aquatic center and spoke, reluctantly, in opposition to the aquatic center at the
June 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. However, this evening she was very happy to speak.
Her position on the requested height variance was never about whether or not to build the aquatic
center. She supported a new aquatic center at Sibley High School – she voted for it and believed
it was needed. Her position as a neighbor to the school was grounded in wanting to have a
meaningful dialogue with the district about how to mitigate the effects of then 35-foot tall 197-
foot long wall on the adjacent on the neighborhood. Their concerns related to the aesthetics of the
wall, light pollution, signage, loss of privacy from windows, landscaping, and traffic noise.
At the end of the last hearing the Commission asked the district and architects to meet with the
neighbors about these concerns. The very next day, several neighbors met at the building site with
Mr. Fortman [Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations], Ms. Anderson-Tuttle, and a team of
architects. The meetings were positive and productive and resulted in the renderings included in
the Planning Commission’s packet. They were pleased to see those renderings that the building
was moved five more feet from Delaware Avenue and lowered four feet. They were also glad to
see the density and variety of trees and other landscaping, as well as an additional earthen berm,
all of which would provide additional screening of the wall from the neighborhood and the
buffering of traffic noise. These alterations would also help the aquatic center blend into bucolic
setting of the Sibley Campus with the adjacent residential neighborhood.
This morning a group of neighbors met again with Mr. Olson-Skog, Mr. Fortman, Ms. Anderson-
Tuttle, and Mr. Mannino. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle gave them a detailed landscaping plan, which they
were pleased to see added even more trees and landscaping. They confirmed that the existing berm
along Delaware would remain and that another smaller berm would be added. They also reviewed
samples of the precast concrete panels and were pleased to see that they matched the existing color
scheme of Sibley and would provide texture and visual interest and will blend in well with the
surrounding landscape.
The district also confirmed that they would not propose a sign on the eastern wall in its
Comprehensive Signage Plan. The district agreed to install blinds on eastern windows to prevent
light pollution and to protect the privacy of the residences during meets or other events that would
page 41
July 11, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 6
occur after dusk. The district confirmed that the solar panels on the roof would be installed as far
to the west as possible and would not be visible from the east. The district confirmed that the
building could not be moved any further west without impairing the turning radius needed for the
loading dock.
She believed that the modifications and agreements made by the school district makes the
requested height variance reasonable. Specifically, lowering the building four feet and adding a
three-foot berm brings the perceived height close to the allowable 25 feet. Although she believed
the scale of the eastern wall in proximity to Delaware Avenue would alter the essential character
of the neighborhood, she understood that the relevant locality for the purposes of the practical
difficulties test includes both the Sibley Campus and the residential neighborhood. She was also
persuaded that the Sibley property is unique in that it is an institution located in a residential area
and that locating the pool elsewhere would take away from other desired uses of the property.
Thus, she believed that the school district met the practical difficulties test to obtain the variance.
She expressed her appreciation to the representatives of the school district, LSE Architects, and
ICS for meeting with the residents; but most of all for hearing them and truly collaborating with
them and the amount of time and effort they expended to do so. She also expressed her appreciation
to the Planning Commission for granting them the additional time to have these discussions and
for the time and effort expended in connection with this special hearing.
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 TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the
strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical
difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical
difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant
is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of 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 31-ft.-8-inches,
by the following:
i.) The proposed structure height increase is considered a reasonable request, based on
the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus
page 42
July 11, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 6
facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building
on the property; and is 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
proposed aquatics center building [and the related school facility buildings] are 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 is less than what exists today on the
school campus site, 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 can be considered a reasonable
improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students,
faculty, and the community. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated an effort
to reducing the impacts to the neighborhoods by reducing the height of the proposed
aquatics building, moving the building away from the adjacent roadway, and
installing a new earthen berm as an added area and elevation for trees and plantings
that will provide an effective, natural screening to the neighborhoods.
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 July 11, 2019 (both on file with the City
of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-51.
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 the proposed aquatics
center building and related improvements and structures identified herein.
2) The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the height of the new aquatic
structure 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.
page 43
July 11, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 6
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.
5) The landscape plan shall be submitted to city staff for review by the Master
Gardener Volunteers.
Commissioner Noonan also asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to add in another
condition that relates to what the school district promised so that there is a record of it in the
decision; specifically about the promise of no signage placed on the eastern faced wall of the
aquatic center. Furthermore, the school district agreed to provide the appropriate window
treatments on the eastern faced wall as well. Mr. Benetti replied that the minutes could speak for
that as they are the official forms of record of what was discussed and agreed to this evening, but
adding the conditions is also appropriate.
Commissioner Noonan suggested the following verbiage:
6) The future Comprehensive Signage Plan would not include a sign on the eastern facing
wall of the aquatic center
7) As plans are advanced, the school district will provide information on window
treatments on the eastern facing wall of the aquatic center
Commissioner Mazzitello agreed to this friendly amendment to his motion, as did Commissioner
Toth.
Commissioner Noonan expressed his thoughts on the time well spent in the discussions as they
provided a great opportunity for consultation with the neighbors to allow for an improvement of
the plans and for addressing the concerns. This was a great example of what community
consultations should look like and the results that can emerge from that process.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 16, 2019
meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:34 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 44
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
March 20, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at Mendota Heights City Hall.
1. Call to Order
Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
2. Roll Call
The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Gina Norling, William Dunn, Sally
Lorberbaum, Jim Neuharth, and Arvind Sharma. Absent: Kevin Byrnes.
Also present: Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Mark McNeill
3. Approval of Minutes
Dunn noted in 5.d that he had not made the comment regarding “noise sensors in Eagan”. It
should be changed to “It was noted…” Lorberbaum also corrected the plural of “monitors” in
the same section.
Motion by Dunn/Second by Norling to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2019 ARC
meeting. Motion carried 4-0; Sharma abstained.
4. Unfinished and New Business
a. Election of Chair—Sloan called for nominations to be Commission Chair for 2019.
Nomination of David Sloan to be 2019 Chair by Lorberbaum; seconded by Dunn.
There were no other nominations. Sloan was elected Chair 6-0.
Election of Vice Chair-- Sloan called for nominations to be Commission Vice-Chair
for 2019. Nomination of Sally Lorberbaum to be 2019 Vice-Chair by Dunn;
seconded by Sloan. There were no other nominations. Lorberbaum was
elected Vice-Chair 6-0.
b. Turboprop Request—Jacobson distributed a letter that Neuharth had drafted and
dated February 19th, which asked staff at MSP to devise a plan to deal with
turboprops turning out of the corridor and going over the northern part of Mendota
Heights. Neuharth said that it had been as a result of a complaint at the last public
meeting. It was noted that this issue has gone back as far as 2016, and is a result of
air freight operations.
Jacobson reviewed a 2016 presentation, which said that the FAA encouraged
turboprops to leave the corridor as soon as possible, so as to not delay departing
jets. It was determined that the turboprop topic should be brought up proactively
for the April 24th listening session. MAC staff Brad Juffers and Dana Nelson could be
asked to put this on as a “Turboprop 101” explanation. It was decided to hold off on
sending the letter.
page 45
c. ARC Work Plan for 2019—Those present reviewed the proposed 2019 ARC Work
Plan, which had first been discussed at the January meeting.
Recommended Changes to the 2017 Work Plan:
Page 1—No changes
Page 2—First section—Change the format for items listed under “powers and
duties” from A, B, and C; to 1, 2, and 3. Also, after spelling out the full name of the
Commission in #1, change the remaining references to the Commission, to “ARC”.
Change “Objectives and Approach”, to “Goals” here, and throughout the remainder
of the document. Where “Commission” is referenced, change to
“ARC”. Change “issues” to “goals” in paragraph under 2019 Goals.
Page 3—Under the second bullet point in Goal 2, spell out “NOC” as “Noise
Oversight Committee”.
Page 4—Add bullet point under Goal 3: “Conduct Joint Meetings with Neighboring
Communities”.
Page 5—Eliminate dashes in second bullet point. Change third bullet point to
“Televise ARC meetings as agenda content dictates”. Add final bullet point to read
”Add ARC Minutes to City Council Agenda for review”. There was also discussion as
to how to better utilize the City’s social media options to better educate residents.
The Commissioners agreed to create a short story after each ARC meeting, for
inclusion in the Friday News. McNeill said that he would check with NDC4 as to
their ability to televise ARC meetings on a regular basis.
It was also recommended that the April 24th listening session be televised.
Dunn moved to accept the 2019 Work Plan, with the discussed changes. Second by
Lorberbaum. Approved 6-0.
d. Discussion of ARC Meeting Starting Time—The Commissioners discussed a possible
change in the starting time for the regular ARC meetings from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
No one expressed concerns about the change. Motion by Dunn, second by Norling,
to have future ARC meetings start at 6:00 PM. Motion carried 6-0. Jacobson also
said that the ARC might consider going to meeting every other month, similar to the
meeting schedule for the Eagan.
e. ARC Meeting Topics—The Commission discussed possible topics for the upcoming
months. Possible guests, subjects and dates included:
• May--Joint Meeting with Eagan ARC
• June—Joint meeting with the City Council
• August--MAC Representative Richard Ginsburg as guest
page 46
• September—invite Dana Nelson to do follow-up on the Norlings’ delayed turn
question, which was first brought up in June, 2018
• November--Invite area legislators
• January—review of 2020 goals
Other possible topics were airport security, and inviting air freight companies to
meet with the ARC.
There was discussion as to whether August was to be an off month. The consensus
was to keep it on the calendar, as well as the other months, except December. If
there was no reason to meet, the meeting could be cancelled the week or two prior.
f. Review of Airport Operational Statistics and Statistical Links
Complaints—Jacobson had attended the NOC meeting which had been held
earlier that afternoon. She said that it was noted that the complaints from Mendota
Heights were the lowest that they had been in four years. That was reflected in the
charts.
Turboprop Operations—Neuharth said that the charts showed nothing
significant, except that some control charts were shown to exceed control limits. He
will work with Byrnes to see if explanations for the “exceed” locations can be noted
on the charts, as they had been in previous charts. He will also work with Byrnes to
place the labels of the controls limits on the left side of the charts.
g. MAC Update—Sharma said that the Final Four Basketball tournament to be held the
first weekend of April is expected to generate some additional traffic, but the impact
would be nothing like what had happened with the 2018 Super Bowl. He also said
that total operations were bottomed out in 2017, but edged upwards in 2018. He
also reviewed new and overall destinations.
h. Air Sensors—There was no report on noise monitors.
5. Other Business
a. March 20 NOC Meeting—Chair Sloan reported that the NOC meeting held earlier
that day was a relatively light agenda. They showed the 2018 noise contours, which
were slightly smaller in some areas, and slightly larger in areas in south Minneapolis.
6. Public Comments
No members of the public were present.
7. Commissioner Comments
None.
8. Adjourn
Motion Sloan/Second Dunn to adjourn at 8:29 PM
Minutes Taken By:
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 47
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
JOINT MEETING WITH EAGAN ARC
MAY 14, 2019
A joint meeting of the Eagan and Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commissions was held on Tuesday,
May 14, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.
Those present from the Eagan ARC were Michael Johnson, Debra Dulligner, Theresa Hughes, Joseph
Axmacher, and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Jeff Spartz and Philippe Girard were absent.
Mendota Heights Attendance: David Sloan, Sally Lorberbaum, William Dunn, Gina Norling, James
Neuharth, Kevin Byrnes, Arvid Sharma and Mark McNeill, Administrator.
The meeting was called to order by Interim Chair Johnson.
AGENDA
Commissioner Hughes moved, Commissioner Spartz seconded a motion to approve the agenda as
presented. All members voted in favor.
PRESENTATIONS
Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer
State of the Airport
MAC Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Brian Ryks gave a presentation on the State of the
Airport.
UPDATES ON CURRENT EFFORTS BY THE COMMISSIONS
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the MAC is currently conducting mobile noise monitoring at
two sites in Eagan: Mueller Farm Park and Thomas Lake Park. The goals will determine if gaps in the
Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) coverage area currently exists and determine if two of the RMT closes
to Interstate 35-E are properly located to best monitor aircraft noise given the ambient freeway noise.
The objective of the study is to compare data collected from the mobile equipment with data being
collected at RMTs 25 and 37.
Miller also noted at the ARC workshop, Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Relations, provided
an overview of the Runway 17 Departure Study being prepared for the review of the Noise Oversight
Committee.
Mendota Heights Commissioner Norling spoke about the proposed 12L departures noise abatement,
and Commissioners Neuharth and Byrnes spoke on the turbo prop noise impact.
There was no other business. Interim Chair Johnson thanked the members of the Mendota Heights
Commission for attending the meeting.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
page 48
Ted Gladhill, Eagan resident, raised questions about air traffic patterns. Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of
Community Relations responded to the questions. Rebecca MacPherson, Great Lakes Region Regional
FAA Administrator, also responded to the questions.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Axmacher, seconded by Dulligner, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. All members
voted in favor.
Minutes Taken By:
Dianne Miller,
Assistant City Administrator
City of Eagan
page 49
DATE: August 7, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a temporary liquor license for St. Thomas Academy for an event to
be held September 25-27, 2019.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to State Statutes and our City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first
having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses can be granted only to clubs and
charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations. The licenses are subject to final approval by the
Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, is planning to hold their annual
reunion weekend activities on September 25 – 27, 2019. The events will take place as follows:
• Wednesday, September 25, Honor Awards and Benefactor Dinner in the Ciresi Atrium
and Sjoberg Flynn Arena
• Thursday, September 26, Senior Alumni Dinner in Sjoberg Flynn Athletic Arena
• Friday, September 27, Class Reunion and Athletic Hall of Fame Ceremony in the Sjoberg
Flynn Athletic Arena
They have requested a temporary on-sale liquor license to allow for the sale of alcoholic
beverages at these events. St. Thomas Academy has submitted an application and a certificate of
insurance showing liquor liability coverage.
It should be noted that temporary on-sale liquor licenses have been issued in the past to St.
Thomas Academy and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with
no incidents or negative reports.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for St. Thomas
Academy for September 25. 26, 27, 2019, subject to approval of the Director of Alcohol and
Gambling Enforcement.
page 50
Request for City Council Action
DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-55 Acceptance of MOMS Club Donation
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to formally accept a donation which was received from the MOMS Club
of Mendota Heights, MN.
Background
By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a
resolution.
The MOMS Club of Mendota Heights, MN has donated money to plant a tree in one of the
Mendota Heights Parks. Their $150.00 cash donation is to be put towards the cost of the tree.
Staff is working with the MOMS Club to schedule their annual tree planting ceremony. It will
likely take place in September. The club has requested the tree be planted at Hagstrom-King Park.
The City is grateful for this donation.
Budget Impact
There is no budget impact.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2019-55.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt Resolution 2019-55.
page 51
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-55
RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM THE MOMS
CLUB OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03
“Gifts to municipalities”; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State 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 have duly considered this
matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their
donations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights accepts a donation of $150.00 from the MOMS Club of Mendota Heights to
purchase and plant a tree in Mendota Heights.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 52
DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approve Police Officer Hire
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Alexander Randall for the position of Police
Officer.
BACKGROUND
Staff recommends the hiring of Alexander (Alex) Randall to a currently vacant position of Police
Officer. Alex comes to the city from the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office where he has held the
position of Park Ranger since the fall of 2018. Alex has a Bachelor’s degree from Minnesota State
University-Mankato in Law Enforcement. He also serves in the National Guard as a specialist
with the Cavalry Scout/Reconnaissance unit.
Alex’s anticipated start date is August 26, and is dependent upon approval by the City Council
and notice to his employer.
BUDGET IMPACT
This is a budgeted position.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Alexander Randall as Police Officer.
Starting salary will be $5,220 per month based on the 2018-2019 Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Inc. labor agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the hiring of Alexander Randall to the
position of Police Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department.
page 53
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Hagstrom King Park Basketball Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to expand the basketball court at Hagstrom King
Park.
BACKGROUND
The existing court at Hagstrom King Park measures approximately 40 x 50 feet (2000 sq. ft.) with a
hoop at one end. The surface striping has also faded. The court was installed with the park
referendum in 1989. The city expanded the court at Marie Park in 2018 which has generated
additional use.
DISCUSSION
Staff received three quotes to expand the existing half court by adding 1200 sq. ft. of concrete,
installing city supplied adjustable basketball hoops on both ends, and restriping the court. The quotes
are as follows:
Kirchner Contracting, Inc. $11,850
Plan Concrete $12,000
JWS Construction $13,500
The new Basketball hoops will be purchased from BSN Sports for $1500 each. The striping is an
additional $1,200.
BUDGET IMPACT
The costs of this replacement and installation are proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park
Fund. The total cost of this improvement is estimated at $16,050 which is below the estimate of
$20,000.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the Hagstrom King Park Basketball
Improvements to Kirchner Contracting, Inc.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to
Kirchner Contracting Inc. for $11,850. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 54
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Marie Park Pickle Ball Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to complete the surfacing on the Marie Park
hockey rink for pickle ball improvements.
BACKGROUND
The existing hockey rink at Marie Park was striped for pickle ball use. In the past year, the city has
installed permanent nets and filled “birdbaths” in the pavement area with the Marie Park Tennis
Court project. Staff intended that Public Works could complete a repainting of the rink and new
striping. However, due to time constraints, quotes were solicited for this work to be done by a
contractor.
DISCUSSION
Staff received two quotes to install a professional surfacing similar to that of the tennis court. Staff is
proposing that the main rink would be colored in a light blue with white line striping. A lighter color
has been selected to minimize ice melt on sunny winter days. The quotes are as follows:
Surface Pro $11,850
Tennis Court Doctor $35,000
BUDGET IMPACT
The costs of this replacement and installation are proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park
Fund. For reference, the striping of the Marie Park Tennis Court was approximately $15,000.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the Marie Park hockey rink surfacing
for improvements to pickle ball courts.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to
Surface Pro for $11,850. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 55
DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-56 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the
Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve the plans and specifications, and
authorize an advertisement for bid for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder
Retaining Wall Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
The preparation of the feasibility report for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights
Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements, was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by
issuing a professional services contract to Stonebrooke Engineering on February 5, 2019. The
Minnesota Statute 429 process is required because the city intends to assess a portion of the
project.
The feasibility report for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall
Improvements was accepted by the Mendota Heights City Council. The Council called for a
Public Hearing on July 16, 2019 by adopting Resolution 2019-50 at the June 18, 2019, City
Council meeting. The recommendation in the feasibility report was to proceed with this project.
The proposed project includes replacement of failing boulder retaining walls on Outlot E of the
Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights development.
DISCUSSION
The feasibility report indicated the estimated costs for the project, along with preliminary
assessment estimates. At the end of the feasibility report, a project financing summary is
included to show project cost splits and funding sources to be utilized. The total estimated cost of
the boulder type project is $470,215 including indirect costs.
The feasibility report looked at several wall options including, boulder, small block, large block,
and sheet piling. Staff met with affected properties and the boulder wall options was preferred.
City Council also confirmed a recommendation for the boulder walls at their June 18, 2019
meeting.
page 56
BUDGET IMPACT
Improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Pursuant to
the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties should be
assessed 50% of the reconstruction costs. The following tables show the estimated unit
assessments based on the City policy.
PROJECT COSTS
ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT TOTAL
Outlot E Retaining Wall Reconstruction $329,361 $82,340 $411,701
Victoria - Walsh Street Modular Block Wall
Reconstruction
$46,811 $11,703 $58,514
TOTALS $376,172 $94,043 $470,215
FUNDING SOURCES
ITEM COST
ESTIMATE
ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL
BONDS
Outlot E Retaining Wall Reconstruction $411,701 $205,850 $205,851
Victoria - Walsh Street Modular Block
Wall Reconstruction
$58,514 $58,514
Totals $470,215 $205,850 $264,365
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OUTLOT E RETAINING WALL
RECONSTRUCTION
Assessable Costs $411,701
Assessment $205,850
Assessable Units 55
Estimated Unit Assessments per City Policy
The Village of Mendota Heights Town Center Properties *** $116,975
Dakota County CDA $20,565
Mendota Heights Town Center LLC $68,310
Proposed Assessment Total $205,850
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ***The Village of Mendota Heights Town Center
Assessable Costs $116,975
Assessable Units 53
Proposed Unit Assessment per City Policy $2,207
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the plans and specifications for the Town
Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project, and authorize
the advertisement for bids.
The full plan set is available for review at city hall.
page 57
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE
OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 58
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-56
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE
OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and
construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported
on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the Public Works Director to
proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said
improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all
respects approved by the City.
2. 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 said 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., Thursday, August 29, 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 seventh day of August 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 59
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire Synopsis – June 2019 COMMENT:
Fire Calls
In the month of June, the Fire Department was paged to 32 incidents; 22 were located in Mendota
Heights, five were in Lilydale, two in Mendota, two in Sunfish Lake, and one in Rosemount as a
mutual aid request.
The fire calls themselves broke down as follows:
Under the classification of Actual Fires and/or Smoke in a Building: The mutual aid call to
Rosemount was for a water tender (Tanker) to be used with their tenders to battle a structure fire at
a home in an area without fire hydrants.
The department also responded to smoke in a home where the homeowners had thought the issue
was due to a clothes dryer issue. Upon further investigation, the smoke source was from a light/fan
combination in a bathroom. Once discovered, the power was isolated and shut off to that device and
fire cleared. This call also caused an auto-aid for Eagan Fire to respond as well.
The department was paged to a brush fire that was called in by passing motorists on 494. The
homeowner had been burning brush on a wet morning causing a significant amount of smoke. The
homeowner was advised to put the fire out. A delivery truck had a small fire in the engine
compartment but he was able to extinguish the fire before firefighters arrived. Finally, we were also
dispatched to a sprinkler activation in the freezer of Teresa’s restaurant that activated when the
cooling unit overheated.
Under the classification of Medical/Rescue calls: In the month of June the MHFD responded to
seven calls that were either medical in nature or required some type of rescue.
Under the category of Hazardous Situation calls: For the month of June, we had one smell of gas in
a building that was determined to be propane from a grill in the garage. We also had two calls for
CO alarms at the same residence. It was eventually determined to be a bad furnace. Historically,
this would not be a typical issue in the summer, but with some of the new “smart” thermostats, they
can run the AC during the day and flip to heat at night if the temperature drops significantly.
Additionally, we were paged to two smells of gas in the area in which Xcel was advised.
page 60
Under the classification of False Alarms: We responded to six false alarms. Of those six calls, two
were deemed to be unintentional activations, two were coded as malfunctions, and two were listed
as “other”
Finally, we had eleven calls that were cancelled before our arrival.
Department Training Opportunities
June 12 18:30 Company Operations
This drill had crews doing two separate stations, one was going over fire
attack in a structure. Hose deployment in the structure, correct
command procedures, and best practices to both attack a fire scenario
and perform a primary search looking for possible victims were stressed.
Station two worked on proper aerial placement, operation and
deployment including correct hand signals.
June 13 07:00 Pump Operations
This drill occurred at Public Works and consisted of three different stations
and different scenarios. All three scenarios were focused on pumping a
particular truck and fully utilizing the trucks pumping and deployment
capabilities.
June 19 18:30 Driving
Firefighters did a driving and operations function drill. This drill allowed an
opportunity for firefighters to become more proficient in their driving and
operation skills.
June 24 18:30 Company Operations
This drill had crews doing two separate stations, one was going over fire
attack in a structure. Hose deployment in the structure, correct
command procedures, and best practices to both attack a fire scenario
and perform a primary search looking for possible victims were stressed.
Station two worked on proper aerial placement, operation and
deployment including correct hand signals.
June 25 07:00 Ladders
Firefighters were assigned to an engine that went to different areas in the city
and each firefighter was required to go through pumping operations with the
truck, hooking up to their own hydrant, and keeping their firefighters with a
constant flow of water.
June 27 07:00 /18:30 Make Up Training
page 61
Number of Calls 32 Total Calls for Year 178
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $1,200
Structure - MH Residential $2,000
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined $5,000
Vehicle - MH 1 $500 $13,500
Vehicle - Contract Areas $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire 1
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $500
Excessive heat, scorch burns
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 2
Vehicle accident w/injuries 2
Extrication 2 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$500
Medical, other 1
HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $7,000
Spills/Leaks 1
Carbon Monoxide Incident 2 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $13,500
Power line down
Arcing, shorting 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $21,700
Hazardous, Other 3
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0
Assist Police or other agency
Service Call, other
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent
Dispatched & Cancelled 11 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 22 139 101
HazMat release investigation 5 16 10
Good Intent, Other 2 5 7
FALSE ALARMS 2 6 4
False Alarm 1 12 7
Malfunction 2 Total:32 178 129
Unintentional 2
False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
MUTUAL AID 1 INSPECTIONS 34.4
Total Calls 32 INVESTIGATIONS 0
RE-INSPECTION 2
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
MEETINGS 0
FIRE CALLS 436.5 2867.5 1791.5
MEETINGS 85 442.5 231.25 ADMINISTRATION 9
TRAINING 307 2032.5 1905.25
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 11.5 205 83 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 4
FIRE MARSHAL 49.4 97.9 49.5
TOTAL:49.4
TOTALS 889.4 5645.4 4060.5 REMARKS:
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 2019 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Mendota Heights
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: St. Thomas Academy Baseball Championship Proclamation
Date: August 7, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
At the August 7th City Council meeting, the Council will be asked to recognize the St. Thomas Academy
Cadet baseball team for winning the 2019 State Baseball Tournament Championship.
Background:
On June 20th, the STA Cadets played in the Class AAA Championship game of the MSHAA state
baseball tournament. IN that game, the Cadets beat the team from Benilde-St. Margaret 1-0, to win its
first-ever state tournament championship. The team finished with an overall record of 21 wins, and nine
losses.
A proclamation declaring Wednesday, August 7th to be “Saint Thomas Academy State Baseball
Championship Day” in Mendota Heights has been prepared. STA Coach Matt Kelly, and several of the
players are expected to be in attendance to receive it.
Recommendation:
The Council should pass a motion proclaming the special day.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve a proclamation declaring Wednesday, August 7th, to
be Saint Thomas Academy State Baseball Championship Day in Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 78
Proclamation
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Saint Thomas Academy Cadets have had a long tradition of excellence in high school
athletics; and
WHEREAS, the Cadets baseball team played well during the 2019 regular season against some tough
competition; and
WHEREAS, the Cadets qualified for the Minnesota State High School Baseball Tournament, where it
played outstanding baseball, and reached the championship game on June 20, 2019, when they played the
Red Knights of Benilde-St. Margaret High School; and
WHEREAS, the Cadets prevailed in that game, winning by a score of 1-0, thus ending the season with a
record of twenty one wins and nine losses; and
WHEREAS, the team therefore became the 2019 Class AAA State Tournament Champions, doing so for
the first time in school history; and
WHEREAS, the State Championship team roster was comprised of
Keegan Cashill Callan Happe Carter Henry Michael Goblisch
Judd Fenlon Alexander Casale Charles Berg Jordan Young
Charlie Fafinski Patrick Walsh Jack Ogle Tristin Thilmany
Miles Nissly Duke Coburn Murphy Lynch Benjamin Taxdahl
Sean Creamer Joseph Goulet Raleigh Droel Vincent Hubbell
Student Managers Jackson Marquardt Johnny Steveken
Head Coach Matt Kelly
Asst. Coaches Brian Meyer, Dylan Welter, Jon Engeswick, Scott Applebaum, Greg Monahan
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, do hereby proclaim August 7, 2019 to be
“Saint Thomas Academy State Baseball Championship Day”
In Mendota Heights, and further recognize and commend these young men for their athletic skills,
determination, and perseverance in achieving this historic feat.
______________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor
__________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
__________________________
Date
page 79
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Ira Kipp Recognition
Date: August 7, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
At the August 7th City Council meeting, a plaque will be presented to Ira Kipp, in recognition of his
service on the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission.
Background:
Ira Kipp was first appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission on February 1, 2012. In June of
this year, he submitted his resignation from the Commission to the City Council. His resignation was
necessitated due to a meeting time conflict.
On July 2nd, the City Council accepted his resignation with regret.
Recommendation:
In recognition of Mr. Kipp’s service to the City, a plaque should be presented.
Action Required
Mayor Garlock should present a Plaque of Appreciation to Ira Kipp, in recognition of Ira’s more than 7
years of volunteer service to the City as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 80
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit to Andy & Natalie Hunter – for
property located at 1175 Orchard Place (Planning Case No. 2019-21)
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Critical Area Permit to Andy & Natalie
Hunter, for a new garage/living space addition, and the replacement of two decks on the rear yard area of
an existing single-family dwelling. The property is located at 1175 Orchard Place.
Background
Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a
building permit or special zoning approvals.
The Applicants are seeking permission to construct a new 25.5’ x 30’ addition, which will contain a new
two-car garage space with additional living space above, along with a new open deck and a new
enclosed/screened in deck/porch, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related
Critical Area Overlay District standards.
On July 23, 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. A copy of the 07/23/2019 Planning Staff Report, along with
the Planning Commission meeting excerpt minutes, are appended to this memo report.
Discussion
The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning
decisions, such as this critical area permit, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or
not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 6-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit
with specific findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this
recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-53 APPROVING A CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1175 ORCHARD PLACE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 81
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-53
APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1175 ORCHARD PLACE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-21)
WHEREAS, Andy & Natalie Hunter (as “Applicant/Owner”) have applied for a Critical
Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-21, and for the property located at 1175
Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), which is legally described on attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a
critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning
approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new 25.5’ x 30’ addition, which
will contain a new two-car garage space with additional living space above, along with a new open
deck and a new enclosed/screened in deck/porch, subject to the requirements of the applicable
zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion with staff and
the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the
Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place, with certain findings of fact to support such
recommendation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Critical Area Permit for 1175 Orchard Place as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-21 can be
approved based on the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay
District.
B. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this garage/living space addition
and new decks are all minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the
Critical Area.
page 82
C. The proposed garage/living space addition and new deck project is in keeping
with the character of the area.
D. The expansion and construction of this new garage/living addition will comply
with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable
ordinances.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning
Case No. 2019-21, dated and presented July 23, 2019 (on file with the City of
Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the
Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1175 Orchard Place and as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2019-21 is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any demolition
or construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00
PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an
established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 83
EXHIBIT A
PID No. 27-33900-01-020
ADDRESS: 1175 ORCHARD PLACE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
LEGAL:
LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HUNTER BLUFF, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 84
Planning Staff Report
(Amended)
DATE: July 23, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-21
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
APPLICANT: Andy & Natalie Hunter
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1175 Orchard Place
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: August 23, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Applicants are seeking a critical area permit to construct an approximate 25.5’ x 30’ (footprint 765-sf.)
two-car garage addition, with upper living space, to the existing residential dwelling. Plans also call for the
replacement of two decks off the back of the home. The subject property is located at 1175 Orchard Place,
which is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a
critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published
in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located north of where Orchard Place curves southward, turning into Hunter Lane.
Site consists of 1.55 acres of area, and contains a 3,635-sq. ft. two-story dwelling. The property is relatively
flat coming off of Orchard Place, but rises up slightly near the front areas of the home. The back yard is
relatively level throughout, but drops off considerably from the bluff line down to the lower valley located
in nearby Mendota.
Property Location – Aerial Map
page 85
Planning Report-Case #2019-21 Page 2
The plan calls for the new garage/living space addition to take place on the northeast corner of the dwelling
structure. The Hunter’s will also be installing a new patio/deck off the back section of the home overlooking
the bluff area (see Site Plan image – below).
The Hunter’s currently have a small (shallow) two-car attached, tuck-under garage (see image below-left);
and the addition will be built out and in front of this garage, which will provide added garage space for their
personal vehicles, and more living space immediately above the new garage area. (see Site Plan image –
below). Some of the retaining walls shown in the plans will remain or be rebuilt as needed. A sidewalk
leading from the driveway (near the front corner of the existing garage) and which leads up to the raised
back yard space, will be rebuilt and reinforced and shored up with new boulder retaining walls. No
excessive grading or soil disturbance or vegetation removal will occur as part of this project.
The Applicants intend to replace the 735-sf. open deck with a new 1,050-sf. open deck; and replace a
smaller 310-sf. open deck with a slightly smaller, 208-sf. deck with a screened-in/roofed enclosure.
ANALYSIS
According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is:
…to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to
promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to
preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element
in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…
The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are:
page 86
Planning Report-Case #2019-21 Page 3
Section 12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses:
D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels developed and built upon prior to
June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance,
and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the exception of the
slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or detached structures,
provided that:
1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the
existing structure.
2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance standards
and regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site plan
review as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter.
The existing home is situated approx. 680-feet from the Mississippi River, and the new 25.5’ x 30’ addition
does not “encroach closer toward the river…” as noted above, and will have no impact upon this critical
water feature, the bluff line or any other natural environment feature inside this critical corridor area.
Section 12-3-8 provides for the following development standards:
A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and
natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed
to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-
site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent
pollution of surface and ground water.
B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks:
1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward
from the bluff line of the river.
The area where the addition is going on the existing property is relatively flat and level (existing driveway
surface), and there does not appear to be much grading or soil disturbance on the subject site related to this
project, other than the minimal and typical amount needed to install new footing and foundation for the new
garage addition.
The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations
of the zoning ordinance. The new deck and enclosed deck features will also comply with all standards and
regulations of the zoning ordinance as well.
For all intents and purposes, construction of this new addition should have little, if any effect on the bluff area or the
critical area.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no objections.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place, which would allow the
construction of a new 25.5’ x 30’ addition to the existing residential dwelling, and new deck
features as noted in the site improvement plans, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with
certain conditions; or
page 87
Planning Report-Case #2019-21 Page 4
2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place, based on the findings of fact that
the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District as
determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the
site plans for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in
compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for 1175 Orchard Place, which would allow
the construction of a new 25.5’ x 30’ addition to the existing residential dwelling, and new deck features as
noted in the site improvement plans, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant
with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction
work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and
permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
page 88
Planning Report-Case #2019-21 Page 5
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit
for
1175 Orchard Place
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this garage/living space addition and new decks
are all minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area.
3. The proposed garage/living space addition and new deck project is in keeping with the character
of the area.
4. The expansion and construction of this new garage/living addition will comply with all standards
and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances.
page 89
1140
1171
1175
1155
1819
1845
18501855
1154
1827
1149
1840
1831
1835
11451151
1230
1830
1836
1147
1143
1226
1222
1218
1140
1214
1145
1867
1166
ORCHARD PL
HUNTER LNORCHARD CIRSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY1175 ORCHARD PLACE(Andy & Natalie Hunter)City of
Mendota
Heights0140
SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/16/2019
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.
page 90
Hunter Residence Critical Area Permit application
1175 Orchard Place, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Letter of intent
The intent of this project is to add a two‐car attached garage with family living space above to the
Northeast end of the current home. We are also proposing altering the boulder walls and topography
adjacent to the new structure as well (see site plan drawing) to allow stairs to both the front entrance of
the home as well as to the rear yard.
Additionally, the project will potentially be adding a deck/patio and screen porch to the north side of the
home (see site plan). The deck/patio and screen porch project’s designs have not yet been finalized,
however for this submission we felt it appropriate to include them as possible projects. We have shown
the existing building footprint, proposed project outlines, property lines and bluff lines on the site plan
to illustrate that all the proposed projects are well within allowable locations on the site.
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
page 99
page 100
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 10
B) PLANNING CASE #2019-21
ANDY & NATALIE HUNTER, 1175 ORCHARD PLACE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Andy and Natalie Hunter were
requesting a Critical Area Permit to construct a 25.5-foot by 30-foot two-car garage addition with
upper living space to their existing home. The property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor
Critical Area and Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a Critical Area Permit for all development
activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals.
This item was presented under a public hearing, which was duly noticed by mail to all owners
within 350-foot of the subject property and was published in the Pioneer Press. No written
comments or objections have been received.
The subject property is located at 1175 Orchard Place, is approximately 1.55 acres in size, and
contains a 3,635 square foot two-story dwelling. The owners plan to construct the new
garage/living space addition on the northeast corner of the dwelling. They also plan to install a
new patio/deck off the back section of the home, overlooking the bluff area.
Mr. Benetti shared an overhead image of the subject property, the proposed site plan, and before
and after renderings of the dwelling. He also explained the purpose of the Critical Area Permit,
which is to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical
Area and to ensure any expansions or accessory structures are built according to the code and the
standards under the critical area section of the ordinance.
Commissioner Petschel noted that it appeared that there was very little change to the permeable
surface. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true.
Chair Magnuson stated that one of the code provisions says that the expansion or accessory
structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the existing structure. She then asked if a
porch was considered a structure. Mr. Benetti replied that it is debatable. He believed that with the
existing deck the way it is, the porch would be more of an enclosed deck porch. The change would
be negligible comparatively to the wanted expansion. The new porch would cover the existing
space and would not expand closer to the critical area. It would actually be smaller.
Commissioner Toth, referencing the elevation changes, asked if there were any concerns about
additional drainage. Mr. Benetti replied that staff had no concerns.
Mr. Kurt Weber, General Contractor and Ms. Natalie Hunter, 1175 Orchard Place were available
for questions but had no additional comments 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.
page 101
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 10
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN)
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-21 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this garage/living space addition is
minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area.
3. he proposed garage/living space addition project is in keeping with the character of the
area.
4. The expansion and construction of this new garage/living addition will comply with all
standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any demolition or
construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM
Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established
and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2019
meeting.
page 102
page 103
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-54 approving a Conditional Use Permit & Variance for an
Oversized Garage - located at 2319 Swan Drive (Planning Case No. 2019-22)
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a conditional use permit and variance to
allow an oversized [attached] garage up to 1,601-sf. in size in a residential district.
Background
Tim & Jessica Carlson, 2319 Swan Drive, are seeking permission to allow an oversized expansion to their
existing 551-sf. attached garage. The homeowners essentially submitted a two-part planning application:
the first being a CUP only to build up to 1,496-sf. of garage space; and the second a CUP with a variance
to exceed the 1,500-sf. maximum allowed under City Code Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C, which allow the total
attached garage space to be built up to 1,601-sf. in size.
On July 23, 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 and follow-up discussion, the
Planning Commission chose to make two (2) separate recommendations on this application item.
A copy of the 07/23/2019 Planning Staff Report is appended to this council memo report, along with the
minutes form said meeting.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative and quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or
zoning decisions, such as this conditional use permit and variance, and has broad discretion in considering
and approving both applications. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable
code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission provided the following (separate) recommendations for council consideration:
i.) Recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit (by 6-0 vote) allowing a new addition to
the exiting attached garage up to 1,496-sf. in total size; and
ii.) Recommended approval of a Variance (by 4-2 favorable vote) allowing the Applicants to exceed
the 1,500-sf. maximum size allowance for attached garage space under City Code Title 12-1D-3,
and permit the new attached garage addition to be built up to 1,601-sf. in total size.
page 104
Action Required
Make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-54 APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE
ALLOWANCE OF 1500-SF. FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE UP TO 1,601 SQ. FT. IN AREA, FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2319 SWAN DRIVE.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
Should City Council elect to grant the Applicants a conditional use permit only to build up to 1,496-sf. in
garage size (not to exceed 1,500-sf.), the council should direct city staff to revise the proposed resolution
accordingly, noting the denial of the variance request allowing a larger garage area, with similar language
and findings of facts presented in previous resolutions of denial. Final language will be reviewed and
approved by the city attorney.
page 105
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-54
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AND
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWANCE OF 1500-SF.
FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2319 SWAN DRIVE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-22)
WHEREAS, Tim and Jessica Carlson (as “Applicants”) applied for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) along with an optional Variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-22, for
the property located at 2319 Swan Drive (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C., any attached private garage
in a residential zone more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) and up to one thousand five
hundred (1,500) square feet is allowed via a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants seek permission under a proposed first alternative plan to
construct a new addition to their existing dwelling and provide up to 1,496-sq. ft. of expanded
garage and storage space to their residence, and
WHEREAS, the Applicants presented a second alternative plan to exceed the 1,500 sq. ft.
of allowable attached garage space under a standard CUP by 105-sq. ft., for a total of 1,601-sq. ft.
of expanded garage and storage space, of which this oversized garage area requires a variance; 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
page 106
WHEREAS, on July 23, 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
whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion, the Planning Commission chose to make
two (2) separate action motions on this application item:
i.) Recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit (by 6-0 vote) to 2319 Swan
Drive, allowing a new addition to the exiting attached garage up to 1,496-sf. in total
size; and
ii.) Recommended approval of a Variance (by 4-2 favorable vote) allowing the
Applicants to exceed the 1,500-sf. maximum allowed for attached garage space
under a CUP application, and permit the new garage addition to be built up to 1,601-
sf. in total size.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the
requested Conditional Use Permit with the Variance to exceed the 1,500 sq. ft. maximum allowed
for attached garage space, and allow the Applicants to build up to 1,601-sq. ft. of expanded
attached garage and storage space to the residence, may be approved based on the following
findings of facts and conditions:
A. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.1; residential
dwellings are allowed to have one attached private garage up to 1,200 square feet,
and for those more than 1,200-sf. but up to 1,500-sf., are only allowed by
conditional use permit.
B. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable need and justification for the
oversized garage up to 1,601 sq. ft. in a residential zone, and is supported by the
following findings of facts:
i. The proposed oversized garage expansion to the existing residential dwelling,
including the added living spaces, deck and related improvements on the subject
property, will be consistent with and meets City Code standards.
ii. The planned expansion and use of the oversized garage area requested under
this application can be considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with
the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
iii. The proposed residential home and larger garage meet the required setbacks
and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District.
iv. The proposed garage and home expansion project activities will not cause or
create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of adjacent Rogers
Lake, due to the proximity and separation of the structure from this water
feature.
page 107
v. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor
hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use
appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code
and the Comprehensive Plan.
vi. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions
included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
vii. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
C. 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.”
D. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical
difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the oversized
garage to exceed the 1,500 sq. ft. maximum area only up to 1,601 sq. ft. in this case,
with the following findings:
i.) The proposed oversized garage is a reasonable request on the subject property,
due to the need to provide suitable and additional storage needs for the
homeowners, due in large part to the absence of a basement on the property.
ii.) The construction of the original dwelling was built by others, and did not
include a basement. This situation makes this somewhat of a unique situation
for the homeowner that they did not create, and they are now attempting to
provide for more storage space needs that a basement would typically fulfill by
means of this larger garage space. This situation therefore provides a unique
circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of this variance; and
iii.) The visual impacts or effect of the added garage area appears minimal, both on
the subject property and within the neighborhood; and therefore approving the
proposed larger garage space under this variance (and CUP) will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
E. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor
hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use
appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
the Comprehensive Plan.
page 108
F. 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 associated with this conditional use permit will not affect
or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
G. Approval of this Variance is for 2319 Swan Drive 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.
H. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning
Case No. 2019-22, dated and presented July 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of
Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2019-54.
I. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1L-5: Variances, the City has the authority to
place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Variance request, and
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 proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be
constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of
Minnesota Building Code standards.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition,
excavation or construction of the new garage addition.
3. The Applicant must present written approval from the neighboring resident
to the south at 2335 Swan Drive that they grant permission and access to
this private property to complete the grading as shown on the plans. Final
grading plan must be approved by the Public Works Director.
4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development
shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations
and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Conditional Use Permit and Variance to exceed the 1,500 sq. ft. maximum allowed for attached
garage space, and allow the Applicants to build up to 1,601-sq. ft. of expanded attached garage
and storage space on the property located at 2319 Swan Drive, as proposed under Planning Case
No. 2019-22, are hereby approved.
page 109
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 110
EXHIBIT A
PID No. 27-64600-01-030
ADDRESS: 2319 Swan Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120
LEGAL:
Lot 3, Block 1, Rogers Lakeside East, Dakota County, Minnesota, along with the northerly thirty-
feet (30’) of adjacent and vacated Bluebill Drive right-of-way.
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
page 111
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-22
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and VARIANCE (Optional) for
Oversized Garage in the R-1 Zone
APPLICANT: Tim & Jessica Carlson
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2319 Swan Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: August 23, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of their exiting 551 sq. ft., two-
car attached garage up to 1,496 sq. ft. in size. The Applicants are also requesting (but not demanding) an
optional Variance to extend the southerly garage wall an additional 3.5 feet (for 105-sq. ft. of added garage
area), which would make the total garage space up to 1,601 sq. ft. in size.
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.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The subject property is located between Swan Drive and Rogers Lake, and consists of 2.03 total acres, with
1.37 acres considered water or part of Rogers Lake. The remaining “buildable area is approx. 28,900+ sf.
The lot is approx. 130-ft. in width along Swan Drive, and over 685-ft. in depth. The survey (image-below)
notes the property includes a 30-foot strip along the south area of the parcel, which was part of a 30-foot
strip right-of-way vacation of unused Bluebill Drive, approved under Resolution 2018-12 (02/12/2018).
page 112
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 2 of 10
The dwelling is a one story rambler, with 2,308 finished square footage, with an attached 551-sq. ft. attached
(side-loading) garage. This dwelling was built in 1973, and constructed without a basement. The survey
also shows a 12’ x 30’ shed along the south side of the home, which will be removed. The current dwelling
and hard surface areas equals approx. 4,615 sf. in area, or 16% of the net lot area.
PICTOMETRY/AERAIL IMAGE
Google Street Image
The current driveway to the home/garage comes directly off Swan Drive, and elbows or turns southward
into the side-loading attached garage.
All properties adjacent to the site and this neighborhood consist of varying styles of single-family homes.
The lots in this neighborhood are relatively similar in shape (and platting), except this lot and the property
to the south are a bit larger (wider) due to the 30-foot strip of ROW lands added to both parcels. With this
added land, the Applicants are able to accommodate the large addition proposed under this CUP application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicants are proposing a large 36’ x 60’ + interior living and garage addition on the south side of the
home; a small deck addition off the back side, and a small 12’ x 15’ add ition near the northwest corner,
along with some additional concrete patio space. The Applicants intend to keep the current 551 sq. ft.
attached garage space, and expand the garage directly behind (south) with 945-sf. of added garage space,
or a total of 1,496 sq. ft. of area (see partial site plan image – below):
page 113
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 3 of 10
The new garage expansion, living space, deck and patio additions will increase the hard-surface calculation
to approx. 28.7% of the net area of the lot. The new additions off the back of the home are at least 100-feet
or more from the established edge of Rogers Lake, therefore no Wetland Permit was needed.
The new garage addition will have two new overhead doors on the structure, with one 12-foot overhead
door facing out towards Swan Drive; and another smaller 8-foot wide door off the back (south) side. The
existing 16-ft. wide overhead door on the front (north) side will remain, and will continue to be used as the
main entry for the homeowner’s personal (main) vehicles. City Code limits the total lineal (measured
width) of garage doors not to exceed 36-feet total, and the Applicants comply with this standard.
The 8-foot garage door off the back (south) side will simply open to the side/back yard area, and will be
used mainly for moving lawn mowing equipment in and out of the garage space.
In the interest of preserving and protecting the water quality living next to Rogers Lake, the homeowner is
offering to install permeable pavers for the driveway leading from the easterly 12-ft. wide doorway, instead
of a true hard-surfaced driveway. The homeowner intends to use this garage bay/opening sparingly, and
wishes to minimize any additional hard-surface appearance and reduce as much stormwater run-off in the
front yard.
The expanded garage will exceed the 1,200-sf. maximum allowed for attached garage structures, but City
Code allows attached garages up to 1,500-sq. ft. with approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). As
indicated earlier, the Applicants are seeking (but not demanding) an “Optional Variance” to exceed the
1,500 sq. ft. allowance under the CUP process, by asking for an additional 105-sf. of garage space, or up to
1,601-sf. of garage. This added space would add another 3.5 foot of depth to the south side of the garage.
All of this new garage addition (either 1,496-sf. vs. 1,601-sf.) is to accommodate the homeowners need for
additional storage space, including personal homewares and goods, and typical lawn/property equipment.
The Applicants do not have any basement for their growing storage needs; and due to a high water table in
this area, a basement was deemed unfeasible.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
This new garage requires a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowed size of an attached
garage in the R-1 District. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.1;
residential dwellings are allowed to have one attached private garage up to 1,200 square feet, and for those
more than 1,200-sf. but up to 1,500-sf., are only allowed by conditional use permit.
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request, with
the following principles to be taken into consideration:
page 114
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 4 of 10
The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands;
existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met:
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community;
will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
The new garage proposed by the Applicant appears to be a nice design, and should easily accommodate the
needs of parking personal vehicles, and provide much more usable storage for personal household items
and yard maintenance equipment. All setbacks will be met under this plan. A minimal number (two) trees
to be removed as part of this addition.
City staff believes the new, larger garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the neighborhood or the community; or cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate
surrounding property values. For all intents and purposes, this proposed garage use appears to be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan; and the CUP
as presented herein is easily supported and can be approved.
Variance
The Applicants are also seeking an “optional” variance to increase the proposed oversized garage, from
1,496 sf. to an additional 1,601-sf. in area. The proposal is to add 3.5-feet to the south (back) side of the
garage expansion (see image – below).
The Applicants indicated they are seeking this added area, due to their need for added storage space, since
they are without a typical basement for such storage; and their architects recommends the added space
“….more effectively maximizes efficiency of the layout and is more visually appealing from the street….”
When reviewing the two elevation plans (without the 3.5-ft. vs. with), the visual impacts appear to be
minimal.
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.
page 115
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 5 of 10
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the proper ty 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 difficulty is that our home does not have a basement or any storage space. As we
are a growing family, it is now impossible to store all of our belongings within the current structure. This
expanded garage space will allow us to gain a reasonably sized interior space area, in addition to storing all
outdoor equipment, tools and supplies currently stored in the existing shed.
Staff’s Response: The visual impacts or effect of the added 3.5 feet off the back-side of the expanded
garage area appears minimal. The city however, must determine if the requested variance to allow a
105-sf. increase over the 1,500-sf. allowed maximum garage area (with the CUP) is supported by the
need(s) expressed by the Applicant, and a determination must be made that this increase is minimal
enough and reasonable under this application to grant such a variance.
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 availability of land to the south of the existing structure allows us to accommodate
our need for expansion. The garage expansion size that requires this variance is only 101 s.f. larger than what is
permissible by code within a conditional use permit. .
Staff’s Response: Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1E-1: Minimum Requirements for Single-Family
Residential Districts: “All single-family dwellings shall have a basement or an exposed basement under
at least 50% of the first floor level.” The subject property was built in 1973 as a slab-on-grade rambler,
with no basement or other sub-floor area. The City later adopted Ordinance No. 198 in January 1983,
which included the 50% basement standard for single-family dwellings. It also appears the home to
the south at 2335 Swan Drive was also built without a basement, but other homes in this neighborhood
may have basements or sub-floors (per review of Dakota County Assessor property records).
The city must determine if the requested variance to allow the increased garage area and the reasons
stated for the added storage space, is “unique” enough to support such approval. The city may also
make a determination that because this residential home does not have a basement, it lends credence to
page 116
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 6 of 10
the Applicant’s case of having somewhat of unique circumstances, which may help justify the granting
of this variance.
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Applicant’s Response: Our architect, contractor, and we feel like this expansion of the garage will be more
visually appealing from the street, than if the garage were to be cut approximately 3 feet shorter (to get to
1,500 s.f.) and left with a more chopped-up looking structure. I have provided renderings of each model
showing the different views. Because the living space expansion to the west of the garage is slightly deeper
already, and the extra 101 s.f. of garage aligns better just to the north of the edge of the living space expansion,
we do not feel going 101 s.f. over the allowed amount reasonably affects at all the character of the home or
neighborhood.
Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is all residential in character. With the additional 30-ft.
strip of land from vacated Bluebill Drive ROW, the Applicants have secured the necessary space to
accommodate this addition, without any setback variances. Staff does not believe the addition to the
home, both the oversized garage and living space, would alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
alternatives for action:
1. Recommend approval of a conditional use permit only for an oversized garage up to 1,496 sf.,
based on the certain findings of fact and related conditions of approval; or
2. Recommend approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage, along with a variance to
exceed the 1,500 sq. ft. maximum allowed under the CUP process, which would allow for the
construction of a 1,601-sq. ft. oversized garage, based on the certain findings of fact and related
conditions of approval; or
3. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and variance, either whole or separately based on
findings of facts; or
4. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others; and direct staff to extend the
application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1:
Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow the
new attached oversized garage up to 1,496 sq. ft. as presented herein, subject to the following
findings of facts and conditions:
A. The proposed oversized garage expansion to the existing residential dwelling, including the added
living spaces, deck and related improvements on the subject property, will be consistent with and
meet City Code standards.
B. The planned expansion and use of the oversized garage area requested under this application can
be considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
page 117
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 7 of 10
C. The proposed residential home and larger garage meet the required setbacks and other standards
established under the R-1 One Family District.
D. The proposed garage and home expansion project activities will not cause or create any negative
impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of adjacent Rogers Lake, due to the proximity and
separation of the structure from this water feature.
E. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
F. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code
that allow it by conditional use permit.
G. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
The conditions of approval for the conditional use permit to allow the new attached oversized garage
up to 1,496 sq. ft. are as follows:
1. The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in
compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of
the new garage addition.
3. The Applicant must present written approval from the neighboring resident to the south at 2335
Swan Drive that they grant permission and access to this private property to complete the grading
as shown on the plans. Final grading plan must be approved by the Public Works Director.
4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
Should the Commission elect to move approval (or denial) under Alternative No. 2 or 3, the CUP with a
variance to allow a larger attached garage structure, staff would suggest a motion with one of the following
action statements:
Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the conditional use permit with a variance
to allow the proposed attached oversized garage not to exceed 1,601 sq. f.t in area, based on the
following findings of fact that support the granting of the conditional use permit and variance
requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.1; residential dwellings are
allowed to have one attached private garage up to 1,200 square feet, and for those more than 1,200-
sf. but up to 1,500-sf., are only allowed by conditional use permit.
B. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable need and justification for the oversized garage up to
1,601 sq. ft. in a residential zone, and is supported by the following findings of facts:
i. The proposed oversized garage expansion to the existing residential dwelling, including the
added living spaces, deck and related improvements on the subject property, will be
consistent with and meets City Code standards.
page 118
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 8 of 10
ii. The planned expansion and use of the oversized garage area requested under this application
can be considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
iii. The proposed residential home and larger garage meet the required setbacks and other
standards established under the R-1 One Family District.
iv. The proposed garage and home expansion project activities will not cause or create any
negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of adjacent Rogers Lake, due to the
proximity and separation of the structure from this water feature.
v. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
vi. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City
Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
vii. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
C. 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.”
D. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of a Variance to allow the oversized garage to exceed the 1,500 sq. ft. maximum
area only up to 1,601 sq. ft. in this case, with the following findings:
i.) The proposed oversized garage is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the
need to provide suitable and additional storage needs for the homeowners, due in large part
to the absence of a basement on the property.
ii.) The construction of the original dwelling was built by others, and did not include a basement.
This situation makes this somewhat of a unique situation for the homeowner that they did
not create, and they are now attempting to provide for more storage space needs that a
basement would typically fulfill by means of this larger garage space. This situation
therefore provides a unique circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of this
variance; and
iii.) The visual impacts or effect of the added garage area appears minimal, both on the subject
property and within the neighborhood; and therefore approving the proposed larger garage
space under this variance (and CUP) will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
E. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
page 119
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 9 of 10
F. 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 associated with this conditional use permit
will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
G. Approval of this Variance is for 2319 Swan Drive 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.
H. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-
22, dated and presented July 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby
fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____.
I. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1L-5: Variances, the City has the authority to place reasonable
conditions upon the property subject to this Variance request, and 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 proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in
compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction
of the new garage addition.
3. The Applicant must present written approval from the neighboring resident to the south at 2335
Swan Drive that they grant permission and access to this private property to complete the
grading as shown on the plans. Final grading plan must be approved by the Public Works
Director.
4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in
compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of the variance to allow the proposed oversized
garage up to 1,601 sq. ft. in area, which exceeds the maximum 1,500 sq. ft. allowed under a
conditional use permit, 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 an increased garage structure
beyond the 1,500 sq. ft. as allowed under City Code Title 12-1D-3. The proposed 1,601 sq. ft.
oversized garage is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and is
therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property.
page 120
Planning Case 2019-22 (Carlson) Page 10 of 10
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).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location/Aerial site map
2. Survey/Site Plans
3. Garage Elevation Plans
page 121
page 122
page 123
2019-22
Tim Carlson
2319 Swan Drive
page 124
page 125
page 126
Greatest Compressive
Strength in the Industry!
Permeable Pavers
EZ Roll™
Grass Paver
EZ Roll™
Gravel Paver
Tufftrack™
Grass Paver
High performance alternative to traditional paving
MADE INUSAndspro.com
page 127
Visit ndspro.com/permeable-pavers2
Benefits
Stormwater Management. A sustainable solution that reduces impervious area,
volume of runoff, and size of downstream BMPs.
High Structural Strength. Offering a high load bearing capacity, NDS Permeable
Pavers feature hexagonal cells that connect to form a flexible grid capable of handling
significant structural loads.
Enhanced Aesthetics. Grass or gravel surfaces blend with surrounding natural surface.
Easy Installation. EZ Roll™ Products come in large rolls that are easily placed
and clipped together. Tuffttrack™ features an integrated easy assemble clip that greatly
reduces installation time.
Environmentally Friendly. NDS permeable pavers can help contribute to LEED
credits and are made of recycled plastic.
What are Permeable Pavers?
NDS Permeable Pavers provide a high-performing
alternative to traditional paving methods.
Creating a strong and durable grass or gravel surface that can support
heavy vehicles, they maintain permeable surface areas, eliminating or
reducing stormwater runoff.
page 128
2319 SWAN DRIVE04/04/2017page 129
page 130
page 131
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
page 136
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
KEY PLANN OT FOR CONSTRUCTION6/21/2019 12:47:14 PMA0.1
PERSPECTIVES
2019.01
AC AC
CARLSON HOME ADDITON
CARLSON HOME
ADDITON
2319 SWAN DRIVE MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, MN
CITY SET JUNE
20TH, 2019
A0.1
1 VIEW OF NEW GARAGE / LIVING ROOM ADDITION
A0.1
2 VIEW FROM FRONT ENTRY
A0.1
3 VIEW FROM BACK YARD
PERSPECTIVES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONL,
REFER TO PLANS AND ELEVATIONS FOR
MORE INFORAMTION
No. Description Date
page 137
page 139
C) PLANNING CASE #2019-22
TIM&JESSICA CARLSON,2319 SWAN DRIVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Tim and Jessica Carlson were
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an oversize attached garage structure, with
consideration of a Variance to allow the structure to exceed the square footage requirement
permitted under a Conditional Use Permit.
The applicants are asking for the Conditional Use Permit to expand their existing 551 square foot
two-car attached garage to 1,496 square feet (an addition of 945 square feet). They were also
requesting an optional Variance to extend the southerly garage wall an additional 3.5 feet (105
square feet), making the total garage space up to 1,601 square feet in size.
This item was presented under a duly noticed public hearing with notice letters being mailed to all
owners within 350-feet of the subject property and posted in the Pioneer Press. One letter of
support was received by staff and one phone call also expressing support,both of which have been
made a part of the public record. Chair Magnuson also noted that the Commission received three
emails, which are also part of the public record.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the subject property, which is approximately 2.03 acres in size,
with 1.37 acres considered part of Rogers Lake. There is an existing one story rambler dwelling
on the site,with 2,308 of finished square footage. There is also an existing 12-foot by 30-foot shed,
which will be removed.
The plan calls for some major renovations inside and outside of the house with 36-foot by 60-foot
living space and garage addition, a small 12-foot by 15-foot addition on the back corner, and a
new deck off of the back. The applicant desires that a new garage door be placed on the east side,
facing out towards Swan Drive. He does not want to put in a hard surface driveway; however, he
does want to use this for some type of minimal access for larger vehicles. He is proposing to install
a Tuff trackTM or a permeable driveway surface to help minimize any rutting or wheel digging into
the grass. The existing garage door would serve as the primary vehicle loading area.
Mr. Benetti also shared renderings of what the home would look like with the expanded garage,
with and without the optional variance.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards and principles to be considered when reviewing a Conditional
Use Permit request, and the variables to be considered when reviewing a Variance request, and
explained how this application meets or fits those standards,principles, or variables.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing two overhead doors on the garage, one on the east side and
one on the south, asked if both would have access to Swan Drive. The reply was that the new
permeable driveway would link into the existing driveway accessing Swan Drive. They would not
need a new curb-cut for a second access point to Swan Drive; therefore, they would not need a
driveway permit.
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting—DRAFT Page 4 of 10
page 140
Mr. Tim Carlson, 2319 Swan Drive, stated that he and his wife have been residents for
approximately 10 years; the first seven with just the two of them and now with two children. He
has worked with staff and believes he has come up with a good plan for expanding the living space
and creating a place for storage as his home does not have a basement.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there were any attempts to work within the confines of the
ordinance and the permitted allowances. Mr. Carlson replied in the affirmative; however, when
trying to fit within the 1,200 square foot limitation it really wasn't reasonable. Also, given the
amount of living space they are trying to add on—the home looked really chopped up and messed
with the roof line.
Chair Magnuson noted that when considering a variance, they are limited by certain criteria that
are contained in the ordinance. One of those criteria is that there has to be practical difficulty in
complying with the ordinance that is unique to the property and not the fault of the landowner. She
sees the reason for the preference; however,what would he think the practical difficulty would be.
Mr. Carlson replied that the gain of 100 square feet— even with that 100 square feet he believes it
would be difficult to store everything in that space. He looked at adding a basement but that is not
feasible because of the water table. As he explained in his letter of intent, he believed this created
a practical difficulty.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the additional space in the garage was just required for storage.
Mr. Carlson replied that it would have everything that is currently in the shed. Commissioner
Petschel then asked Mr. Benetti if they enclosed it and technically made it a room, would it still
be considered a garage. Mr. Benetti replied `probably not'; however, with the overhead door it
would be considered a garage. Commissioner Petschel clarified his question by asking if this
request was for an additional living space, would the even need the variance. Again, Mr. Benetti
replied with `probably not'. Chair Magnuson stated that they would need to be careful about
whether it is an expansion of the home, meaning they would probably want access from the house.
Commissioner Corbett asked if they considered going up. Mr. Carlson replied that they did—they
tried several different plans over the last 14 months; one of which was going up and another of
going up and out. The results were that they were cost prohibitive to their budget.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Pat Hickey, 2303 Swan Drive, was the one who sent all of the emails. He supports this
application. Mr. Carlson is a good neighbor and this would be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Mr. Jack Koegel, 2301 Swan Drive, also expressed his support of this application. Mr. Carlson is
a great neighbor and takes very good care of his property and the lake.
Mr. Robin Statz, Next Door Remodels, is Mr. and Mrs. Carlson's contractor. In response to the
`practical difficulty' test, he wanted to ensure that the Commission understood that this is a slab-
on-grade house and that even though there is a crawl space that would be the practical difficulty.
This speaks to the specific need around storage.
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting—DRAFT Page 5 of 10
page 141
Chair Magnuson asked for an explanation of the water table issue. Mr. Statz replied that Mr.
Carlson did have a geo-tech come out and actually drill. They determined that the water table was
just too high for a full basement—which they had considered putting underneath the new addition.
Commissioner Corbett asked why was the square footage of the garage versus the home square
footage decided upon the way it was. It could have been designed in such a way that they would
not need any of this. Mr. Statz replied they he came in after most of the architectural plans were
done. They could potentially do some type of closet off of the addition of the home; however, it
would have to be fully insulated. Mr. Carlson replied that the way the home is current set-up, it is
one open living space with a bedroom wing. The proposed living space addition will suit their
needs for an additional area for the children to spread their wings, etc. They have dedicated storage
space in the living space and that is why they plan to put all of the outside type storage in the
garage. Also,he was unsure if the current HVAC system would have allowed the additional garage
space to actually be made into a part of the living space.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN)
Chair Magnuson requested that the Commission consider the Conditional Use Permit request
separate from the Variance request.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-22 CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, IDENTIFIED AS ALTERNATIVE 91 IN THE STAFF REPORT, BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The proposed oversized garage expansion to the existing residential dwelling, including
the added living spaces, deck and related improvements on the subject property, will be
consistent with and meet City Code standards.
B. The planned expansion and use of the oversized garage area requested under this
application can be considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code
and Comprehensive Plan.
C. The proposed residential home and larger garage meet the required setbacks and other
standards established under the R-1 One Family District.
D. The proposed garage and home expansion project activities will not cause or create any
negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of adjacent Rogers Lake, due to the
proximity and separation of the structure from this water feature.
E. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting—DRAFT Page 6 of 10
page 142
F. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the
City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
G. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan's goals for residential land uses.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in
compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or
construction of the new garage addition.
3. The Applicant must present written approval from the neighboring resident to the south at
2335 Swan Drive that they grant permission and access to this private property to complete
the grading as shown on the plans. Final grading plan must be approved by the Public
Works Director.
4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in
compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2019
meeting.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, MOVED TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-22 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 the oversized garage to exceed the 1,500
sq. ft. maximum area only up to 1,601 sq. ft. in this case, with the following findings:
i. The proposed oversized garage is a reasonable request on the subject property, due
to the need to provide suitable and additional storage needs for the homeowners,
due in large part to the absence of a basement on the property.
ii. The construction of the original dwelling was built by others, and did not include a
basement. This situation makes this somewhat of a unique situation for the
homeowner that they did not create, and they are now attempting to provide for
more storage space needs that a basement would typically fulfill by means of this
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting—DRAFT Page 7 of 10
page 143
larger garage space. This situation therefore provides a unique circumstance for
supporting or allowing the granting of this variance; and
iii. The visual impacts or effect of the added garage area appears minimal, both on the
subject property and within the neighborhood; and therefore approving the
proposed larger garage space under this variance (and CUP) will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
C. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
D. 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
associated with this conditional use permit will not affect or pose any negative impacts
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
E. Approval of this Variance is for 2319 Swan Drive 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.
F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No.
2019-22, dated and presented July 23,2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights),
is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-
G. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1L-5: Variances, the City has the authority to place
reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Variance request, and conditions
must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance.
Discussion
Commissioner Petschel stated that he found the argument with respect to a slab-on-grade and the
inability to go down convincing. In so much that they have used criteria such as where a building
sits on a lot as a condition outside of the applicant's control. The fact that they cannot go down at
all does seem outside of their control. Given that the design has a continuous roof and going up
would have created an unsightly sight line, he did not consider that a reasonable option. He was
also open to the idea of then not even needing this and treating a de-facto closet as an extension of
the house.
Commissioner Toth agreed with Commissioner Petschel's comments. He met with the applicant
late last week;walked his lot;was provided information regarding slab-on-grade,no basement,the
geo evaluations of the water table; etc. Looking at the plans with the roof line an all, it warrants
the additional 105 square feet he is requesting.
Commissioner Mazzitello commented that he is wrestling with this. He knew Mr. Carlson when
he was on staff with the city, he's worked with him on the Homeowners Association, the water
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting—DRAFT Page 8 of 10
page 144
quality of Rogers Lake; he is a fantastic resident, fantastic neighbor. He understood why he was
asking for what he was asking for. However, the floor plan in the packet is showing 1,496 square
feet. Adding an additional 3.5 feet adds 105 square feet. If the interior wall was moved over three
feet 3 inches, they would not be having a Variance discussion. From what he can see, this interior
wall is not load bearing. So while it is definitely reasonable and definitely in character with the
neighborhood, and there is a unique circumstance of the property because the groundwater table;
however, he is wrestling with the `unique situation not made by the owner' aspect of the `practical
difficulty' test.
Given the testimony heard from the City Attorney not too long ago regarding the handling of
Variances, he would be inclined to cautiously recommend approval with the statement that the
practical difficulty may be weak, but there.
After some discussion, Commissioner Mazzitello realized that the fact that the code requires a
basement, and due to the high water table the applicant cannot put in a basement, this would
strength to the practical difficulty test.
Chair Magnuson stated that she too was wresting with the practical difficulty test. She understood
about the water table issue; however, the house was built in 1973 and the applicants have lived
there for 10 years; they purchased the property without a basement and there are certain
consequences that stem from that. She sees the argument but does not necessarily buy it.
Also, Variances have to stand on their own; not based on what has been done in the past or what
would be done in the future. The Commission also has to be conscience of the fact that they cannot
grant Variances simply because it is the personal preference of the homeowner to have a larger
space, whether it is needed or not. Without more evidence of a practical difficulty unique to the
property, she could not support the Variance.
AYES: 4 (MAZZITELLO, TOTH, KATZ, PETSCHEL)
NAYS: 2 (CORBETT, MAGNUSON)
ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2019
meeting.
July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting—DRAFT Page 9 of 10
page 145
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heil 9C.
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.45
www.mendota-heights.cnm
CITY OF
MENOOTA HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 7, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-57 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Wesley
Neighborhood Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2019-57 accepting bids and awarding a contract for
the Wesley Neighborhood Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
Council ordered the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements at their February 7, 2018 meeting, and
directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. The plans
were approved and authorized to bid at the June 5, 2018 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Two bids (see below)were received and opened on Wednesday, July 31, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. for
the Wesley Neighborhood Improvements.
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,399,999.41
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. $1,496,054.90
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid of$1,399,999.41. Their bid
was more than the Engineer's Estimate of$1,158,239.50. Staff recommends them for this
contract.
The difference in the estimate versus the submitted bid, continues to be attributed mostly to curb
replacement,pipe work, and bituminous. City consultant, TKDA, talked to a number of
contractors regarding workloads in 2020. Delaying the project is difficult to determine if the city
would receive more favorable bids.
One possible contract reduction relates to the construction of rain gardens. The low bidder
proposed to construct them for $100,350. Other rain gardens are proposed to be constructed
elsewhere in the City next spring, and it is probable that there would be better efficiencies and an
overall savings if the rain gardens in this contract are eliminated by a change order after t�IP 146
contract is awarded, and added to that future project.
The substantial completion date for the project is November 2, 2018. We expect Bituminous
Roadways, Inc., serving in the capacity of General Contractor, is capable of meeting the
completion dates and installing the proposed improvements in accordance with the plans and
specifications given their experience and the amount of equipment and manpower they have at
their disposal. Bituminous Roadways, Inc. is a contractor with many years of experience with an
office in Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Staff will mail out a general notice to the residents about the project if Council awards the
contract, including information regarding the construction schedule. .
BUDGET IMPACT
The Wesley Neighborhood Improvements are proposed to be financed by Special Assessments,
Municipal Bonds, Municipal State Aid, and Utility Funds. The total cost for the Wesley
Neighborhood Improvements is $1,399,999.41, not including indirect costs for legal,
engineering, administration, and finance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the construction contract to
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. for their bid in the amount of$1,399,999.41.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation,pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a simple majority
vote.
page 147
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-57
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE WESLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
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, storm sewer, and appurtenant work of rehabilitating
Wesley Lane, Wesley Court, Spring Creek Circle, Mager Court, and South Lane including trail
Improvements on 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
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,399,999.41
T.A. Schifsky& Sons, Inc. $1,496,054.90
and
WHEREAS,the Public Works Director recommended that the lowest responsible bid
submitted by Bituminous Roadways, Inc. of Mendota Heights, Minnesota,be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the bids for the Wesley Neighborhood Improvement project are hereby received and
accepted.
2. That the bid of Bituminous Roadways, Inc. of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, submitted for the
construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. of Mendota Heights, Minnesota,
and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any
and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of August, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock,Mayor
page 148
444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500
Saint Paul,MH 55101
651.292.4400
tkda.com
�I
July 31, 2019
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: 2019 Street Improvement Project
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
City Project No. 201803
TKDA Project No. 16948.000
Dear Mayor and City Council:
On July 31, 2019, two bids for the referenced project were received. The lowest bid was submitted
by Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Listed below is a summary of the bids received, and a complete
Tabulation of Bids is enclosed for your information.
Contractor Base Bid
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,399,999.41
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. $1,496,054.90
Engineer's Estimate $1,158,239.50
The low bid was 20% over the engineers estimate. Below is a breakdown of the bid by component.
Eng. Bid Difference % Source of Difference
Estimate Amount Difference
Dodd Road Tra1 F$448,923 $508,624 + $59,701 + 13% Bituminous, Storm
Sewer, Tree Clearing
Wesley $699 951 $880 325 + $180,374 + 25% Bituminous, Curb and
Neighborhood Gutter, rain gardens
Hydrant $9,365 $11,050 + $1,685 + 18% One Hydrant and Gate
Replacement Valve
Total $1,158,239 $1,399,999 + $241,760 + 20%
Many of the unit prices for the project were close to the Engineer's Estimate or slightly over and
these slight increases added up. A few individual items showed a large increase in pricing. The
most notable is the rain garden construction. The square yard price quoted was 3 times higher than
expected and this resulted in a $70,000 increase for that Ione bid item. An option could be to delete
the rain garden portion of the work and build the rain gardens at a later date using other forces.
If the rain garden work were eliminated, the overall difference in the pricing is 15% over the
engineers estimate. Considering the second bid was close in pricing to the low bid, I believe these
An emptouee owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity
page 149
2019 Street Improvements
July 31, 2019
Page 2
bids reflect the current market conditions for the project. Based on discussions with contractors,
they expect a strong backload of work in 2020 and they are projecting overall pricing of materials to
increase. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether more favorable pricing would be achieved in
the Spring of 2020.
Action Requested
1. Receive all bids submitted.
2. Award the contract for the 2019 Street Improvement Project to the lowest responsible bidder,
Bituminous Roadways, Inc., for the Base Bid of$1,399,999.41.
Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions or comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Z
Ll��—
Larry Poppler, PE
Project Manager
LPP:ksb
Enclosure
71
Page 1
page 150
TABULATION OF BIDS
2019 STREET IMPROVEMENT
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,MINNESOTA4J9
CITY PROJECT NO.201803
TKDA PROJECT NO.16948,000 YKDA
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS,INC, T.A.SCHIFSKY&SONS,INC.
ITEOM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 45,ODO.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 54,000,00 $ 70,COD.OD 8 70,090.00
2 CLEARING 31 TREE $ 400.00 S 12,400.00 $ 606.00 $ 18,786.00 $ 700.00 S 21,700.00
3 GRUBBING 31 TREE 5 400.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 400,00 $ 12,400.00 $ 700.00 6 21,700.00
4 SALVAGE CASTING 28 EA $ 300.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 113.00 $ 3,164.00 $ 500.00 $ 14,000.00
5 SALVAGE SIGN 10 EA $ 65.00 $ 550.00 $ 61.50 $ 615,00 $ 100.00 8 1,000.00
6 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 7 EA $ 600.00 $ 4,200.DU $ 550.00 $ 3,920-00 $ 850.00 $ 5,950.00
7 REMOVE CONCRETE GUTTER 147 LF $ 8,00 $ 1,176.00 $ 16.00 $ 2,352.00 $ 15.00 $ 2,205.00
8 SAWING SIT PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) 1,765 LF 5 1.90 $ 3,353,50 $ 3.00 $ 5,295,00 $ 2.00 $ 3,539.00
9 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) 640 LF 5 3.90 $ 2,495.00 $ 4,50 $ 2,880.00 $ 4.00 S 2,560.00
10 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB 2,440 LF $ 8.00 $ 19,520.00 $ 13.00 $ 31,720.00 $ 1060 $ 24,400,00
11 REMOVE SEWER PIPE(STORM) 142 LF $ 45.00 $ 6,390.00 $ 18.00 $ 2,556,00 $ 20.00 8 2,040.00
12 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DR€VEWAY PAVEMENT 539 SY 5 15.00 $ 8,085.00 $ 8.50 $ 4,581.60 $ 12.00 $ 5,468.00
13 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 756 SY $ 25,00 $ 18,900.00 $ 21.OD $ 15,876.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,340.00
14 REMOVE RIPRAP 111 CY $ 47.00 $ 5,217.00 $ $5.00 $ 3,885.00 S 25.00 S 2,775.09
15 SALVAGE BRICK PAVERS 142 SF $ 10.00 $ 1,420.00 $ 9.00 $ 1,278,00 $ 10.00 $ 1,420.00
16 DEWATERING 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 0.01 $ 0,01 $ 460066 $ 4,00060
17 COMMON BORROW(CV) 1,749 CY 5 30.00 $ 52,470.00 $ 25.00 $ 43,72&00 $ 28.00 $ 48,972.00
10 COMMON EXCAVATION 2,440 CY $ 19.00 $ 46,33D.D0 $ 23.00 $ 56,120.00 $ 30.00 $ 73,200.00
19 GRANULAR BORROW(CV) 141 CY $ 25.00 $ 3,525.00 $ 26.DD $ 3,666.00 $ 28.00 $ 3,948.00
20 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION 422 CY $ 30.00 $ 12,650.00 $ 24.00 $ 10,128,00 $ 2860 S 11,816.00
21 SALV MILL B€T&ASG FROM STOCKPILE(SV) 2,803 CY $ 12.00 $ 33,636.00 $ 18.00 $ 50,454.00 $ 20.00 $ 55,060.00
22 CRUSHED ROCK 1,938 TN $ 30.00 $ 58,140,00 $ 25.85 $ 50,097.30 $ 30.00 5 56,140.00
23 TEST ROLLING 31 STA $ 150.00 $ 4,650.00 $ 37.00 $ 1,14Z00 $ 00.00 § 2,48060
24 SLEGRA0E PREPARATION 31 STA $ 250.00 $ 7,750.00 $ 580.00 $ 17,960.00 $ 550.60 $ 17,05060
25 STREET SWEEPER(WITH PICKUP BROOM) 10 HR $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1B5.00 $ tmo'oD $ 150,010 $ 1,500.00
26 1.6 CU YD BACKHOE 5 HR $ 200.90 $ 1,000.00 $ 185.00 $ 925.00 $ 175.00 $ 87560
27 WATER 50 MGAL $ 20.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 140.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 3C.CD $ 1,500.00
20 STOCKPILE AGGREGATE(CV) 2,553 CY $ 6.00 $ 15,318.00 $ 1B.DD $ 45,954.00 $ 15.00 $ 38,295.00
29 AGGREGATE DASE(CV)CLASS 6 717 TN $ 40.00 S 28,580.00 $ 16.00 $ 11,472.00 $ 25.00 $ 17,925.00
30 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION 11,487 SY $ 3.00 $ 34,461,00 $ 5,0D $ 57,435.00 $ 4.56 $ 51,691.50
31 DRILL&GROUT RFINF BAR(EPDXY COATED) 36 EA $ 18.00 $ 648.00 $ 25.00 $ 900.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,800.00
32 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(2,B) 166 TN $ 70.00 $ 11,520.00 $ i05.00 $ 17,430.00 $ 950,00 $ 24.90060
33 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(2,C) 1,292 TN $ 70.00 $ 90,440.00 $ 82.0D $ 105,944.00 $ 87.00 $ 112,404.00
34 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(2,B) 1,292 TN $ 70.00 $ 90,440.00 $ 66.00 § 85,272,00 $ $7.00 $ 112,404.00
35 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(3,B) 47 TN S 70.00 S 3,29O.D0 $ 195m $ 9,165.00 $ 150.00 $ 7,050.00
36 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(3,C) 93 TN $ 7D.0D $ 6,510.D0 $ 195.OD $ 18,136.00 $ 150.00 $ 13,950.00
37 15"RC PIPE APRON 1 EA $ 850.90 S BSO.OD $ 2,300.99 $ 2,300.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
3B 27"RC PIPE AARON 16 FA S 1,200.00 S 1,200.OD $ 4,300.90 S 4,300.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,590.00
39 4"PVC PIPE DRAIN 10 LF S 15,00 $ 150.00 $ 44.OD $ 440.00 5 25.00 $ 250.00
40 12"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V 81 LF $ 65.00 8 5,285 DO $ 67.00 $ 5,427.00 $ 66.00 $ 5,346.00-
41 15"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V 478 LF $ 70.00 $ 33,460.00 $ 70.00 5 33,460,00 $ 7260 $ 34,416,00
42 18"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL 111 124 LF $ 8090 $ 9,920.00 $ 76.00 $ 9,424.00 $ 80,00 $ 9320,00
43 27"RC PIPE SEWER DES 3066 CL Ill 356 LF $ 1 D0.00 S 35,60D.00 $ 115.90 S 40,940.00 $ 107.00 $ 36,992.00
44 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER 7 EA 5 1,500.00 5 14,500.00 $ 930.00 $ 5,510.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 12,950.00
45 CONNECT INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 1 EA $ 1,500.90 S 1,500.00 $ 930.00 $ 930.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00
46 ADJUST GATE VALVE&BOX 14 EA $ 20090 $ 2,800.00 $ 323.00 $ 4,480.00 $ 550.00 $ 7,700.00
47 6"GATE VALVE INSTALLATION 1 EA $ 2,765.00 8 2,765.00 $ 2650.00 $ 2,650.00 S 2,900.00 $ 2,900,00
48 HYDRANT INSTALLATION 1 EA $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.90 $ 8,400.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 6300,00
49 2"INSULATION 110 SY $ 35.00 $ 3,850.00 $ 22.09 $ 2,420.00 8 50.00 $ 5,500.00
50 6"DI WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 10 LF $ 69.00 5 600.00 $ 0.81 $ 0.10 $ 80.00 $ 800.00
51 INSTALL CASTING 27 EA $ 700.00 $ 18,900.00 $ 650.00 $ 17,550x0 $ 850.00 $ 22,950.00
62 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 1 16 EA $ 4,00060 $ 64600.90 $ 5,750.00 $ 92,006.00 5 4,700.00 $ 75,200.00
53 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 2 6 EA $ 4,500.00 $ 22,50000 $ 4 85063 $ 24,250.00 $ 3,610.00 $ 18,050.00
54 CONST RAIN GARDEN 223 SY $ 159.00 $ 33,450.00 $ 45090 $ 100,350.00 $ 150,00 $ 33,450.00
55 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS€1€ 30 TN $ 159.00 $ 4,50090 $ 125.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 155.00 $ 4,650,00
56 6"CONCRETE WALK 548 SF $ 16.00 $ 8,768.00 $ 20.00 $ 10,960.CC $ 15.00 $ 8,220.00
57 CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER DESIGN 13618 1,950 LF $ 25.00 $ 48,75D.00 $ 32.00 $ 62,400.00 $ 30.00 $ 58,500.00
58 CONCRETE CURD&GUTTER DESIGN 8624 1,272 LF $ 2760 $ 34,344.00 $ 31.00 $ 39,432.00 $ 30.00 $ 38,160.00
59 6"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 756 SY $ 70.00 $ 52,92360 $ 83.00 $ 62,748.00 S 85.OD $ 64,260.00
60 8"CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER 49 SY $ 110.00 $ 5,390.00 $ 140,00 $ fi 860.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,900.00
61 TRUNCATED DOMES 122 SF $ 69.00 $ 7,320.00 $ 73.00 $ 8,906,00 $ 65,00 $ 7,930,00
62 INSTALL BRICK PAVERS 142 SF $ 30.00 $ 4,269.99 $ 20.00 $ 2,840.00 $ 25.00 $ 3,550.00
63 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,009.00 $ 18,846.00 $ 16,846.00 $ 89,000.00 $ 80,000.00
64 INSTALL SIGN 10 EA $ 300.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 369.00 $ 3,690.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,000.00
65 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 21 FA $ 15360 $ 3,150.00 $ 182.00 S 3,822.00 $ 300.00 $ 6,300.00
66 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE COMPOST 815 LF $ 5.00 $ 4,075,00 5 5 50 $ 4,482.50 $ 5.00 $ 4,075.00
67 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW 6S3 CY $ 40.00 $ 23,320.00 $ 64,00 $ 37,31260 $ 40.00 $ 23,320.00
68 FERTILIZER TYPE I 145 LB $ 1.00 $ 145.00 $ 0.60 $ 87.00 $ 13-00 S 1,450,00
69 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 4N 1,020 SY $ 2.00 $ 2,040.00 $ 3.00 $ 3,660.00 $ 5.90 $ 5,100.00
70 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 1 1 AC $ 10,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 1,818.00 $ 1,454.40 $ 15,0009D S 12,000.00
71 SEEDING 1 AC $ 6,000.40 $ 4,200,00 $ 1,091.00 $ 763.70 $ 13,642.00 $ 9,549.40
72 SEED MIXTURE 25-131 30 L8 $ 5,00 $ 15060 $ 1200, $ 360.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,500.00
73 SEED MIXTURE$6-711 21 LB $ 5.00 $ 105,00 $ 18,00 $ 378.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,200.00
74 HYDRAULIC STABILVED FIBER MATRIX 1,537 LB $ 3x0 $ 4,611,00 $ 6.10 $ 9,375,79 $ 860 $ 12,296.00
75 4"SOLID LINE MULTI COMP i,O36 LF $ 1.00 $ 1,036.00 $ 1.70 $ 1,761-20 $ 4,50 $ 4.662,00
76 CROSSWALK MULTI COMP 264 Sr $ 10.00 $ 2,640.00 $ 10.50 $ 2,772.00 $ 15.00 $ 3,960.00
TOTAL BID $ 1,158,239-50 $ 1,399,999.41 $ 1,496,054.90