Loading...
2019-09-03 Council packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 3, 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 August 20, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of August 20, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes-Budget c. Acknowledge the July 23, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge the July 17, 2019 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes e. Authorize Purchase Order for Public Works Back Gate f. Approve Resolution 2019-59 Approve Disposal of Unclaimed Property g. Approve RMF Escrow (Village Lots) h. Approve the Purchase of Turnout Gear i. Acknowledge July 2019 Fire Synopsis j. Approve Resolution 2019-62 Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales Lot at 2440 Enterprise Dr (Planning Case No. 2019-23) k. Approve Resolution 2019-63 Accepting Soccer Goal Donation l. Approval of July 2019 Treasurer’s Report m. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 7. Public Hearing - none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2019-61 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements b. Ordinance No. 543 Adding City Code Section 4-8 Relating To Gambling 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 20, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS A) UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL BY PAUL OBERHAUS, CPMI Mr. Paul Oberhaus, Construction Manager for the Fire Station project, provided an update on the progress made at the site. They have erected the masonry that forms the new apparatus bay as well as the mezzanine above. It is hoped that the metal stud exterior walls will be started next week. The challenge now is to continue pushing the enclosure of the building, as well as getting the underground utilities and stormwater management system in place. Then, the first course of asphalt could be put down before winter. The project is slightly behind schedule. The crew is moving forward and hopefully if they get good weather, they can get the building up out of the ground. Councilor Paper asked Mr. Oberhaus to address the flag pole. Mr. Oberhaus replied by saying that the contractor was required to pull the flag pole, remove the concrete from the flag pole and to salvage the pole. During the operation of him removing the flag pole, he decided to take the top of the flag pole off. The crew has that in their possession and are working on a solution to fix it before it is put back into place. page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar. Councilor Petschel moved approval as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents, pulling item c.) Acknowledge the June 11, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes. a. Approval of August 7, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of August 13, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the June 11, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes d. Approve Resolution 2019- 58 Declaring Certain Fire Equipment To Be Surplus, and Authorizing Donation to the MN Fire Engine Club e. Acknowledge June 2019 Par 3 Financial Report f. Acknowledge Building Activity Report g. Approval of June 2019 Treasurer’s Report h. Approval of Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) ACKNOWLEDGE THE JUNE 11, 2019 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Councilor Duggan expressed his appreciation to the Parks and Recreation Commission for the detailed meeting minutes as it gives him a better sense of what their proposals and recommendations are. Councilor Duggan moved to acknowledge the June 11, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. page 4 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) APPROVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MH DEVELOPMENT, LLC (GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS) AND CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR THE CITY OWNED VILLAGE LOTS City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that this is the next step in the development of the vacant Village lots. He stated that in March 2019, the Council approved the Request for Proposals to be sent out for the development of this property (approximately 2.67 acres). The RFP was sent to approximately 45 parties that staff felt might be interested. Five development proposals were received back. In May 2019, the City Council had a workshop meeting where the five development proposals were reviewed, and the list was narrowed to two finalists. In June 2019, each of the finalists gave a presentation to the Council in a closed session meeting. At the regular City Council meeting that same evening, the City Council directed staff to negotiate with Grand Real Estate Advisors for the sale of the lots. Staff highlighted the key points of the purchase agreement: • The Buyer is agreeable to purchase the city-owned properties for $1.1M, with a $10,000 earnest money deposit • They would build a 3-story 42-unit building for residents 55 years of age and over o With an approximately 4,000 square foot restaurant attached to the building o An approximately 2,000 square foot ‘co-working’ space o Underground parking o Surface parking o Trail connection o Landscaping o Green space • They are looking to close on the property by March 31, 2020, giving them the time to get the necessary approvals. There is also a code issue that need to be addressed regarding the restaurant serving alcohol because the establishment would be located within 725 feet of a church. The purchase agreement provides language that they understand that there is a neighboring Homeowners Association (HOA). They have met with the HOA to see if there is anything that can be done in terms of efficiencies or cost sharing. They are agreeing to negotiate that in good faith, but that does not affect this purchase agreement. Councilor Duggan asked to hear from the applicants on what their viewpoints are, particularly about the 725-foot distance in relation to the alcohol in the restaurant. Mr. Judd Fenlon, representing Grand Real Estate Advisors, LLC, stated that they are very excited about this project and they are working with Pope Architects. They have met with city staff as well as the homeowners association and feel good about the way those discussions have progressed. They have page 5 talked to staff about requirements related to the liquor license and the restaurant operator has been involved in those discussion. They understand than an amendment to City Code is required. Councilor Duggan asked if the liquor establishment distance restriction is a city ordinance or is it a state statute. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that it is a city provision that requires the lot that the liquor establishment is located on to be located at least 725 feet from the nearest part of the church building. This is less than 300-400 feet. He said that the distance restriction is something that the city can change. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that since this is a code provision located in the general code and not the zoning code, a variance is not applicable in this situation. Variances are for zoning/land use decisions. In this situation, it is a business and license regulation in the business part of the code. Councilor Petschel pointed out that this was a challenge very recently in the City of St. Paul due to the fact that downtown St. Paul has become loaded with Charter Schools. She said that there was a provision in the St. Paul City Code that barred the school being too close to where alcohol is being sold. She believed that this would be something that Mendota Heights could deal with, and it would not be an obstacle. Councilor Duggan was in agreement with Councilor Petschel’s comments. He asked if anyone knew how far away Mendoberri Cafe & Wine Bar was from the church, or had it not been asked at that time. Councilor Petschel stated that this is something that the city can remediate. Councilor Paper asked what types of land would be available around other religious institutions that would require a distance setback of 725 feet. If the city were to change that restrictions, what would they be opening up as issues? Counsel Pratt reinforced the point that a variance is individual to a specific property – whereas this restriction is a code requirement and it has to be uniform to all property. It cannot favor one application for a liquor license over another. Councilor Miller asked what the impetus was behind this policy in the first place. Councilor Petschel noted that there was a period of time where drinking was considered scandalous and no one wanted drinking located near where people were going to church. Councilor Miller asked if anyone has reached out to the church and ask them for their thoughts on this. Mr. McNeill replied that the church has not been contacted; however, if Council decided to move ahead there would be a public hearing and they would certainly be invited. Councilor Miller suggested that the church be contacted so they can be part of this discussion. It would be better to ask than to make a gross generalization of what might be good for the city. Councilor Petschel stated that she was not willing to back away from an approved purchase agreement based on something that is on the books that is within the Council’s prevue to modify. Councilor Duggan agreed, however, he asked for clarification that the restriction is just churches or does that include schools. Mr. McNeill replied that there is a requirement on schools and that is 1,000 feet from a school. Councilor Duggan noted that he supports the approval of this purchase agreement and moving forward with modifying the code. Mayor Garlock voiced is approval as well. page 6 Councilor Paper asked why the developer was being given until the end of March 2020 to secure the rights to develop the site and complete the environmental review of the land, title review, and other contingencies. It seems like a long period of time. Mr. Fenlon replied that they have worked with their architect and contractor and spoke with city staff about how long the process would take; March 2020 was the schedule they felt they could meet. Councilor Paper asked if there was a way to tighten up this timeframe. Mr. Fenlon replied that they anticipate beginning construction in April; they plan to submit for full building permits by the beginning of March. Councilor Paper, in reference to the good faith with the HOA, asked how that could be defined. Attorney Pratt replied that one of the issues that they discussed with the developer, and the developers had their own discussions, was this issue with the HOA and the financial participation. For the document under consideration, it is simply to enter into a binding agreement that could be revoked or one party would be able to back out. The second document to come to the Council is the Development Agreement, which will go into these issues in a little bit more detail. Mr. Pratt continued that the city is just selling this property, the city is not necessarily going to be intimately involved with some of the details with relationship with the HOA and the developer. When it is put into the Purchase Agreement it is just a heads up to the developer that there is a request by the HOA, there is a long standing history there, and there are financial requirements that they would like to see – that is the beginning of the good faith effort and for the developer to have those conversations. The language in Section 20 (b) of the Purchase Agreement is not necessarily something that is binding – it is really hard to do that at this stage. The city will hold the developer to certain standards and those will be in the Development Agreement. Mr. Fenlon agreed that getting more definitive right now would be difficult. Councilor Paper asked again if there was any way to move the timeline up from the March 31, 2020 date. Mr. McNeill replied that there are the entitlements and approvals to be gone through, and part of that would be the issue of alcohol licenses and their proximity to churches. If the parties can move it more quickly, that would be desirable. Staff is comfortable with the March 31, 2020 date. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the Purchase Agreement between MH Development LLC and the City of Mendota Heights. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Miller) Councilor Petschel asked for a consensus to give direction to Council to look at the ordinance that is currently restricting the liquor license and to work on language and solutions to that going forward, the potential impacts, and engage churches in the conversations, etc. B) RESOLUTION 2019-60 APPROVE PLANS AND AUTHORIZE AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON THE 2019 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT page 7 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that this past spring, staff received a number of calls about drainage concerns. There are seven sites in this request where staff had met with residents, and staff agreed that there were drainage concerns and improvements that might be made. The improvements are in all areas of the city. Mr. Ruzek provided a summary of the requested/planned improvements, showing the locations on a map of the city. Staff is looking to put this project out to bid with a bid opening date on September 11, 2019, with an award date of September 17, 2019. The preliminary estimate had been $130,000, but a more updated estimate for the improvements was just under $175,000. Councilor Duggan asked for a maximum figure that staff would be willing to accept. Mr. Ruzek replied that he would be comfortable with a range near $150,000. He believed more than this would be exceeding what the industry should be paying now for this type of improvement. Councilor Duggan asked if the actual bids came in higher than the $150,000 would staff only do part of the project. Mr. Ruzek replied that they would plug the unit prices that were submitted in the contract and see where the discrepancies were; then they would make a recommendation to Council at the September 17, 2019 meeting as to whether to proceed with the project in its entirety or only complete certain areas. Councilor Miller asked if costs come in at more than expected, does staff have the sites ranked in terms of priority. Mr. Ruzek replied that they could easily make that determination. Councilor Paper noted that on site #7 staff talked about removing the pavement and raising the grade. He then asked if they could just put another layer of asphalt on. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be possible; however, he was thinking that they may want to raise it a little bit more than that. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-60 APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2019 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201905). Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that movie night at Mendakota Park will be September 7. He informed the Council that a new sign with information on the pollinator friendly plantings, has been installed near the front entrance to City Hall. The groundcover by the solar panels is transitioning to prairie restoration. It will take a couple of years before it is complete in this transition.. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel addressed an issue she had this week with door-to-door vendors. She reminded everyone that this is against city ordinances for very good reasons. She encouraged residents to call 9-1- 1 if they have a peddlers at their front door attempting to sell items. page 8 Mayor Garlock stated that he attended an event in West St. Paul regarding the personnel from the National Guard Armory for Appreciation Day – with approximately 140 National Guard personnel and dependents there. Councilor Miller expressed his appreciation to Councilor Petschel for bringing up the door-to-door vendor issue. His mother was a victim of a scam perpetrated by a local asphalt company. He expressed appreciation to everyone who came out and attended the Fire Department and Police Department Golf Event. He expressed his thanks to Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence and Officer Renteria for all of the time and energy they put into organizing this event. Councilor Paper stated that ISD 197 will be holding a ribbon cutting/dedication event for the new athletic field on September 5, 2019 at Henry Sibley High School at 4:30 p.m. There will be a soccer match to open the facility. It has now been named “Warrior Field”. The scoreboard was set in place the previous day. Councilor Duggan stated that the golf event on Sunday was a great community event. He expressed appreciation to Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence for the work she put into it. He also expressed appreciation to the residents for maintaining their properties and keeping the city looking beautiful. He encouraged everyone to support the local businesses. ADJOURN Councilor Petschel moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held August 20, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and Petschel were also present. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director; John Boland, Public Works Superintendent; Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician; Lorri Smith, City Clerk. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF FY2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Parks– City Administrator McNeill stated that this budget has a slight decrease. It was noted that the tree removal budget is for removing diseased trees during the year. The tree sale is also partially subsidized through this budget. Ryan Ruzek discussed the need for the current 2002 Natural Resources Plan to be updated at an estimated cost of $150,000. The recommendation is to budget for half of this cost in 2020, and the second half in 2021. A consultant would be hired to help complete the field work and data collection. Councilor Paper questioned if a scaled back plan could be completed this year to send to the state legislature a request for state funding. Councilor Petschel stated that she would want to see a very strategic plan with specific goals for each year, explaining exactly how to complete each goal. She would like to see everything looked at and the goals ranked according to need. Councilor Duggan stated that it would be important for this plan to incorporate the goals included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruzek explained the request for a Toro sprayer at a cost estimate of $62,329. The estimated life of this sprayer would be 15 to 20 years. Mr. Boland noted that Toro is the industry standard and is a proven brand. The current 2010 sprayer is mounted on a utility vehicle and is undersized. If approved, the current sprayer would be used for other purposes. Mr. Ruzek requested funding for the installation of native plantings at a cost of $5,000 and for maintenance of native plantings at a cost of $5,000. This would reduce the areas that currently needs to be mowed. page 10 A request has been made for $10,000 for improvements to the skate park. This would include the installation of three new pieces of equipment, which would make a larger scale reconstruction unnecessary. Recreation– This proposed budget has an increase of $9,000 due to programming costs and staff costs. It was noted that the current programming will be reviewed at the end of the season to see if it was successful, or how it may be improved upon. Councilor Duggan suggested working with the school district on certain programs for children. A request was made for a full time Office Assistant position to help with the office duties for Recreation. This office assistant would work 60% of the time on recreation clerical duties. The remaining hours would be spent working with the Community Development Director and the Finance Director. A request for a backup generator was discussed, at an estimated cost of $10,000. This would be installed at the Par 3 Maintenance Building. If electrical power was lost, this generator would control the heat in the building to prevent the sprinkler pipes from freezing. Mr. Ruzek discussed a request for a greens mower at an estimated cost of $47,000. This would replace two pieces of equipment, which would be traded in. Council Miller suggested exploring the purchase of a used greens mower. Regarding the Par 3 Enterprise Fund, Councilor Petschel suggested the City follow through on the City Auditor’s recommendation to making this a Special Revenue Fund or placing it within the General Fund. Special Parks Fund – The prioritization of projects was discussed. It was noted that the top projects to be focused on include dugouts at Mendakota Park, playground improvements, tennis court resurfacing improvements at Friendly Hills, and the Par 3 trail connection. Mr. Ruzek stated that the Par 3 trail connection will be challenging due to a steep ravine in the area. A Splash Pad project was discussed and determined to not be a priority. Projects that will be removed from the priority list include Pilot Knob restoration (at least in terms of city funding), Mendakota field lighting, and a Friendly Marsh Archery field. Budget improvement packages for Wentworth Park included the reconstruction of the tennis courts ($80,000), replacement of the warming house ($250,000), parking lot and trail improvements ($90,000), and playground improvements ($140,000) were discussed. Other improvements proposed included the expansion of the basketball court at Ivy Hills Park and the replacement of the backstop at Friendly Hills Park. Capital Improvements Plan – Mr. Ruzek reviewed the updated 5-year capital improvements plan which was provided to the Council. No changes were suggested. page 11 Other Discussion Request from Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA) – Staff presented a request from MHAA to waive invoiced charges for athletic field tournament usage. The amount invoiced was determined by the 2019 fee schedule. The invoice was for softball/baseball field use and concession stand use in the amount of $4,365. It was noted that a second invoice will be issued to MHAA that week for field usage for practices and games in the amount of $4,368. Mr. McNeill stated that the field use revenue projections for 2020 have been decreased from $30,000 to $5,000. WRAP-UP Mr. McNeill presented the levy projections for the different options presented. It was noted that the basic budget with the Parks Maintenance worker included would total a 6.72% levy increase. The levy projection for a budget including the Parks Maintenance position and an increase in the employee health insurance contribution would total a 7.25% levy increase. The levy projection for a budget with the Parks Maintenance position, an increase in employee health insurance contribution, and the Office Assistant position included would total a 7.8% levy increase. Previous years’ levy increases have been 2019-9.82%; 2018-7.52%; 2017-7.88%; It was recommended that the adoption of the preliminary budget and levy will be presented at the September 17th Council meeting. Councilor Petschel stated that she would like to see a memo showing the balances of what is in the fund balances and a list of what is being proposed to be spent out of these funds. The Council agreed to schedule a work session prior to the regular Council meeting on September 17th, so that the preliminary budget and proposed levy could be adopted at that time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 12 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 23, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 23, 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 Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Michael Noonan. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of June 25, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Katz suggested edits to the minutes, which were reviewed and either explained or accepted. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 25, 2019 REGULAR MEETING AND THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 11, 2019 SPECIAL MEETING, AS AMENDED AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Staff requested this application and hearing be tabled to the next month’s regular meeting. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR METRO STORAGE, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE, TO THE AUGUST 27, 2019 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN) page 13 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting 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 14 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting 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. 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. page 15 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10 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 track™ 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. 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 page 16 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 10 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. 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 page 17 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10 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 #1 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. 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. page 18 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 10 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 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 page 19 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10 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 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. page 20 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10 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. Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: Planning Case #2019-17 Edward Sweeney, 777 Wentworth Avenue Preliminary Plat Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Applicant is now working with the Dakota County Plat Commission to resolve some of the issues with them on the right-of-way dedication and access points Planning Case 2019-18 Independent School District #197 – Henry Sibley High School Variance Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 2019-16 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Code Amendment – Fence Standards page 21 July 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10 Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission; however, they did add language that the city prefers the 30% openness rule Planning Case 2019-14 Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue Variance Denied by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission; however, he has gone back and worked with his contractor and he may have figured out how to make an 8- foot 9-inch driveway work at the pinch point. Staff will review and as long as he meets the 5-foot setback, he will be meeting code and will not need any follow-up variance. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:55 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (NOONAN) page 22 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES July 17, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at Mendota Heights City Hall. 1. Call to Order Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. Roll Call The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Gina Norling, William Dunn, Sally Lorberbaum, Jim Neuharth, Arvind Sharma and Kevin Byrnes. Also present Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson. 3. Approval of Minutes a. Approval of Minutes of the March 20, 2019 Meeting Motion by Lorberbaum/Second by Dunn to approve the minutes of the March 20, 2019 ARC meeting. Motion carried 7-0. b. Approval of Minutes of the May 14, 2019 Joint Meeting with the Eagan ARC Motion by Dunn/Second by Norling to approve the minutes of the May 14, 2019 ARC meeting. Motion carried 7-0. 4. Unfinished and New Business a. MSP Noise Oversight Committee July meeting update Chair Sloan and Assistant City Administrator Jacobson provided a review of the July 17 Noise Oversight Committee meeting. Discussion was had and no action was taken. b. Review of Airport Operational Statistics i. Complaint Information. Complaint charts were reviewed. ii. Runway Use. Runway use charts were reviewed. Commissioners suggested that footnotes to variances should be noted on the bottom of the charts and to move the mean value and upper control limit value to the left of the chart at the start of the chart or data line. iii. Turboprop Charts. Commissioner Neuharth noted turboprop operators are willing to attend a meeting with the Commission. Discussion was had about completing turbo prop background information and then setting up a meeting with carriers. Commissioner Neuharth suggested that the timeframe for completing the background was three to four months out. Additional data is coming from Brad Juffer with the NOC. Commissioners noted that the ongoing turboprop analysis is based on noise complaints reported during a 2016 listening session. Discussion regarding whether or not turboprop noise is a current issues for Mendota Heights’ residents was raised. A suggestion of using page 23 the city’s Polco survey site was made in order to determine if turbo prop noise is an issue for residents. The group decided to continue with collecting background information and eventually meeting with carriers. iv. Noise Monitor Charts. Commissioner Norling stated that the chart will be updated to show a 24-month rolling calendar of data. It was noted that noise events are reaching summer peaks. 5. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence 6. Public Comments No public comments were received. 7. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Norling suggested the Commission plan an off-site get together for the August meeting. Discussion of possible ideas was had and included meeting at the new MSP Airport hotel restaurant. It was suggested that Chair Sloan and Assistant City Administrator Jacobson meet with City Administrator McNeil to discuss future meetings. 8. Adjourn Motion Neuharth/Second Dunn to adjourn at 7:06 pm. Minutes Taken By: Cheryl Jacobson Assistant City Administrator City of Mendota Heights page 24 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for Modifications to the Public Works Back Gate COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve a purchase order for modifications to the Public Works back gate. Background The existing gate is old and is not working properly. There is a total of $10,500.00 in the 2019 Budget to cover the expenses for the gate modifications. The expenditures would be shared by Parks, Streets, and Utilities. Discussion Staff received two quotes for the modification work of the back gate. They are: Dakota Unlimited $ 5,265.00 Century Fence Company $11,965.00 This amount would be $1,755.00 from the Parks, Streets, and Utilities Budgets. The amount quoted is $5,235.00 under budget. The low bid includes materials, installation, a 10 year material warranty and a five year workmanship warranty. Budget Impact There are sufficient funds in the 2019 Budget to cover this expenditure. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase order in the amount of $5,265.00 for the materials and installation of the modifications to the back gate at Public Works. Action Required If the City Council concurs, it should, pass a motion authorizing a purchase order to Dakota Unlimited for their low quote of $5,265.00 for the back gate modifications at Public Works. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 25 Date: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-59 Approve Disposal of Unclaimed Property from Kensington Storage Facility Introduction The City Council is asked to formally approve the disposal of unclaimed property from the Kensington Storage Facility. Background In August of 2019, the Mendota Heights Recreation Department inventoried the unclaimed property being stored in the Kensington Storage Facility. Local associations and athletic clubs historically have had access to this building and staff believes the items may have been left behind over the past several years. Staff contacted those who have had access to the facility and no one claimed the property. None of these items are of value and staff would like to properly dispose of whatever can’t be donated. The following items were unclaimed and staff would like to dispose of them: • 3 folding chairs • 6 sets of socks • 19 soccer jerseys • 16 pairs of soccer shorts • 1 plastic storage tub • 1 3 foot white flag • 1 youth blue coat • 2 goal plugs • 1 pink sweatshirt Budget Impact There is no budget impact. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2019-59. Action Required page 26 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt Resolution 2019-59, Approving Found Property for Disposal. page 27 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-59 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FOUND PROPERTY FOR DISPOSAL WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Code Title 1 “Unclaimed Personal Property” for appropriate disposition of property; and WHEREAS, the Code in Section 9 Chapter 1 defines property eligible; and WHEREAS, the Code in Chapter 2 defines allowable legal disposition of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to dispose of Kensington Storage Facility’s Unclaimed Belongings WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to remove the unclaimed belongings NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council authorizes the Recreation Department to dispose of Kensington Storage Facility’s Unclaimed Belongings from city property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 28 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Satisfaction of Town Center (Villages at Mendota Heights) Mortgage Date: September 3, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to take action to enter into a Satisfaction of Mortgage Agreement with RMF Group related to a subordinate mortgage held by the City on the Villages (Town Center) development. Background: The Mendota Heights City Council, along with City staff and the City Attorney, have discussed the issues surrounding the Villages at Mendota Heights project and parking facility escrow account at great length over the past year. These discussions have occurred at staff meetings and City Council workshops. There now appears to be a consensus to resolve this matter. One part of the original financing for the Villages development was for the City to sell various parcels, with all or a portion of the proceeds from each sale going to finance parking facilities on the “ABC Parcel.” These land sale proceeds were deposited in an escrow account maintained by the City, and were disbursed from time to time to the developer. The City has complete records of these disbursements and the historic levels of the escrow account. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement governing the project further provided that payments to the developer would be capped at $2,626,000, but the City did not guarantee that there would be that many proceeds generated from the land sales. The City sold the ABC Parcel to the developer, and in exchange for deferring the payment of a majority of the purchase price the City accepted a subordinate promissory note and a subordinate mortgage from the developer (RMF). Because of a downturn in the economy and other factors, RMF was delinquent in paying the subordinate promissory note, and in 2011 the City declared the note to be in default. RMF acknowledged the default, and calculated the delinquency amount owed to the City, plus interest. RMF proposed to pay off the delinquent amount by using proceeds that were purportedly in the old parking garage escrow account. However, at no point did amounts in the escrow account approach the $2,626,000 cap, and the account was closed out in July, 2013. It was therefore the City’s position that there is no escrow account, and the subordinate promissory note delinquency must be paid from some other revenues, or disposed of in some other fashion. page 29 The City has discussed with RMF its calculations surrounding the escrow account, and the amount remaining on the subordinate promissory note. As a result of a meeting held earlier this year between City staff, the City Attorney, and representatives for RMF and its counsel, it was determined that the most efficient way of dealing with the delinquency would be to have RMF waive its rights to any parking ramp escrow account proceeds (of which there are none anyway); the City would in turn agree that the provisions of the Subordinate Promissory Note for the ABC Parcel, and the delinquency thereof, would be forgiven. Prior research by City staff and the City Attorney uncovered that there is substantial senior debt on the ABC Parcel held by another bank, so it is unlikely the City would ever successfully receive payment on the Subordinate Promissory Note anyway. The attached Satisfaction of Mortgage Agreement succinctly wipes the slate clean, which will allow the RMF Group to proceed with its probate court obligations. Budget Impact: There is no impact on the City’s finances. Recommendation: I recommend that the Satisfaction of Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement be approved. Upon execution of this document, it will be filed in the Dakota County land records. Additionally, RMF will sign a waiver of any right it may have to proceeds remaining in the parking ramp escrow account (of which there are none). Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the execution of the following: SATISFACTION OF COMBINATION MORTGAGE, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FINANCING STATEMENT Mark McNeill City Administrator page 30 page 31 page 32 page 33 SATISFACTION OF COMBINATION MORTGAGE, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FINANCING STATEMENT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA Date: _________________, 2019 THAT COMBINATION MORTGAGE, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FINANCING STATEMENT, from Mendota Heights Town Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, as mortgagor, to the City of Mendota Heights, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, as mortgagee, dated as of August 1, 2007, and filed for record with the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, on August 1, 2007, as Document No. 2534681, together with any and all assignments, modifications, or amendments thereof, is fully secured and of no further force or effect. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By: Neil Garlock, Mayor By: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 34 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA } ss The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ________________, 2019, by Neil Garlock and Lorri Smith, the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Best & Flanagan LLP (AJP) 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4690 (612) 339-7121 #5800221_1 page 35 { CDr*.^ \n ■p oo <xooI r*- on0)(DEcnOfljca*0 crx«TJin -cr. c 3<1^ 3 (/?c CDq:^ o KO O £:• ■= = 1 3S ililll^ ......in 8|5|i^q «|^||CM SsSol-^S s.sts.1 6) o g § o hj o <x5i;e>-£H« *-»Crtoiiigs m a COMBINATION MORTGAGE, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FINANCING STATEMENT MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DATED AS OF August 1, 2007 The total amount of indebtedness secured by this Mortgage does not exceed $265,954.50. This Instrument Drafted By: HOLMES & ASSOCIATES Two Carlson Parkway, Suite 155 Minneapolis, MN 55447 763-249-0888 Telephone 763-249-0777 Facsimile RETURN TO;Fi^ Anwican Tme insurance Co. Commercial Services 1900^klwestPtol 801 NicoJI« Mall Mihneapolfi, MN 80402 RECEIVED WALKJjHRU min 2007 DAKOTA COUNTY treasurer-auditor .-lyiPLS (BD> FiVRMFlOO 001PDOOMORTGAGB (7-I64)7).D0C page 36 UNIFORM SHORT FORM MORTGAGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FILING STATEMENT This statutory short-form mortgage, security agreement and fixture filing statement is made this 1 day of August, 2007, between MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, IXC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Mortgagor, and the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota statutory city. Mortgagee. Witnesseth, that Mortgagor is or may become indebted to Mortgagee in the prineipal sum of Two Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars and 50/100 ($265,954.50) pursuant to the terms of that certain Note ("Note") of even date herewith and all extensions, amendments and renewals thereof; and Witnesseth, that Mortgagee will advance the proceeds of said Note in accordance with the terms of that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated August 2, 2002, as amended by that certain Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated January 7, 2004, and that certain Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 3, 2007 between Moifgagor and Mortgagee (the "Loan Agreement") by deferring the payment of a portion of the purchase price of certain real estate hereafter described (the "Real Estate"); and Witnesseth, that to secure the payment of the Note and require compliance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, Mortgagor hereby mortgages to the Mortgagee all tracts or parcels of land located in Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, described on Exhibit A, attached hereto together with (i) all building materials, supplies and equipment now or hereafter located on the Real Estate and suitable or intended to be incorporated in any building, structure, or other improvement located or to be erected on the Real Estate; (ii) all of the building, structures and other improvements now standing or at any time hereafter constructed or placed upon the Real Estate; and (iii) all heating, plumbing and lighting apparatus, motors, engines and machinery, electrical equipment, incinerator apparatus, air conditioning equipment, water and gas apparatus, pipes, faucets and all other fixtures of every description which are now or may hereafter be placed or used upon the Real Estate or in any building or improvement now or hereafter located thereon; (iv) all personal property of any kind which is now or may hereafter be installed or placed in or about or used in connection with the use, operation or maintenance of any building or improvements now or hereafter located on the Real Estate; and (v) all additions increases, parts, fittings, accessories, replacements, substitutions, betterments, repairs and proceeds to any and all of the foregoing; and (vi) all hereditaments, easements, appurtenances, estates, rents, issues, profits, condemnation awards and other rights and interest now or hereafter belonging or in any way pertaining to the Real Estate or to any building or improvement now or hereafter located thereon (all of the foregoing, together with the Real Estate, being hereinafter referred to as the "Mortgaged Property"); and , accessions. F:M1MF100'001RDOCVMORTGAGE<7-16-07).DOC page 37 Witnesseth, that this Mortgage is intended to be in compliance and benefit from the provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Short Form Mortgage Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 507.15. And the Mortgagor covenants with the Mortgagee the following statutory covenants; Excepting the Permitted Encumbrances (defined on Exhibit B, attached hereto), to warrant the title to the Mortgaged Property. To pay the indebtedness in accordance and comply with the terms of the Note and Loan Agreement. I. 2. 3.To pay all taxes. 4,To keep the buildings insured as required under the Loan Agreement. That the Mortgaged Property shall be kept in repair and no waste shall be committed. 5. 6.That the whole of the principal sum shall become due after default, in the payment of any installment of principal, or of any tax, or in the performance of any other covenant hereunder or under the Loan Agreement, at the option of the Mortgagee. Additionally, Mortgagor and Mortgagee agree as follows: If the Mortgagor fails to perform any of the covenants and agreements contained in the Loan Agreement (after notice and an opportunity to cure as provided therein) or if any action or proceeding is commenced which affects the property or the interest of the Mortgage therein, or the title thereto, then the Mortgagee, at Mortgagee's option, may perfoim such covenants and agreements, defend against or investigate such action or proceeding, and take such other action as the Mortgagee deems necessary to protect the Mortgagee's interest. Mortgagee shall be the sole judge of the legality, validity and priority of any claim, lien, encumbrance, tax, assessment, charge and premium paid by it and of the amount necessary to be paid in satisfaction thereof. Mortgagee is hereby given the irrevocable power of attorney (which power is coupled with an interest and is irrevocable) to enter upon the Mortgaged Property as the Mortgagor's agent in the Mortgagor's name to perform any and all covenants and agreements to be performed by the Mortgagor as herein provided. Any amounts or expenses disbursed or incurred by the Mortgagee pursuant to this paragraph shall become additional indebtedness of the Mortgagor secured by this Mortgage and Mortgagee shall give notice to Mortgagor of such additional indebtedness in the most practicable manner. Unless Mortgagor and Mortgagee agree in writing to other terms of repayment, such amounts shall be immediately due and payable. Mortgagee shall, at its option, be subrogated to the lien of any mortgage or other lien discharged in whole or in part by the Indebtedness or by the Mortgagee under the provisions hereof, and any such subrogation rights shall be additional and cumulative security for this Mortgage. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall F:\RM Kl 00001 l-'MX)C\MORTG AG E (7-16-07). DOC 7. page 38 require the Mortgagee to incur any expense or do any act hereunder, and the Mortgagee shall not be liable to the Mortgagor for any damages or claims arising out of action taken by the Mortgagee pursuant to this paragraph. This Mortgage shall constitute a security agreement with respect to (and the Mortgagor hereby grants the Mortgagee a security interest in) all personal property and fixtures included in the Mortgaged Property as more specifically described in the granting clauses of the Mortgage. The Mortgagor will from time to time, at the request of the Mortgagee, execute any and all financing statements covering such personal property and fixtures (in a form satisfactory to the Mortgagee) which the Mortgagee may reasonably consider necessary or appropriate to perfect its security interest. 8. 9.If default be made in any payment or covenant herein (and the same shall not be cured within 20 days after notice thereof by the Mortgagee or such other time as is reasonable under the circumstances) or an Event of Default shall occur under Loan Agreement and remain uncured as specified thereunder, the Mortgagee shall have the following rights and remedies (or any other rights and remedies available to it): (a)Mortgagee may, by written notice to the Mortgagor, declare immediately due and payable the principal of the Note and all other unmatured Indebtedness secured by this Mortgage, and the same shall thereupon be immediately due and payable, without further notice or demand. (b)Mortgagee shall have and may exercise with respect to all personal property and fixtures which are part of the Mortgaged Property all the rights and remedies accorded upon default to a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in the State of Minnesota. If notice to the Mortgagor of intended disposition of such property is required by law in particular instance, such notice shall be deemed commercially reasonable if given to at least ten calendar days prior to the date of intended disposition. Mortgagor shall pay on demand all costs and expenses incurred by Mortgagee in exercising such rights and remedies, including without limitation, attorneys' fees and legal expenses. Mortgagee may (and is hereby authorized and empowered to) foreclose this Mortgage by action or advertisement, pursuant to the statutes of the State of Minnesota in such case made and provided, the power being expressly granted to sell the Mortgaged Property at public auction and convey the same to the purchaser in fee simple and, out of the proceeds arising from such sale, to pay all indebtedness secured hereby with interest, and all legal costs and charges of such foreclosure and the maximum attorneys' fees pennitted by law, which costs, charges and fees the Mortgagor agrees to pay. (c) F:\RMF100'00I FiDOC'MORTGAGE (7-I6-07),DOC page 39 10.Mortgagor agrees at any time and from time to time, upon not less than 15 days prior notice by Mortgagee, to execute, acknowledge and deliver, without charge, to Mortgagee or to any person designated by Mortgagee, a statement in writing certifying that this Mortgage is unmodified {or if there have been modifications, identifying the same by the date thereof and specifying the nature thereof), the principal amount then secured hereby and the unpaid balance of the Note, that Mortgagor has not received any notice of default or notice of acceleration or foreclosure of this Mortgage (or if Mortgagor has received such a notice, that it has been revoked, if such be the case), that to the knowledge of Mortgagor no defaults exists hereunder (or if any such default does exist, specifying the same and stating that the same has been cured, if such be the case), that Mortgagor to its knowledge has no claims or offsets against Mortgagee (or if Mortgagor any such claims, specifying the same), and the dates to which the interest and the other sums and charges payable by Mortgagor pursuant to the Note have been paid. The covenants and agreements herein contained shall bind, and the rights hereunder shall inure to, the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of the Mortgagee and the Mortgagor. Wlierever used, the singular number shall include the plural, and plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall apply to all genders. In exercising any rights hereunder or taking any actions provided for herein. Mortgagee may act through its employees, agents or independent contractors as authorized by Mortgagee. Any notice from the Mortgagee to the Mortgagor under this Mortgage shall be given as provided under the Loan Agreement. This Mortgage shall be governed by the substantive laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event that any provision or clause of this Mortgage conflicts with applicable law, such conflict shall not affect other provisions of this Mortgage which can be given effect without the conflicting provisions and to this end the provisions of the Mortgage are declared to be severable. This Mortgage may be executed in any number of counteiparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. Mortgagor, any party who consents to this Mortgage and any party who now or hereafter acquires a lien on the Mortgaged Property and who has actual or constructive notice of this Mortgage hereby waives any and all right to require the marshaling of assets in connection with the exercise of any of the remedies permitted by applicable law or provided herein. From the date of its recording, this Mortgage shall be effective as a financing statement filed as a fixture filing with respect to all goods constituting part of the Mortgaged Property (as more particularly described in the granting clause of this Mortgage) which are to become fixtures related to the Real Estate described herein. For this purpose, the following information is set forth: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l-rlRM FlOO’OOl BDOOMORTGAGE (7-16-07),DOC page 40 (a)Name and Address of Debtor: Mendota Heights Town Center, LLC 1221 West Lake Street Suite 209 Minneapolis, MN 55408 (b)Name and Address of Secured Party: The City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (c)This document covers goods which are or are to become fixtures. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Mortgagor has caused this Mortgage to be duly executed as of the day and year first-above written. MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY By:.. Ross M. Fefercom Its: Chief Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ))ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of August, 2007, by Ross M, Fefercom, the Chief Manager of MENDOTA HEIGHTS T( limited liability company, on behalf of the company. ' ) E :R, LLC, a Minnesota Notary Public ^, - ^ CRISTY L. KALLAS ^ NOTARY PUBUC-MfNNESOTA MyCoriumssJOfi£)i(»imd»ft. 31.2Q10 mu F;MlMF10000IF\IX)DMORTGAGE(7-16-07),rX)C page 41 EXHIBIT A To UNIFORM SHORT FORM MORTGAGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FINANCING STATEMENT BY AND BETWEEN MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Legal Description Of Mortgaged Property Lot I, Block 6 Mendota Heights Town Center according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota F:\RMFIOO OOIRDOCWORTCAGE (7-l6-07),DOC page 42 EXHIBIT B To UNIFORM SHORT FORM MORTGAGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT AND FIXTURE FINANCING STATEMENT BY AND BETWEEN MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Permitted Encumbrances Those certain encumbrances set forth on that certain Title Policy of the Real Estate issued First American Title Insurance Company, Order No. NCS-292811-MPLS. F:\RMF100 001 ODOCiMORTGAGE (7-I6-07).DOC page 43 DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Purchase of Fire Turn-out Gear INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the purchase of six sets of first responder (turnout) gear. BACKGROUND The 2019 fire department budget allows for the purchase of up to six sets of turnout gear. A recent inspection of the gear by the department’s safety committee found that there are 6 sets of gear that are in immediate need of replacement. We have received two quotations for replacement gear that meets the departments’ specifications. One was from Fire Equipment Specialties at $2,637/set; the second one was Witmer Safety at $2,782/set. As such, Fire Equipment Specialties is the lower priced option. The total cost would be $15,822 BUDGET IMPACT This expense was planned for in the 2019 budget. Funds from the fire department operating budget will be used to purchase the turnout gear. RECOMMENDATION It’s my recommendation that the Council approve purchase of the turn-out gear for the estimated amount of $15,822 from Fire Equipment Specialties. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the purchase of 6 sets of turnout gear for the amount of $15,822, from Fire Equipment Specialties. page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales Lot 2440 Enterprise Drive – Garland’s Inc. (Planning Case No. 2019-23) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to Garland’s Inc. for an Outdoor Sales Lot in the I-Industrial District. The property is located at 2440 Enterprise Drive. Background Garland’s Inc.is purchasing the former Manna Freight property located at 2440 Enterprise Drive, and wishes to relocate their main offices and distribution center to this new location. Garland’s is primarily a distributor of pre-made casters, wheels, shelving units, hand-carts and a wide variety of material handling products for commercial/industrial based businesses, and they also provide new job trailers for sale. Pursuant to City Code 12-1G-2, “Open Sales Lots” are considered a conditional use in the industrial zone; and defined as “Land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building.” The Applicant is seeking to utilize the rear portion of the property for the storage/display of new trailers. No other materials or equipment will be stored outside. On August 27, 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 08/27/19 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 conditional use 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 7-0 vote) to approve the Conditional Use Permit with findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-62 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OUTDOOR SALES LOT LOCATED AT 2440 ENTERPRISE DRIVE. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 48 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-62 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OUTDOOR SALES LOT IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2440 ENTERPRISE DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-23) WHEREAS, Garland’s Inc./JBT LLC (as “Applicant”) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new open sales lot, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-23, and for the property located at 2440 Enterprise Drive (the “Subject Property”), which is legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the I-Industrial District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code 12-1G-2 of the I-Industrial District, “Open Sales Lots” are considered a conditional use in the industrial zone, and Open Sales Lots are defined by city Zoning Code as: “Land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building”; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request 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 recommended approval (by 7-0 vote) of the Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor sales lot, with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the Conditional Use Permit for the new open sales lot on the Subject Property and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-23, may be approved based on the following findings of facts: A. The proposed conditional use allowing the outdoor sales lot in the Industrial District will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. page 49 B. The proposed parking and storage of the trailers on the subject property should not impact the required parking needs of the Applicant’s business needs, and therefore this new use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including I-Industrial District performance standards. C. The outdoor sales/storage lot for the trailers will be effectively screened and secured, assuring that any visual impacts from neighboring properties will be minimal, and access for emergency personnel is assured by means of an approved access/key box. D. Applicant has agreed to the conditions noted herein, including (but not limited to) the fence with special screening measures, and that no trailers will be parked outside the dedicated fenced-in area, all of which minimize any visual impacts to the neighboring properties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit for the new open sales lot on the Subject Property, and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-23, is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1. The parking and display of any new trailers at this location will be confined only to the fenced-in area and in the space(s) noted on the Site Plan submitted under Planning Application No. 2019-23 and presented in this Planning Report. No trailers will be allowed to be stored at any time outside the fenced-in lot or any unpaved (grass) areas of the subject property. 2. All new fencing shall be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing, with decorative inserts for added screening measures, and must be a minimum of 6-feet in height at all locations. 3. The Applicant shall provide additional fencing along the northwest corner and along the north (back) line of the property. 4. A fence permit shall be required for the installation of the new fence. 5. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. No temporary signs, special sales event signs, flags, balloons, pennants or similar attention attracting devices will be allowed or permitted for the promotion, advertisement, or sale of trailers at this location. 6. The Applicant agrees to install a “Knox-box” or similar key/switch feature for fire and police emergency access on the outside of the gate/fence area. page 50 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 51 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-13200-01-020 ADDRESS: 2440 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 LEGAL: Lot 2, Block 1, BDS Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota [Abstract Property] Resolution Document Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 52 Planning Staff Report DATE: August 27, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for OUTDOOR SALES LOT APPLICANT: Garland’s Inc. / JBT LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2440 Enterprise Drive ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial District / I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: September 30, 2019 INTRODUCTION Garland’s Inc., a Minneapolis based company, is seeking to purchase the former Manna Freight facility located at 2440 Enterprise Drive, and relocate their main offices (headquarters) and distribution center to this new location. Garland’s is primarily a distributor of pre-made casters, wheels, shelving units, hand- carts and a wide variety of material handling products for commercial/industrial based businesses. Garland’s is based in Minnesota, with satellite locations in Des Moines, Denver and Green Bay. A small part of Garand’s business is the selling of new, pull-behind box, job-site and work trailers, which sales are done primarily on-line or through direct sales (see attached images of trailers to be sold/displayed appended to end of this report). Garland is seeking to store/display a few of these new these trailers on the back area of their building in a new enclosed (fenced-in) area, or an open sales lot, which requires approval under a conditional use permit. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received by staff related to this item. BACKGROUND The subject property is zoned I-Industrial and is 3.33 acres in size. The property contains a 31,320 sf. (total) office/warehouse building, which will become the new office/headquarters/distribution center for Garland’s Inc. Garland’s CEO Bob Smith indicated they will have up to 20 employees at the new Mendota Heights location. The existing building contains two floors of office space, with 5,874-sf. on each level, and the back area has an 18,512 sf. warehouse/loading space. Garland’s intends to use the first floor office space for its employees; and the old upstairs office area will be converted into a new showroom space of materials and products they offer or distribute (see aerial image – below). page 53 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 2 of 8 FRONT ELEVATION OF BUILDING – looking from ENTERPRISE DRIVE The parking areas for this site are located on the east and rear (north) areas of the property, with 62 available parking space. The back side of the building contains 7 loading bays/docks, with an additional grade-level overhead door bay leading into the back warehouse space (see aerial image – below). CEO Smith stated their business does not require or demand a lot of moving and loading of product, nor much customer/visitor parking, since “…most of our business is done over the phone or online.” page 54 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 3 of 8 Please note that under the Industrial District regulations, “Automobile and other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building” can be considered under a similar conditional use permit process. A question raised early on by staff was if these trailers constituted a “vehicle” under this land use category. In conferring with the city’s police department personnel, and researching definitions under Minnesota State Statutes, a “trailer” on its own - and by definition and determination of staff, is not considered a “vehicle of transportation”, as it does not have the capability to move or travel on its own power. Therefore, the sales/display of these trailers may be approved (by conditional use permit only) under this general “Open Sales Lot” activity in the industrial District. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursuant to City Code 12-1G-2 of the I-Industrial District, “Open Sales Lots” are considered a conditional use in the industrial zone. Open Sales Lots are defined by city Zoning Code as: “Land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building.” The Applicant plans to utilize only the rear portion of the property for the storage/display of the trailers, which are highlighted in “yellow-shaded” areas on the site plan below. City Code requires typical “outdoor storage areas” in the Industrial District to be screened from surrounding properties with fencing, walls, or landscaping. Only when an industrial use is next to a residential use does the fence or screen need to be 100% opaque. In this case, the subject site is surrounded by other industrial users, and the need for 100% opaque screening is not necessary. Although there are no specific standards or requirements for screening/fencing outdoor sales lots in the Industrial Zone, city staff encouraged the Applicant to provide fencing not only for security reasons, but for screening the trailers from its neighbors. The site plan illustrates a new security/screening fence line, which is tied into the east side of the building, and the fence runs easterly across the existing parking lot area to the easterly edge of the parking (but not the easterly-most lot line, which is still approx. 100-feet from the edge of this parking), and said fence turns northward and ends at the northeast corner of the parking lot. The fence proposed by the Applicant is a Lincoln Solid Board (100% opaque) along the front edge, and a black vinyl coated chain-linked fence with decorative inserts (for added screening measures) along the side fence line. The fence also includes a “Cantilever Gate System” at the entry into the back sales/parking lot page 55 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 4 of 8 area, which gate will be open throughout the day during normal business hours, but closed at night fo r security. As noted previously, the fence is planned only on the east side of the building and easterly edge of the parking lot, and dead-ends at the northeast corner. Since the back side of the property abuts an abandoned railroad ROW (owned by MnDOT), and on the opposite side are two large industrial users (Pilot Knob Distribution and Mendota Heights Gateway Commons), staff is looking to the Planning Commission to decide if this back lot line area needs to be fenced/screened off as well. (Note: the Google map image below shows this ROW area to be well screened with mature natural vegetation). City staff would recommend that the Applicant provide additional fencing along the northwest corner of the building and parking area (see modified Site Plan – below); and that the entire fence be at least six (6) page 56 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 5 of 8 feet in height at all locations. A black vinyl chain-linked fence is acceptable, with decorative fence inserts to provide added screening measures. The Commission should decide if the rear (north) line of the parking/outdoor sales lot must be fenced, and if this fencing should also include decorative inserts as well. The submitted site plan currently shows 62 parking spaces; with 49 striped in the east parking area and 13 in the back NW corner. All of the proposed trailer parking will take place on the back area lot. Of the 62 total spaces, 15 spaces will be used or taken up for trailer parking/storage. The remaining 47 spaces will be available for employee and customer parking. Part of this fenced-in outdoor sales lot will contain 25 spaces for employees. Customer/visitor parking is reserved outside the fenced area, which consists of 22 parking spaces. Garland’s does not have any plans to expand the parking lot at this time. Per City Code 12-1D-16 Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements are determined as follows:  Office (less than 6,000 sq. ft. of floor area) at 3 spaces + 1 add’l for each 500-sf. of floor area: Calculation: 5,874-sf. / 500 = 11.8 + 3 = 14.8, or 15 spaces needed  Warehousing at 1 space per 2,000 sf. of floor area: Calculation: 18,512 / 2,000 = 9.26 or 10 spaces needed To calculate the upstairs showroom space, it either works out to be the same as the office space calculation noted above (at 15 spaces); or we add the 5,874-sf to the warehouse space of 18,512-sf. = for 24,386-sf., which works out to be 13 total spaces for these combined spaces. In either event, the site appears to meet its parking needs for both employees and customers, and still allows ample space for the outdoor parking of trailers as shown on the plan. ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is slated to continue to be guided Industrial under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. The Plan states: “Mendota Heights has been able to attract high quality industrial users with aesthetically pleasing development by page 57 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 6 of 8 requiring planned, aesthetically pleasing industrial design and landscape standards. The City will continue to promote the development of this type of industry.” Garland’s goal to purchase and re-use the old Manna Freight center is supported by Land Use Goal #2 (2030 Plan) and Goal No. 2.3 (2040 Plan), which states: “[The City] support industrial and commercial development in designated areas.”  Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, any use allowed by a conditional use permit in a particular zoning district requires submittal of a complete development or site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The [city] council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and 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. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use will: a) not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) that the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed office/warehouse distribution use proposed by Garland’s Inc. at this location will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as they will be simply taking over an existing, well maintained and well-established industrial use site inside the Industrial Park. The transition from former Manna Freight to Garland’s will likely be seamless; and the city should be supportive and welcoming another business moving its headquarters and main business operations to the community. The overall general use and purpose of this business at this location does not produce any activity, level of service, or production of materials that could be considered detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community; nor any negative impacts to the surrounding industrial businesses, including their property values. According to the Applicants, the proposed outdoor storage and display of small trailers on the back side of the property will be well screened and very limited in scope and activity (5- 10% of their overall business plan). The new screening fence will provide not only an added level of security and privacy, but an effective means of screening these trailers from neighboring uses. The city’s fire department staff were asked to review and provide comments or recommendations on this CUP application item. Due to an existing Fire Department Connection (FDC) located at the southwest corner of the building (and inside the secured area), the Fire Dept. requested the Applicant provide what is generally termed a “Knox-Box” on the outside area of the security gate/fence for emergency access. The Applicant has agreed to install this gate/key feature as part of the new fence. The subject site has one single access pint on to Enterprise Drive, and there are no plans to add or modify this access at this time. Due to the limited number of employees expected on the site, and the expected limitations of customers/visitors to the site, the expected number of trips to and from the site should also be minimal, and should not cause or result in any congestion problems getting in or out of this site or industrial area. page 58 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 7 of 8 Staff feels the overall proposed use of the subject property by Garland’s Inc., including the outdoor sales lot of trailers, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Use states: “The development and execution of this chapter is based upon the division of the city into districts within which the regulations are specified. It is recognized, however, that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the council may by resolution approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is carried out.” It is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use for the proposed outdoor sales lot at this location, and specifically for the expressed needs of Garland’s Inc., conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code (zoning) and the comprehensive plans, including site and performance standards under the I-Industrial District. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request from Garland’s Inc. to have an outdoor sale lot located at 2240 Enterprise Drive, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with certain conditions of approval; or 2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit request from Garland’s Inc. to have an outdoor sale lot located at 2240 Enterprise Drive, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or 3. Table the requested planning application item, direct staff or the applicant to provide additional information (if needed); and allow this item to be brought back for further review at a future planning commission meeting; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for Garland’s Inc. / JBT LLC, which allows the placement of an outdoor sales lot at the property located at 2240 Enterprise Drive, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the following conditions: 1. The parking and display of any new trailers at this location will be confined only to the fenced-in area and in the space(s) noted on the Site Plan submitted under Planning Application No. 2019-23 and presented in this Planning Report. No trailers will be allowed to be stored at any time outside the fenced-in lot or any unpaved (grass) areas of the subject property. 2. All new fencing shall be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing, with decorative inserts for added screening measures, and must be a minimum of 6-feet in height at all locations. page 59 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP Page 8 of 8 3. The Applicant shall provide additional fencing along the northwest corner and along the north (back) line of the property. 4. A fence permit shall be required for the installation of the new fence. 5. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. No temporary signs, special sales event signs, flags, balloons, pennants or similar attention attracting devices will be allowed or permitted for the promotion, advertisement, or sale of trailers at this location. 6. The Applicant agrees to install a “Knox-box” or similar key/switch feature for fire and police emergency access on the outside of the gate/fence area. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial/Location Map 2. Site Plan (Outdoor Sales Lot) 3. Applicant’s Narrative Letter/Project Descriptions 4. Applicant’s Fence Information/Handouts 5. Garland’s Inc. Material Handling Products-Brochures 6. Images of Trailers to be Stored/Sold FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit to Garland’s Inc. 2240 Enterprise Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed conditional use allowing the outdoor sales lot in the Industrial District will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed parking and storage of the trailers on the subject property should not impact the required parking needs of the Applicant’s business needs, and therefore this new use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including I-Industrial District performance standards. 3. The outdoor sales/storage lot for the trailers will be effectively screened and secured, assuring that any visual impacts from neighboring properties will be minimal, and access for emergency personnel is assured by means of an approved access/key box. 4. Applicant has agreed to the conditions noted herein, including (but not limited to) the fence with special screening measures, and that no trailers will be parked outside the dedicated fenced-in area, all of which minimize any visual impacts to the neighboring properties. page 60 H W Y 5 5 HWY 1 3 PILOT KNOB RDW A T E R S D R MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD ENTERPRISE DRL E M A Y L A K E R D H W Y 5 5 HWY 1 3 2440 ENTERPRISE DRIVEGarland's Inc. City of Mendota Heights0390 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/7/2019 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 61 ((((? ? ? G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666! ! ! ! " " " " !66666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 492 334330 300297 461 356 963 344 164 1 6 0 9848472 341 174 165187 42 8952962440 2425 2444 2430 2333 2365 2444 2360 ENTERP R I S E D R 444'349' 175' 13 3 '73'1 5 9 ' 103' 157'8'''' 6''6''8''6''8''6''Down 8 2' Up 78'Down 139'Up 35'2440 ENTERPRISE DRIVEGarland's Inc. City of Mendota Heights090 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/8/2019 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 62 July 29, 2019 City of Mendota Heights Attn: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Letter of Intent - - Conditional Use Permit Application - - Open Sales Lot 2440 Enterprise Drive, Mendota heights, MN 55120 Dear Tim, Garlands, Inc. looks forward to making Mendota Heights, MN the new home for their Corporate Headquarters. Garlands, Inc. will consolidate their Minneapolis, MN and Burnsville, MN locations into the property located at 2440 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, MN. Garlands, Inc. has been serving their clients since 1944 as a wholesaler of Material Handling Products (casters, wheels, shelving, trailers, etc.) with annual revenues of $22 million, we employ 80 professionals, and service our clientele via our physical locations in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. For more information on Garlands, Inc., please visit our website at www.garlandsinc.com . The building and property located at 2440 Enterprise Drive in Mendota Heights, MN will serve as Garlands, Inc.’s Corporate Headquarters. The functions and activities that will be conducted out of this property will be office, warehousing, sales, and distribution of materials handling products. Garlands, Inc.’s material handling products include new trailer sales. Garlands, Inc. is requesting the City of Mendota Heights, MN to grant the property with a Conditional Use Permit for an “open sales lot”, as defined by the Industrial zoning code as “Land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building” to accommodate the sale of their new trailers. The “open sales lot” will be screened appropriately per the City standards and will occur on the side and behind the building as displayed in the plans provided with this Letter of Intent. New trailer sales represent about 5%-10% of Garlands, Inc.’s total revenues. The sale of these trailers occur predominantly online. Garlands’, Inc. appreciates your consideration and we look forward to relocating their Corporate Headquarters to Mendota Heights, MN. Thank you and have a great day! Sincerely, Bob Smith Jerry Smith Tom Smith President Vice President Vice President page 63 ADD 265 LF PRIVACY FENCE 30 FT GATE 0 30 60 90 FT 9649 HUMBOLDT AVENUE S. BLOOMINGTON , MN OFFICE: 952.884.3336 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AUTHORIZATION REVISIONS SHEET DRAWINGS TITLE This drawing and the information contained herein is the property of Ground One Enterprises (GOE) and its subsidiaries . No prortion of this drawing may be reproduced without the expressed written consent of the management of GOE. Use of this plan without written permission is a violation of copyright law and may result in legal prosecution of any and all parties involved . In the event that a third party desires to acquire the copyright, it may be purchased in accordance with the bylaws of GOE at the time of purchase. Clients may use this plan and all information contained herein in accordance with their written design agreement. No professional landscape company may use this plan without first obtaining the copyright from GOE in accordance with the bylaws at the time of seeking to acquire said copyright. I herby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a certified landscape professional by the Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association . NAME SIGNATURE DATE CRAIG TRENARY FENCE LAYOUT L1 Existing Conditions / Removals L2 Schematic Plan L3 L2 DATE: SCALE:2440 ENTERPRISE DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 GARLAND'S INC. 07/30/19 1" = 30' page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 IMAGES OF TYPCIAL TRAILERS TO BE SOLD/DISPLAYED BY GARLAND’S INC. page 73 Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. - CUP page 74 August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 14 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-23 GARLAND’S INC. / JBT LLC, 2240 ENTERPRISE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for OUTDOOR SALE LOT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Garland’s Inc. is purchasing the former Manna Freight property, located at 2440 Enterprise Drive. They wish to relocate their headquarters and their main distribution center. Garland’s Inc. is a distributor of pre-made casters, wheels, shelving units, hand-carts, and a wide variety of material handling products for commercial/industrial based businesses. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an outdoor sales lot to display their very small box trailers, or job-site trailers. This would be under a new enclosed fenced-in area. This item was presented under a public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments of objections have been received. The property is zoned I-Industrial, is 3.33 acres in size, and contains a 31,320 square foot office/warehouse building. This office/warehouse building would become the new office/headquarters/distribution center for Garland’s Inc. The office space consists of two floors with 5,874 square feet on each level. The first floor office space would be used by 20 employees and the upstairs office space would be converted into a new showroom space. The back warehouse area is approximately 18,512 square feet in size. There are currently 62 parking spaces on the lot with seven (7) loading bays and one (1) at grade bay on the backside. The initial plan that was submitted by the applicant showed a new fence coming in off of the mid-point of the building and back to the rear property line. Storage of trailers would be on the outside. Mr. Benetti shared images showing the types of box trailers or job-site trailers that would be stored on the site. Garland’s Inc. does not manufacture the trailers, they broker them. The customer comes to them and asks for these type of trailers through direct sales or Internet sales. Open sales lots do require a CUP and are defined as “land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building”. Garland’s Inc. plans to utilize only the rear portion of the property for the storage/display of the trailers. Staff raised the question early on if these trailers constituted a “vehicle” under this land use category. After discussing this question with the Police Department and researching definitions under the Minnesota State Statues, they discovered that a ‘trailer’ on its own is not considered a ‘vehicle of transportation’ as it does not have the capability to move or travel on its own power. The applicant did share with staff images of fencing on the front of the site; however, Mr. Benetti would like to see fencing on the northwest side as well and asked for the Commission’s opinion on that. The rear of the property does contain an old railroad right-of-way bed that has been vacant page 75 August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 14 for a number of years. It is also heavily landscaped on the opposite site. There may not be any need for screening; however, for security reasons fencing should be considered. Again, Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria to be met in the granting of a CUP (Title 12-1L-6): a. Not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community b. Nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards c. Nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. That the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan Commissioner Noonan noted that Condition 2 recommended all new fencing be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing; yet the images shared were board-on-board. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed the board-on-board would be too much for the front edge; he believed the black chain- link fencing would probably work better. He recommended that the whole fencing area be replaced with the black chain-link fencing with decorative (insertable) slats. Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to the fencing ordinance code amendment recently passed, asked if the city requires fencing on industrial lots. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; only if they are adjacent to residential are they required to have fencing. Mr. Bob Smith, one of three brothers that own Garland’s Inc., came forward. He stated that Garland’s Inc. is currently headquartered in Minneapolis, with locations in Minneapolis; Burnsville; Des Moines, IA; Denver, CO; and Green Bay, WI. They are one of the top five distributors of material handling products in the United States; they are very good at what they do. They believe it would be a very good addition to their company to move to Mendota Heights. Commissioner Toth noted that he looked at their website and it did not identify trailer sales as of yet. He asked if this was a new entity that they are building into their market, building into Mendota Heights. Mr. Smith replied that this is a new product line and they feel that it will add to their current product line. Commissioner Toth then asked if they would be selling used trailers or could a potential buyer trade-in their old trailer for a new one. Mr. Smith replied that they are not planning on doing that; their focus is on selling of new trailers. Their emphasis is to not sell junk; there would not be piles of junk in their yard. Commissioner Corbett asked if the two runs of fencing that was included in their original proposal and not as a recommendation, was that born from them or born from their work with the city. Mr. Smith replied that they asked the city what they thought and they thought it would be a good idea to fence in the front and the sides. Commissioner Corbett asked if they had a genuine security concern. Mr. Smith replied that security is a concern. The backside is all wooded so they assumed a fence would not be necessary. The missing fencing on the west side was because he simply forgot to put it in there. They would be more than willing to put a fence there is the city believed it would be a good recommendation. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation that if someone wanted to steal a trailer, the only logical way they are going to get it out is through a locked gate. Mr. Smith confirmed. The back wooded area is heavily overgrown and would be very difficult for anyone to even walk back there. page 76 August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 14 Chair Magnuson asked how they would feel about putting a fence back there. Mr. Smith replied that if the Commission and staff recommended it, they would do it. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The parking and display of any new trailers at this location will be confined only to the fenced-in area and in the space(s) noted on the Site Plan submitted under Planning Application No. 2019-23 and presented in this Planning Report. No trailers will be allowed to be stored at any time outside the fenced-in lot or any unpaved (grass) areas of the subject property. 2. All new fencing shall be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing, with decorative inserts for added screening measures, and must be a minimum of 6-feet in height at all locations. 3. The Applicant shall provide additional fencing along the northwest corner and along the north (back) line of the property. 4. A fence permit shall be required for the installation of the new fence. 5. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. No temporary signs, special sales event signs, flags, balloons, pennants or similar attention attracting devices will be allowed or permitted for the promotion, advertisement, or sale of trailers at this location. 6. The Applicant agrees to install a “Knox-box” or similar key/switch feature for fire and police emergency access on the outside of the gate/fence area. AND THE ADDED CONDITION: 7. The site be enclosed with screening fencing. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 3, 2019 meeting. page 77 Request for City Council Action DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-63 Accept Donation of Soccer Goals Introduction The City Council is asked to formally accept a donation of a set of soccer goals which was received from the Salvo Soccer Club. Background By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. Salvo Soccer Club has purchased one set of 21 foot soccer goals to be donated to the City of Mendota Heights. The total cost for the set of goals was $3,000. For this season, the goals will be used on Friendly Hills baseball field by Salvo Soccer Club. With the acceptance of the donation, the goals will become the property of the City of Mendota Heights and will be stored on city property. In the future, City staff will determine where the goals will be best utilized on city property. The City is grateful for this donation. Budget Impact There is no budget impact. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 2019-63, formally acknowledging the receipt of a donation to the City of Mendota Heights from SALVO Soccer Club. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt Resolution 2019-63, formally acknowledging the receipt of a donation to the City of Mendota Heights from SALVO Soccer Club. page 78 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-63 RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF A DONATION TO THE CITY FROM SALVO SOCCER CLUB WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires that gifts to municipalities be formally accepted by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wishes to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize them for their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights accepts a donation from Salvo Soccer Club of one set of 21 foot soccer goals. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 page 91 page 92 page 93 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-61 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2019-61 accepting bids and awarding a contract for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project. BACKGROUND Council ordered the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project at their July 16, 2019 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the August 7, 2019 meeting. DISCUSSION Four bids (see below) were received and opened on Thursday, August 29, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project. NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. $324,883.00 Northland Excavating, LLC $469,908.50 JL Theis, Inc. $499,976.65 Urban Companies, Inc. $636,803.25 Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. (Rosti) submitted the lowest responsible bid of 324,883.00. Their bid was less than the Engineer's Estimate of $346,809. Rosti is a contractor with many years of experience with an office in Jordan, Minnesota. Staff recommends them for this contract. The substantial completion date for the project is November 5, 2019 with final landscaping in May of 2020. We expect Rosti, serving in the capacity of General Contractor, is capable of meeting the completion dates and installing the proposed improvements in accordance with the page 94 plans and specifications given their experience and the amount of equipment and manpower they have at their disposal. 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 Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project are proposed to be financed by Special Assessments and Municipal Bonds, The total cost for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project is $324,883.00, 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 Rosti for their bid in the amount of $324,883.00. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE TOWN CENTER VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 95 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-61 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed construction of boulder and block retaining walls, ornamental fence, 3” bituminous walk, and various landscaping at the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights, 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 Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. $324,883.00 Northland Excavating, LLC $469,908.50 JL Theis, Inc. $499,976.65 Urban Companies, Inc. $636,803.25 and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the lowest responsible bid submitted by Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota, be accepted. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the bids for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement project are hereby received and accepted. 2. That the bid of Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted. 3. That the contract be awarded to of Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. of Jordan, 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 third day of September, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ___________________________ _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor page 96 August 29, 2019 Honorable Mayor and Member of the City Council City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements City Project No. MH201810 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: On August 29, 2019 the City of Mendota Heights opened bids for the Retaining Wall Improvements Project. Four bids were received and ranged between $324,883.00 and $636,803.25. The low bid was 6.3% lower than the engineers estimate of $346,809.00. Upon further review of the apparent low bid with the engineers estimate, the bid provided by Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. was found to be responsive and not materially unbalanced. The bidding documents included within the Rosti bid were reviewed in accordance with federal and state requirements. The prime contractor and subcontractors in the bid were NOT found to be listed as suspended or debarred within the State of Minnesota. We reviewed project references and received positive recommendations regarding the low bidder including professional crew interaction with residents and timely and quality construction. Therefore we recommend a contract award to Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. If you have any questions regarding the bid results of this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Anthony Sellner, PE Project Engineer Stonebrooke Engineering page 97 UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL EST PROJECT QUANTITIES COST UNIT PRICE BID PRICE UNIT PRICE BID PRICE UNIT PRICE BID PRICE UNIT PRICE BID PRICE 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $17,000 1.00 $17,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 2101.501 CLEARING & GRUBBING LS $1,500 1.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2104.503 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L F $5 8 $40.00 $3.00 $24.00 $8.00 $64.00 $20.00 $160.00 $50.00 $400.00 2104.503 SALVAGE BOULDER RETAINING WALL L F $30 790 $23,700.00 $10.00 $7,900.00 $29.00 $22,910.00 $15.00 $11,850.00 $10.00 $7,900.00 2104.503 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER L F $3 60 $180.00 $8.00 $480.00 $35.00 $2,100.00 $12.00 $720.00 $13.00 $780.00 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK S Y $10 13 $130.00 $8.00 $104.00 $250.00 $3,250.00 $15.00 $195.00 $18.00 $234.00 2104.518 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK S F $1 2117 $2,117.00 $2.00 $4,234.00 $1.50 $3,175.50 $1.75 $3,704.75 $1.25 $2,646.25 2104.601 REMOVE LANDSCAPING LS $1,500 1.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON (P) C Y $10 318 $3,180.00 $10.00 $3,180.00 $40.00 $12,720.00 $50.00 $15,900.00 $80.00 $25,440.00 2106.507 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV)(P) C Y $20 474 $9,480.00 $10.00 $4,740.00 $45.00 $21,330.00 $50.00 $23,700.00 $80.00 $37,920.00 2211.507 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CY $30 45 $1,350.00 $50.00 $2,250.00 $28.00 $1,260.00 $80.00 $3,600.00 $45.00 $2,025.00 2411.618 BOULDER RETAINING WALL S F $39 3815 $148,785.00 $25.00 $95,375.00 $26.60 $101,479.00 $55.00 $209,825.00 $80.00 $305,200.00 2504.602 FURNISH & INSTALL SPRINKLER HEAD EACH $35 32 $1,120.00 $50.00 $1,600.00 $100.00 $3,200.00 $350.00 $11,200.00 $300.00 $9,600.00 2504.603 RELOCATE SPRINKLER SYSTEM L F $4 400 $1,600.00 $10.00 $4,000.00 $23.00 $9,200.00 $3.00 $1,200.00 $25.00 $10,000.00 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F $10 110 $1,100.00 $65.00 $7,150.00 $35.00 $3,850.00 $15.00 $1,650.00 $25.00 $2,750.00 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F $20 95 $1,900.00 $65.00 $6,175.00 $40.00 $3,800.00 $20.00 $1,900.00 $25.00 $2,375.00 2521.518 3" BITUMINOUS WALK S F $6 2302 $13,812.00 $4.00 $9,208.00 $6.00 $13,812.00 $13.00 $29,926.00 $10.00 $23,020.00 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 L F $30 60 $1,800.00 $65.00 $3,900.00 $55.00 $3,300.00 $60.00 $3,600.00 $100.00 $6,000.00 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F $50 12 $600.00 $75.00 $900.00 $300.00 $3,600.00 $60.00 $720.00 $100.00 $1,200.00 2540.601 SALVAGE & REINSTALL LANDSCAPE LS $250 1.00 $250.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 2557.603 ORNAMENTAL FENCE DESIGN SPECIAL LF $100 410 $41,000.00 $100.00 $41,000.00 $150.00 $61,500.00 $92.00 $37,720.00 $110.00 $45,100.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $1,000 1 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 2571.524 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT CONT TREE $500 7 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $10,500.00 $600.00 $4,200.00 $800.00 $5,600.00 $450.00 $3,150.00 2571.524 DECIDUOUS TREE 5' HT CONT TREE $600 4 $2,400.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $800.00 $3,200.00 $800.00 $3,200.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 2571.525 CONIFEROUS SHRUB 3' HT CONT SHRB $150 70 $10,500.00 $105.00 $7,350.00 $300.00 $21,000.00 $60.00 $4,200.00 $70.00 $4,900.00 2571.525 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 3' HT CONT SHRB $125 2 $250.00 $102.00 $204.00 $300.00 $600.00 $60.00 $120.00 $100.00 $200.00 2571.527 PERENNIAL 2.25" CONT PLT $30 56 $1,680.00 $100.00 $5,600.00 $150.00 $8,400.00 $50.00 $2,800.00 $10.00 $560.00 2571.527 PERENNIAL 4" CONT PLT $50 85 $4,250.00 $100.00 $8,500.00 $150.00 $12,750.00 $50.00 $4,250.00 $10.00 $850.00 2571.527 ORNAMENTAL GRASS NO 1 CONT PLT $35 28 $980.00 $50.00 $1,400.00 $400.00 $11,200.00 $50.00 $1,400.00 $35.00 $980.00 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $150 6 $900.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $200.00 $1,200.00 $400.00 $2,400.00 2573.503 SILT FENCE L F $3 210 $525.00 $5.00 $1,050.00 $4.00 $840.00 $4.00 $840.00 $6.00 $1,260.00 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD CHIP L F $3 421 $1,263.00 $6.00 $2,526.00 $4.00 $1,684.00 $6.00 $2,526.00 $8.00 $3,368.00 2574.507 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW C Y $60 150 $9,000.00 $75.00 $11,250.00 $75.00 $11,250.00 $65.00 $9,750.00 $45.00 $6,750.00 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 LB $2 96 $192.00 $5.00 $480.00 $15.00 $1,440.00 $1.00 $96.00 $3.00 $288.00 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3N S Y $3 1080 $2,700.00 $3.00 $3,240.00 $4.00 $4,320.00 $3.00 $3,240.00 $3.00 $3,240.00 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-151 LB $4 66 $264.00 $10.00 $660.00 $250.00 $16,500.00 $5.00 $330.00 $3.00 $198.00 TOTAL BASE BID: $311,548.00 $292,780.00 $415,134.50 $457,122.75 $583,734.25 UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL EST PROJECT QUANTITIES COST UNIT PRICE BID PRICE UNIT PRICE BID PRICE UNIT PRICE BID PRICE UNIT PRICE BID PRICE 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $2,400 1 $2,400.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $3,400.00 $3,400.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2104.503 SALVAGE BLOCK RETAINING WALL L F $70 110 $7,700.00 $1.00 $110.00 $35.00 $3,850.00 $29.09 $3,199.90 $10.00 $1,100.00 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON (P) C Y $10 91 $910.00 $20.00 $1,820.00 $45.00 $4,095.00 $55.00 $5,005.00 $80.00 $7,280.00 2106.507 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV)(P) C Y $20 40 $800.00 $20.00 $800.00 $48.00 $1,920.00 $55.00 $2,200.00 $80.00 $3,200.00 2411.618 INSTALL RETAINING WALL S F $29 620 $17,980.00 $35.00 $21,700.00 $29.75 $18,445.00 $33.00 $20,460.00 $45.00 $27,900.00 2504.602 FURNISH & INSTALL SPRINKLER HEAD EACH $35 4 $140.00 $50.00 $200.00 $150.00 $600.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 $300.00 $1,200.00 2504.603 RELOCATE SPRINKLER SYSTEM L F $4 100 $400.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $45.00 $4,500.00 $5.00 $500.00 $15.00 $1,500.00 2540.601 SALVAGE & REINSTALL LANDSCAPE LS $1,000 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2540.602 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH $400 1 $400.00 $50.00 $50.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $1,000 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 2564.602 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH $350 1 $350.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $200.00 $200.00 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $150 1 $150.00 $200.00 $200.00 $500.00 $500.00 $200.00 $200.00 $400.00 $400.00 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD CHIP L F $3 130 $390.00 $5.00 $650.00 $4.00 $520.00 $6.00 $780.00 $10.00 $1,300.00 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 LB $2 12 $24.00 $5.00 $60.00 $85.00 $1,020.00 $1.00 $12.00 $3.00 $36.00 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3N S Y $3 131 $393.00 $3.00 $393.00 $4.00 $524.00 $5.00 $655.00 $3.00 $393.00 2574.507 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW C Y $60 20 $1,200.00 $75.00 $1,500.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 $55.00 $1,100.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-151 LB $4 6 $24.00 $20.00 $120.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $7.00 $42.00 $10.00 $60.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE A BID PRICE: $35,261.00 $32,103.00 $54,774.00 $42,853.90 $53,069.00 TOTAL BASE BID & ALTERNATE A BID PRICE $346,809.00 $324,883.00 $469,908.50 $499,976.65 $636,803.25 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RETAINING WALL IMPORVEMENTS PROJECT BID ABSTRACT Letting Date: August 29, 2019 City Project No. 201810 Urban Companies, Inc.ENGINEERS ESTIMATE SPEC NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION INDICATES AN ERROR IN THE SUBMITTED BID PROPOSAL SCHEDULE OF PRICES Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.Northland Excavating, LLC Urban Companies, Inc.ENGINEERS ESTIMATE Urban Companies, Inc. BASE BID BID ALTERNATE A Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.Northland Excavating, LLC JL Theis, Inc. JL Theis, Inc. ENGINEERS ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTIONITEM NO. Rosti Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.Northland Excavating, LLC JL Theis, Inc. page 98 Request for City Council Action DATE: September 3, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance 543 Regulating Gambling in the City COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to approve an ordinance adding to the City Code Title 4 Chapter 8, which would allow and regulate charitable gambling. Background Lawful gambling benefits communities by providing entertainment for citizens and raising revenues to support worthy purposes. If gambling is allowed, cities must work with organizations and the state to ensure lawful gambling has a positive impact on the local community. City staff has had two inquiries from nonprofit organizations wishing to apply for gambling permits and premises permits to conduct gambling in the city. The proposed ordinance would ensure that charitable gambling in the city is conducted by organizations licensed under Minnesota Statutes and that the proceeds are used primarily for the betterment of the community. This chapter would regulate all forms of lawful gambling. The exception would be bingo, when conducted within a nursing home or a senior citizen housing project, or by a senior citizen organization—that is currently allowed. The proposed ordinance follows Minnesota Statutes and cannot be less restrictive. Eligible locations for gambling include only licensed on or off sale liquor establishments, or bingo halls. The number of electronic gambling devices allowed is based on the size of the premises and the seating capacity. page 99 Organizations that are eligible to conduct gambling include fraternal, religious, veterans, or nonprofit organizations. The organizations must first obtain a gambling license from the State of Minnesota through the Gambling Control Board. An eligible organization must have at least 15 active members, have been in existence for at least three years, and have a gambling manager identified. They must not exist for the sole purpose of conducting gambling. The City would assess an annual investigation fee of $100 to each organization licensed to conduct gambling in our city. Once an organization is granted a license, it would then apply for a premises permit for a specific location. When submitted to the State of Minnesota, this premises permit application must be accompanied by a resolution from the city council granting approval. The premises permit runs concurrently with the organization’s license and is perpetual. Gambling proceeds may only be used for allowable expenses or lawful purposes identified by statute. The gambling organization would be required to submit monthly and annual reports to the State of Minnesota, for which the City would receive copies. The proposed ordinance would require an organization to expend at least 50% of its expenditures on lawful purposes within the City of Mendota Heights, or within our City’s trade area. The trade area is defined as the cities of Sunfish Lake, Eagan, Mendota, Lilydale, and West St. Paul. The ordinance would also require that an organization contribute 10% of its net profits monthly to a fund administered by the City. The city shall disburse the funds collected as allowed under state law—an example might be to assist in funding the annual 4th of July fireworks celebration. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance 543 Related to Gambling, and to approve a summary publication of the ordinance. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt Ordinance 543 Related to Gambling and approve the summary publication. page 100 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 543 AN ORDINANCE ADDING TITLE 4 CHAPTER 8 RELATED TO GAMBLING The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights does hereby ordain: Section 1. Mendota Heights City Code Title 4 Chapter 8 is hereby added to read as follows: 4-8. Gambling. 4-8-1. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that charitable gambling in the city is conducted by eligible organizations licensed or exempt from licensing under Minnesota Statutes and that the proceeds from such gambling are used primarily for the betterment of the residents and businesses of the community, as well as the city’s trade area. These restrictions shall be no less restrictive than Minnesota Statutes or regulations and shall apply to all forms of lawful gambling. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, as now or hereafter amended, relating to the definition of terms, licensing and restrictions of lawful gambling are adopted and made a part of this chapter as if set out in full. 4-8-2. Applicability. This chapter shall regulate all forms of lawful gambling within the city except bingo conducted within a nursing home or a senior citizen housing project or by a senior citizen organization and the following requirements are followed: A. The prizes for a single bingo game do not exceed $10.00; B. Total prizes awarded at a single bingo occasion do not exceed $200.00; C. No more than two bingo occasions are held by the nursing home, senior citizen housing project, or senior citizen organization each week; D. Only members of the organization or residents of the nursing home or housing project are allowed to play in a bingo game; E. No compensation is paid for any persons who conduct the bingo; and F. A manager is appointed to supervise the bingo. 4-8-3. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them herein, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Active member means a member who has paid all of his or her dues to the organization and has been a member thereof for at least six months. Bingo means a game where each player has a card or board for which a consideration has been paid containing five horizontal rows of spaces, with each row except the central one containing five figures. The central row has four figures with the word “Free” marked in the center space thereof. Bingo also includes games that are described in this paragraph except for the use of cards where the figures are not preprinted but are filled in by the players. A player page 101 wins a game of bingo by completing a preannounced combination of spaces or, in the absence of a preannouncement of a combination of spaces, any combination of five spaces in a row, either vertical, horizontal or diagonal. Bingo occasion means a single gathering or session at which a series of one or more successive bingo games is played. Board means the State of Minnesota Gambling Control Board, and any successor agency. Eligible organization means any fraternal, religious, veterans, or other nonprofit organization. Gambling manager means a person who has paid all dues to an eligible organization and has been a member of the organization for at least 90 days, and has been designated by the organization to supervise lawful gambling conducted by it. Lawful gambling means the operation, conduct or sale of bingo, raffles, paddlewheels, tipboards, and pull-tabs. Paddlewheel means a wheel marked off into sections containing one or more numbers, and which, after being turned or spun, uses a pointer or marker to indicate winning chances. Pull-tab means a single folded or banded ticket or a card with a face covered to conceal one or more numbers or symbols, where one or more of each set of tickets or cards has been designated in advance as a winner. “Pull-tab” includes a ticket sold in a gambling device known as a ticket jar. Raffle means a game in which a participant buys a ticket for a chance at a prize with the winner determined by a random drawing to take place at allocation and date printed upon the ticket. Tipboard means a board, placard or other device marked off in a grid or columns, in which each section contains a hidden number or numbers, or other symbol which determines the winning chances. 4-8-3. Approval required. Unless excepted from regulation by this chapter and not including exempt or excluded lawful gambling as defined by state law, it is unlawful for any organization to conduct gambling in the city without approval from the city council in the form of a premises permit, issued by the city clerk or designee. 4-8-4. Applications. A. Any eligible organization seeking to obtain a premises permit from the Board for lawful gambling within the city shall file with the city clerk an executed, complete duplicate application, together with all exhibits and documents accompanying the application as filed with the Board. Applications to conduct lawful gambling shall be considered and approved or denied by the city council. The city council shall by resolution approve or disapprove of the application within 60 days of receipt of the final application. B. Only applications submitted by eligible organizations will be considered for approval. page 102 C. An eligible organization shall provide adequate proof that it has at least 15 active members and that at least 15 of its members are either employed or live within the city or that it is a nationally known organization as determined by the city. D. An applicant for a premises permit shall be subject to a criminal background investigation by the city which shall include investigation of the eligible organization and the gambling manager. E. No application for a premises permit will be considered or approved by the city council until the criminal background investigation fee is paid in full. The fee shall be refunded if the application is withdrawn before the investigation is commenced. If the premises permit is approved, an eligible organization will be responsible for an annual investigative fee for conducting lawful gambling within the city. The original application investigation fee and the annual investigative fee imposed under this chapter shall be in an amount set forth by city council resolution. 4-8-5. Regulations and restrictions. A. In addition to regulations imposed by the state, all information and reports required to be submitted to the state shall also be submitted to the city, both with the application and on an annual basis, measured on the anniversary of the granting of the premises permit. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement shall result in suspension of the premises permit. Notwithstanding any penalties imposed by the state, the city council may revoke the premises permit where the organization has failed to meet the reporting requirements on more than one occasion. B. Lawful gambling may be conducted only in on-sale liquor licensed establishments in the city, which are either owned or leased by the eligible organization. C. Eligible organizations may, however, be granted by the city council off-site gambling approval for lawful gambling in a premises other than on-sale liquor licensed establishments for no more than four consecutive days. D. All permits issued under state law or this chapter shall be prominently displayed during the permit year at the premises where gambling is conducted. E. No eligible organization shall be eligible for more than one premises permit at any time to conduct lawful gambling within the city. 4-8-6. Distribution of proceeds. Every eligible organization conducting lawful gambling within the city of Mendota Heights shall expend 50 percent of its expenditures derived from lawful gambling on lawful purposes conducted or located within the city of Mendota Heights or the city of Mendota Heights' trade area. The City of Mendota Heights' trade area is defined as the cities of Sunfish Lake, Eagan, Mendota, Lilydale, and West St. Paul. Annually, every eligible organization must file with the city a form documenting compliance with this section. In addition, every eligible organization must submit a report to the city each January listing all lawful purpose expenditures from January 1 to December 31 of the preceding year. The report shall identify the name of the entity to whom the check was written, the city location of the recipient, and the amount of the expenditure. If the disclosures required by this section are already provided through the report submitted under Section 4-8-5 of this chapter, the eligible organization need not submit duplicate information. page 103 4-8-7 Contribution of Net Profits to City. A. Each eligible organization licensed to conduct lawful gambling within the city pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 349.16, as amended, shall contribute ten percent (10%) of its net profits derived from lawful gambling in the city to a fund administered and regulated by the city. The city shall disburse the funds collected as allowed under state law. B. Payment by eligible organizations under this section shall be made on or before the last day of each month, covering the immediately preceding month’s net profits. The eligible organization shall provide a copy to the city of any monthly reports sent to the Board, to document the organization’s profits and expenditures for the previous month, and compliance with the contributions required by this section. 4-8-8. Penalties. Violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be fined in accordance with section 1-4-1 of the city code. Additionally, a violation of this chapter shall be reported to the State Gambling Control Board and a recommendation shall be made for suspension, revocation or cancellation of an organization’s license. A license shall not be revoked or suspended until written notice and an opportunity for a hearing have first been given to the eligible organization. If the eligible organization requests a hearing, the council shall hold a hearing on the matter, which may be held in conjunction with a regular or special city council meeting, at least one week after the date on which the request for hearing is made. If, as a result of the hearing, the city council finds that a violation of this chapter exists, the city council may suspend or revoke the permit. If the eligible organization does not request a hearing before the city council, within 14 days after receiving written notice from the city, the city council may suspend or revoke the permit without any additional proceedings. 4-8-9 Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is found to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, the vailidity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication, or upon the publication of a summary of the Ordinance, as provided by state law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 104 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 543 ADDING CITY CODE SECTION 4-8 RELATING TO GAMBLING The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, MN ordains: The City of Mendota Heights Code of Ordinances, Title 4, Chapter 8, Relating to Gambling is hereby added to regulate charitable gambling in the city and ensure that it is conducted by eligible organizations licensed by the state of Minnesota. These regulations apply to all forms of charitable gambling. The ordinance requires that licensed organizations distribute at least 50% of their expenditures within the Mendota Heights’ trade area. The ordinance requires that licensed organizations contribute 10% of their net profits to a fund administered by the city. The city shall disburse the funds collected as allowed under state law. The ordinance will take effect after its approval and publication. The complete text of this ordinance may be obtained at the city hall or from the City’s website at www.mendota-heights.com. Adopted this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /s/ Neil Garlock, Mayor Attest: /s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 105