Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-01-07 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 7, 2020 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approve the December 17, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the November 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Designate the Official Newspaper for 2020 d. Designate the Acting Mayor for 2020 e. Approve 2020 Financial Items • Resolution 2020-01 Establishing 2020 City Depositories of Funds • Resolution 2020-02 Accepting Pledged Securities for 2020 • Authorize Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims f. Approve Contract with Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. g. Accept Firefighter Resignation h. Accept Police Sergeant Resignation and Authorize the Internal Promotional and Police Officer Recruitment Process i. Acknowledge November 2019 Fire Synopsis j. Approve the Amended Building Activity Report for November 2019 k. Approve the Building Activity Report for December 2019 l. Approval of Claims List m. Authorize Purchase of Pothole Asphalt Trailer 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing a. Consideration of Resolution 2020-03 Approving a Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit for 774 Sibley Memorial Highway (Matt & Jeanne Kenevan) 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Consideration of Resolution 2020-04 Relating to a Variance for New Personal Self- Storage Use and Facility, located in the I-Industrial District at 1178 Northland Drive b. Appointments to Historic Pilot Knob Task Force c. Determine Date for 4th of July Fireworks Display 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, December 17, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 POLICE OFFICER SWEARING IN Chief of Police Kelly McCarthy introduced Officer Alex Randall, who was hired by the City Council in August of 2019 and has now passed his field training. Mayor Garlock presided over his swearing in as a Mendota Heights Police Officer. UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL BY PAUL OBERHAUS, CPMI Mr. Paul Oberhaus provided an update on the fire station expansion and remodel by explaining that he would consider this past month a success. They continued the masonry installation, began installing the windows, and poured the floor slab on the Administrative side of the addition. They are currently doing the rough-ins for the sprinklers, mechanical piping, and electrical, installing door frames, and starting to erect the interior walls. A major milestone occurred when Xcel put in the gas service. page 3 Next month, they are hoping to get the roof-top mechanical units set and install the duct work. Xcel Energy will be transferring the power from the old electrical gear to the new electrical gear. The exterior masonry should be finished up. In regard to the financials on the project, Mr. Oberhaus stated that for the period ending in November, the City has paid out approximately $3.7 million; with approximately $4.2M remaining. Change orders issued to date total $25,000. Those include installing card readers on the office doors and providing a new galvanized lintel to support the brick for the upper level of the mezzanine. Pending change orders include a claim for winter conditions by the masonry and changes in the mechanical system due to some issues with the design (not significant). They started the project with approximately $283,000 in the contingency fund and they are currently at $262,000; including the $90,000 in pending changes and the $25,000 in change orders. He had some concerns on unknown expenses when they commence the remodeling work on the current building. Councilor Duggan asked, when they transition to the new electrical system, if there was any contingency built in if it is not successful. Mr. Oberhaus replied that their contingency is to run the emergency generator. If anything goes wrong, and it is a very small chance, they would put feeders back onto the old system. Mr. Oberhaus stated that he would make sure Dakota Communication Center (DCC) would be notified of this transition. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items d.) November 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes; h.) Amendment to the Fire Department Solar Project Capital Lease with Ideal Energies, LLC and Green Solar Leasing, LLC; j.) Resolution 2019-100 Accepting Project for the Lemay Shores Subdivision; and n.) November 2019 Treasurer’s Report. a. Approve December 3, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approve December 3, 2019 City Council Closed Session Minutes c. Approve November 6, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes d. Approve November 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes e. Approve Ordinance No. 549 Amend Code Title 5, Chapter 5, Concerning Domestic Animals --Amendments proposed by Councilor Duggan were noted in blue f. Approve Resolution 2019-99 Adopt 2020 Pay Classification Plan for Non-Union Employees g. Approve the Office Support Assistant Job Description and Authorize Position Recruitment h. Approve an Amendment to the Fire Department Solar Project Capital Lease with Ideal Energies, LLC and Green Solar Leasing, LLC i. Accept the Wetland Delineation Report and Findings of ‘No Wetland’ for 777 Wentworth Ave j. Approve Resolution 2019-100 Accepting Project for the Lemay Shores Subdivision k. Approve the Replacement of the Par 3 Greens Mower l. Acknowledge the November 2019 Building Activity Report m. Acknowledge October 2019 Par 3 Financial Report page 4 n. Approve November 2019 Treasurer’s Report o. Approve Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS D) APPROVE NOVEMBER 12, 2019 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES Councilor Duggan encouraged the Parks and Recreation Commission to give more focus on the addition of Pickleball Courts as he believes them to be a wonderful addition to the community. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the November 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 H) APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SOLAR PROJECT CAPITAL LEASE WITH IDEAL ENERGIES, LLC AND GREEN SOLAR LEASING, LLC Councilor Duggan noted that former Councilmember Jim Losleben has been in the business of solar power. Councilor Duggan asked him to review this amendment. He referenced paragraph two of the report that reads, “The parties involved are the City, which is the owner, Ideal Energies, LLC (the seller) and Green Solar Leasing, LLC, as the tenant.” Then on the bottom of the page it reads, “The partner company of Ideal Energies—Green Solar Leasing—owns and operates the panels, and the City leases the solar panels from that partner company.” Mr. Duggan was assured that the city does have the proper insurance and a maintenance contract in relation to this. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the amendment to the Solar Project Capital Lease, dated February 19, 2019. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 J) RESOLUTION 2019-100 ADOPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR LEMAY SHORES Councilor Duggan suggested a map would have helped him understand this item. He questioned, in relation to Section 3.3 Irrevocable Letter of Credit, why it was incomplete with blanks not filled in. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that this is a sample of what was required for their Letter of Credit. The official Letter of Credit is received after this document is executed. This is included for reference to the $25,000 reimbursement for the trail construction between Augusta Shores and Lemay Shores. page 5 Councilor Duggan asked if that trail has been successful. Mr. Ruzek replied that the trail is paved, city crews have been plowing it, and it seems to be a good addition to the city. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-100 ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING TRAIL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LEMAY SHORES SUBDIVISION. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 N) APPROVE NOVEMBER 2019 TREASURER’S REPORT Councilor Duggan recognized Finance Director Kristen Schabacker for providing reports to the Council on the city’s financials. He thanked her for her careful attention to detail. Councilor Miller concurred. Councilor Petschel moved to approve the November 2019 Treasurer’s Report. She stated her appreciation for Ms. Schabacker’s hard work and for keeping the Council in the loop on what things cost and when things are going to come due, so the Council is aware and comfortable with them. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, complimented the Council for their decision at the previous meeting to deny the ordinance proposing to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Storage Facilities located in the Industrial Park. On the other hand, the proposal to build a storage facility in the Industrial Park is still being discussed. He pointed out that storage facilities largely have a negative impact on cities. He encouraged the Council to deny any movement to develop a storage facility in the Industrial Park. In regard to the winter 2019 Heights Highlights newsletter, “Neil’s News” mentions The Heights Apartments. He failed to see any reason this comment supports community interest. This paragraph represents an advertisement for this development. He asked the City Administrator to provide some guidance to him as to whether advertisements are acceptable for publication in the Heights Highlights. He stated that two months ago he submitted a letter to Attorney Andrew Pratt asking for a legal judgement regarding the legal provisions of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He has yet to receive a reply. PUBLIC HEARING No hearings were scheduled. page 6 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2019-98 APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE DRAFT 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this is the beginning stages of directing staff to submit the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. He reminded the Council that in April 2019, the Planning Commission gave a favorable recommendation to the Council and in June 2019, the Council provided the first step in approving the plan by accepting the first draft of the plan. After that, staff solicited 20+ affected jurisdictions with a 6-month comment period, as required by state law. Seven jurisdictions responded with comments. Staff is now ready to move the plan on to the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). They will have an initial review and address any deficiencies they may find. If they accept the plan for formal review, they typically have up to 120 days to do that. He anticipates a lengthy response list or letter from the Met Council. Once the city receives the review letter back from the Met Council, the adjustments will be made to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and returned to the Met Council. Once they determine the plan to be acceptable, it will be returned to the city for final approval and adoption. Councilor Miller asked, given the city’s status as being nearly entirely built-out, what did he expect to hear back from the Met Council. Mr. Benetti replied the sector rep has said that Mendota Heights does not present the same concerns that the Met Council would see in Rosemount or Eagan, or other communities that have room to grow. He believed that Mendota Height’s plan will likely see a few requests for changes or revisions but nothing substantial. Councilor Miller asked if he expects the Met Council to take the full 120 days to review the plan before they reply. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Councilor Petschel stated that she read the comments received back and they were not unexpected or anything major. She was encouraged by that. Councilor Duggan asked if the Comprehensive Plan is available online. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Councilor Duggan asked if the issue of the property at 340 D Street is labeled as INDUSTRIAL PREFERRED. Mr. Benetti replied that the draft plan shows it as INDUSTRIAL. That was approved in the draft plan in June 2019. Councilor Duggan asked what hurdles someone would have to go through if they saw this property as a good place for an industrial use. He said that he did not expect an answer at this time. Referencing the response from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), he noted that they asked about pedestrian maps. He asked if that was being worked on. Mr. Benetti replied that this has been resolved. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City applied for and received a Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP) Grant Study from Dakota County as part of the Dodd Road Corridor Trail Study. It appears MnDOT is asking for this to be available online and possibly included in the Appendix of the Comprehensive Plan. page 7 Councilor Duggan, referencing the response from Dakota County regarding Jurisdictional Transfers, asked if Old Sibley Memorial Highway was a part of this. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that as recently as the preceding day, there was a meeting between MnDOT and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to talk about the transfer of Old Sibley Memorial Highway. That is not included in this plan, but it will be coming to the Council once staff receives a response from MnDOT in terms of what they propose to do to turn it back to the City. Councilor Duggan stated that, personally, he would not be supportive of this section of highway closing. At the same time, if accepting it as a turn back is prohibitively expensive to the city – weighing the cost of taking a turn back versus the cost of it potentially being closed – he asked if the city could push for an alternate. Mr. McNeill replied that as staff receives more information, it will keep the Council informed. Councilor Petschel asked if the county was strategically involved in this due to their long-term plan for the bluff. She shared Councilor Duggan’s concerns; however, she would also like to know where the County is at on this, in terms of their planning. Councilor Duggan asked for a historical maintenance record of that section of roadway. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-98 APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF THE DRAFT 2040 MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) PARKS AND RECREATION FIELD AND FACILITY USE POLICY Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that the City Council was being asked to considered suggested amendments to the City’s Field and Facility Use Policy. She provided a history on the Field and Facility Use Policy. After reviewing and amending the policy last year, the Council had asked staff to bring back their review of the policy after one year. It was staff’s understanding that they will be reviewing this policy periodically. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson highlighted the proposed changes to the policy. • Issue permits three times per year rather than twice • Provide notification that the City does not guarantee a priority group or user will receive fields or times that are requested • Require submittal of a Coaches Training and Background Screening Compliance Certification • Require proof of insurance on an annual basis • Address the non-use of permitted fields by a user • Allow permits that are cancelled due to inclement weather to be rescheduled or credited if the City is notified within two business days of the cancellation • Waive field use and preparation fees and concession use fees for priority group three in-house tournament events (this would not apply to invitational tournaments) page 8 Councilor Miller stated that he felt that these proposed changes were excellent. He believed the City was in a better position with the user groups. He asked if the City is doing anything in the way of communicating the date changes to the youth associations. Ms. Lawrence replied that she has been in contact with the user groups. Councilor Paper stated that he believed that the in-house tournament should not have a fee for the use of the concession stand. He asked if there was a way to create a one-time fee for the concession stand for the summer. Ms. Jacobson asked if he was referring specifically to just the baseball season? Councilor Paper confirmed and stated that charging them every time they use the stand seemed to be a lot. Ms. Lawrence stated that her concern is that there are groups that reserve the facility for only one or two days; staff would need to come up with a fee structure to bill groups for one day of use, or bill groups for the entire season. That could be included in the fee schedule. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the Revised Field and Facility Use Policy. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY LANE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CHANGE ORDER Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that this request was approval of a Change Order for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvement Professional Services contract with TKDA Engineering for the design, surveying, and inspection work for the project. They have looked at some cost-splitting during the feasibility project. TKDA came up with a number of Dodd Road Trail concepts in an effort to construct a trail along Dodd Road. The plans needed to be redesigned and storm sewer revisions made; MnDOT required the city to resubmit the plans showing what was actually being proposed. TKDA also looked at pedestrian tunnel alternatives with Dakota County. There was also some rain garden design, project rebidding, and resubmitting of the plans to MnDOT. TKDA has submitted an updated change order for their services. There is currently $21,400 on the open contract that the city has with TKDA. They are estimating an approximate $192,000 to complete the additional work on Marie Avenue. The city is estimating approximately 20% indirect costs; so, the project would have the funding for their contract. Councilor Duggan questioned the Budget Impact section of the staff report, where it reads “the new contract amount would be $445,000, which is equivalent to 11 percent of the opinion of construction costs”. Mr. Ruzek explained that instead of calling it a cost estimate, they call it an opinion of construction costs. That opinion of construction costs would be just over $4 million. Councilor Duggan asked if the indirect costs used to be 10% rather than 20%. Mr. Ruzek replied in the negative and noted that it has been 20-25% and even up to 30%. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be any cost impacts to the residents. Mr. Ruzek replied that the assessments were capped at the $5,500 level. page 9 Councilor Petschel noted that the language in the budget impact was that it was going to be a conservative estimate from TDKA that the residual bill was going to be $170,600. She asked if there was a chance that the city may have to come up with more money going forward. Mr. Ruzek replied that the number of hours for the inspector to be on the site monitoring the contractor’s work is estimated at 50 hours per week – a longer period than normal. They are adding additional hours as a cushion. Councilor Duggan, noting the eight different items included in the change order, noted that number 7 “Tunnel alignment alternatives explored” was of the most concern to him. He asked how essential and critical was that tunnel alignment? Mr. Ruzek replied that it was very essential; they were looking at different alignments. He hoped that some of these costs could be transferred to Dakota County – per the Joint Powers Agreement. As they get further into the process, they may be amending that contract with Dakota County. Currently, the existing tunnel is perpendicular to the roadway. They are now looking at a 45-degree skew, which would help with some of the curves along the trail. They are also looking at bump-outs so they can have a shorter tunnel section for both safety and more natural lighting. It also allows the trail to not impact a large area of pine trees just north of Marie Avenue. Councilor Miller asked for a brief explanation of the bump-outs. Mr. Ruzek replied that they are proposing narrowing the roadway. They feel that Marie Avenue was overbuilt and probably could be narrowed. However, the cost to narrow the roadway would exceed the cost to rehabilitate it with the existing curb section. They are in the area of the watermain replacement, between Dodd and Sutton. It would be proposed to remove the parking lane and add bump-outs at Trail Road, which would then restrict the roadway width. There are often issues with excessive speeding, which is natural going down that hill underneath I-35E. There have also been a number of requests for pedestrian improvements at Lilac and Walsh. There is a possibility of modifying the roadway there with some bump-outs. That could also be done at Overlook, Summit, and possibly Eagle Ridge. Councilor Petschel moved to authorize a Professional Services contract Change Order to TKDA for the Marie Avenue and Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvement project. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that youth field trips and flag football programs are available for kids during winter break. The Earth Orbit Expo will take place on December 30, 2019. Ice skating lesson registration is available online. The warming houses will be opening soon. Next week, City offices will be closed on December 24th and 25th. City offices will also be closed on January 1, 2020. page 10 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Duggan expressed appreciation for the positive feedback on the road maintenance, specifically on the snow removal. He reminded residents to support our local businesses. He wished everyone Happy Holidays. Councilor Paper stated that ESPN will be in Mendota Heights on December 21st to film an outdoor hockey game in a backyard in conjunction with Monday Night Football. He wished everyone Happy Holidays. Councilor Miller wished everyone Happy Holidays. Councilor Petschel stated she has received positive feedback regarding the improvements made around the City Monument sign at Dodd and Mendota Heights Road. She suggested that the sign be sandblasted in the near future. She thanked Great River Greening for the work completed on the Copperfield Pond. The buckthorn removal was extensive. She wished everyone a safe and peaceful holiday. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Absent: John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 24, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-28 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC has requested a follow-up to their previous applications for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance on a personal self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. In this particular case, they are asking for a simple line amendment to Title 12-1G-2 Subsection H regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This item was presented under a public hearing process. Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that the FAR is defined or determined as the numerical value taken through dividing the floor area of the building or buildings by the lot area. In the case of the Metro Storage, LLC their building was to be 118,000 square foot building, which equated to a FAR of 1.24 and the current ordinance is that any facility shall not exceed 0.5. Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission of recent history involving Metro Storage, LLC: • January 22 and February 26, 2019 – zoning ordinance amendment to remove “self-storage” from the list of prohibited uses in the Industrial zone; along with a related amendment to allow such use with certain standards – RECOMMENDED DENIAL page 12 o City Council elected to adopt Ordinance No. 538 removing “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from the list of prohibited uses and allow under a Conditional Use Permit • August 27, 2019 – Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for a self-storage facility in the Industrial zone and to exceed the maximum FAR from 0.5 to 1.24 – TABLED • September 24, 2109 – separate recommendation to strike-out the FAR from the Industrial District Ordinance which would make the Variance request unnecessary. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CUP only if the strike-out of the FAR was approved by City Council. • October 2, 2019 – City Council tabled the adoption of Ordinance No. 545, which would remove the FAR from the Industrial Zone, along with the CUP request to a workshop meeting • October 28, 2109 – City Council Workshop Meeting – consensus was to keep the FAR intact • November 6, 2019 – City Council DENIED Ordinance No. 545 which would have removed the FAR from the Industrial District Ordinance Metro Storage, LLC is now requesting that the FAR in the Industrial Zone not exceed 1.25, thereby allowing them to construct their proposed 3-story 118,000 square foot self-storage facility. Mr. Benetti shared where self-storage uses are allowed in the surrounding communities, whether by permit, by CUP, or no restrictions. He also shared the FAR standards from said communities. It should be noted that this requested amendment would only apply to personal self-storage uses in the district and would not change or impact the current 0.5 FAR standard for other industrial uses in the district. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request remains a tabled item. Commissioner Noonan requested background on the Council’s decision to deny the removal of the FAR from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that some of the comments were that they felt changes were not needed at this time. It had been on the books for a number of years and most of the current uses were under the 0.5 threshold, except for a couple. Overall consensus (3-2) was that the FAR did not need to be removed or changed for this use or any other. Commissioner Noonan then made note of their discussion that typical zoning standards (parking, height, setbacks, landscaping) were sufficient controls and that the FAR was unnecessary. Also, that the nature of self-storage makes anything less than three stories unfeasible. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in terms of the Council discussion, Council took the action to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to eliminate the prohibition against self-storage facilities. By that action, the whole notion of a self-storage was sanctioned by Council. Mr. Benetti agreed and then he paraphrased a number of other comments that were made. A few of the Councilmembers said that had they known that was use would have required such a higher FAR, they never would have voted favorably for that use to be brought in. However, staff and the Commission were not talking about the FAR at that point, they were talking about the use itself. They did not know the details of what the applicant’s plan was going to be. Mr. Benetti did not want to muddy the water of the original request – which was did the city want to allow this use in the Industrial zone. The Commission originally denied the request; however, the City Council approved it with a Conditional Use Permit. page 13 When the use came back to the Commission, the CUP was easily met except for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). When discussing, the logical step that the Commission took was to remove the FAR from the ordinance and thereby negating the need for a Variance. Staff assumed that Council would accept that recommendation; however, three out of the five Councilmembers disagreed. Commissioner Noonan stated that the Commission has the very narrow choice of either adopting a zoning standard that takes the FAR up to 1.25 or deny it; and then the Variance comes back. Mr. Benetti confirmed and said that if the Commission recommends denial of this request to increase the FAR for self-storage facilities and the Council upholds that decision, then the Variance request would have to come back to the Planning Commission if the applicant so chooses. Chair Magnuson stated that she watched the City Council meeting and she understood that the Council denied the Commission’s recommendation to eliminate the FAR. She noted that their decision was to not eliminate or change the FAR and keep it at 0.5. She asked if the Commission was to recommend adoption of the code amendment to change the FAR – she was afraid to put this applicant in the position of being in the middle of a ping-pong match with them as the ball. She asked what the likelihood was realistically of this going forward. Mr. Benetti replied that the sentiment he got from the workshop meeting was although there were some councilmembers that still favor the use; most seemed unwilling to support the elimination of the 0.5 FAR standard in the Industrial District. Mr. Benetti further stated the Council ultimately decided at the following council meeting to reject the proposed amendment, thereby leaving the 0.5 FAR standard intact. The Council also suggested planning staff and the city attorney work with the applicant to see if there were any other options or ideas to present at a future meeting. Staff did look at the ordinances and discovered that there are other uses that have specific standards that do allow for flexible allowances like this. He reiterated that the ordinance request would apply only to this specific use. Commissioner Petschel stated that the fact that the Commission is having to change the rules should not negate entirely a Variance because they basically would be admitting this project cannot pass the current standards. The last time they were in they were pretty honest and made no attempt to describe a practical difficulty. The rules did not make their business work. Commissioner Katz asked how they came up with the 1.25; there was discussion based on other models of what is the right number to use. Mr. Benetti replied that their number for the Variance was 1.24; and it was suggested that if 1.25 would work for the Applicant, they should make it 1.25. He also suggested that if they wanted to do a higher number they could do so; however, it is important that when people apply for a Variance, you do not ask for more than what you need or desire. The 1.25 basically meets their current 1.24 for this need. Commissioner Katz asked, given the amount of space that is available for future self-storage units, if someone else does want to come in and construct their own self-storage facility does the city have any numbers about what other storage facilities and their FAR calculations are. Meaning if this goes through and another self-storage use wants to come in; they are now stuck with this 1.25 page 14 FAR and if they want/need more, then they have to go through this same process. Mr. Benetti replied that this was a valid question as there are a lot of ‘what ifs’ built in that question. If someone were to come in with a request for a self-storage facility, their impacts are the same as what Metro Storage had to go through. They are limited by their footprint, setbacks, parking setbacks, landscaping, open space requirements, etc. If that site is bigger or smaller, they still have to maintain the height requirement, the FAR of 1.25, the 50% building footprint threshold and the 25% the open space. Commissioner Noonan stated that if a second user identifies a site in the Industrial Park and they elect to bring forward a self-storage, but it is a much larger site that this one, they are still tied to the 1.25 FAR. However, theoretically the Commission could hear them coming forward and saying that they have a larger site and they need to make their economics work; 1.25 does not give them the critical mass to justify it and they want to do an amendment to take it up to 2.00 for their site. So, this becomes a slippery slope. Commissioner Corbett raised his concern of having an applicant driven amendment opening the door to others. He asked if there was a way to word the amendment so that the raising of the FAR applies to all rather than to a specific applicant/use. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes that to be a good option; however, right now this is what the applicant was requesting. Questions were bantered back and forth about the consequences of recommending approval or denial of the request, potential consequences if the Council were to approve or deny, and Metro Storages next steps if the request was denied by Council. Mr. Jim Walston, attorney for Metro Storage, came forward and stated that he did not have anything to add that hadn’t already been discussed. He believed that after working with staff and the City Attorney they came up with an objective resolution for the zoning ordinance. The Commission asked questions about the footprint of the facility the Councilmembers toured in Burnsville and the similarities of that building to the proposed, and Mr. Heilman’s recollection about the Council discussions. No new information was provided that had not already been shared. Chair Magnuson noted that she was uncomfortable about sending this back to Council and then asked if the Council thought that 1.25 was too much of a jump from 0.5, was there any way that Metro Storage could construct their building. Mr. Heilman replied that there is always a way to do it; however, he would have to go back and work with their acquisitions people to understand metrics to justify anything like that. What he would go back to is that the zoning regulations allow a building of this size. The zoning code and the FAR are in conflict with the remainder of the code. This same building could be built but with only one floor, as opposed to two or three stories. The mass would still be the same, so this is not a mass discussion. It really comes down to intensity. Based on the way they operate they are such a low intensity that FAR does not make sense with their use. This same conflict would be brought up if they had to have a discussion about a Variance. Chair Magnuson asked Commissioner Noonan if the idea of massing was really population or was it density. Commissioner Noonan replied that the massing concern relates to the elimination of the FAR across the entire industrial area. In terms of the floor area and the massing, if they wanted to page 15 follow the zoning and the FAR, they could build the same ‘box’ with the only difference being that instead of three floors, there would only be one floor with a clear span of 40-50-60 feet, which does not meet the consumer storage facility model. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 552 BY THE INSERTION OF NEW SECTION H WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR ANY FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.25 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 3, 2019 meeting. General Planning Items A) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF NEW ORDINANCE REGULATING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING AND NOXIOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff requested feedback on creating a new ordinance to Cite Code regulating the temporary keeping of goats for prescribed grazing and invasive/noxious vegetation management on properties in Mendota Heights. A few years ago, the City provided for some goats at the Pilot Knob park area to help control some of the buckthorn and other weeds that were growing up there, which they did a great job. He spoke to colleagues in other cities and they had success using goats to keep down the buckthorn and other unwanted vegetation. Most of the cities he polled allow for two permits per year, one in the spring and one in the fall. They are 30-day permits that can be extended for other additional periods, depending on how infested the site might be. These permits would allow for a professional licensed company to provide goats to a property, property owners, or homeowners association. This professional would fence the goats in, feed them, watch over them, provide shelter and then they would remove them after the permit period is over; then bring them back a second time. Mr. Benetti noted that Council had expressed concerns when they rented goats about the fecal matter not being too close to water bodies. He suggested a 25-foot no disturbance buffer as far as page 16 the goats are concerned; however, people could go into that area and control the noxious vegetation. Chair Magnuson stated that, as the understood, the process would be that if the Commission had any suggestions or input that they should provide direction. Otherwise, staff would work on an ordinance and bring it back to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the goats are not brought in and taken out on a daily basis. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked for confirmation that an area of 10,000 square feet could house four goats, and then they could add one goat per X number of square feet. Mr. Benetti confirmed. He then asked if it would be reasonable for a standard Mendota Heights lot. He understood how feasible it could be for a significantly large lot. Mr. Benetti replied that the intent was that staff would carve out the area where this would be needed. For instance, if someone had a regular sized lot with a yard and landscaping but the back one-third was overgrown or wooded, then staff would classify that area only as the area the goats could be in. Commissioner Noonan then asked how the goats are restricted to just that area. It was explained that the company providing the goats would have the entire area where the goats could be fenced in with an electric fence. Commissioner Katz asked about potential noise nuisance to his neighbors. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the city and staff are at an advantage as they can find out what works and what does not work. He has already been told by one community that they have 6-foot high fence allowance. They just realized that a goat cannot eat over a 6-foot high fence, so they need to bring that back down. Some permits require the neighbors to be informed and agree to allow this to come in. Commissioner Katz then asked about the installation of the fences. Mr. Benetti replied that he and staff had no concerns because it is temporary and permitted under the temporary goat grazing permit. Goats are herd animals and even if one were to get out somehow, they are not likely to run off. They stay close to the herd. Also, the company supplying the goats come and check on them daily. Commissioner Petschel asked how often the coyotes get them. Mr. Benetti replied that there have been a few massacres with the chicken coops. It could be an issue, but the benefit is that they are fenced in and hopefully the coyotes would not get in. He did has not heard of it being an issue. In response to the waste generated by the goats, Mr. Benetti replied that it is small pellets and it is easier to just leave it alone. It is next to impossible to pick it up in these areas. This is one of the reasons for the 25-foot buffer between the goats and water bodies. Commissioner Noonan asked if the city was limiting itself by only allowing goats. He asked if there were other grazing animals that could work just as well. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed people were looking at sheep as well, but goats were more manageable and acceptable. Cows are too big. page 17 Commissioner Noonan stated that he understood that staff may go through the exercise as geographically defined areas where this would work and where it would not work. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Permits would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Katz asked if they needed to look at the critical area in another way if they decided to go with this. Mr. Benetti replied that the DNR views buckthorn and other noxious vegetation as something that can go. They have no issues with goats taking out buckthorn, even though it thrives in those environments; however, people want to get rid of it. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were obligations of the landowner to revegetate and stabilize the area once the goats have done their job. Mr. Benetti replied that it usually revegetates itself afterwards. Chair Magnuson stated that the Commissioners would provide feedback, suggestions, and other questions to Mr. Benetti in regard to the permitting of goats for buckthorn and noxious plant removal. Commissioner Toth noted that the City of Eagan had a really nice goat grazing ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that Burnsville has a nice one too. Commissioner Noonan thought it would be interesting to know the frequency of permits being pulled as well – on an annual basis. Commissioner Toth asked if there would be any fees to the city when a company comes in. Mr. Benetti replied that the only cost to the city would be if they hired a company to bring goats in for a specific area. All fees are encumbered by the applicant. B) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF A NEW ORDINANCE REGULATING ADULT USE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SEXUAL ORIENTED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this discussion stemmed from a phone inquiry from outside resident wanting to bring in a male stripper review or business. He discovered that the city’s ordinance does not address this. He has had city attorneys tell him that if it is not in the ordinance, then it is not allowed. However, a number of years ago the Supreme Court decided that adult businesses are a protected right and cities have to allow them in somewhere. The city has to at least provide for the opportunity for them to come into the community or a local government unit. The city has a right to place any type of higher reasonable standards. In the early 2000’s the League of Minnesota Cities provided a model ordinance for cities to adopt, and many cities throughout the metro and statewide adopted ordinances regulating such uses. However, the City of Mendota Heights never created or adopted a similar ordinance. When Mr. page 18 Benetti received the phone call, he approached City Administrator Mark McNeill to devise a way to be proactive on this rather than reactive. After discussions with various individuals and with City Attorney Andrew Pratt, it was discovered that Minnesota State Statute 617.242 may not be enough to eliminate or preclude such uses from the city. Therefore, staff approached City Council, who then adopted Ordinance No. 546, a 12- month Interim Ordinance Placing a Temporary Moratorium on Adult Use Establishments & Sexually Oriented Businesses. This was done to allow staff the time necessary to research and prepare information for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider creating a new ordinance that regulates such uses in the community. Mr. Benetti noted that there are other ordinances and language in those ordinances that can be reviewed/used in this ordinance. Chair Magnuson noted a possible typographical error in Ordinance No. 546 and included massage establishments as needing regulation. Mr. Benetti replied that the city reviewed and tweaked the message therapy licensing ordinance just a few months ago and this moratorium does not affect them at all. Commissioner Katz noted that another city dealt with not only adult establishments, but with pawn shops and licensed firearms at the exact same time. He then asked if Mendota Heights would be considering these as well. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Chair Magnuson shared her thoughts by stating that Mendota Heights is predominantly a residential city with small pockets of commercial zones and a small industrial park. So, her recommendation would be, when looking at other ordinances, it would be helpful to look at ordinances adopted by other cities that are similarly situated to Mendota Heights that are predominantly residential with very few areas where these businesses could legitimately exist. She also hoped that the City Council would approve the ability of Mr. Benetti working closely with the City Attorney in crafting the ordinance. Her personal opinion was that the city could not regulate content, but they can regulate time, place, and matter and she would just as soon regulate it to a point of as far as the city could go and not cross the line. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, safe travels, and get snowplows ready. Chair Magnuson reminded everyone that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on Thursday, December 19 at 7:00 p.m. due to the Christmas Holiday. Mr. Benetti noted that for that evening, the developer of The Village lots would be presenting their concept plan for Planning Commission review and feedback. They also plan to hold a Public Informational Meeting on December 5. page 19 Adjournment COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:23 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 page 20 DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Designation of Official Newspaper COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to designate an Official Newspaper for the City for 2020. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statutes §412.831 requires that the City Council designate an official newspaper at the first meeting of each year. Ordinances, financial reports, public notices, and other information as required by law, as well as matters the Council deems necessary, shall be published in the City’s official newspaper. The St. Paul Pioneer Press has been designated as the City’s official newspaper for the past two years. The Southwest Review, which had been our official newspaper prior to the designation of the Pioneer Press, ceased publication in 2019. This year we received two proposals. Both newspapers publish seven days a week, which makes publishing our notices convenient for staff. Proposals Received (Rates quoted are per column inch) 2020 Rate Proposed 2019 Rate Notice due to paper Pioneer Press $6.00 - one time publishing $5.50 - each add'l publication $6.00 - one time publishing $5.50 - each add'l publication 1 day prior Star Tribune $14.85 – for all publishing 2 days prior All legal notices would also be posted on their websites at no additional charge. BUDGET IMPACT The proposal by the Pioneer Press is a zero percent increase from 2019. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the City Council designate the Pioneer Press as the official City newspaper. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council should designate the St. Paul Pioneer Press as the city’s official newspaper for 2020. This action requires a majority vote of the City Council. page 21 . DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Designation of Acting Mayor INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to appoint one of its members to serve as Acting Mayor. BACKGROUND Minnesota State Statute 412.121 requires the Council to choose an acting mayor at the first City Council meeting of the year. The law provides that the acting mayor shall perform the duties of the mayor during the disability or absence of the mayor from the city or in event of vacancy in the office of the mayor, until such time a successor has been appointed. The practice in Mendota Heights has been that the Mayor has recommended a candidate, and the Council then affirms the recommendation, or comes up with an alternate candidate. In recent years, the acting mayor position for the City of Mendota Heights has been held by the following councilmembers: 2019: Joel Paper 2018: Joel Paper 2017: Joel Paper 2016: Michael Povolny 2015: Liz Petschel 2014: Liz Petschel 2013: Liz Petschel 2012: J ack Vitelli 2011: J ack Vitelli 2010: J ack Vitelli RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Garlock recommends the reappointment of Councilor Joel Paper to be acting Mayor for 2020. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should approve a motion naming Joel Paper to serve as the acting mayor for 2020. If there is a different councilor nominated, the Council should then make a decision from amongst those nominated. This action requires a majority vote. page 22 DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2020 Financial Items INTRODUCTION At its January 7th meeting, the City Council is asked to approve three routine financial actions. BACKGROUND There are 3 items that need to be reviewed by the council on an annual basis. Two of the items have attached resolutions and the other item need to be authorized and reviewed by the council. • Each year the city designates financial institutions that may be used as depositories for city funds. The attached resolution lists those institutions that may be used in 2020. • Minnesota statue 118A.03 requires that to the extent city funds in a financial institution exceed FDIC insurance amounts, a collateral security be pledged to cover the difference. The attached resolution states the collateral that is in place for the city at Deerwood Bank. • The council needs to authorize the finance director to execute electronic payments and prepay claims. This is not a change in process, but an acknowledgement that there are claims paid prior to your approval on the agenda. This item was recommended to be formally authorized by the city auditors. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached two resolutions designating city depositories and accepting pledged securities. In addition, the staff recommends that the finance director be given the authority to prepay claims. All of these actions requires a majority vote of the city council. page 23 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020 - 01 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2020 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Mendota Heights that the following institutions be designated as depositories for city funds and securities for 2020: Deerwood Bank Wells Fargo Bank Cherokee State Bank Gateway Bank U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray & Co. TCF National Bank TD Ameritrade Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that investments of city funds be in any securities authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.04 and 427.02. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of January, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS __________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 24 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020 - 02 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PLEDGED SECURITIES FOR 2020 WHEREAS, every designated depository of city funds must provide collateral or other security to the city to protect against financial loss, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A.03 and 427.01; and WHEREAS, all financial institutions designated as depositories for 2020 are members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which provides suitable security up to established limits; and WHEREAS, the city’s depositories in financial institutions routinely exceed these established limits necessitating the provision of additional security. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following pledged securities be accepted by the city as additional collateral for calendar year 2020. Deerwood Bank $740,000 FNMA 2.050% due 09/13/2022 $200,000 FHLB 2.100% due 12/29/2020 $2,500,000 FHLB 1.685% due 05/25/2021 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of January, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _____________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 25 Request for City Council Action DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Contract for Transcriptionist COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to approve a contract with Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. to transcribe meeting minutes for the City Council, Planning Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Background The City’s contractor for transcribing meeting minutes, C. Darlene Oehlke, submitted her resignation which was effective 12-31-2019. A Request for Proposals was sent out to three interested individuals who are known to provide this service. We received one proposal back. The sole respondent, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, provides recording secretarial services to 34 cities throughout the metro area. The company has been in business for 35 years. Timesaver would designate a primary secretary for our City. Because of the company’s extensive experience writing meeting minutes, their staff is very familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order, meeting procedures, use of language, motions, etc. Their proposed rate schedule is as follows (the highest rate prevailing): Base Rate of $148 for any meeting up to 1 hour plus $35.50 for each 30 minutes following the first hour or Unit Rate of $48.75 for the first hour of meeting time and $32.50 for every hour after the first hour Plus $15.00 for each page of draft minutes written Either party would have the right to terminate the contract with a thirty day written notice. The contract would become effective January 7, 2020. page 26 Budget Impact It is estimated that the City’s costs will increase by about 65%. For 2020, the City Council budget for transcription services is $4,500. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the contract with Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Action Required Staff recommends that the City Council make a motion to approve the contract with Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. effective January 7, 2020. page 27 page 28 page 29 Request for City Council Action DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Resignation of Firefighter BACKGROUND Firefighter Mike Winters has submitted his resignation from the Mendota Heights Fire Department effective December 31, 2019. Mike became a firefighter with the Fire Department on November 21, 2015. During his four years of service to the department and citizens, Mike made many contributions to the department. BUDGET IMPACT N/A ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept the resignation of Mike Winters from the Mendota Heights Fire Department effective December 31, 2019. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Mike Winters from the Mendota Heights Fire Department effective December 31, 2019, and formally thank Mike for his service to the community as a Mendota Heights Firefighter. page 30 Request for City Council Action DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police/Emergency Manager Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Police Sergeant Resignation, Internal Promotional Process, and Police Officer Recruitment INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Sergeant Eric Petersen, authorize staff to begin the internal promotion process to fill the Sergeant position and to begin the Police Officer recruitment process. BACKGROUND Eric Petersen has resigned his position as Sergeant effective February 1, 2020. Sergeant Petersen was hired in January, 2000 as a Police Officer and promoted to Sergeant in 2010. During his tenure, he has filled many roles within the department including Field Training Officer, Firearms Instructor, and Drug Task Force member, just to name a few. Sergeant Petersen’s commitment to law enforcement, through some especially difficult times, speaks volumes to his work ethic and to the support and kindness of our community. To fill the vacant Sergeant position, staff is requesting authorization to begin the internal promotional process. The promotional process will start on January 13 and will consist of a resume review, interview and psychological testing. Anticipating internal interest in the Sergeant position, staff is also requesting authorization to begin the Police Officer recruitment process. The Police Officer recruitment process will begin with a position posting/advertisement. It is anticipated that the application period will run from mid-January to mid-February. Interested applicants must submit a cover letter, resume, city application and application supplement. Applications will be evaluated and ranked, and interviews and testing conducted. After the initial posting period, the hiring process is anticipated to take eight to ten weeks. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the positions is provided for in the 2020 budget. page 31 ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resignation of Sergeant Eric Petersen effective February 1, 2020, and authorize staff to begin the internal promotion and Police Officer recruitment process. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Sergeant Eric Peterson effective February 1, 2020, and authorize staff to begin the internal promotion and Police Officer recruitment process. page 32 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: November 2019 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls In November, the Mendota Heights Fire Department was paged out a total of 30 times. 25 of the 30 calls were in Mendota Heights, and there were one each in Mendota, Lilydale and Sunfish Lake. Finally, the last two were calls for mutual aid once to Eagan and once to West Saint Paul. The calls themselves broke down as follows: Under the classification of Actual Fires and/or smoke in a building: In our coverage area we responded to one cooking fire/burnt food requiring ventilation. In addition, we had the two mutual aid requests for fires (listed later). Medical and/or rescue calls: For November, we responded to four medical calls. Good Intent Calls: There were a total of ten calls, six of the calls were cancelled before our arrival, one call was for a smoke scare due to a fire in Ramsey County and we had three misc. good intent calls. Hazardous Situation Calls accounted for three of our calls. One was a cut outdoor gas line and two were for carbon monoxide calls. False Alarms Calls were the case in ten of our responses. Of those, it was determined that six were due to some type of equipment malfunction and four were unintentional activations. Mutual Aid Requests: We were requested via auto-aid to respond to a reported fire at a restaurant/grocery store in Eagan and to a reported residential structure fire in West Saint Paul. November Training: November 6 18:30 Multi-Family Ops/Hose Management This drill was held at the Eagan Fire Station #2 to use their training tower to practice how we respond to and would attack a fire in a multi-family building (apartment, condo, etc.) November 7 07:00 Multi-Family Ops/Hose Management This drill was held at the Eagan Fire Station #2 to use their training tower to practice how we respond to and would attack a fire in a multi-family building (apartment, condo, etc.) page 33 November 13 18:30 Hazardous Materials This is a mandatory drill that covers a refresher on using the Emergency Response Guide at hazmat scenes, it also goes over reading and using hazmat placarding. There was also a second station where scenarios are set up and the firefighters needed to go through a proper response scenario. November 18 18:30 Ropes & Knots This drill begins with a refresher on the different knots that our departments requires firefighters to be competent with. The drill than expands to working rope scenarios in the apparatus bay. November 19 07:00 Ropes & Knots This drill began with a refresher on the different knots that our departments requires firefighters to be competent with. The drill than expands to working rope scenarios in the apparatus bay. page 34 Number of Calls 30 Total Calls for Year 343 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $1,200 Structure - MH Residential $202,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined 1 $5,200 Vehicle - MH $54,500 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 4 Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$20,000 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $207,200 Spills/Leaks 1 Carbon Monoxide Incident MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $54,500 Power line down Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $262,900 Hazardous, Other 2 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 6 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 1 25 268 221 HazMat release investigation 1 28 13 Good Intent, Other 3 1 8 10 FALSE ALARMS 1 13 30 False Alarm 2 26 15 Malfunction 6 Total:30 343 289 Unintentional 4 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID 2 INSPECTIONS 28.5 Total Calls 30 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 400.5 5098.5 3892 MEETINGS 315.5 896.5 405 ADMINISTRATION 5 TRAINING 23.5 3257.5 1709.25 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 15.75 597.75 2333.75 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 1 FIRE MARSHAL 34.5 182.9 475 TOTAL:34.5 TOTALS 789.75 10033 8815 REMARKS: Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 2019 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 35 12/18/2019 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official November 1, 2019 thru November 30, 2019 January 1, 2019 thru November 30, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru November 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru November 30, 2017 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 8 5,921,742.00$ $59,946.17 SFD 7 3,717,052.00$ $41,628.28 SFD 7 3,994,201.34$ 42,821.23$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ $63,519.64 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ 158,402.65$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 20 4,938,993.89$ $54,408.16 Townhouse 12 2,665,000.00$ 26,838.62$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 42 454,073.75$ 6,936.06$ Misc 643 9,570,692.92$ 158,532.82$ Misc 570 8,321,939.57$ 113,524.45$ Misc 615 9,461,921.42$ 126,501.36$ Commercial 0 -$ $0.00 Commercial 22 11,886,972.00$ $51,258.78 Commercial 16 8,791,959.00$ $63,172.89 Commercial 33 9,637,380.00$ 96,379.71$ Sub Total 42 454,073.75$ 6,936.06$ Sub Total 674 36,514,406.92$ 333,257.41$ Sub Total 614 35,236,764.46$ 338,444.62$ Sub Total 669 48,780,502.76$ 450,943.57$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 16 $2,046.68 Plumbing 209 $30,045.35 Plumbing 205 $31,814.59 Plumbing 185 31,364.61$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 3 $225.00 Sewer 15 $1,125.00 Sewer 37 $2,775.00 Sewer 37 2,788.00$ Mechanical 38 $4,308.72 Mechanical 298 397.00$ $39,174.85 Mechanical 446 $56,875.89 Mechanical 362 58,074.72$ Sub Total 57 6,580.40$ Sub Total 522 70,345.20$ Sub Total 688 $91,465.48 Sub Total 584 92,227.33$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 304 $15,200.00 Contractor 282 $14,100.00 Contractor 322 16,100.00$ Total 99 454,073.75$ 13,516.46$ Total 1500 36,514,406.92$ 418,802.61$ Total 1584 35,236,764.46$ 444,010.10$ Total 1575 48,780,502.76$ 559,270.90$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 36 12/31/2019 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official December 1, 2019 thru December 31, 2019 January 1, 2019 thru December 31, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru December 31, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru December 31, 2017 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 2 1,410,786.00$ $14,798.03 SFD 10 7,332,528.00$ $74,744.20 SFD 7 3,717,052.00$ $41,628.28 SFD 8 4,376,940.34$ 47,366.57$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ $63,519.64 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ 158,402.65$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 20 4,938,993.89$ $54,408.16 Townhouse 16 3,540,000.00$ 35,684.86$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 25 354,417.00$ 4,643.99$ Misc 668 9,925,109.92$ 163,176.81$ Misc 589 8,896,719.57$ 119,650.94$ Misc 640 9,723,790.85$ 130,350.56$ Commercial 3 60,000.00$ $1,017.50 Commercial 25 11,946,972.00$ $52,276.28 Commercial 16 8,791,959.00$ $63,172.89 Commercial 34 9,786,690.00$ 97,786.46$ Sub Total 30 1,825,203.00$ 20,459.52$ Sub Total 704 38,339,609.92$ 353,716.93$ Sub Total 633 35,811,544.46$ 344,571.11$ Sub Total 700 50,449,421.19$ 469,591.10$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 13 $990.00 Plumbing 223 $31,155.35 Plumbing 219 $33,091.94 Plumbing 201 32,659.61$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 17 $1,275.00 Sewer 40 $3,000.00 Sewer 37 2,788.00$ Mechanical 24 $2,772.20 Mechanical 322 397.00$ $41,947.05 Mechanical 472 $61,892.81 Mechanical 396 61,611.76$ Sub Total 39 3,912.20$ Sub Total 562 74,377.40$ Sub Total 731 $97,984.75 Sub Total 634 97,059.37$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 304 $15,200.00 Contractor 321 $16,050.00 Contractor 328 16,400.00$ Total 69 1,825,203.00$ 24,371.72$ Total 1570 38,339,609.92$ 443,294.33$ Total 1685 35,811,544.46$ 458,605.86$ Total 1662 50,449,421.19$ 583,050.47$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of a Pothole Patching Trailer Introduction The Council is asked to approve the purchase of a pothole patching trailer off the state contract. This trailer replaces an outdated 20+ year old unit that was mounted in a dump truck. Discussion As part of the 2020 budget, $43,000 was budgeted in the General Fund for the purchase of the pothole patching trailer. This trailer will help enable Public Works to get out to patch potholes during the late winter/early spring seasons without having to take a plow truck out of service. The city will also have the ability to use it on the pedways for blacktop repairs. The quote from the state contract is for $43,838.00 which includes an $800 trade-in. Added to the trailer quote is a “slip in conversion kit” for $1,500. The conversion kit enables us to remove the box from the trailer and install it on a one ton truck to use for pedway pothole repair. Budget Impact $43,000 is budgeted in the 2020 budget for the purchase of the replacement pothole patching trailer. The actual amount to purchase of the pothole patching trailer and “slip in conversion kit” is more than the amount requested in the budget. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the purchase of the pothole patching trailer in the amount of $43,838.00 that includes a “slip in conversion kit” as quoted from Stepp Mfg. Action Required If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion authorizing staff to purchase the pothole patching trailer that also includes a “slip in conversion kit” from Stepp Mfg. for a total of $43,838.00 This action requires a simple majority vote. page 53 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-03 Approving a Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit for 774 Sibley Memorial Highway Planning Case No. 2019-31 Introduction City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution approving a Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit to Matt and Jeanne Kenevan, which would allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool on their property, located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway. Background City Code Title 12-3-5 requires a Critical Area Permit for all development activities needing building permit or special zoning approvals; and Title 12-2-3 requires a Wetlands Permit for any development(s) adjacent to or within 100-ft. of established wetlands or water resource related features. The Applicants are seeking permission to construct a new in-ground swimming pool in their rear-yard, which will be subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District and Wetlands System standards. On December 19, 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 12/19/2019 planning report and meeting minutes (excerpts) are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this critical area permit, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (4-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit with specific findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT and WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL Highway. page 54 Action Requested The Council should open the public hearing; take any additional public comments, close the hearing, and give final consideration on Resolution No. 2020-03, which would approve the proposed critical area permit and wetlands permit for 774 Sibley Memorial Highway. The action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 55 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-03 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-31) WHEREAS, Matt and Jeanne Kenevan (as “Applicant/Owner”) applied for a Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-31, and for the property located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway (the “Subject Property”), which is legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new in-ground swimming pool structure, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, Title 12-2-3 of the City Code requires a Wetlands Permit for any development adjacent to or within 100-ft. of an established wetland or water resource related feature in the community; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2019 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (4-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit for the subject property with conditions, and with certain findings of fact to support such recommendation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-31 can be approved based on the following findings of fact: page 56 A. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit meet the development standards and regulations provided under Title 12, Chapter 2, Wetlands and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District of the City Code. C. The proposed pool project will not affect or impact the general character of the neighborhood or the surrounding properties. D. The proposed construction activities will be located in an area of the property that is generally open, thereby avoiding any loss of established trees or vegetation to complete the project; and the project does not require excessive grading work, which could potentially damage or impact the adjacent bluff areas or Ivy Falls Creek corridor. E. New drainage swales around the outer perimeter of the pool will help alleviate any additional storm water run-off towards the Ivy Falls Creek water channel and bluff zones; and adequate erosion control measures will be required in order to safeguard the bluff and creek features. F. City staff will closely monitor the subject site and ensure compliance with the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines are met throughout the duration of the project; and all areas disturbed as part of this pool project will be restored after construction is completed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit for the property located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-31, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structural work shall comply with all applicable standards and regulations noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District ordinances of the City Code. 3. No grading, vegetation removal, or construction activity will be allowed in the bluff impact zone or bluff areas. page 57 4. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the nearby bluff impact zone, bluff area or creek/wetland systems. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. The proposed retaining wall must be constructed of an approved native looking stone or wood material. 7. The shed located in the permanent utility easement must be removed or relocated outside the easement area. 8. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the pool project is completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of January, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 58 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-30700-00-010 ADDRESS: 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 LEGAL: Lot 1, Goodrich Happy Hollow, Dakota County, Minnesota, except that part for State Highway 13 ROW. Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 59 Planning Staff Report DATE: December 19, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-31 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: Matt & Jeanne Kenevan PROPERTY ADDRESS: 774 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 20, 2020 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit and a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool on their property. The subject property is located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, which is located next to Ivy Falls Creek. 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. The city has not received any comments or objections on this item. BACKGROUND The subject property is 4.61 acres in size, and contains a 3,000-sq. ft. (finished) single family dwelling. The property is guided and zoned R-1/Low Density Residential (see aerial image – below). page 60 Approximately 1/4 of the property is developed with the dwelling, driveways and accessory structures. The rear area of the property directly behind the dwelling is fairly wooded; while the remaining 3/4 is heavily impacted by bluffs and the adjacent Ivy Creek Falls water channel, running along the north edge of the property. The bluff edge rises up and near the back side of the property, where it meets up with the rear- yard properties located at the end of Knollwood Lane. The bluff drops down drastically along the creek edge along the north side (see aerial/contour mapping image - below). The subject property is subject to a 20-ft. wide permanent utility easement for an underground sanitary sewer main line that comes from the Knollwood neighborhood to the south, runs northward and through the middle of the subject property, along the north side of the dwelling, where it connects into the main line systems underneath Sibley Memorial Hwy. This new pool project does not impact this easement. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The homeowners plan to install a new 20’ x 36’ in-ground swimming pool, along with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter of the pool, directly behind the existing home (see site plan image – below). page 61 The plans also call for a 5-ft. high decorative fence to enclose the pool area, as required by City Code; and a 30’ x 30’ seating area with “proposed retaining wall” features. The edge of the pool structure is situated well over 223-ft. from the easterly property line; 61-ft. from the westerly line; and approx. 180-ft. from the southerly line. The plans also show a setback of 28.4-ft. from the pool edge to the adjacent easement line. Approximate measurements made off of city GIS Mapping indicates the pool structure will be 150 to 175 feet from the Ivy Falls Creek channel. The plans call for the installation of silt fencing for erosion control protection, which is typically mandated under the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines and Surface Water Management Plan. Assurances will be made this erosion control fencing is maintained during and after completion of the project, until all disturbed areas are restored. The shed noted on the plans is located over the permanent easement boundary. City staff is requesting the owners remove or relocate the shed out from the easement area. Wetlands Permit Review Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city; with the list of activities noted as follows: 1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to: • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. All major construction activities related to the installation of the new pool and deck are located far enough away from the Ivy Creek and adjacent wetland areas, that this work will have little if any effect upon these adjacent water features. No part of the pool structure, including the deck and required fencing, will encroach or impact the permanent utility easement on this property. page 62 Due to the proximity of the new pool to these wetland features, the ease of draining a pool into these nearby water features is a concern of the city. The owners need to be aware that per Section 9-2-1 Swimming Pools, the drainage or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property or into approved public drainage ways and shall not drain onto adjacent private lands. Drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. The scope and scale of this proposed new pool project fits in nicely with the overall large size of the property; and due to the distance of the creek edge from this project site, most of this work should have no impacts to this wetland feature. The following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. Critical Area Permit Review The following standards and provisions are noted per Title 12-Zoning, Ch. 3 Critical Area Overlay District: Section 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and • Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems Section 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 12-3-8: Development Standards: A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on- site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. 2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body. According to these current City Code standards, the pool is required to be setback at least 40-feet “…landward from the bluff line of the river.” Staff is unsure if this bluff-line setback is actually applicable, since the bluff line on this property is part of the Ivy Falls Creek channel, and not the Mississippi River, which is located on the other side of Sibley Memorial Highway/State Hwy. 13 to the northwest of this site. page 63 According to the site plan and utilizing the city’s GIS Mapping, it appears the pool structure meets the 40- ft. setback as required under the 1st standard; and as was noted previously in this report, the new pool sits approximately 150-175-ft. from Ivy Falls Creek, so this too appears to meet the 2nd standard noted above. Pursuant to Sect. 12-3-9-A(2)(d)(2)] of the Critical Area Ordinance, retaining walls must be constructed of native stone or wood. As noted previously, the plan identifies a proposed retaining wall (approx. 2-ft. in height) at the corner of the pool patio, which appears to enclose a new sitting/fire-pit area. The plan does not identify the materials to be used in the construction of these walls. Staff is recommending a condition be placed that the retaining wall must be of an approved native looking stone or wood materials. There does not appear to be much grade change(s) necessary to install the new swimming pool and deck in the rear yard area, as most of the existing grade(s) coming off the back are relatively flat and level. The new grades for the pool and patio areas match closely to what exists today. Most of the new elevations or grades from the pool area appear to be matching up or very close (slightly higher) than the existing ground elevations, so the changes will be negligible or minimal. The plan includes a narrow “elbow-shaped” swale around the outer perimeter of the pool deck, and illustrates water being directed westerly and away from the bluff line. This swale should be an ideal feature to help preserve and protect any drainage or water run-off from the pool deck and away from the bluff impact zone and Ivy Creek waterway. Interagency Review In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review and comment. Ms. Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with MN-DNR replied they have no comments or issues with this application or proposed improvements. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit to Matt and Jeanne Kenevan, for the property located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, which would allow the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool development, based on the attached findings of fact and the following conditions: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structural work shall comply with all applicable standards and regulations noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District ordinances of the City Code. page 64 3. No grading, vegetation removal, or construction activity will be allowed in the bluff impact zone or bluff areas. 4. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the nearby bluff impact zone, bluff area or creek/wetland systems. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. The proposed retaining wall must be constructed of an approved native looking stone or wood material. 7. The shed located in the permanent utility easement must be removed or relocated outside the easement area. 8. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the pool project is completed. page 65 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit & Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool Project 774 Sibley Memorial Highway Planning Case No. 2019-31 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit meet the development standards and regulations provided under Title 12, Chapter 2, Wetlands and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District of the City Code. 3. The proposed pool project will not affect or impact the general character of the neighborhood or the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed construction activities will be located in an area of the property that is generally open, thereby avoiding any loss of established trees or vegetation to complete the project; and the project does not require excessive grading work, which could potentially damage or impact the adjacent bluff areas or Ivy Falls Creek corridor. 5. New drainage swales around the outer perimeter of the pool will help alleviate any additional storm water run-off towards the Ivy Falls Creek water channel and bluff zones; and adequate erosion control measures will be required in order to safeguard the bluff and creek features. 6. City staff will closely monitor the subject site and ensure compliance with the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines are met throughout the duration of the project; and all areas disturbed as part of this pool project will be restored after construction is completed. page 66 Swimming pool application 77 4 Sibley Memorial Highway Matthew and Jeanne Kenevan To whom this may concern, We are proposing to install an in ground swimming pool at the address of 77 4 Sibley Memorial Highway. Due to the proximity of pool, we are requesting a wetland and critical use permit. As seen in the plans we are attempting to adjust a relatively small area, while keeping the entire project well behind the face of the house which was built closer than setbacks allow. We also plan to mitigate the small amount of adversely effected rain runoff around the backside of the pool to the driveway so in a sense we are decreasing the current runoff to the water source. Sincerely, Matthew and Jeanne Kenevan page 67 666 6 6 6 6666666666666666666666666634 59 6 53 3 40 1 3 7 3348 476535 572 270 31 62622 1 9 19923218 2 275600 132 1647 9 74 150521005 1 1 0 3 509248 3 8 3 5 3 1 4072760165 104 9 5 2 35774 782 788 1220 1223 796 1232 754 SIBLEY MEM ORIAL H WY 66.4'23 3 ' 2 1 3 ' 1 6 9 '275'1 5 0 ' 9 7 ' 1 3 6 ' 86' 111 ' 69 '79' 42' 774 Sibley Memorial Highway(Kenevan Residence) City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 12/11/2019 page 68 Prepared By: TM Performance Pool & Spa 2405 Annapolis Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 (651) 775 -3940 (651) 731 -8372 Fax Attn: Ken Ronsberg Kenronsberg@Comcast.ne 1,471 Sq. Ft. Pool Deck Home Owner: Matthew & Jeanne Kenevan 77 4 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota Heights, MN 55118 ( 612) 269 -1674 Lot -1 4.61 AC Subdivision -1952 Goodrich Happy Hollow PID 27-3000-00-010 Pool Dimensions Width X Length Pool ( 20 X 36 ) Deck (39.5 X 62 ) ( 955.35 ) Denotes Proposed Elevation X 955.35 Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Drainage Direction X X Denotes SRI Fence Scale -1 Inch = 20 Feet City Codes / Setbacks Principal -10 'Water Side -10 'Water Rear -10 'Water E ui ment - 8 ' LL 25 ' AS Fence - 5 'Tall Se tic -10' Water Well -20 ' Water Drainfield -20 ' Water N ---m-----'- Cl) <J C: {f. "C 0 ~ -U) .... "' DRIVEWAY GARAGE GFE=814.83 .• ,, , . .. 4.00 3.71 "' in £8"L HOUSE Wood Deck . ., "~- I ----814.20,< I --...,_--( ~reposed Pool : : 20X36 I Prqposed Elevaliqn : I ( 814.41 ) f 1 : ______ ... ;1~-~ / / \ "' '"' £8'8 ti i:., I '"' ,, 'I I; ,, I ,, •\ Ii •. • I .r 1 I .i i i;r·,,, I I I I , I ;l, .' f ! i ! I I I I I in1 1 ! I '. ! i ' \ I I I .. ·/ I I 1 1 ' .. 'v--tl-,-., )o-L/, I I I I I I ~1 ',, \, I 'I ' \ 1/ I ,/, s·u \ 1, t r--,........""""""":X~8~1~3.-::;'.~! 1' -~--,..,,' g ! I ·\, i 11 Cb , ' \ 1 I.(, I I I '..,c, I, I . ' '. / Pool Equi~ment 'l Shed * ---514 I :§ \ \ 'I I I ·ff, ;I; ; -C:' I I O 'I I 'I ~ ! I' I I I I ~ ,/, ' , J. I I, I I I I Ill ' ' .... .... \ \~ · /'. I I I , ' ,1 I I I \ \ \ \ l, \. ' I , I \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ ·,' \ ,, \ \ \ \ '. '. \\ .\ \ ' . t ,, \ . ' \ \',\\\,\ '\\·,, I \1 I , \ ,\ \ '\'.. \\\\;\ ) '. I \ I ' \ I • ' • \ \, ' \', , I \ '\ \ ' '\ \ '' \ \ ,\ \ page 69 page 70page 83page 81 page 71page 84page 82 :>nnect.xfi n itt.com / a ppsu it c,/ apii ma i 1/d oc059 587 201909: 7123604 .pd f?ac tio., = a rtachr., <: n te.:f old € r= de ia u I t0%2FI N BO :<&id= 11080&a ttachr.1.en = 2&us€ r= 2&con t <:xl = 11128 2 8 9&decry pt = &seq u enc,,= 1 &d1:liv;;ry = ,.,j~;·1 --,., i 1-: "' >- c( ~ :z: I:> :z: ..J c( a: C :E II.I :E >- II.I ..J ID en .. .. : "' ;:, .. :, " "' i :, !: '! .... .. 0 :r :I .. .. ~-_-:.: -···~·~·!·-------------------------.. ------------·· ---;.------- ----==::::~~~:::::::::~::::::::::::~=~"" ... ------~--.. ······· .:::~~:_::-~·;~~~-;:~~::-~=-·-~ ..,. .. ,// ------______ ,.. .. --·ASS£MBL1~.s. ... Vf1TH-T'f";E .. £.. LOCKtNG ____ OEVI S ..... ---~--.. ----·-___ .. --. ----· ----· ---.. -. --. --· ....... --------/ .. ---------:.:.::.. __ :.:·----- ., -... ----- :.;>,"" ~ / / / --~ -... .... _ .. --·· ----------- .--· _ .... --------·· ONE INCH= 60 FEET ..,,., ,,,,, ~ .:l." ':.:_-:... "· A... o-._ ~ II VL 1235 SERVICI ALL WATER SERVICE ----.. " ~ VL•1245 !1 10 page 72page 85page 83 I ,.. ~~. -:--~-- -,,,- ........ '·· '·. \ \ -.. _ ·' .,.,' I /..', )·-.,, •' ,,, ,' ..... __ ----·--·-------... .. , ... __ --·- ·-. ......... ·-........ .. ..... l :, ., , ..._, ,• ' ....." .. "· .... ·····--......... -.......... ......... ·, .•.. ··, ............ . . . '.~, ·-v ,'; ..... ·,. · ..... '· -... '•, I .... U.•, <._I -., '·· .. ....... ' ' page 73page 86page 84 535476 572 600 634 40 1 3 7 3 59 6348 594 53 3 270262 2752492322 1 9 19931 6164 39492 132 18 2 1 2 3 7 9 74 761 0 3 10010 46160 70463525 1 5048 49403053 8 37 363 5323 1 2710258420919940 5 2 100359 774 788 782 1223796 1220 754 1232 1238 1235SIBLEY MEM ORIAL H WY 774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY.MRCCA - Bluff Impact Zone December 10, 2019 City of Mendota Heights0110 SCALE IN FEET page 74page 87page 85 SITE PICTURES/IMAGES of 774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY Rear of Home – Proposed Pool location Shed/Coop to be Relocated (off city easement) page 75page 88page 86 Looking towards rear area of property- bluff edge Looking towards Ivy Falls Creek/SMH bridge – bluff edge page 76page 89page 87 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-31 MATT & JEANNE KENEVAN, 774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Matt & Jeanne Kenevan were seeking a Critical Area Permit & Wetlands Permit to install a new in-ground swimming pool with a patio/deck in their back yard. This property, 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, is located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor and requires a Critical Area Permit. Also, because of its proximity to Ivy Falls Creek, it requires a Wetlands Permit. This item was presented under a public hearing process and everyone within 350 feet of the subject property were notified and it was published in the local newspaper. The city has received two letters of objection which were provided to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record. In addition, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN-DNR) for review and comment. Ms. Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with MN-DNR replied that they have no comments or issues with this application. Mr. Benetti provided background on the subject property, which included the lot size and shape, information pertaining to the existing single-family dwelling, the zoning and use identified on the land use plan, driveways, and accessory structures. These developed portion of the lot takes up approximately one-fourth of the property with the remaining three-fourths being heavily impacted by bluffs and the adjacent Ivy Creek Falls water channel. The homeowners plan to install a new 20-foot by 36-foot in-ground swimming pool with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter. They also plan to erect a 5-foot high decorative fence to enclose the pool area and a 30-foot by 30-foot seating area with retaining wall features. As mandated under the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines and Surface Water Management Plan, they will be installing silt fencing for erosion control protection. There is a 20-foot wide permanent utility easement for an underground sanitary sewer main line that runs through the middle of the subject property that connects into the main line systems under Sibley Memorial Highway. The planned pool, fence, and patio areas do not impact this easement. However, there is an existing shed over the permanent easement boundary that staff has requested be removed or relocated out of the easement area. Mr. Benetti reviewed City Code Sections 12-2-1, 12-2-3, and 12-2-6 regarding the Wetland System ordinance, any work or development that would alter a wetland or water related resource area, and the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. He further explained that all major construction activities related to the installation of the new pool and deck would be located far enough away from the Ivy Creek and adjacent wetland area and that this work would have little if any effect upon these adjacent water features. Mr. Benetti also reviewed the sections of the City Code relating to the Critical Area Permit Review; Sections 12-32, 12-3-5, 12-3-8. Since the plan also calls for a retaining wall, staff recommended a condition be added that the retaining wall must be of an approved native looking stone or wood materials. page 77page 90page 88 Mr. Benetti then reviewed how the plans and specifications of this new pool, fence, and deck area meets or exceeds the standards as outlined in the city ordinances. Commissioner Mazzitello asked, under the new Critical Area rules, is the 40-foot designation from the bluff line a buffer zone or a setback. Mr. Benetti replied that it is both, it is a buffer zone, but it is also a setback. Therefore, no Variance is required from the Critical Area setback standard. With respect to the Wetland Permit, Commissioner Mazzitello asked where the wetland edge was on the site plan. When Mr. Benetti pulled up the Sanitary Sewer Line Easement map, Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the creek was shown well in excess of 100 feet away from the structure. Mr. Benetti explained that on other aerial images it appeared to be a little bit more than what is shown on the easement map. Therefore, staff felt it was better to error on the side of caution and require the Wetland Permit. Commissioner Katz noted that his concern is always about the water and what they would do with the excess. He asked if this would be a saltwater pool. Mr. Benetti could not provide the answer; however, he did note that the city does not allow any pool water to be drained into any type of wetland or water feature. It has to be drained on the neighbor’s properties. The city does allow for some type of drainage out which would allow the chlorine to dissipate. One of the benefits of living in Minnesota is that most people do not drain their pools, they keep them full all year long because of the environment up here. Chair Magnuson noted receipt of a comment from a neighbor objecting to an exemption from the standards established for the Mississippi River Critical Area; she wanted to make it clear that the Commission was not considering any exemptions or waiver or Variance or anything like that. They were simply considering a permit, which is required for any construction within the Critical Area. Mr. Nick Oliver, with Performance Pools, stated that Mr. Benetti did a pretty good job explaining how they are mitigating water drainage. This is a saltwater pool. The actual drainage of pools in Minnesota occurs approximately every 12-15 years with the filtration that Performance Pools use. Mr. Matt Kenevan, the applicant, noted that one of the letters stated that they have had lots of parties. He explained that they have had one party in the last five years, and it was a second-grade fund raiser for a Catholic School. They are not party people. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 page 78page 91page 89 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-31 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit meet the development standards and regulations provided under Title 12, Chapter 2, Wetlands and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District of the City Code. 3. The proposed pool project will not affect or impact the general character of the neighborhood or the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed construction activities will be located in an area of the property that is generally open, thereby avoiding any loss of established trees or vegetation to complete the project; and the project does not require excessive grading work, which could potentially damage or impact the adjacent bluff areas or Ivy Falls Creek corridor. 5. New drainage swales around the outer perimeter of the pool will help alleviate any additional storm water run-off towards the Ivy Falls Creek water channel and bluff zones; and adequate erosion control measures will be required in order to safeguard the bluff and creek features. 6. City staff will closely monitor the subject site and ensure compliance with the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines are met throughout the duration of the project; and all areas disturbed as part of this pool project will be restored after construction is completed. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structural work shall comply with all applicable standards and regulations noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District ordinances of the City Code. 3. No grading, vegetation removal, or construction activity will be allowed in the bluff impact zone or bluff areas. 4. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the nearby bluff impact zone, bluff area or creek/wetland systems. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. The proposed retaining wall must be constructed of an approved native looking stone or wood material. 7. The shed located in the permanent utility easement must be removed or relocated outside the easement area. page 79page 92 8. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the pool project is completed. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 7, 2020 meeting. page 80page 93 page 94 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: January 7, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2020-04 Relating to a Variance for New Personal Self-Storage Use located in the Industrial District - 1178 Northland Drive Introduction City Council is asked to give consideration of Resolution No. 2020-04, which would either approve or deny a Variance for new personal self-storage use and facility in the I-Industrial District. The new facility is being proposed on the 2.2-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55, addressed as 1178 Northland Drive. Background On May 21, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 538, which removed “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from a list of prohibited uses in the I-Industrial District, and allowed said uses by means of a CUP, with certain site and design standards in the district. On August 27th, Metro Storage, LLC presented Planning Application No. 2019-20 to the city’s Planning Commission requesting consideration of an CUP and Variance to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility, along with a Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR. After discussion, a motion was made to deny the Variance alone, where said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no-decision or recommendation. The PC then made a follow-up motion to table the application; instructed staff to check and research other community ordinances; and present information of a possible amendment to the industrial zoning code to alter the floor area ratio standard, if necessary. The consensus of the commission was if the city accepted an amendment to the I-Zone’s FAR standard, the requested variance would no longer be needed. At the September 24th Planning Commission meeting, city staff presented a report concerning this FAR standard to the commission, which concluded with a unanimous recommendation (7-0 vote) to strike-out the FAR standard from the I-Industrial District ordinance. After consideration of this FAR amendment, the Planning Commission re-opened Planning Case No. 2019-20, and determined the personal self-storage facility meets the conditional use standards for such uses in the I-District (subject to an approved FAR amendment); and made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP to the council (7-0 vote). The PC thereafter re-tabled the variance, with the understanding that should the Council accept the new amendment removing the FAR standard, the Applicant could withdraw their variance. page 81 On October 2nd the City Council was presented with the recommendation from the Planning Commission, and asked to consider adopting Ordinance No. 545, removing the 0.5 FAR standard from the I-Industrial District; and a separate request to approve the CUP. The Council elected to table the amendment, and the CUP application in order to discuss this matter at a future council workshop. After discussing this FAR related item at the October 28th Council Workshop meeting, the Council at the following November 6th meeting made a motion to deny the proposed FAR standard amendment. The Council suggested the Applicant work with city staff to work on options, and present those back to the city. Planning and legal staff later conferred with Metro Storage group, and it was agreed that they would offer- up for separate consideration another zoning code amendment for only “Personal self-storage facility” uses, and request a new standard: “H. The floor area ratio for any facility shall not exceed 1.25.” This new standard would only apply to self-storage uses, and would not impact other uses in the industrial district. At the November 26th meeting, this new Subpart H. amendment was presented to the Planning Commission, which resulted in another favorable and unanimous recommendation to include this new standard under the self-storage uses. However, at the following City Council meeting of December 3rd, the council elected to deny this amendment as well on a 4-1 vote. Since the two FAR amendments were rejected, the Planning Commission was asked to give final consideration of the Variance on the 0.5 FAR standard at its December 19th regular meeting. After re- opening the closed public hearing (from the August 27th meeting), allowing additional public comments and discussion with the Applicant, a motion was made to approve the Variance, but this motion failed on a 2-2 vote. A subsequent motion to forward this Variance application to the City Council without a recommendation was then made by the Commission, which was approved on 3-1 vote. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Action Required Since a recommendation regarding the Variance to the 0.5 FAR standard was not provided by the Planning Commission, the City Council must give consideration on one of two draft resolutions: the first is RESOLUTION NO. 2020-04 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, or RESOLUTION NO. 2020-04 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE. Each form of resolution requires a simple majority vote. Please note depending on the outcome of this variance decision, the final consideration of the conditional use permit on the proposed self-storage use will be presented for final review and consideration at either the January 21st or February 4th council meeting. (Note: Applicant has extended their review period to February 5, 2020). page 82 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-04 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A NEW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-20) WHEREAS, Metro Storage, LLC (as “Applicant”) applied for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to allow a new 117,810-sf., three-story personal self-storage facility in the Industrial District (the “Project”), for the property located at 1178 Northland Drive (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the I-Industrial District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, “Personal self-storage facility” is allowed by means of a conditional use permit (CUP), with specific site and structure design standards for said uses in the Industrial District; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, the floor area ratio (FAR) of any structure shall not exceed a value of 0.5; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Applicant presented a Conditional Use Permit and Variance request to the Mendota Heights Planning Commission to allow the Project, along with a Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR, and upon this first consideration a motion was made to deny the Variance alone, whereby said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no-decision or recommendation by the commission, and this application was tabled to allow the Applicant and city staff to present other options to the variance; and Res 2020-04 Page 2 WHEREAS, upon the separate denial of two separate zoning code amendments related to the FAR standard, at the December 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting the commission re- opened the closed public hearing (from the August 27, 2019 meeting), allowed for additional public comments, and after conclusion of discussion, a motion was made to approve the Variance for Planning Case No. 2019-20, but failed on a 2-2 vote; and WHEREAS, at this same December 19, 2020 meeting, a second motion was made by the commission to forward this Variance application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, which was approved on 3-1 vote. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR for the Project, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the Project to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) The Applicant proposes to use the Subject Property in a reasonable manner, as the proposed Project already complies with all Site and Structure requirements under Section 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and the design features of the Project promote a reasonable use of the Subject Property, providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55. If the Project moves forward, there will be a low intense overall use of the Subject Property due to the nature of the business, so the Applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner/Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property not created by the landowner/Applicant. The Subject Property is unique in that the Project conforms to all other land-use characteristics allowing for the placement of a self-storage facility on the land, which ensures a design that will meet all building height, parking, lot coverage, and setback requirements. The Subject Property is not large enough, however, to accommodate a building in need of vertical Res 2020-04 Page 3 storage space, due to the FAR limitation. The landowner/Applicant did not create, nor is responsible for, such FAR limitations imposed on an otherwise compliant development. iii.) The Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, since the proposed use of the Subject Property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. The Subject Property’s location in the City’s industrial park and adjacent to I-494 ensure that it will not disturb any residential or institutional uses in the immediate area, of which there are none. C. The City Council 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. Additionally, the City Council determines the Variance is a special condition peculiar to the Subject Property, does not apply generally to other land or structures in the Industrial District, and is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant. Granting the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the City Code. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant, but is necessary to alleviate the above-described practical difficulties. D. Approval of this Variance is for the Applicant - Metro Storage, LLC only, their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and amended on September 24, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), are hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2020-05. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the Variance. Conditions related to this variance transaction are noted in separate City Council Resolution No. 2020-04, adopted January 7, 2020. Res 2020-04 Page 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR for the new personal self-storage facility, the Project referred to in this Resolution, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of January, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Res 2020-04 Page 5 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-52250-01-040 ADDRESS: 1178 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 LEGAL: Lot 4, Block 1, NORTHLAND PLAZA, Dakota County, Minnesota Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-04 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A NEW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-20) WHEREAS, Metro Storage, LLC (as “Applicant”) applied for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to allow a new 117,810-sf., three-story personal self-storage facility in the Industrial District (the “Project”), for the property located at 1178 Northland Drive (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the I-Industrial District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, “Personal self-storage facility” is allowed by means of a conditional use permit (CUP), with specific site and structure design standards for said uses in the Industrial District; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, the floor area ratio (FAR) of any structure shall not exceed a value of 0.5; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Applicant presented a Conditional Use Permit and Variance request to the Mendota Heights Planning Commission to allow the Project, along with a Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR, and upon this first consideration a motion was made to deny the Variance alone, whereby said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no-decision or recommendation by the commission, and this application was tabled to allow the Applicant and city staff to present other options to the variance; and Res 2020-04 Page 2 WHEREAS, upon the separate denial of two separate zoning code amendments related to the FAR standard, at the December 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting the commission re- opened the closed public hearing (from the August 27, 2019 meeting), allowed for additional public comments, and after conclusion of discussion, a motion was made to approve the Variance for Planning Case No. 2019-20, but failed on a 2-2 vote; and WHEREAS, at this same December 19, 2020 meeting, a second motion was made by the commission to forward this Variance application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, which was approved on a 3-1 vote. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR for the Project, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, is denied based on the following findings-of-fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement (FAR) of 0.5 for Industrial District uses. The FAR is included in the City Code to limit large vertical spaces, which are not suited to the traditional design of the City’s industrial park. In other places in the City Code, the FAR is increased, such as a 1.0 FAR in the B- 4 Shopping Center District (Section 12-1F-5D1(e)), and a 0.6 FAR for buildings located within a “retail sales and service complex” (Section 12-1G-2). No provision in the City Code allows for a FAR of 1.24, which is requested by the Applicant. The City Council finds that allowance of such a FAR on the Subject Property would not be a reasonable use of the property, as the FAR would be increased by nearly 150% over the City’s traditional standard. The City Council therefore finds the Project as proposed is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the Subject Property; and there are other alternatives for a high- quality development on the Subject Property due to its large size. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the Subject Property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). D. The City Council is additionally aware that economic considerations may require a larger floor area footprint of the Project to be imposed by the Applicant, in order to Res 2020-04 Page 3 fit more storage areas within the facility. While the City Council believes that these economic considerations are not the sole factor for the Project as proposed, the considerations are relevant to determine whether the use of the Subject Property is a reasonable one. (See Section B of this Resolution). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR for the new personal self-storage facility, the Project referred to in this Resolution, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of January, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res 2020-04 Page 4 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-52250-01-040 ADDRESS: 1178 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 LEGAL: Lot 4, Block 1, NORTHLAND PLAZA, Dakota County, Minnesota Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Commission Memo MEETING DATE: December 19, 2019 TO: Chair Magnuson and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-20 Metro Storage, LLC - Variance (and Conditional Use Permit) for Personal Self- Storage Facility in the I-Industrial District Introduction The Planning Commission is asked to re-open the discussion and reconsider the Variance application for a new self-storage facility use, located at 1178 Northland Drive. The variance to City Code Title 12-1G-7: Site and Structure Requirements, would allow the self-storage use to exceed the 0.5 floor area ratio standard up to 1.24. Background On August 27, 2019, Metro Storage, LLC presented Planning App No. 2019-20 requesting approval of a CUP and Variance to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility, along with a Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR. After discussion, a motion was made to deny the Variance alone, where said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no- decision or recommendation. As a result of this vote, the PC made a follow-up motion to table the application until the next regular meeting, and the commission instructed city staff to check and research other community ordinances; and present information of a possible code amendment to the industrial zoning code to alter the floor area ratio standard, if necessary. The general consensus of the commission (that night) was if the city accepted an amendment to the Industrial Zone’s FAR standard, the requested variance would no longer be needed. At the follow-up September 24, 2019 meeting, city staff presented a separate planning report regarding this FAR standard to the Commission, which concluded with a unanimous recommendation (7-0 vote) to strike- out the FAR standard from the I-Industrial District ordinance. After consideration of this FAR amendment, the commission re-opened Planning Case No. 2019-20, and determined the personal self-storage facility meets the conditional use standards for such uses in the I-District (subject to an approved FAR amendment); and made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP to the council. The PC also re-tabled the variance, with the understanding that should the Council accept the new amendment removing the FAR standard, the Applicant could withdraw their variance. On October 2, 2019 the City Council was presented with the recommendation from the Planning Commission, and asked to consider adopting Ordinance No. 545, removing the 0.5 FAR standard in the I-Industrial District; and a separate request to approve the CUP. The Council elected to table the amendment, along with the proposed CUP, in order to discuss this matter at a future council workshop. page 92 On Monday, October 28th, the Council convened a workshop, whereby council discussed with city staff and the applicant this FAR item; and upon concluding the discussion, the consensus (majority) of the councilmembers present at the workshop was the Industrial District’s FAR standard should remain intact. At the following November 6, 2019 meeting, the Council initially made a motion to approve the proposed Ord. No. 545, which failed on a 2-3 vote; and a subsequent motion to deny said ordinance was made, which was approved by 3-2 vote. Prior to this action, the council asked the developer: “…if the applicant would return with an amended proposal if the ordinance amendment were denied.” The Applicant offered to work with city planning and legal staff to work on options and present those back to the city. Planning and legal staff later conferred with Metro Storage group, and it was agreed that they would offer-up for separate consideration another zoning code amendment for only “Personal self-storage facility” use, and request a new standard: H. The floor area ratio for any facility shall not exceed 1.25. This new standard would only apply to self-storage uses in the Industrial Zone, and does not affect or impact other industrial uses or the current 0.5 FAR standard under such district. At the November 26th meeting, this new subpart H. amendment was presented to the Planning Commission, which resulted in another favorable and unanimous recommendation to include this new standard under the self-storage uses. However, at the following City Council meeting of December 3rd, the council elected to reject this amendment as well on a 4-1 vote (against). Requested Action Because these two FAR related amendments have been rejected by the council, the planning commission must now give final consideration to the variance that was originally tabled at the August 27th and September 24th meetings. Attached to this memo is the original 08/27/2019 Planning Staff Report (amended 09/24/2019), with the proposed building plans, elevations and attachments. As part of this follow-up action, the Applicant requested if they could provide additional information, justifications and reasoning to lend support for their variance, which staff agreed would be appended to this meeting memo/planning report. However, as of the preparation/completion of the PC Agenda packet, this information was not provided, but will hopefully be available by early next week, before the Thursday night meeting. Staff will distribute this information (via email) to the commissioners as soon as it becomes available. Under the 09/24/19 Planning Report, the recommendations on the variance are still noted under the “Alternatives of Action” heading, which still includes the two optional recommendations to either approve or deny the variance, with certain findings of facts. Assuming no additional tabling of this item, the recommendation will be presented at the January 7, 2020 City Council meeting. Please note that the original public hearing at the August 27th meeting was closed; and since the matter was tabled again at the September 24th meeting, no public hearing was held at that meeting. Although this item is being presented under “Unfinished Business” and without a public hearing, the commission may choose to open the matter up to the general public or audience for comments if so requested. A simple motion from the commission is needed. Attachments 1) Planning Report for Case No. 2019-20 (Amended 09/24/2019) with Plan Attachments 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpts) – 08/24/19 and 09/24/19 3) City Council Meeting Minutes (excerpts) 10/02/19; 10/28/19; 11/06/19; 12/03/19 page 93 Unfinished Business (Planning Items) A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE VARIANCE Chair Magnuson noted that this is a case that they Commission has heard a number of times. There was a public hearing, which was closed. The Commission has tabled the matter; however, they have never had a public hearing on the Variance request. Mr. Benetti corrected her by explaining that the Commission did have a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance applications; however, the Variance portion was tabled. The Conditional Use Permit was forwarded on to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The hearings for both items were closed at that time. The Commission is entitled to re-open the public hearing for the Variance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request for a Variance would allow Metro Storage, LLC to exceed the 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) standard up to 1.24. He further explained that the Conditional Use Permit was given favorable recommendation approval at the September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Benetti then provided a quick background on the Metro Storage, LLC proposal to build a 3- story, 118,000 square foot, fully contained, secured self-storage facility in the city’s Industrial Park. There would no outdoor panels or doorways except for the access doors into the site. All storage would take place inside of the building itself. All architectural materials and setbacks are all being met per the Industrial Zoning. All of the parking is being met. The FAR is calculated as the interior floor space (all three floors) divided by the total area of the parcel (building area / lot area). The building footprint at approximately 39,270 square feet only represents a 41% coverage. The building height is still under 45 feet, all of the setbacks are being met. The floor area ratio of 1.24 is calculated as follows: 117,810 square foot building area / 95,920 lot area = 1.24. Mr. Benetti also provided a timeline of related application(s) and resulting council actions from May 28, 2019 through December 19, 2019. Because the FAR related amendments have been rejected by Council, the Planning Commission must give final consideration to the Variance that was originally tabled at the August 27 and September 24 meetings. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage; Mr. Jim Walston, Land Use Professional; Mr. Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Heilman provided Metro Storage, LLC’s responses to the three-part variance test noted in City Code Section 12-1-05: 1. Are there practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? a. FAR restrictions are generally used by cities to regulate the intensity of uses and to prevent ‘stacking’ that would cause a strain on neighborhood harmony, municipal services, traffic, and customer safety. The only other less intensive use, than a fully enclosed, aesthetically pleasing, and secure self-storage facility would be a cemetery. In this present application, the 0.5 FAR limitation is obsolete and creates a significant practical difficulty. page 94 b. Current self-storage facilities are designed to provide (a) an eco-friendly footprint, (b) a limited number of access points, (c) use of vertical stacking consistent with municipal height regulations, (d) an efficient utilization of horizontal and vertical demising walls as a security barrier. Simply put, Metro cannot construct the project any other way. As such, 0.5 FAR restriction is not a useful restrictive tool for the City to assure the comprehensive and permanent restrictions on a self-storage facility to be located in the industrial park 2. Are there circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? a. No. However, as stated in the variance application, the variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the FAR restriction and the City’s Site and Structure Requirements 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? a. No. Metro maintains that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be negatively affected. Commissioner Petschel asked when they say that the FAR is not appropriate for this use, would it be – maybe not charitable – but accurate to say it would not be economically reasonable to build a self-storage facility that fits the FAR for this site. Mr. Heilman replied that he would present it as part of the discussion. It is not THE reason. The practical difficulty is that the FAR is in conflict with the city’s code. Commissioner Petschel commented that they could take a story off and be in compliance with the FAR. Mr. Walston replied that in this whole project economics are a factor. After studying this and learning about all the other applications that Metro Storage has had across the United States, and the in-depth analysis on this, one really has to take a step back and look at the history of self- storage; how it started. That may have been overlooked. They have hinted at it before in discussing the text amendment; but here is how it works. Initially, self-storages were all horizontal outlays with everyone having their own garage door and they sprawled. Huge security problem with fencing, barbed wire, and guard dogs. Because of the security problem and crime issues, loitering, and vandalism, the current generation of self-storage units were developed. The horizontal sprawled units have gone vertical within municipal height limitations. By doing that and using the individual demising walls for each storage unit, they have created security for the other ones. Yes, it is economics; but the model for self-storage in the second decade of the 21st century is to have limited ingress and egress and to build vertical and have it all encapsulated. They could build one- or two-story stories, but that is not where the market is right now. Commissioner Petschel stated that he was in favor of this project and he agreed with all of their statements with respect to practical difficulty. However, he did not buy it as a justification for a variance. He was in favor of eliminating the FAR because he did not believe it worked. However, to say that the project does not work without getting rid of the FAR, without ignoring a particular rule, does not seem like a practical difficulty. From his point of view, the argument cannot be that the rule is stupid or obsolete, other cities around the area do not have the same rule, it does not make any sense – that cannot be an argument. page 95 Mr. Heilman stated that the way they look at it, the FAR is a regulator for intensity of use. This generation of self-storage facility has the lowest intensity use there is – by human utilization. Commissioner Petschel replied that another purpose of the FAR is to prevent density of construction inside of an area. This would mean that if they had a larger lot, they could build this. Mr. Heilman stated that this was correct, but it is also a regulator for the intensity of movement, infrastructure, and traffic to that property. Their argument is that their use, being as it is so quiet, that is why it becomes a practical difficulty for self-storage. Mr. Walston presented the log records from Metro Storage for the second week of September for the Burnsville facility. He summarized that the average number of customers there on a 14-hour day is just under 3 per hour. Mr. Heilman’s final parting comment was that they wanted to underscore that there were some concerns that they were trying to accomplish spot-zoning; that that they were telling the city what to do; trying to make a savvy business ploy by first applying for changing the zoning ordinance to allow this as a permitted use in the Industrial Park; and then moving forward with this variance request. The challenge they had was that they were not directed to provide samples of what the structure would look like. To the contrary, they were asked not to do that. It was after they had this that they moved forward with the FAR variance request last fall. Chair Magnuson noted that as she recalled, the application came in and the FAR issue arose a bit as an afterthought. And then it was suggested that a variance needed to be applied for. Mr. Heilman stated this was correct. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY METRO STORAGE, LLC. AYES: 3 (KATZ, PETSCHEL, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 1 (MAZZITELLO) Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, asked that the slide showing the applicant’s responses to the variance analysis. He then he stated that in viewing the minutes of the past he saw that the City Attorney provided a seminar to the Planning Commission back in May, specifically focused on variances. When he did that, he pointed out that for the granting of a variance one had to find a practical difficulty and that there was a three-factor test. One of the factors of the uniqueness required that the problem giving rise to a variance requests be due to circumstances unique to the property. He pointed out that the uniqueness had to relate to the physical characteristics of the property and not to other factors such as personal preferences of the landowner, as in this case the number of storage units. Also, at the August 27, 2019 meeting Chair Magnuson asked the applicants if they had given consideration to scaling back the size of the building; to which Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make the project economically viable if they were limited by the FAR. Commissioner Noonan at that meeting indicated that he had considerable difficulty with finding a practical difficulty because it was clear to him that the only reason for pursuit the variance was economic page 96 considerations and that there were not any physical characteristics relative to the property that provided any basis for a finding of uniqueness. Then with this December 13, 2019 addition to the application [applicants’ responses to the 3-factor test], the applicant has literally agreed with the Commission that one of the requirements for granting a variance request was not met. There has to be something unique to the property in order for the variance to meet all three tests. They agreed that there is nothing unique to the property. No one has indicated at this point that there is anything unique to the property that gives rise to meeting that uniqueness test in order to have a finding of practical difficulty. In fact, the only basis here for the variance is the economic necessity of the applicant, which is prohibited as a basis for the determination of practical difficulty to get to the right to have a variance. The applicants have repeatedly talked about the conflicts between the ordinances of the city as the basis for there being a practical difficulty. Unfortunately, that does not meet the test either of state law or the ordinance for the finding of a practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Friel stated that he also went over the alternative resolutions that Mr. Benetti had prepared and found nothing in the findings that indicates that this uniqueness test necessary to find a practical difficulty has been met by the applicants in connection with this application for a variance. He requested that the Planning Commission not grant the variance as doing so, he believed, would be in clear violation of the city ordinance and state law. Commissioner Petschel asked Mr. Friel, considering his legal background, would he consider lot size to be a condition. Mr. Friel replied that he could understand how that could be focused upon; however, the fact is that is a condition brought to the table by the applicant; it was created by the applicant as he selected the lot size and is not something unique to the property. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE 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 page 97 essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed personal self-storage facility to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) the proposed structure and project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and yet the design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55, since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, due in part to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use; iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is only for Metro Storage, LLC, the Applicant as noted herein, and their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and later appended and presented on September 24, 2019, and is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. page 98 AYES: 2 (MAZZITELLO, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 2 (KATZ, PETSCHEL) The motion failed on a tie vote. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY KATZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Motion died for lack of a second COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. To take more time to look over the supplemental information just received 2. To address some of the concerns heard from some of the surrounding neighbors 3. Because the Planning Commission is missing three people who have had a lot of input so far; they would appreciate some time to review this information and provide additional questions Chair Magnuson asked if there was a time issue to consider. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant has extended their review of this until February 5, 2020. If this were to be extended to the next page 99 Planning Commission meeting in January, the following Council meeting would be on February 4, 2020. It would be cutting it close, but would still within the extended review period if needed. Commissioner Petschel asked, seeing as this is deadlocked as it is, would it still go on to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide an answer as he has not had a deadlocked decision in the past. Chair Magnuson stated that she would not have a problem forwarding this onto the City Council without a recommendation. She did not believe that bringing it back would necessarily be constructive nor really considerate of the time that has been put into this. She apologized for the multi-circular trips that the applicant has had to make here that makes it look like the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. If possible, she would like to move this forward because she does not know if there is a purpose in dragging this out for another month. The motion died for lack of a second COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY PETSCHEL, TO MOVE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION Before voting, Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the Commission has heard about this application since August 2019. Actually, it was before then, because the code amendment application to disallow the prohibition for self-storage was long before that. These applicants have been here and have been strung out for close to a year. The Planning Commission has no business doing this to an applicant. In the annals he works all over in the Twin Cities Metro Area. He has lived in, experienced, and traveled to 38 states and 33 foreign countries. He can tell all that the City of Mendota Heights does not have a good reputation in the development industry or in the business industry because of crap like this; where the city says ‘oh sure, we are going to make this an allowed use’; however, we have an antiquated, old, outdated, obsolete standard in our code that most municipalities have moved on from. What he sees in this community – and this is the perfect example – if one were to look at the 59-plus organized municipalities that make up the Twin Cities Metro Area, most inter-suburban communities have already gone through what Mendota Heights is going through. The first iteration of our development is done; and now the second wave is coming in. Most communities held to their old rules and became obsolete for the sake of their neighboring suburbs. If Mendota Heights is going to remain the viable, strong community that it is, it has to adapt. The city has a code that says one is allowed to cover their lot by 50% with structures. Those structures can be 45 feet in height with no mention as to how many floors that 45 feet would accommodate. Therefore, one can have a 50% covered lot with a 4-story building. The FAR that this code would provide for is 2.0 – minus stairwells, lavatories, etc. However, the FAR says that they can only do 0.5. He questioned which one was the governing. Why would the city tell an applicant that they can cover their lot 50%, provided they meet all of the other provisions in the code; they can be 45 feet tall – but not really. What kind of message does that send about the viability of the city? He expressed his hope that the City Council could look beyond 1982 and look at 2022 and what this city has to have to remain viable in the face of competition from its neighbors. page 100 Mr. Benetti, replying to the question posed above regarding ‘no recommendation’, stated that under the City Code section regarding variances, if no recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within 60 days after referral of the application for variance to the Planning Commission, the City Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. In summary, the no recommendation by the Planning Commission can be referred to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel commented that he agreed with everything that Commissioner Mazzitello said. He voted to get rid of the FAR. His one commentary was that yes, they had the City Attorney come and provide a level of opinion about the appropriate application of a variance that actually made them more confused than when they started. He has asked for examples of a variance request that was successfully defended in court since the rules were changed a number of years ago. He has requested multiple examples because the big problem is this should not have deadlocked. The rules either apply or they do not. The Planning Commission should not be in the game of deciding the rules are antiquated. He believes the FAR is a stupid rule, but it is still a rule. It is a rule as a matter of vote, the City Council was upheld. They chose not to change it. If he wants it changed, he can run for City Council. The Planning Commission could still use some better opinions as to how this would fit into the determination process and would probably be best done by City Council. Mr. Walston returned and was given permit to speak by Chair Magnuson. He stated with respect to the discussion about what happens next, he wanted to go on the record on behalf of Metro Storage, LLC that they concur, agree, waive any rights they have, that this may move on to the City Council with no recommendation. They are not going to challenge the procedural rule or the legality of that. AYES: 3 NAYS: 1 (KATZ) page 101 December 13,2019 Via emai onlv to t i mb @,m e nd o t a - h e i ght s. c o m City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Supplement to City of Mendota Heights Planning Case 20L9-20 / Metro Storage, LLC lConAitional Use permit Application and Variance Application for New Self Storage Facility in the Industrial Zone (Floor Area Ratio '6FAR" Variance Application) Dear City Planning Commission Members: please accept this letter as a supplement to the variance application previously submitted to the City of Merrdotu Heights 1"City;; by Metro Storage, LLC ("Metro") in connection with the Conditional Use perriit ('CUP") application for a self-storage facility (the "Project") to be located at ll78 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights' The purpose of this supplement is to provide additional commentary in supporl of Metro's uuriun.e application *iih t"rp".t to the application of City Ordinance Title 12- 1G-7F providing that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5. FAR, means (by City Ordinance definition) ..the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located". The Metro Project, if the CUP and FAR variance were approved would have a 1.24 FAR. The FAR for the Project is not the result of accident or lackof attention to design, rather it is the result of purposeful architectural planning that has evolved over the years in the self storage industry to utilize vertical design components for safety and security of tustomers and their property, and for ecological and efficient pulposes -- all of which will result in an aesthetically pleasing structure that will (at a minimum), complement existing structures in the City's Industrial Park. The procedural history of Metro's applications for zoning text amendments to modify FAR requirements will not be repeated here, as it is assumed that Mr. Benetti will summatize the same. It is Metro,s position in this regard that Metro was following directives or indications from the City Community Development Department, the City Planning Commission and the City Council as it relates to efforti to amend zoningtext amendments regulating FAR. Ms,srQ6H?ft"*lb&0,1&WBoulton Boulevard Lake Forest,lLq0045 847-235-8900 Fax:847-235-8901 www.metrostorage'com page 102 The criteria for the City to consider in connection with the grant of a variance is based upon a three part analysis of considerations for the City to determine. These were addressed in Metro's variance application. Those three considerations are: 1. The first consideration: Are there practical clfficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: ,,practical dfficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variflnce, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the City Code. Economic consitlerations alone do not constitute a practical dfficulty. In addition to the nanative in the variance application and the subsequent dialogue between Metro, the Planning Commission and the City Council, it is evident that the obstacle for City approval of the Project is simply due to the fact that the FAR restriction is inconsistent with other City regulatory criteria for allowing a fully enclosed, aesthetically pleasing and secure self-storage facility that efficiently uses space. There are no issues with compliance of lot area coverage limitations, height restrictions, setbacks, open space requirements or parking requirements as these items will be regulated by the City's Industrial District Site and Structure Requirements I . In addition the use would be regulated by the seven CUP standards 2. FAR restrictions are generally used by cities to regulate the intensity of uses and to prevent "stacking" that would cause a strain on neighborhood harmony, municipal services, traffic, and customer safety. In the present application, the 0.5 FAR limitation is obsolete and creates a significant oopractical difficulty" with respect to the present ',generation" of design for self-storage facilities, that are designed to provide for: (a) an eco-friendly foot print, (b) a limited number of access points, (c) use of vertical stacking consistent with municipal height regulations, (d) an efficient utilization of horizontal and vertical demising walls as a security barrier. Simply put, Metro cannot construct the Project any other way. As such, the 0.5 FAR restriction is not a useful restrictive tool for the City to assure the comprehensive and permanent restrictions on a self storage facility to be located in the industrial park. Due to the 'onew generation" design of self-storage facilities, Metro has encountered an instance in another jurisdication where FAR restriction have been determined to be inconsistent and not mesh with other applicable code regulations. In that instance, the municipality found FAR, while useful to regulate the intensity of the use of a commercial use with significant employee, goods and customer traffic, was inconsistent with the inherent passive use of a self storage facility. As such, a variance was pursued and granted b".unr. it was determined that the FAR restriction for a self storage facility is inconsistent with other restrictive ordinance criteria. In several suburban Twin Cities municipalities, there is no FAR requirement for self storage facilities, perhaps due to the inapplicablity of such restriction for self storage facilities. 2DMNORTH #7084218 v1 page 103 It should also be noted that no one has offered a reason that promotes the safety and welfare of the community as to why the FAR for the Project should remain at 0.5. Evidence of the foregoing is the fact that City staff and Metro were directed to put forth an effort to consideririteria to amend the zoning text to either eliminate FAR or increase it to a ratio that is consistent with current self-storage design criteria). 2. The second consideration: Are there circumstunces anique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the grunting of this vuriance? Answer: No. As stated in the variance application, the variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the FAR restriction and the City's Site and Structure Requirements' 3. The third consideration: If the vuriance was grunted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Answer: No. Metro maintains that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be negatively affected. Respectfully submitted, METRO STORAGE LLC By: Robert Heilman Vice President of Development / Registered Architect JDMNORTH #7084218 v1 page 104 End Notes * Site Plan Pursuant to Title I2-G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses, the [pertinent] standards are noted below, with responses (ln italic print) following each: A. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. . The storage buildingwill have afootprint of 39,270 squarefeet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by city code. B. Structure Height: No structure shall exceed forty-five feet (45') in height. * Plans callfor the building's roof-line at 42'-6" and up to 44'-6" at the highest pint of the (high) paraPet. C. Setbacks: Side Yards Abutting a Street on a Corner Lot: Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forly feet (40') in width. o The proposed storage facility is setback at 40-ft. from Hwy 55 right-of-way line and 40-ft. off Northland Drive ROW line. The "roadway" to the east of the subject site (between the property and General Pump) is not a true roadway or of a private driveway or access way. The 40-ft. setback is not needed along this east line. F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) is the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this case the FAR is calculated as follows: . TOTAL BLDG. AREA : 39,270-sf, x 3 : I17,81)-sf. c LOT AREA -- 2.2 acres or 95,920-sf, o FAR CALC: I17,810 / 95,920 : 1.24o/o, which is well above the 0.50 standard. The proposed storagefqcility requires approval of avariance to this standard. G. Minimum Lot Requirements: Lot Area: 1 acre / Lot Width: 100 feet Front Yard Setback: 40-ft. Side Yard Setback: 30-ft. or 40-ft abutting street Rear Yard: 50-ft. o The lot is 3.76 acres and exceeds the I acre minimum. o Thefront lot width dimension is 153-ft. wide along Northland Drive; and 255-ft along the back MnDoT ROW. Both dimensions exceed the 100-ft, standard. o Front Yard setback (from Northland Dr,) is 40-ft. o Side Yard (westerly along Hwy 55) is 40-ft. o Rear Yard setback is 83'-4 ". 4DMNORTH #70842'18v1 page 105 2 .:. Parking/Access Plan The pioposed storage facility plans call for the main access to be located near the north end of the facility, coming off the private driveway/access road only. This access will lead customers/visitors to the front main entryway and north access (secure overhead door entryway) into the facility. This area contains six (6) spaces. Farther down the easterly ur..r, road, five (5) additional spaces will be provided along the side of the facility' Customers who enter the storage facility will also have access to 11 interior spaces. The new City Code standard for self-storage facility requires one (1) space per 6,000-sf. of storage space. The plan calls for 85,065-sf. of net storage space: CALC: 85,065 / 60000 = 14.18, or 1,5 stalls. Title l2-lG-2:Uses P ersonal self- storage facility, provided that : A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (l/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet ofstorage area. 5DMNORTH #7Q84218 vl page 106 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2019 (EXCERPTS) A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE –CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE for NEW SELF STORAGE USE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC was requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. The storage facility would be located on the vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55 (1178 Northland Drive). Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. The parcel is 2.2 acres in size and is currently guided and zoned I-Industrial. The property was previously owned by General Pump (next door) and has been sitting vacant for a number of years. The initial review of this application revealed the possibility of a wetland on the site. According to the Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. The applicant hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform a wetland assessment. The report came back and indicated no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. Metro Storage provided some concept images of their proposed building – a new three-story, 117,810 square foot, fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. It has light-colored limestone features, precast panels along the front, nice break-up of color with some glass curtain walls on the entryway. Mr. Benetti shared images or renderings of what the building would look like. Mr. Benetti then 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 He then reviewed the conditions to be met per the code amendment that now allows for personal self- storage uses as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. page 107 G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. Staff believed that all of these conditions / standards have been met. Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria or standards to be met when granting a Variance and the applicant’s response to those standards: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties The Variance is required because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), at 1.24, exceeds the allowable 0.5. Mr. Benetti researched other neighboring cities and beyond and found that the buildings in their Industrial Zones ranged from 30%-35% (Inver Grove Heights and Eagan) and up to 50% (West St. Paul). The maximum lot coverage ranged from 70%-75% to 95%. Bloomington and St. Paul are the only ones that have an FAR, and they range from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of the neighboring cities do not use or apply an FAR. We also limit out building height and footprint and impervious surface percentages. Mr. Benetti explained that the applicant’s plans demonstrate that all of the Industrial Zone standards are being met, except for the FAR. Staff recommended that the Commission give serious consideration to this application because the FAR is probably a bit more of what they should expect in a community of the size of Mendota Heights and that this Variance is only for the personal self-storage use and shall apply specifically to this site and its use only. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked why there was not an option to approve the Conditional Use Permit but deny the Variance. Mr. Benetti replied that this is an option if the Commission so wished. However, the applicant would prefer that the Variance be approved. If the Commission were to approve the CUP without the Variance, they would essentially be approving a 1-story building. Commissioner Noonan asked if they were to only approve the CUP, would the applicant have to come back and rework their site plan and thus, get a renewed approval of the CUP. Mr. Benetti replied that may be a possibility. Commissioner Petschel asked if denying the Variance would cause time penalties for re-application on the site. Mr. Benetti replied that it would not cause any time penalties, as there are no time penalties for CUP’s or Variances. Chair Magnuson, noting that the city only has an FAR of 0.5, stated that they were limiting any development of any remaining area within the Industrial Park to single-story structures. Mr. Benetti concurred. She then asked, when the City Council considered the amendment to the ordinance, was there any conversation about changing the FAR requirement. Mr. Benetti replied that he had a discussion with the former planner and he indicated that this FAR never came up in the discussions on the ordinance. He was page 108 shocked when he heard about it because it had never been an issue but that he probably should have changed it when the ordinance was updated several years ago. Commissioner Noonan disagreed as the Industrial Park was developed under an FAR of 0.5 and it was never brought up as an issue before. This is an interesting one because it is proposing an FAR of significantly higher than what others in the Industrial Park have worked with. To suggest a 3-story building cannot be done with a 0.5 FAR is not an accurate statement. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the 0.5 FAR rule has existed as the Industrial Park has developed. It does not mean that the Industrial Park was developed under the 0.5 FAR; it was just in code. The Sun Country headquarters is just one example of a multi-story building in the Industrial Park that was developed under a time when they had to have an expansive surface parking lot for the building. Their lot is big enough to lower their FAR. This is a unique situation under consideration; where the lot is small, the building being proposed fits on the lot. It is important to realize that this FAR rule applies to the entire Industrial Zone and he would be willing to provide an expensive dinner if every lot in the Industrial Zone were developed within the 0.5 FAR; but that is that they weren’t. Commissioner Petschel asked what if they wanted to build a 7-story building. Commissioner Mazzitello replied they would run into the height restriction. Commissioner Petschel stated that it was only a restriction; to apply a one restriction arbitrarily as opposed to another. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that his point was that the FAR was an antiquated requirement. FAR, antiquated or not, conversations continued. It was pointed out that if the proposed building were to remain inside the current footprint and have only one story, it would be below the required FAR of 0.5. Commissioner Toth, going back to the timeframe between 2009 and 2014, this lot was identified as a wetland. Now coming back to July 26, 2019 it is not a wetland. He asked if there was a misunderstanding or if additional soil was placed on the property. Mr. Benetti replied that it has been his experience working with wetland mapping, especially from a National Wetland Inventory, it is generalized or best estimate sometimes. Sometimes it is based on old historical interpretation of aerial mapping. The GIS mapping flags the city to inform owners or applicants that there is potential for a wetland and they need to investigate for accuracy. If the Wetland Report, done independently, comes back and says there is a wetland, then they would have been talking about how to mitigate that on site or do some other type on-site mitigation. Fortunately, that is why they hired these people to come out and do an independent testing or analysis and they came back and said there was no longer a wetland on the site. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage, Mr. Quinn Hutson of CNH Architects, and their engineer from Wier & Associates came forward. Mr. Heilman answered the question regarding the wetland by stating the parcel, through their investigation in Phase 1, was an area that was used by MnDOT as an off-ramp relocation when they did the roadwork. There is approximately 6-feet of fill on that site – it goes from 6-feet to approximately 12-feet. None of that is natural material. This was done before the 2000’s. Mr. Heilman then gave a brief history on Metro Storage and their footprint in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. As for the FAR, Mr. Heilman stated that what they have experienced is that the issue is the intensity of their use is so low – basically the lowest use; however, the FAR is high and the intensity of the use is so low that they offset each other. Also, in this case, they are meeting all other aspects of the code – height, building coverage, impervious surface coverage – he could essentially build the same building but with only one floor and no one could tell from looking at the outside. They find this to be inconsistent with the FAR – it does not match the other codes to be found in the zoning code. page 109 Mr. Hutson continued with highlights of the specific building by sharing an image of the site plan and explaining that they are not pushing the limits of the site but putting in a building that is proportionate to the site. He also shared a rendering of the building elevation. Addressing the FAR issue, Mr. Hutson noted that looking at the building from the outside it matches other buildings in the Industrial Park – including ones with high ceilings inside. They are just a different type use and that is what makes it different. This use is different than other industrial uses permitted in the park. The only thing that brings up the FAR is how they use the inside of the building. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Hutson could provide any type of argument as to why they have a practical difficulty. Mr. Hutson replied that they feel that the practical difficulty is that the FAR is inconsistent with this particular approved industrial use – because of its extreme low intensity the FAR does not consider that in the way that it would for other types of industrial buildings. They feel that is a hardship for this particular type of use. Commissioner Noonan stated that the FAR is a standard across the entire Industrial Area; it is not specifically targeted to this use. So it is a standard that applies across the industrial and it is not specifically targeted to this site or to this use. Commissioner Noonan was having a hard time with that explanation as a practical difficulty since it is a universal standard across the entire Industrial Area. Mr. Hutson agreed that the standard is universal across the Industrial Area; however, it would be a hardship for any site that would be considering this use. Commissioner Noonan asked, when the zoning was amended to add personal storage in the Industrial Area, why was that not raised as a discussion point given the fact that the standards were published and existed. His understanding was that all that was asked for was to add personal storage as a permitted use within the Industrial Area and not seek to do any modifications to the zoning standards. Mr. Heilman replied that they had an idea on the design of the building; however, they were just attending to the use at that point in time. It was a general use for the area and that was their concentration at that time. Commissioner Noonan noted that one could suggest that a general use should operate under the zoning standards that were there and were posted. If there were a fundamental difficulty they should have been raised and discussed as part of the zoning change. Mr. Heilman replied that he could see Commissioner Noonan’s point; however, this is a use that is fairly new to zoning – it was never conceived even ten or fifteen years ago. That is why Metro Storage is here, they are asking for the change based on this new type of use of storage – multi-story, climate controlled, interior, generation five storage. A lot of municipalities he goes to have nothing in their code regarding self-storage. So they go along and develop it as they go through the approval process. Their stance is that FAR is partially to limit intensity on a property. They are coming from the equation with the lowest, other than cemetery, intensity of use for a building. Commissioner Toth asked approximately how many storage units would be in the building. Mr. Heilman replied that based on rentable square footage of 83,000, the units on average are approximately 100 (some at 25 square feet and some as high as 300 square feet) – so that would equate to approximately 810 to 830 rental units. Commissioner Toth then questioned the amount of traffic that the building may see on the average day with the number of parking spaces they have – how did they come up with those numbers. They have said many times that this would be a low traffic area, but now they are looking at 800+ rental units and they are saying that it would be a low volume of traffic. Metro Storage was estimating (one space per 6,000 square feet). Mr. Heilman replied that this comes from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers and their manual, which includes key studies for various different uses of facilities. page 110 Commissioner Katz asked if their personal data for Metro Storage matched the data from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers. Mr. Heilman replied that within the storage sector, the typical product is about the same size as is being proposed. Commissioner Katz clarified his question by asking if Metro Storage had other facilities of this size and are they seeing traffic of only six (6) trips per day. Mr. Heilman replied in the affirmative and said he could back up what they were claiming. Chair Magnuson asked when the issue of the Variance became apparent, did they give any consideration to scaling back the size of the building so it would be more compatible with the FAR. Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make a project viable to meet the FAR; no matter what, he would have had to be here for a Variance on the FAR. Commissioner Corbett asked how long it would take to fill this facility or to become stable. Mr. Heilman replied that the pro-forma is roughly three years. However, their facilities in Blaine and Burnsville the lease up was less than two years. Mr. Heilman concluded by stating that the stormwater report obviously works for all of the regulations and they are not changing anything other than what is existing. They are maintaining the water on their site because of their development. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson suggested that the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance be considered separately; and that the Variance be considered first. Commissioner Noonan agreed since the outcome of the decision on the Variance may necessitate modification to the plans under the Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the Commission were to deny the Variance, technically they should deny the Conditional Use Permit because they are intertwined with each other. Commissioner Noonan replied that they could only deny the Variance. A CUP cannot be denied; it can only have conditions imposed upon it. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the Variance is denied, then the Commission could table the Conditional Use Permit. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: page 111 A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant Variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three -part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Commissioner Noonan added that he had considerable difficulty finding the ‘practical difficulty’ in this instance. The last comment of the applicant was quite telling; the only reason they were pursuing the floor area they had, and therefore the Variance, was because it did not work from an economic point of view. That is not a basis for approving a Variance. Either the city has a Zoning Ordinance or they do not, that applies across the board. He has sensitivity to the discussions on intensity but it is also massing as well. For the reasons being is that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are very clear and have been very clear from day 1. In this case of Variance of 1.25 he finds is beyond what is reasonable in this consideration. Commissioner Petschel stated that the argument that other cities do not have a similar requirement does not hold any water. It looks like fine project and he does not disagree with the project; however, the Commission cannot change the ordinance through a Variance. Especially since they have been nick picked in court over their own code and their own procedural application of that code. Given that there was not even an attempt to offer a practical difficulty other than they need this to make money, he could not support it. Chair Magnuson stated that she personally could see where this is one of those situations – it reminds her a little bit of schools in a residential zone where there is a requirement in place that seems to be perhaps no longer necessary or potentially outdated and that is creating a hang up. The fact of the matter is that it exists. She asked, time wise what would it take if there was any inclination to change that code to either modify the FAR or eliminate entirely, and would that pose a significant time problem for this application. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the applicant’s action deadline was set for October 6, 2019; they are still within the first 60-day rule under this application. It could be extended another 60 days or they could provide a letter stating that they waive the statutory review period. In the meantime, if they wish to come back and apply for an amendment to the code – they could easily come in and they would like to have the FAR restricted or they could amend their own CUP standards to allow for a higher FAR. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be more comfortable changing the code if the code needs to be changed, rather than trying to work around a long-standing standard by Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with Chair Magnuson’s comment about issuing Variances where the code if flawed; it would be better to amend/correct the flawed code. The FAR does not match up with the other requirements within the code. He then asked if there was a FAR standard in the Business District (no), is there one in the High-Density Residential District (no), so why is it here. His argument is that it either should not be here or it should be a number that is consistent with 50% lot coverage and a height of 30-45- feet. The FAR is inconsistent with the rest of the code. That is the practical difficulty. Therefore, he would page 112 not support the motion for denial. He would support either granting this Variance or a tabling so there could be a code amendment to change or eliminate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard from the Industrial Zone. AYES: 3 (Noonan, Petschel, Magnuson) NAYS: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Toth) ABSTAIN: 1 (Katz) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 2019 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DURING WHICH TIME STAFF IS INSTRUCTED, OR THE APPLICANT IS INSTRUCTED, TO COME UP WITH A CODE AMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE CODE TO ALTER THE FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD AND REQUEST THE APPLICANT ENTERTAIN AN EXTENSION OR WAIVE THE STATUTORY REVIEW PERIOD AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 113 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2019 (EXCERPTS) C) PLANNING CASE 2019-27 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS / METRO STORAGE, LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request was filed on behalf of Metro Storage, LLC with cooperation with the City of Mendota Heights looking at amending the city’s current floor area ratio (FAR) standard for uses in the I-Industrial District. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing; not comments or objections were provided. On August 27 of this year, the Planning Commission heard a request from Metro Storage, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new three-story, 117,810 square foot interior only self-storage facility. Self-storage uses were recently added under Ordinance 538 approved in May 2019. Metro Storage, LLC also requested a Variance to the FAR standard, which is currently 0.5 and they wanted to go up to 1.23. The motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in no decision or recommendation. A follow-up motion was made to table the decision and staff was directed to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zoning code to alter the FAR standard. The FAR is a numerical value obtained by dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which the building is, or to be, located. The 0.5 FAR standard imposes challenging restrictions on the planned or desired overall size of a proposed building space, especially when referring to the construction of a multiple storied building. Staff provided a Comparison Table of Metro Cities FAR/Lot Coverage/Building Height Standards, showing that a majority of the cities in the area do not have an FAR in their industrial districts. However, Bloomington, Minneapolis, and St. Paul do have FARs. These range from 2.0 – 5.0, which is a lot more than Mendota Heights currently has. Others have ranges from 0.5 to 1.5. Mendota Heights is consistent with building coverage, lot cover, green space, and building height requirements. Upon reviewing the FAR of buildings currently in the city’s industrial district, all of the buildings meet or are below the 0.5 ratio; with the exception of one that is at a 0.92 ratio. There is one other that is at 0.51. Staff requested that the Commission either remove the current FAR or amend the ordinance with a new higher ratio standard of 1.5 or 2.0. Commissioner Petschel asked if there was a case that justifies the existence of the FAR that is not taken care of by the height; maybe something like 5-foot ceilings. Commissioner Noonan noted that he reviewed the discussion in the minutes of the last meeting and wondered at what point the FAR, in many suburban locations, was deemed somewhat antiquated. And was it antiquated because the FAR, in its current location, was there to control the massing. Whereas, combining the building coverage, the setbacks, the height limitations, the parking regulations, increases the limitations and therefore says a lot about eliminating the FAR all together. Chair Magnuson noted that any city, with the exception of South St. Paul, that had an FAR did not have a maximum building coverage. The cities that did not have FARs tended to have a maximum building coverage or maximum lot coverage. It seemed to her that the trend is to have one or the other, but not both. page 114 The only question she would have then would be was if there was any need or interest in addressing green space, in addition to maximum building coverage. Mr. Benetti replied that in the industrial district there is increased setbacks for the business and industrial districts for their parking. There are more than what is seen in a typical residential or business center. There are larger setbacks for parking and for buildings – the purpose of which is to allow or provide for the increased green space. Commissioner Corbett asked what the intent of a minimum FAR was – just to drive efficient use. Mr. Benetti replied that was probably the correct intent. It is to limit the scale of a development. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-27, ORDINANCE NO. 544, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G, I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS” where the subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, under Sect. 12-1G-7 is removed AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission Meeting in order to allow staff and the Applicant time to prepare and present a new Zoning Code Amendment to remove the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. That zoning amendment was just recommended for approval by the Commission in the previous public hearing. Since that amendment has been recommended for approval, the request for the Variance can be disregarded. Mr. Benetti reviewed the information for the Conditional Use Permit that was shared at the August 27, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting for this three-story, interior only, self-storage facility. The building would be just under 118,000 square feet total, has nice features, the site fits well, parking would be along the front and side, one entry in / out, all of the setbacks are met, all parking lot setbacks are met, no need for a Variance, all new lighting will be downcast cut-off, retention pond adding to the open space, and landscaping. Chair Magnuson asked, since an applicant has been filed for a Variance, would it be more appropriate to see if the applicant would like to withdraw the application. The Commission could take action on it or could page 115 laterally determine that the issue is moot at this point because of the ordinance proposal going to the City Council. She would feel more comfortable if the applicant were to simply withdraw the Variance request. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the ordinance amendment has not been adopted by the City Council yet. It is possible that they would not adopt it, in which case the Variance would still be needed. Commissioner Noonan suggested, rather than having the applicant withdraw the Variance request, that the Commission would table the application until the Council takes action. Chair Magnuson clarified that he suggested that the Commission take action on the CUP, table any action on the Variance, and wait to see what the City Council does on the proposed amendment. If the Council were to approve the proposed amendment, then the applicant could circle back with staff to withdraw the request for Variance. Commissioner Petschel asked if there would be any rationale to adding a condition to the CUP basically making it subject to the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that the proposed ordinance does not affect the CUP. Commissioner Mazzitello asked, if the City Council were to not adopt the proposed amendment, does the applicant have to wait another month to come back to the Planning Commission for them to act on the application for Variance. Mr. Benetti replied that the Variance should be tabled pending the action of the City Council. If the proposed amendment is denied, then the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission if they decided to go ahead with the FAR above 0.5. The CUP would have to come back as well. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLANNING CASE 2019-20 FOR METRO STORAGE LLC AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE SUBJECT TO ALTERNATIVE #1 IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF MEMO ON PAGE 2 AND 3 Mr. Benetti noted a correction on page 3 – striking of Condition #12. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the correction as part of his motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR METRO STORAGE, LLC UNTIL AFTER CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-27 ORDINANCE NO. 544, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G, I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS” where the subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, under Sect. 12-1G-7 is removed ON OCTOBER 2, 2019; AND THE APPLICANT BE DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE SHOULD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 116 page 117 page 118 page 119 page 120 page 121 page 122 page 123 page 124 page 125 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, December 3, 2019 B) ORDINANCE NO. 552 AMEND CODE SECTION 12-1G-2 ALLOW INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARD NOT TO EXCEED 1.25 FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - METRO STORAGE, LLC Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided background on this application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance from Metro Storage, LLC to allow for a new three-story, 117,810 square foot personal self- storage facility. The variance was needed to allow them to exceed the floor area ratio from 0.5 to 1.24. The Planning Commission initially made a motion to deny the Variance (3-3-1), which resulted in no recommendation. After working with the Planning Commission and the Council, staff brought a code amendment to the Council to eliminate the FAR for all uses in the Industrial District. This amendment was denied on a 3-2 vote. Additional discussions were held with Metro Storage, LLC and the action before the Council is to review a code amendment for only “Personal self-storage facility” use and request a new standard – that being “H. The floor area ratio for any personal self-storage facility in the Industrial district shall not exceed 1.25”. This would not affect other industrial uses or the current 0.5 FAR standard under such district. This item was heard under a public hearing by the Planning Commission on November 26, 2019 who recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Councilor Duggan asked who came up with the 1.25 FAR concept. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant came up with the 1.25 figure. Councilor Duggan stated that this is not their city and not their rules. The city should be the one to determine those. He stated what he does not understand is, there was no discussion in the early application of the FAR until they came back requesting the Conditional Use Permit. He explained that he was very uncomfortable with the applicant getting around the need for a variance by changing the Code regulations. Councilor Petschel stated, as a point of clarification, that when the first item came before the Council, adding personal self-storage facilities as an approved use in the Industrial District, it had nothing to do with the building plans. There were no formal architectural plans presented to the city. Nobody knew that the building would be challenged by the FAR. She did not support the change to the City Code to allow personal self-storage uses in the Industrial Park and has never been in favor of this project from the beginning. She continued by stating that she does not like the fact that the Council has been presented with a project that says, ‘change your conditional use’ and ‘change your FAR’. Councilor Duggan stated that the rules have been made for the city and not for individual businesses. The current standards are being pushed aside. He did not believe this was the way a city should be run. Councilor Duggan stated he did not believe that the Council could create an ordinance that would then permit a variance. The applicant knew what they were going to do; whether they thought about it or not, the rule was still there. The applicant is saying that they cannot do business under that rule, so they need a variance. Mr. Pratt replied that this is true, unless the Council as the legislative body of the city wants to change the actual code language. page 126 Councilor Duggan stated that if he had known they would need a variance to the FAR regulation, then he would not have been supportive of this request in August. Councilor Miller stated that he was in agreement with Councilors Duggan and Petschel. He toured the facility in question in Burnsville and thought it was a well-managed, beautiful building. Had he known that the FAR would be an issue, then he would not have continued to support it. He was confident that if it was built in Mendota Heights, it would be run as well and be just as beautiful. Councilor Paper stated that the Planning Commission was unanimous in their recommendation to allow the FAR up to 1.25 for this specific use. He wondered, if the Council had determined the appropriate number on their own by discussing it in a work session setting, if things would be different. Councilor Duggan replied that the City already had the 0.5 FAR in place. He did not see any reason to change it. Councilor Petschel pointed out that the initial request that came before the Council was the consideration of the use in the Industrial Park. No architectural drawings were presented at that time, and they typically are not presented at that time. After the use is approved, then the architectural drawings and specifications come forward, and at that point, staff does the formula to see exactly what the FAR is going to be with the building. This is a series of steps an applicant goes through in terms of approving a building. To keep going back and saying ‘had I known’ – the Council had no way of knowing because there were no architectural drawings available. She did not support the change in the use but that was a totally different consideration than what is before the Council now, which is actual architectural drawings and a formula that exceeds the existing FAR. Councilor Paper asked how staff defines a floor. Mr. Benetti replied that the definition is ‘usable floor space’. Mayor Garlock noted that he has received a lot of favorable comments from residents that would like to see a self- storage facility in the Industrial Park. He took the time to go to Burnsville to look at their facility. Their facility is better than a lot of the facilities in the Industrial Park. He was in favor of changing it to a permitable use in the Industrial Park. Then he looked at the recommendations from the Planning Commission to remove the FAR from the ordinance, which was a 6-0 recommendation. He was in favor of that also. It was sent back to the Planning Commission for them to work out something with the applicant. It comes back to the Council now with a 6-0 vote from the Planning Commission recommending approval to increase the FAR for self-storage facilities only. He stated that he was in favor of that also. Councilor Duggan asked if this would come under the concept of spot zoning. Mr. Pratt replied this is not spot zoning because the changes under consideration apply to all defined personal self-storage facilities within the Industrial District. Councilor Miller questioned if the Council had set up a series of additional parameters that would make any future self-storage occupants limited in what they could do within the Industrial Park. Mr. Pratt confirmed. Mayor Garlock opened the floor for questions or comments from the public. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that early on, the applicant tried to provide detailed information about the storage facility. The Council rejected it because that was not the issue before them. What was before the Council was whether or not the Council would permit self-storage facilities in the community. It was also clear that the applicant knew what they were going to put there. They should have known about the FAR as well. The changing of the FAR to 1.25 based on a particular business is poor city planning. He stated that he did not feel that this application was a good idea. Mr. Jim Walston, representing Metro Storage, stated that there is a perception problem with what Metro Storage is trying to accomplish. They identified this site and the property has been vacant for decades. It is an ideal site for this type of use. It is going to have great curb appeal and meets all criteria except for the FAR. It was brought up a page 127 few times in the previous discussion that Metro Storage is telling the city to push aside its ordinances and telling the city what to do to meet their own business objectives. Metro Storage has gone through all of the legal requirements asked by the city to apply for what they wanted to do. They respect the city’s governing authority over its own land use decisions. They have been patient and have extended the statutory deadlines. As he stood before the Council on November 6, 2019, it was discussed that they meet with city staff to come up with a solution. They did that and brought it to the Planning Commission. They voted 6-0 in favor and now it is before the Council. He stated that the practical impacts of having a FAR that is higher than 0.5 are being overstated. There has been some research done by the city staff that indicated there were a number of municipalities having a FAR in excess of 0.5; or some cities have deleted it altogether. With other regulatory restrictions the city has for this type of use; the height, the setbacks, the green space, parking, etc.; in addition to those other items that the Council put forward, Metro Storage is able to meet all of them. With FAR, because this is a later generation of a type of facility for self- storage, the city does have the stacking and that would be an issue if there was a more intense use. People are not accessing their storage units on a daily basis. The intense use of that just does not happen in this type of business. The FAR requirements, if this amendment is approved, would not be inconsistent with other cities. Councilor Duggan moved to deny ORDINANCE NO. 552 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. BY ADDING A NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Garlock) City Attorney Andrew Pratt informed the Council that a variance application may come forward. page 128 Planning Staff Report (Amended 09/24/2019) DATE: August 27, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-20 Conditional Use Permit & Variance for New Self-Storage Facility in the Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Metro Storage, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1178 Northland Drive ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I- Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2019 INTRODUCTION Metro Storage LLC is requesting a conditional use permit and variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage (interior only) facility in the city’s I-Industrial District. The storage facility site is being proposed for the vacant parcel generally located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55, which was recently assigned a new parcel address of 1178 Northland Drive. This planning request item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments (or objections) to this request have been received by the city. BACKGROUND As noted in the Applicant’s narrative, Metro Self Storage is a family owned and operated self-storage Company that opened its first mini storage in 1973; and the company has grown to include over 140 facilities in 16 states. Earlier this year, Metro Storage requested consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow self-storage facilities in the Industrial District. At that time, “personal self-storage facility” was listed as one of a few prohibited uses in the I-Zone. The zoning amendment was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 22nd, followed by final consideration at the February 22nd meeting, where a recommendation of denial to this ordinance amendment request was made by the commission. The amendment matter was then reviewed subsequently by the City Council on March 19th, April 23rd, May 7th, and finally May 21st, whereby the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 538, which removed “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from the prohibited list, and allows such uses by means of a conditional use permit in the Industrial District. The subject parcel is a 2.2 acre parcel, zoned and guided I-Industrial District. The property was previously owned and controlled by the neighboring business to the east, General Pump at 1174 Northland Drive. The General Pump facility was built in 1994, and this adjacent parcel was acquired by GP as a future site for business expansion space if needed. This site has remained vacant since 1994 (historic aerial mapping page 129 imagery actually indicates the site as vacant since the mid -1930’s); and was recently sold off by GP to the current owners MH Northland Drive Ventures, LLLP. Pursuant to amended Title 12-1G-1, Metro Storage is allowed to present this development plan for the new self-storage facility under the conditional use permit process. As part of this CUP application, the proposed development requires submittal of a detailed and complete site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The Applicant has also submitted a Variance to certain floor area ratio (FAR) requirements established in the Industrial District, which will be explained and analyzed later in this report. It should be noted that Metro Storage originally submitted their CUP and Variance applications on June 24, 2019; however, this original application was deemed incomplete, due primarily to the discovery by city staff of a potential wetland on the site. According to Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. A PEM1A wetland is classified and described as follows: USFWS/NWI Code Classification description Common Description PEM1A Palustrine emergent persistent wetland, temporarily flooded Fresh or interior marsh, persistent vegetation, topographically high The Applicant immediately hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform a wetland assessment on the subject site; and on August 7th, the city received a Site Assessment report from Kjolhaug that no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. An excerpt portion of this wetland report is appended. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Building Plan/Elevations Metro Storage plans to construct a new three-story, 117,810-sf. fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. Exterior of building includes architectural precast panels with multiple finishes to create a pleasing image and break-up the facade. The precast panels will have a 16-foot-high base of real brick inserts of two contrasting brick colors to create a strong visual base around the ground story. The building uses a large sized light-colored limestone style precast finish with grooved panel joints breaking up the precast into large block visual elements. The main entry at the northwest corner is highlighted with flat metal panels and extensive glass allowing views into the lobby and upper storage floors. The sides and back walls also include significant additional glass window panels allowing daylight into the building corridors. The included perspective rendering shows the interest the different materials and massing provides, creating a very nice-looking building. A decorative metal canopy is planned for the front entry and at each of the internal drive’s glass overhead door entrances. (SEE IMAGE BELOW) page 130 Site Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses, the [pertinent] standards are noted below, with responses (in italic print) following each: A. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. • The storage building will have a footprint of 39,270 square feet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by city code. B. Structure Height: No structure shall exceed forty-five feet (45') in height. Plans call for the building’s roof-line at 42’-6” and up to 44’-6” at the highest point of the (high) parapet. C. Setbacks: Side Yards Abutting a Street on a Corner Lot: Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forty feet (40') in width. • The proposed storage facility is setback at 40-ft. from HWY 55 right-of-way line and 40-ft. off Northland Drive ROW line. The “roadway” to the east of the subject site (between the property and General Pump) is not a true roadway, but more of a private driveway or access way. The 40-ft. setback is not needed along this east line. F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) is the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this case the FAR is calculated as follows: • TOTAL BLDG. AREA = 39,270-sf. x 3 = 117,810-sf. • LOT AREA = 2.2 acres or 95,920-sf. • FAR CALC: 117,810 / 95,920 = 1.24%, which is well above the 0.50 standard. The proposed storage facility requires approval of a variance to this standard. G. Minimum Lot Requirements: Lot Area: 1 acre / Lot Width: 100 feet Front Yard Setback: 40-ft. Side Yard Setback: 30-ft. or 40-ft. abutting street Rear Yard 50-ft. • The lot is 2.2 acres and exceeds the 1 acre minimum. • The front lot width dimension is 153-ft. wide along Northland Drive; and 255-ft. along the back MnDOT I-494 ROW. Both dimensions exceed the 100-ft. standard. • Front Yard setback (from Northland Dr.) is 40-ft. • Side Yard (westerly along Hwy 55) is 40-ft. and Easterly SY is 30-ft. • Rear Yard setback is 83’-4”. Parking/Access Plan The proposed storage facility plans call for the main access to be located near the north end of the facility, coming off the private driveway/access road only. This access will lead customers/visitors to the front main entryway and north access (secure overhead door entryway) into the facility. This area contains six (6) spaces. Farther down the easterly access road, five (5) additional spaces will be provided along the side of the facility. Customers who enter the storage facility will also have access to 11 interior spaces. The new City Code standard for self-storage facility requires one (1) space per 6,000-sf. of storage space. The plan calls for 85,065-sf. of net storage space: CALC: 85,065 / 6,000 = 14.18, or 15 stalls. page 131 Metro Storage proposes 11 exterior stalls and 11 interior stalls, or total of 22-stalls. The rear (south) end of the facility will have a one-way, exit only driveway leading out from the building, and back on to the adjacent private drive/access road. A trash enclosure area is also planned near this back entryway. The enclosure should match the exterior materials of the main building. Grading/Drainage/Utility Plan The subject site is relatively flat throughout, except for a small 4-5-ft. high earthen berm along the westerly edge (HWY 55 ROW line). The grading plan calls for minimal grading of the site to accommodate the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the proposed building at 894-ft. A small Infiltration Basin #1 is planned on the south side of the building, with drainage swales and inlets to take in storm water drainage from the private driveway to the east and other hard surfaced areas. The new basin will be tied in to an existing 15-inch storm pipe that leads out to a wetland feature in MnDOT ROW. This basin is also planned to have a rip-rapped emergency outflow (EOF) along the west edge of the basin/swale area in case of abnormal or excessive storm events. Infiltration Basin #2 is an elongated drainage area along the west side of the proposed building. This basin will take storm water drainage from the north parking lot area, and roof drains from the building. The storm water management report submitted by the Applicant’s consultants (Rehder & Associates) indicates the required volume control (based on 1.20 acres of proposed impervious surface area), that 4,792 cu. ft. of rate control is needed on this site. The report indicates that Basin #1 provides 2,907 cu. ft. of volume, while Basin #2 provides 4,259 cu. ft. of volume, or 7,166 cu. ft. of total volume provided. The building’s utilities will be tied into the existing (main) service lines underneath Northland Drive to the north. Water service will be provided to the building by a 1-inch copper service line for typical/potable water needs; and a 6-inch DIP (ductile iron pipe) for fire suppression or interior sprinkler systems. The building’s sanitary service will be provided by a new 6-inch PVC pipe, with a clean-out located at the angled junction of said line. The city’s Public Works Director has reviewed the plans and storm water report, and does not have any issues with this report (or findings) at this time; or placed any additional requirements or conditions related to this request. Landscape Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-6, any new development in the Industrial District shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plan. Plans call for the removal of a few trees scattered throughout the site. The original submitted landscape plan included a few deciduous trees such as honey locust, hackberry and river birch; with velvet pillar crab trees for ornamentals; Black Hills spruces for evergreen trees; and sumac, spirea, and dogwoods for low-growth shrubs. This original landscape plan was submitted to the city’s recognized master gardeners, who recommended a few changes to the plan: - substituting ironwood trees for the river birch; - replacing the velvet crabs with serviceberry species; - replace tor spirea bushes with Little Bluestem species; - replace sumacs with honeysuckle, serviceberry, chokeberry, or prairie drop seed grasses; - replace the proposed rock mulch beds with shredded wood mulch; and - substitute the MnDOT 25-121 seed mix with a preferred MnDOT or other native seed mix. page 132 The Landscape Plan was revised and resubmitted, with changes made to the ornamental crabs to serviceberry trees; rock beds are now shown with shredded wood mulch beds, and the seed mix has been revised to a Native Seed Mix #33-261. The Commission may wish to discuss with the Applicant if other substituting (in line with the Master Gardeners recommendations) are warranted, such as replacing the river birch with ironwood; spirea with bluestems; sumac with honeysuckle, serviceberry or chokeberry varieties. This same Code provision also states that “the owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition at all times.” The plans call for the all new planting areas and lawn areas to be irrigated, which should provide for the daily maintenance and care called for under this ordinance, along with the routine maintenance and care (mowing, weeding, fertilizing, etc.) of the ground by on-site management. City Code also requires a bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (11/2) times the cost of landscaping and screening shall be required to guarantee the placement and construction thereof as required in this chapter. Lighting Plan The lighting plan calls for approx. 21 new “trac wall mount” style lights, which appear to be a downcast/cut- off type light standard mounted along the outer walls of the building. The light plan does not include any new pole lights. Pursuant to Title 12-1I-15, Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. The photometric (light intensity) plan for the site indicates the new lighting meets these standards, and is approved. Aircraft Noise Attenuation Pursuant to Title 12-4-1, the City finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Review of the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s Noise Contour Map – 2016 indicates the subject site appears to be inside the established “60 DNL” noise contour line. The DNL is defined as: “The day-night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A-weighted sound level) from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.” Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such permit. Per 12-4-7 Noise Compatibility Table (refer to partial table – below), industrial uses located in the 60-70 Actual Noise Contour are noted as “CNST” or Consistent, which is defined as “Acceptable Land Uses” Land Use Type Actual Noise Contour Leq(81+) (76-80) (71-75) (60-70) Industrial, communication, utility 25 CNST CNST CNST page 133 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS 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: The overall general use and purpose of the self-storage facility at this location does not appear to produce any activity, level of service, or production of materials that could be considered detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Staff is unaware of any negative impacts or impairments attributed to similar commercial storage uses found in other cities, nor discovered any evidence, information or testimony from other cities that these personal storage uses have caused any negative traffic congestion, hazardous situations or depreciated property values due the placement of such facilities next to other commercial or industrial uses. The new storage facility should be compatible with the adjacent commercial and industrial uses in the Industrial Park, including General Pump next door, and the smaller office uses along Northland Drive (south of Mendota Heights Road). The site is being accessed off two separate driveways from what is considered a private driveway/roadway installed by General Pump in 1994. No part of this site will have direct access on to Northland Drive or Highway 55. It is projected the number of trips to and from the self-storage site will be minimal, and will not result in any congestion problems getting in or out of this site or area. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan. 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.” page 134 As indicated previously, the subject site is located in the Industrial Zone. As part of a proposed Zoning Text Amendment application/request from the same Applicant, city Zoning Code now allows for personal self-storage uses as a conditional use, subject to the following standards: Personal self-storage facility, provided that: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. • The Applicant has provided a plan that shows no outdoor storage of vehicles will be allowed; all parking areas shall be for customers, visitors or employees at the site. • The facility is accessed only by means through a front door entryway, and through one main overhead roll-up door on the north end, which is opened by a security card or key-pad. Only paid customers or clients will have access to the interior of the facility. Once the door is opened, vehicle enters, the door closes immediately afterwards and the facility is secured again. • The facility is well over 2,000+ feet from Lemay Shores townhome development, and over 1,800+ feet from Hillside Gables (Dakota County workforce housing site off Lexington Avenue). • There are no fenced-in exterior areas planned for this site; all storage will be inside the building. Access to the interior areas of the storage facility will be reviewed and approved by the city’s Building Official and Fire Marshal as part of any new building permit review. • As noted previously, the required parking for the new building is based on the useable storage area of the facility, which in this case is 15-spaces. The Applicant intends to provide 11 exterior and 11 interior spaces for customers/clients. It is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use for the proposed personal self-storage facility at this location, and specifically to Metro Storage, LLC, conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including almost every site and performance standards under the I- Industrial District, except for the required floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, which will be detailed in the Variance analysis below. VARIANCE ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, not more than 50% of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings; and the floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined (or determined) as: the numerical value obtained through page 135 dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this particular case, the proposed three-story storage facility is 117,810 sq. ft. (39,270 sf. each floor). With a lot area of 2.2 acres, or 95,920-sf., the FAR is calculated as follows: FAR CALC: 117,810 / 95,920 = 1.23 The proposed FAR of 1.23 represents an approximate 250% increase over the 0.5 standard. The Applicant defends this higher FAR request based on the following statement (from their narrative): “While the proposed project meets all the city requirements listed above, we are requesting a variance related to the ordinance Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit which we believe is not consistent with this newly added Industrial zoning use. Since the building massing, height, and site coverage are within requirements, the only aspect of the building that drives this above the listed FAR is that the building has multiple floors within the building unlike other industrial uses. There is no impact of the added floors from the exterior and due to the very low intensity of this use, there will be less activity than for a single-story building of other approved Industrial uses. This variance is covered in more detail in the Variance Application form submitted.” City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case are noted below (in italic text): 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The proposed project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements. However, the floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 1.24. 12-1G-7F of the City Ordinance provides that the FAR shall not exceed 0.5. Thus the FAR for the page 136 Project exceeds City Ordinance requirements. This is a difficulty and is a result of the Project’s comprehensive design that enhances “drive by” aesthetics, customer/occupant safety, property security and the efficient three story horizontal utilization of floor space. The design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55. Since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: The proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. Outside surface parking usage for the Project will be less intense than parking usage at the properties to the north and northeast. The surrounding land uses to the west and south are Highway 55 and Interstate 494. Staff Response: The floor area ratio (FAR) standard is an effective way to calculate the bulk - or mass of building volume on a development site, and is often used in conjunction with other development standards such as building heights, lot coverage and lot area. FAR can sometime assist in a community’s desire to limit over- intensification or over-development of a site. FAR can be used to either limit the intensity of land use to lessen the environmental impacts of development or to control the mass and scale of development. In some cases, calculating a site’s FAR with these other standards, it helps lessen impacts to the site, such as a need for more parking, increased hard surfaces, and additional on-site storm water management systems. From reviewing a number of adjacent city ordinances and their industrial zoning district standards, some have maximum building coverage percentages ranging from a low of 30%-35% (Inver Grove Hts. & Eagan) and up to 50% in West St. Paul. Maximum lot coverage (total impervious surface cover) range from 70- 75% up to 90-95% in some cities. Cities of Bloomington and St. Paul allow for uses in certain commercial/business/industrial districts with an FAR from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of our suburban neighboring cities do not use or apply the FAR standard to industrial uses (business/commercial) in their respective zoning districts. Most of these cities appear to only limit building size (footprint), height and impervious surface percentages. Most of these cities’ height standards seem to range in or around 30-45 feet in height, which could accommodate 3 to 4 story buildings. The Applicant’s plan demonstrates that all other Industrial Zone development and site standards will be met under this plan, including lot size (dimensions), setbacks, height, and building coverage. Because the city allows for buildings in the Industrial district to be up to 45-feet in height, this provides ample opportunity for the Applicant/Developer to provide additional stories and space for this very specific use on this vacant industrial parcel; and which use they pursued to allow such use in this district, and granted approval earlier this year. Staff would suggest the city give serious consideration to allowing this proposed self-storage use at this location, even with the added FAR, due in part to the fact the proposed use meets many of the other Industrial District standards, and the use will be limited to only this site. page 137 Since this proposed use is very new to the community, and a very specific use in this Industrial district, city staff is offering to make a condition that this variance (and related CUP) is only for this personal self- storage use; and shall apply specifically to this site only. Should Metro Storage open and operate the business for a few years, and decide to close down the storage facility and sell-off the property, any future owner(s) or operators of this site would be limited to a self-storage uses only. Any other permitted industrial user that took over the site, would need to comply with current I-Industrial District standards, such as parking and FAR and all others listed under the district’s regulations. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Should the Commission elect to strike-out or modify the current 0.5 FAR standard to allow the new personal self-storage facility, it must decide on one (or possibly two) of the following “Alternatives for Action”. 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for Planning Case No. 2019-20, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of said CUP, noted as follows: A. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, Metro Storage LLC is allowed to have a personal self-storage facility, provided that: i. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited; ii. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility; iii. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone; iv. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete; v. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility; vi. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal; and vii. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. B. The Applicant has demonstrated through their submitted site plan, that the proposed self-storage facility on the subject property either meets or exceeds all of these standards established under Title 12-1G-2 for said use, zone, and is supported by the following findings of facts: i. The proposed self-storage use 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. ii. The proposed self-storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the current City Code and Comprehensive Plan, including all applicable performance standards, except for the floor area ratio requirements, and which requires acceptance and approval of a related variance for such standard, noted herein. page 138 iii. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. C. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. D. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Conditional Use Permit request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use. Conditions related to this application are as follows: 1. The new storage facility building shall be constructed in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and/or licensed engineer. 2. Trash enclosure must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building. 3. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 4. Final landscaped plan shall be approved by the city staff in cooperation with the city’s Master Gardeners. 5. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be submitted at time of building permit approval. 6. The Developer shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 7. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 8. 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. 9. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 10. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 11. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. 12. The conditional use permit for the personal self-storage facility and the related variance allowing the new building to exceed the required floor area ratio standard of 0.5 to 1.24, is only for the Applicant - Metro Storage, LLC, its subsidiaries and assigns of the property and page 139 all future owners of the subject property, provided the site is used exclusively as a personal self-storage facility. Any other permitted use or use by conditional use permit shall be made complaint with all current I-Industrial District zoning and site development standards at that time. • Note: should the Commission choose to recommend denial of this CUP, they must determine and offer reasonable findings of facts to support such action.) If the FAR remains in effect (left intact), then the Commission must choose one of the two following recommendations on the Variance, which would accompany the CUP recommendation: 2. Recommend approval of the Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-20, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed personal self-storage facility to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) the proposed structure and project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and yet the design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55, since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, due in part to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use; iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. page 140 D. Approval of this Variance is only for Metro Storage, LLC, the Applicant as noted herein, and their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and later appended and presented on September 24, 2019, and is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. 3. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 4. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Conditional Use Permit and Variances to be considered for this new self-storage facility; and if the Commission wishes to approve the CUP as presented herein, or add/modify the conditions as noted herein, you may choose Alternative No. 1 as noted above. If the Commission wishes to either approve or deny the Variance related to the excess FAR standard, it may choose either Alternative No. 2 or 3 respectively, with findings of facts that give support to either action. page 141 I-494I-35EHWY 5 5 494 RAMPI - 3 5E RAMPI-94 RAMPMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD NORTHLAND DR TRAPP RD 494 LOOPI-35E LOOPLEXINGTON AVELEMAY LAKE RD S E R V I C E R D W EAGANDALE BLVD 494 RAMPI-494 I -35E RAMPI-35E RAMPI-35EHWY 5 5 I-94 RAMP 494 LOOP 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE Metro Storage Site 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 142 98 0 43 9 2 8 0 40 1 25518 5 168171 83 100 5315717 8 2 0 0 10 100100 10 1174 1196 1171 HWY 55I-494494 R A M P NORT H L A N D D R HWY 55 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE Metro Storage Site City of Mendota Heights090 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 143 7300 WEST 147TH STREETSUITE 504APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580(952) 431-4433 June 23, 2019 Project Narrative: Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights . The Metro Self Storage project is a new 3-story climate-controlled facility proposed for Northland Plaza in Mendota Heights. Metro Self Storage is a family owned and operated self-storage company that opened its first mini storage in 1973. The company has grown to include over 140 facilities in 16 states and prides itself in providing the best storage experience in the industry. The project site is accessed off Northland Drive on its north property line and abuts Highway 55 on the west and Interstate 494 on the south. The property is a 2.2 acre remaining site within this otherwise developed area. The property is zoned I - Industrial as are the properties surrounding the site except for a strip of B3 – General Business properties to the north. The storage building will have a footprint of 39,270 square feet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by ordinance. There is 45,014 square feet of green space providing 46.9% landscaped area proposed for this site. The landscape plan indicates a variety of overstory trees, ornamental trees and shrubs to provide interest and emphasize elements of the building design. Exterior of building includes architectural precast panels with multiple finishes to create a pleasing image and break-up the facade. The precast panels will have a 16 foot high base of real brick inserts of two contrasting brick colors to create a strong visual base around the ground story Above this base the building uses a large sized light-colored limestone style precast finish with grooved panel joints breaking up the precast into large block visual elements. The light-colored panels are also broken up with a rhythm of slightly higher full brick panels many of which include additional glass windows creating aesthetic interest along each façade. The main entry at the northwest corner is highlighted with flat metal panels and extensive glass allowing views into the lobby and upper storage floors. The sides and back walls also include significant additional glass window panels allowing daylight into the building corridors. The included perspective rendering shows the interest the different materials and massing provides, creating a very nice-looking building. Along with this we have provided a decorative metal canopy at the front entry and at each of the internal drive’s glass overhead door entrances. The civil engineering drawings indicate the grading, paving and drainage approach for the project. The stormwater design collects rainwater from the roof and pavement into below grade stormwater piping. This stormwater will be piped to the west stormwater infiltration pond which along with the other stormwater pond on the site are designed to infiltrate all new impervious surface areas. Consequently, no additional stormwater will leave this site above the minor previously approved flow from the adjacent property. Pavement and curb design are also included in these drawings along with utility connections. page 144 The site access is off Northland Drive just east of Highway 55 entering on the existing shared private drive serving the property to the east. The first entry of this private drive leads to a parking lot at the front of the building near the office entry and the entrance to an internal one-way drive- through access down the middle of the storage building. This internal drive allows clients to enter and park in the climate-controlled area while they load or unload items from their storage unit. Self-storage is a very low traffic producer compared to any other commercial business that would otherwise be considered on this Industrial zoned site. Consequently, there is a very small demand for parking stalls, typically with only a few clients visiting the facility at any given time. There is room inside the building for 11 parallel parking stalls. Added to this are 10 exterior stalls on the north and east sides of the building resulting in a total of 21 stalls. This is 6 stalls more than the ordinance minimum 15 stall requirement. The leasing office for the facility will be in the northwest corner of the building with parking immediately adjacent for customers to access the office. First time customers would park at the office and lease a unit. On subsequent visits customers would pull into the building through the north entry overhead door leading to the interior drive-through lane, access their storage unit, and then exit at the south side. The facility will be staffed by a Property Manager (PM) everyday with weekday hours being 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and shorter on the weekend. Other employees will be a Storage Consultant (SC) and a Maintenance Technician (MT). Each customer will have a proprietary PIN number to access the facility. Facility access hours are from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. The building will be automatically locked down at that point and no further access can be achieved. The access system keeps daily records of all entries. The facility will also be monitored by 16 security cameras that are accessed by the PM in the office as well as being able to be viewed from a web-based platform by management. Cameras will cover virtually all public areas of the building. The site lighting will include all new highly efficient LED light fixtures with moderate lighting levels appropriate for this use. All light fixtures are building mounted, fully shielded, dark sky compliant and provide strong cut-off at the lot edges. While the proposed project meets all the city requirements listed above, we are requesting a variance related to the ordinance Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit which we believe is not consistent with this newly added Industrial zoning use. Since the building massing, height, and site coverage are within requirements, the only aspect of the building that drives this above the listed FAR is that the building has multiple floors within the building unlike other industrial uses. There is no impact of the added floors from the exterior and due to the very low intensity of this use, there will be less activity than for a single-story building of other approved Industrial uses. This variance is covered in more detail in the Variance Application form submitted. In conclusion, the proposed new Metro Self Storage facility provides for an attractive building and landscaped site to meet the storage needs of Mendota Heights residents. With the very low traffic generation and activity associated with this proposed use, this climate-controlled self-storage page 145 facility will fit well into this commercial neighborhood. On behalf of Metro Self Storage, we are pleased to have this opportunity to bring this new business to Mendota Heights. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. page 146 VARIANCE APPLICATION – CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case #:_____________________ Applicant:____________________ Address:_____________________ The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. Completed Application Form(s). Letter of Intent. Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the 2019-20 Metro Storage LLC page 147 variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. __________________________________________________________________ Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). YES NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: page 148 2.Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? YES NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: 3.If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? YES NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. page 149 Comm. No.: Date: Metro Self Storage -Perspective View 19051 06/24/19 page 150 S id e y a rd to a S tre e t4 0 ' - 0 "33' - 0"Fr ont yar d40' - 0"10' - 0"Pa r k i n g Se t b a c kBu il d i n g Se t b a c k B u ild in g S e tb a c kParking Set backPr oper t y Li ne80' - 0"75' - 0"70' - 0"55' - 0" 2 5 ' - 0 "1 1 0 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 0 "Gross Area (footprint) = 39,270 s.f. x 3 = 117,810 s.f. R e te n tio n P o n d Proposed 3 Story BuildingDr i ve t hr u5 5 ' - 0 "2 5 ' - 0 "3 0 ' - 0 "HC 6 3 L O A D IN G H i g h w a y 5 5N o r t h l a n d D r i v e I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4 11 Pr o p e rt y L i n e I nf i l t r at i on PondTrash73' - 0"287' - 0"33' - 4" 4 0 ' - 0 "1 6 2 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 0 "Rear y ar d50' - 0" Existing Building Monument sign E x it -O n e W a y20' - 0" 2 2 0 ' - 0 "Site Statistics: Site Area 95,920 SF 2.2 Acres Setback Statistics: Building Setback -Front Yard to Street 40 Feet Building Setback -Side Yard to Street 40 Feet Building Setback -Side Yard 30 Feet Building Setback -Rear Yard 50 Feet Parking Setbacks 10/20 Feet Building Area Statistics: Proposed Building Area 39,270 SF Proposed Building Area Coverage 40.9 % Maximum Building Area Coverage Allowed 50.0 % Lot Coverage Statistics: Total Site Impervious Area (Parking & Walks)11,640 SF Total Proposed Building Area 39,270 SF Total Proposed Landscape Coverage 45,010 SF Total Proposed Landscape Coverage %46.9 % Parking Statistics: Parking Required (Personal Self-Storage)15 stalls 85,065 SF Net Storage Area / 6,000 SF per stall Parking Provided Exterior 11 stalls Interior (parallel along internal one-way aisle 11 stalls Total Stalls Provided 22 stalls FAR -by Ordinance 0.5 FAR -Proposed 1.24 Pr oper t y Li neProposed 3 Story Building H i g h w a y 5 5N o r t h l a n d I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4Pr o p e rt y L i n e Existing Building Existing Building Existing Building D r i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt8/9/2019 1:58:43 PMCITY SUBMITTAL -Rev 1 CS01Preliminary Site PlanMetro Self Storage1178 Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1" = 30'-0"CS01 2 Schematic Overall Site Plan 1 08/08/19 Revised Submittals 1" = 80'-0"CS01 1 Area Plan w Neighboring Buildings 1 1 1 1 1 page 151 Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Lighted box sign, maximum 100 s.f. Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Aluminum and glass sectional door LED wall pack light, full cut-off Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick,medium Aluminum storefront windowPrecast wall panel, smooth finish LED wall pack light, full cut-off Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Aluminum storefront window Flush metal panels Aluminum storefront window Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel, smooth finish Rooftop unit, screened Lighted box sign, maximum 100 s.f. LED wall pack light, full cut-off Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Rooftop unit, screened Flush metal panels Aluminum storefront window system Aluminum and glass sectional door LED wall pack light, full cut-off Exterior Material -Area Percentages (%) Precast -Smooth Finish 46 % Thin Brick -Dark Color Thin Brick -Medium Color Metal & Glass 25 % 17 % 12 % 100 % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:17:58 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS02Exterior ElevationsMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 1 South Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 4 East Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 3 West Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 2 North Elevation page 152 December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 19 Unfinished Business (Planning Items) A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE VARIANCE Chair Magnuson noted that this is a case that they Commission has heard a number of times. There was a public hearing, which was closed. The Commission has tabled the matter; however, they have never had a public hearing on the Variance request. Mr. Benetti corrected her by explaining that the Commission did have a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance applications; however, the Variance portion was tabled. The Conditional Use Permit was forwarded on to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The hearings for both items were closed at that time. The Commission is entitled to re-open the public hearing for the Variance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request for a Variance would allow Metro Storage, LLC to exceed the 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) standard up to 1.24. He further explained that the Conditional Use Permit was given favorable recommendation approval at the September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Benetti then provided a quick background on the Metro Storage, LLC proposal to build a 3- story, 118,000 square foot, fully contained, secured self-storage facility in the city’s Industrial Park. There would no outdoor panels or doorways except for the access doors into the site. All storage would take place inside of the building itself. All architectural materials and setbacks are all being met per the Industrial Zoning. All of the parking is being met. The FAR is calculated as the interior floor space (all three floors) divided by the total area of the parcel (building area / lot area). The building footprint at approximately 39,270 square feet only represents a 41% coverage. The building height is still under 45 feet, all of the setbacks are being met. The floor area ratio of 1.24 is calculated as follows: 117,810 square foot building area / 95,920 lot area = 1.24. Mr. Benetti also provided a timeline of related application(s) and resulting council actions from May 28, 2019 through December 19, 2019. Because the FAR related amendments have been rejected by Council, the Planning Commission must give final consideration to the Variance that was originally tabled at the August 27 and September 24 meetings. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage; Mr. Jim Walston, Land Use Professional; Mr. Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Heilman provided Metro Storage, LLC’s responses to the three-part variance test noted in City Code Section 12-1-05: 1. Are there practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? a. FAR restrictions are generally used by cities to regulate the intensity of uses and to prevent ‘stacking’ that would cause a strain on neighborhood harmony, municipal services, traffic, and customer safety. The only other less intensive use, than a fully enclosed, aesthetically pleasing, and secure self-storage facility would be a cemetery. In this present application, the 0.5 FAR limitation is obsolete and creates a significant practical difficulty. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 19 b. Current self-storage facilities are designed to provide (a) an eco-friendly footprint, (b) a limited number of access points, (c) use of vertical stacking consistent with municipal height regulations, (d) an efficient utilization of horizontal and vertical demising walls as a security barrier. Simply put, Metro cannot construct the project any other way. As such, 0.5 FAR restriction is not a useful restrictive tool for the City to assure the comprehensive and permanent restrictions on a self-storage facility to be located in the industrial park 2. Are there circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? a. No. However, as stated in the variance application, the variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the FAR restriction and the City’s Site and Structure Requirements 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? a. No. Metro maintains that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be negatively affected. Commissioner Petschel asked when they say that the FAR is not appropriate for this use, would it be – maybe not charitable – but accurate to say it would not be economically reasonable to build a self-storage facility that fits the FAR for this site. Mr. Heilman replied that he would present it as part of the discussion. It is not THE reason. The practical difficulty is that the FAR is in conflict with the city’s code. Commissioner Petschel commented that they could take a story off and be in compliance with the FAR. Mr. Walston replied that in this whole project economics are a factor. After studying this and learning about all the other applications that Metro Storage has had across the United States, and the in-depth analysis on this, one really has to take a step back and look at the history of self- storage; how it started. That may have been overlooked. They have hinted at it before in discussing the text amendment; but here is how it works. Initially, self-storages were all horizontal outlays with everyone having their own garage door and they sprawled. Huge security problem with fencing, barbed wire, and guard dogs. Because of the security problem and crime issues, loitering, and vandalism, the current generation of self-storage units were developed. The horizontal sprawled units have gone vertical within municipal height limitations. By doing that and using the individual demising walls for each storage unit, they have created security for the other ones. Yes, it is economics; but the model for self-storage in the second decade of the 21st century is to have limited ingress and egress and to build vertical and have it all encapsulated. They could build one- or two-story stories, but that is not where the market is right now. Commissioner Petschel stated that he was in favor of this project and he agreed with all of their statements with respect to practical difficulty. However, he did not buy it as a justification for a variance. He was in favor of eliminating the FAR because he did not believe it worked. However, to say that the project does not work without getting rid of the FAR, without ignoring a particular rule, does not seem like a practical difficulty. From his point of view, the argument cannot be that the rule is stupid or obsolete, other cities around the area do not have the same rule, it does not make any sense – that cannot be an argument. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 19 Mr. Heilman stated that the way they look at it, the FAR is a regulator for intensity of use. This generation of self-storage facility has the lowest intensity use there is – by human utilization. Commissioner Petschel replied that another purpose of the FAR is to prevent density of construction inside of an area. This would mean that if they had a larger lot, they could build this. Mr. Heilman stated that this was correct, but it is also a regulator for the intensity of movement, infrastructure, and traffic to that property. Their argument is that their use, being as it is so quiet, that is why it becomes a practical difficulty for self-storage. Mr. Walston presented the log records from Metro Storage for the second week of September for the Burnsville facility. He summarized that the average number of customers there on a 14-hour day is just under 3 per hour. Mr. Heilman’s final parting comment was that they wanted to underscore that there were some concerns that they were trying to accomplish spot-zoning; that that they were telling the city what to do; trying to make a savvy business ploy by first applying for changing the zoning ordinance to allow this as a permitted use in the Industrial Park; and then moving forward with this variance request. The challenge they had was that they were not directed to provide samples of what the structure would look like. To the contrary, they were asked not to do that. It was after they had this that they moved forward with the FAR variance request last fall. Chair Magnuson noted that as she recalled, the application came in and the FAR issue arose a bit as an afterthought. And then it was suggested that a variance needed to be applied for. Mr. Heilman stated this was correct. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY METRO STORAGE, LLC. AYES: 3 (KATZ, PETSCHEL, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 1 (MAZZITELLO) Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, asked that the slide showing the applicant’s responses to the variance analysis. He then he stated that in viewing the minutes of the past he saw that the City Attorney provided a seminar to the Planning Commission back in May, specifically focused on variances. When he did that, he pointed out that for the granting of a variance one had to find a practical difficulty and that there was a three-factor test. One of the factors of the uniqueness required that the problem giving rise to a variance requests be due to circumstances unique to the property. He pointed out that the uniqueness had to relate to the physical characteristics of the property and not to other factors such as personal preferences of the landowner, as in this case the number of storage units. Also, at the August 27, 2019 meeting Chair Magnuson asked the applicants if they had given consideration to scaling back the size of the building; to which Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make the project economically viable if they were limited by the FAR. Commissioner Noonan at that meeting indicated that he had considerable difficulty with finding a practical difficulty because it was clear to him that the only reason for pursuit the variance was economic December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 19 considerations and that there were not any physical characteristics relative to the property that provided any basis for a finding of uniqueness. Then with this December 13, 2019 addition to the application [applicants’ responses to the 3-factor test], the applicant has literally agreed with the Commission that one of the requirements for granting a variance request was not met. There has to be something unique to the property in order for the variance to meet all three tests. They agreed that there is nothing unique to the property. No one has indicated at this point that there is anything unique to the property that gives rise to meeting that uniqueness test in order to have a finding of practical difficulty. In fact, the only basis here for the variance is the economic necessity of the applicant, which is prohibited as a basis for the determination of practical difficulty to get to the right to have a variance. The applicants have repeatedly talked about the conflicts between the ordinances of the city as the basis for there being a practical difficulty. Unfortunately, that does not meet the test either of state law or the ordinance for the finding of a practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Friel stated that he also went over the alternative resolutions that Mr. Benetti had prepared and found nothing in the findings that indicates that this uniqueness test necessary to find a practical difficulty has been met by the applicants in connection with this application for a variance. He requested that the Planning Commission not grant the variance as doing so, he believed, would be in clear violation of the city ordinance and state law. Commissioner Petschel asked Mr. Friel, considering his legal background, would he consider lot size to be a condition. Mr. Friel replied that he could understand how that could be focused upon; however, the fact is that is a condition brought to the table by the applicant; it was created by the applicant as he selected the lot size and is not something unique to the property. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE 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 December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 19 essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed personal self-storage facility to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) the proposed structure and project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and yet the design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55, since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, due in part to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use; iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is only for Metro Storage, LLC, the Applicant as noted herein, and their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and later appended and presented on September 24, 2019, and is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 19 AYES: 2 (MAZZITELLO, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 2 (KATZ, PETSCHEL) The motion failed on a tie vote. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY KATZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Motion died for lack of a second COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. To take more time to look over the supplemental information just received 2. To address some of the concerns heard from some of the surrounding neighbors 3. Because the Planning Commission is missing three people who have had a lot of input so far; they would appreciate some time to review this information and provide additional questions Chair Magnuson asked if there was a time issue to consider. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant has extended their review of this until February 5, 2020. If this were to be extended to the next December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 19 Planning Commission meeting in January, the following Council meeting would be on February 4, 2020. It would be cutting it close, but would still within the extended review period if needed. Commissioner Petschel asked, seeing as this is deadlocked as it is, would it still go on to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide an answer as he has not had a deadlocked decision in the past. Chair Magnuson stated that she would not have a problem forwarding this onto the City Council without a recommendation. She did not believe that bringing it back would necessarily be constructive nor really considerate of the time that has been put into this. She apologized for the multi-circular trips that the applicant has had to make here that makes it look like the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. If possible, she would like to move this forward because she does not know if there is a purpose in dragging this out for another month. The motion died for lack of a second COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY PETSCHEL, TO MOVE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION Before voting, Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the Commission has heard about this application since August 2019. Actually, it was before then, because the code amendment application to disallow the prohibition for self-storage was long before that. These applicants have been here and have been strung out for close to a year. The Planning Commission has no business doing this to an applicant. In the annals he works all over in the Twin Cities Metro Area. He has lived in, experienced, and traveled to 38 states and 33 foreign countries. He can tell all that the City of Mendota Heights does not have a good reputation in the development industry or in the business industry because of crap like this; where the city says ‘oh sure, we are going to make this an allowed use’; however, we have an antiquated, old, outdated, obsolete standard in our code that most municipalities have moved on from. What he sees in this community – and this is the perfect example – if one were to look at the 59-plus organized municipalities that make up the Twin Cities Metro Area, most inter-suburban communities have already gone through what Mendota Heights is going through. The first iteration of our development is done; and now the second wave is coming in. Most communities held to their old rules and became obsolete for the sake of their neighboring suburbs. If Mendota Heights is going to remain the viable, strong community that it is, it has to adapt. The city has a code that says one is allowed to cover their lot by 50% with structures. Those structures can be 45 feet in height with no mention as to how many floors that 45 feet would accommodate. Therefore, one can have a 50% covered lot with a 4-story building. The FAR that this code would provide for is 2.0 – minus stairwells, lavatories, etc. However, the FAR says that they can only do 0.5. He questioned which one was the governing. Why would the city tell an applicant that they can cover their lot 50%, provided they meet all of the other provisions in the code; they can be 45 feet tall – but not really. What kind of message does that send about the viability of the city? He expressed his hope that the City Council could look beyond 1982 and look at 2022 and what this city has to have to remain viable in the face of competition from its neighbors. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 19 Mr. Benetti, replying to the question posed above regarding ‘no recommendation’, stated that under the City Code section regarding variances, if no recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within 60 days after referral of the application for variance to the Planning Commission, the City Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. In summary, the no recommendation by the Planning Commission can be referred to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel commented that he agreed with everything that Commissioner Mazzitello said. He voted to get rid of the FAR. His one commentary was that yes, they had the City Attorney come and provide a level of opinion about the appropriate application of a variance that actually made them more confused than when they started. He has asked for examples of a variance request that was successfully defended in court since the rules were changed a number of years ago. He has requested multiple examples because the big problem is this should not have deadlocked. The rules either apply or they do not. The Planning Commission should not be in the game of deciding the rules are antiquated. He believes the FAR is a stupid rule, but it is still a rule. It is a rule as a matter of vote, the City Council was upheld. They chose not to change it. If he wants it changed, he can run for City Council. The Planning Commission could still use some better opinions as to how this would fit into the determination process and would probably be best done by City Council. Mr. Walston returned and was given permit to speak by Chair Magnuson. He stated with respect to the discussion about what happens next, he wanted to go on the record on behalf of Metro Storage, LLC that they concur, agree, waive any rights they have, that this may move on to the City Council with no recommendation. They are not going to challenge the procedural rule or the legality of that. AYES: 3 NAYS: 1 (KATZ) DATE: January 7, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointments to Historic Pilot Knob Task Force COMMENT: INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to make appointments to the Historic Pilot Knob Task Force. BACKGROUND: At the December 3rd City Council meeting, the Council approved the creation of a Task Force for issues dealing with the preservation of, and improvements to Historic Pilot Knob (see attached memo dated December 3rd). As authorized by the Council at that time, local resident Gail Lewellan has approached prospective candidates, and has received positive replies from many of them. The recommended members have provided their background information, which is summarized on the attached sheets. Please note that we are waiting for information from a seventh member of the Task Force. When the name and credentials of that individual is known, that will be forwarded to the City Council for appointment at that time. Regarding the specifics of these appointments, as this Historic Pilot Knob group has been designated as a Task Force, there are set no term limits. As such, the appointees will serve at the pleasure of the City Council, until an appointee would submit their resignation, or until the Task Force is disbanded by the City Council. Because many of the members have daytime availability, it is likely that meetings will be able to be scheduled during regular working hours. However, the Task Force members themselves will make the determination on when to meet. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following individuals be appointed o membership on the Historic Pilot Knob Task Force: Al Singer, Autumn Hubbel, Christine Soutter, Dale Bachmeier, Juanita G. Cordoba Espinoza, and Gail Lewellan. page 153 A seventh candidate will be recommended for appointment at a future City Council meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, appoint the following individuals to membership on the Historic Pilot Knob Task Force: Al Singer, Autumn Hubbel, Christine Soutter, Dale Bachmeier, Juanita G. Cordoba Espinoza, and Gail Lewellan. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 154 DATE: December 3, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Establishment of Historic Pilot Knob Task Force Comment: Introduction The City Council is asked to authorize the establishment of a Task Force whose mission would be to pursue short and long term goals for the preservation of, and improvements to Historic Pilot Knob. Background: The City of Mendota Heights has a resource within its city limits which is of regional significance, in the form of the 112 acre Historic Pilot Knob area. As has often happened in locations, over the years it has lost some of its historic features to development and lack of understanding of its historic background. However, in more recent years, a greater emphasis on its preservation and restoration has come about through the efforts of a number of public and private agencies. Those agencies include the Pilot Knob Preservation Association; Great River Greening, the National Park Service through its National Register of Historic Places, the Mendota Mdewankanton Dakota Tribal Community, the State of Minnesota, Dakota County, the City of Mendota Heights, and numerous individuals. As beneficial as have been these groups, there is no single group which has coordinated and overseen the preservation and development of the site for appreciation by current and future generations. Earlier this fall, a “study group” of individuals was authorized by the City Council. They gathered to discuss the establishment of a more permanent board which would oversee those preservation and development efforts. The individuals who served on this study group were resident and member of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association Gail Lewellan; City Councilors Liz Petschel and Ultan Duggan; Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek; and City Administrator Mark McNeill. Working from a draft which had been prepared by Ms. Lewellan, the group made the following recommendations for a board to deal with HPK issues: 1. Goals and Objectives of a Pilot Knob Advisory Group: • Capital Improvement Priorities: Identify priority projects from the Great River Greening 2018 Landscape Plan and for potential land acquisition, and recommend approaches to funding. page 155 • Natural Resources Management: Identify priorities for a multi-year plan for natural resources management. • Programs: Coordinate with Mendota Heights and St. Paul Public Schools, Minnesota Humanities Center, Native American community representatives and others to identify needs and opportunities regarding educational visits and educational resources. • Establish Short and Long Term strategies: For the preservation of, additions to, and improvements for the entire 112 acre Historic Pilot Knob area. 2. The Goals are measurable and defined, and therefore should have end dates established. For these reasons, the format of the advisory group would be that of a “task force”, rather than an ongoing City commission. 3. The study group will make recommendations to the Council as to the Task Force representatives. Staffing While much of the discussion and recommendations would come from the seven person task force, follow-up and research would have to come from City staff. It is likely that items relating to ecological issues on HPK could be handled by the Natural Resources Technician, but the overall staffing responsibilities would fall to the Public Works Director. The City Administrator would assist. Budget Impact: In recent years, the City of Mendota Heights has allocated $10,000 annually for expenses relating to HPK. However, these dollars have been tied to maintenance items, rather than improvements. For larger capital investments, grant monies will be needed from available resources, both public and private. One case in point is the private parcel which is adjacent to the publically-owned portion of HPK, and will soon be available for sale. A discussion as to options to fund its purchase should be held soon, before it is purchased, and the opportunity to complete the acquisition of the entire HPK parcel is lost for another generation. Recommendation: We recommend that the City Council authorize the establishment of the Historic Pilot Knob Task Force. The Council should further authorize members of the study group to approach qualified individuals in each of the membership areas for possible candidates for appointment by the Council to the Task Force. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it should authorize the establishment of a Task Force for Historic Pilot Knob, and authorize the study group to identify and approach candidates for appointment by the Council to said Task Force. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 156 Historic Pilot Knob Task Force Candidate Profiles January, 2020 Al Singer--Has been involved in conservation education, natural resource management and land acquisition for more than 40 years. He has been involved with a wide variety of landowners, agencies and organizations to plan, protect and manage thousands of acres of public and private land throughout the metropolitan region as an Interpretive Naturalist and Program Manager at the Dodge Nature Center in West Paul, Environmental Program Manager and Planner for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Metro Greenways Coordinator for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Land Conservation Manager for Dakota County since 2003. Within Dakota County, he has led the conservation efforts to protect more than 12,000 acres, including both the Oheyawahe/Historic Pilot Knob and the Dodge Nature Center properties in Mendota Heights. Autumn Hubbel—Is the current Outdoor Education Supervisor for Dakota County Parks, and has been with the County for more than 12 years. Her role managing the outdoor education program includes shaping the environmental, recreational and cultural educational experiences offered within the parks and greenway system, including both guided programming and self- guided interpretation. Working with diverse stakeholders, educators, indigenous communities, consultants, and designers is core to her work of connecting people to the human and biological heritage of their parks and communities. She holds both a B.S. in Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Education, and a B.A. in History and Psychology. Christine Soutter—Has been a member of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association since 2004. She co-designed and co-wrote the 2010 Pocket Guide to Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob and wrote the 2017 revision of the pocket guide, and also co-wrote and submitted the nomination to have Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She has guided groups of visitors at Historic Pilot Knob, and has developed a self-guiding trail hike. She was on the advisory panel that led to the development of the Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Landscape Plan in 2018. She worked as an environmental educator in the Parks and Recreation Department, and in Public Works for the City of Maplewood for more than 30 years. She holds undergraduate degrees in Biological Sciences, and Masters’ Degrees in both Botany, and Elementary Education. Dale Bachmeier--Is the General Manager of Acacia Park Cemetery, and has served in this capacity since 1997. A large portion of Acacia is in the Pilot Knob area which is listed in the National Register of Historic places. He resides with his family in a home that is located on Pilot Knob and within the historic site. Juanita G. Corbine Espinosa—Has been recommended by the Pilot Knob Preservation Association (PKPA) to represent PKPA on the Task Force. She has been on the Board of Directors of PKPA for two years. She is a member of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota and has blood lines that connect to the Ojibwe of Lac Courte Oreilles in Wisconsin and Turtle Mountain Ojibwe in North Dakota. She has trained and worked as a community organizer since page 157 the mid-1970s, starting in tribal communities in South Dakota. She currently works at the University of Minnesota Department of Medicine as a Community Program Specialist. She is an artist, and played a key role in the 2019 Native Women Artists exhibit at the Minneapolis Institute of the Arts. She leads and participates in activities that build community and provide opportunities for healing among Native and non-Native people; these activities often take place at sacred sites including Oheyewahe, Pilot Knob. She holds an undergraduate degree in Humanities. Gail Lewellan--Has been an advocate for the preservation of Pilot Knob/Oheyewahe since 2003. She was a founding member of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association, though she does not currently serve on its Board of Directors. She invited the participation of the Trust for Public Land, Dakota County, the State of Minnesota, Great River Greening and others to work with the City to preserve Pilot Knob/Oheyewahe as an historic and sacred place. In 2016, she worked on the successful effort to nominate Pilot Knob/Oheyewahe to the National Register of Historic Places. She is committed to promoting understanding of this place as an historic and sacred place, and fostering a learning experience that is readily accessible to school children as well as adults. She graduated from the University of Minnesota Law School, and practiced law in the area of natural resources management with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy prior to her retirement in 2017. page 158 Date: January 7 2020 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Independence Day Fireworks Date COMMENT: Introduction: The City Council is asked to determine the date of the 4th of July Fireworks for 2020. Background: For many years, the City has had an agreement with the Northern Lighters fireworks group to do the local display for Independence Day. Mendakota Country Club has hosted the launch site In 2020, the 4th of July falls on a Saturday. The City has been approached by Northern Lighters to see if there would be any interest in moving the date to the following night, Sunday, July 5th. That date fits better with Northern Lighter’s schedule, and may provide more people with an opportunity to attend the Mendota Heights display—fireworks on the 5th wouldn’t compete with as many other neighboring cities’ fireworks, and people who travel on the long 4th of July weekend may have returned to town. The disadvantage that we see is that it may cause confusion in future years as to when the Mendota Heights display is scheduled; people are now used to it being on the 4th. Budget: Beginning in 2019, the City budgeted the entire amount for the financing of the display. Changing the date will have no impact on the finances. Recommendation: The City Council should determine if a change in the date is of interest. Action Required: The Council should determine by consensus whether the date of the Mendota Heights fireworks display should remain on the traditional date of July 4th, or be moved to another night. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 159