2020-02-04 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 4, 2020 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Recognition of Parks and Recreation Commissioner David Miller
6. Consent Agenda
a. Approve January 21, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Approve January 21, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge the December 19, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d. Approve Resolution 2020-09 Appoint Election Judges for Presidential Nomination Primary
e. Approve Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Response Tree Planting Grant Agreement
f. Approve Policy for Donation of Surplus Equipment to Nonprofit Organizations
g. Approve Resolution 2020-10 Disposal of Surplus Fire Department Materials
h. Response to January 21st Citizen’s Comments
i. Approve Hire of Office Assistant Position
j. Approve Labor and Employment Law Attorney - Kennedy and Graven
k. Acknowledge December 2019 Fire Synopsis
l. Approve Claims List
7. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
8. Public Hearing - none
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Ordinance No. 553 – Amending Certain Regulations and Standards Regarding the
Keeping of Domestic Chickens in Residential Districts (Planning Case No. 2019-29)
b. Establish Council Work Session Date / Time
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda
provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the
agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person
and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the
City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to
make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not
enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as
a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the
citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the
issues raised.”
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Recognition of David Miller—Parks and Recreation Commissioner
Date: February 4, 2020
Comment:
Introduction:
At its meeting of February 4th, David Miller will be recognized for his service to the City as a retiring
Parks and Recreation Commissioner.
Background:
Mr. Miller began his membership on the Parks and Recreation Commission on February 1, 2010. He has
served a total of three 3 year terms. Those years of service ended on January 31st of this year. Because
of the City’s policy limiting service to three consecutive terms, he must retire from the Board.
His knowledge and experience will be greatly missed.
Action Required:
A plaque recognizing David Miller for his service to the City as Parks and Recreation Commissioner will
be presented to him at the February 4th City Council meeting.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 3
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, January 21, 2020
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 Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also
present. Councilor Duggan was absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
City Administrator Mark McNeill requested to add two items to the agenda: 9c. Approve Purchases for
the Fire Station, Furnishings and Fire Phones, and 9d. Establish a Date for a Workshop to Discuss
Warming House Information for Reconstruction.
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption as amended.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
PRESENTATIONS
A) UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL
City Administrator McNeill explained that because three Councilors recently toured the new Fire Station
facility on January 7th, the Construction Manager provide only a written update. Mr. McNeill provided a
summary of the written report to the Council.
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.
a. Approval of January 7, 2020 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of January 2, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge the December 10, 2019 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
d. Approve Resolution 2020-07 Dakota County Traffic Safety Group Joint Powers Agreement
page 4
e. Approval of Truck Purchase for Streets Department
f. Approval of Truck and Jetter Purchase for Utility Department
g. Approve of Contract with Building Official, A to Z Home Inspections, LLC
h. Approval of Resolution 2020-05 Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funding Application through Dakota County – FY 2020
i. Ratify 2020-2021 Labor Agreement with Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local #76
j. Ratify 2020-2021 Labor Agreement with International Union of Operating Engineers, Local #70
k. Approve Out-of-State Travel Request for Community Development Director
l. Approve Purchase Order for Ivy Falls East Soil Borings
m. Approve Appointments to the Dakota Broadband Board of Directors and Executive Committee
n. Approve Ordinance 550 Regarding the Licensing of Contractors
o. Approve the Purchase of a Turf Sprayer
p. Acknowledge November 2019 Park 3 Financial Report
q. Approve of December 2019 Treasurer’s Report
r. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, thanked the Public Works Department for their snow plowing services.
He extended thanks to the Council for the vote which denied the variance request for the self-storage unit.
He stated he was troubled with the process. He stated that is not aware of a law which allows the Council
to have discretion on whether a variance meets the three factors necessary to grant a variance. He
commented that he expects better in the future.
Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, referenced the absence of a Councilor tonight and
language from the League of Minnesota Cities which would allow remote attendance for Councilors that
may not be able to attend. He referenced the Skype application that could be used for remote attendance.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2020-08 APPROVE PERMANENT EASEMENT TO NORTHERN STATES
POWER IN VALLEY PARK
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to approve Resolution
2020-08 Approve Permanent Easement to Northern States Power in Valley Park. He stated that the
applicant would be responsible for the cost to record the easement with the county.
page 5
Mayor Garlock moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-08 APPROVE PERMANENT EASEMENT TO
NORTHERN STATES POWER IN VALLEY PARK.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
B) RESOLUTION 2020-06 APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the Council was asked to consider Resolution 2020-06
Approve Appointments and Reappointments to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation
Commission. He summarized the interview process and reviewed the names proposed by the Council to
be selected. He noted the appointments are for three years.
Councilor Petschel moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-06 APPOINTING LITTON FIELD TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND AMY SMITH TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION AND REAPPOINTING JOHN MAZZITELLO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND BOB KLEPPERICH TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
C) APPROVE PURCHASES FOR THE FIRE STATION, FURNISHINGS AND FIRE PHONES
City Administrator Mark McNeill provided background information and asked the Council to consider
approving purchases for the fire station, including furnishings and fire two-way radio telephones. He
reviewed the proposal noting that both proposed purchases are below the budgeted amounts.
Councilor Paper moved to approve PURCHASES FOR THE FIRE STATION, FURNISHINGS AND
FIRE TWO-WAY RADIO TELEPHONES.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
D) ESTABLISH A DATE FOR A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS WARMING HOUSE
RECONSTRUCTION
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that the Council was being asked to consider establishing a
date and time for a work session to discuss warming house information for reconstruction.
It was the consensus of the Council to hold a work session on February 6, 2020 at 4:15 p.m.
page 6
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that Blade with the Blue will be held February 8th and the
Royal Ball will be held February 9th. Summer registration for recreation programs will open on March 7th.
He said that at the previous Council meeting, the Council adjourned to a closed session to discuss the
potential acquisition of real property located at 2085 Valencour Circle. During the closed session, the
Council expressed interest and directed staff to work with Dakota County on the possible acquisition of
the parcel. He noted that any binding offer to acquire that property would need approval by the Council
in open session.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Petschel thanked the candidates that came forward to interview for the open positions on the
commissions. She commented that there are wonderful people living in this community who are willing
to serve. She referenced the Par 3 Report, which shows a profit for 2019 and hoped that the City would
find a new way to classify the funds for the Par 3 at the direction of the auditor.
Councilor Miller commented on the great job the Public Works Department has done plowing snow.
Councilor Paper thanked the candidates who interviewed for the Commission positions, and who provided
great ideas that could possibly be implemented.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock
Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Held Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at City
Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. and Council members Miller, Paper, and Petschel
were also present. Council member Duggan participated via a telephone conference call. Staff in
attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and Recreation
Coordinator Meredith Lawrence.
INTERVIEWS FOR COMMISSION OPENINGS
The City Council interviewed candidates for one open position on the Planning Commission and one open
position on the Parks and Recreation Commission. The applicants interviewed were as follows: Rachel
Quick, Mark Hall, Jonathan Zagel, Amy Smith, Cory Fleming, Charlie Durenberger, and Litton Field.
Following the interviews, the council discussed and agreed to appoint Litton Field to the Planning
Commission and Amy Smith to the Parks and Recreation Commission. These are three year appointments.
This recommendation will be made at the upcoming Council meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated a need to discuss options for a warming house at Wentworth
Park. Because this had not been noted on the agenda, it was determined that there was a need to set a
future work session to discuss.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 6:45 pm.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 8
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 19, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, December 19,
2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello,
Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, and
Michael Toth
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of November 26, 2019 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2019
AYES: 3
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (MAZZITELLO)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2019-30
GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS - CITY-OWNED LOTS IN THE VILLAGE
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was being asked to provide
an unofficial concept plan review for the Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) out of St. Paul. They are
requesting this concept plan for the city-owned property known as The Village Lots located at Dodd Road,
Maple Street, and Linden Street. The official address is 725 Linden Street and 735 Maple Street.
The public hearing for this concept plan review was posted and published in the local newspapers and notice
letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1/4 mile of the subject property.
Development Background
• Subject properties consist of four parcels and are guided and zoned MU-PUD Mixed Use
• A part of a foreclosure proceeding, the City acquired the ownership rights to these four undeveloped
parcels
• The city received a proposal from Trammel-Crow group to develop a 5-story, 150-unit senior
luxury apartment building; however, the Council elected not to proceed with a proposed Letter of
Intent to purchase and the developer withdrew their request
• The city fielded a number of other inquiries and request from various developers; staff requested
direction from the Council
page 9
• Early 2019, staff received permission to prepare an official Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting
development ideas or plan from local development groups
• After consideration at a workshop meeting, the Council invited two groups to make a brief
presentation of their plans, which were presented on June 4, 2019
• After deliberation, the City Council chose GREA as the preferred developer of the city owned lots
• A Letter of Intent and Purchase Agreement of $1,110,000.00 from GREA was later accepted by
the City Council
Project Description
• New 47-unit market-rate apartment building for seniors (55+) age-restricted housing
• Units will range from 1-bedroom units at approximately 810 square feet to 950 square feet size; 2-
bedroom units 1,000 to 1,350 square feet in size; and 2-bedroom + den units up to approximately
1,500 square feet in size
• On-site amenities include a community room, fitness center, and private terrace
• The plan includes a 4,700 square foot sit-down restaurant with an outdoor seating patio area
• Includes a 1,757 square foot co-working space for residents and outside visitors/tenants
• L-shaped 3-story building with a total gross square footage of approximately 108,573 square feet,
with a single-story footprint of 28,403 square feet
• Access to the site will be from Maple Street to the south and from Linden Street to the east (no
access is planned or requested directly from or onto Dodd Road)
• Apartment complex will have 25 surface parking spaces and 67 underground parking spaces; the
restaurant will provide 41 spaces; for a total of 133 parking spaces for the development
• The area north of the apartment complex will not be developed and is intended to serve as a natural
buffer space between the Linden Lofts Condo Development and this project
Concept Plan Review Process
• Since this development is not creating a new Planned Unit Development (PUD), a concept plan
review is not necessary
• However, to obtain and note any initial thoughts, concerns, comments, suggestions, and likes on
the project, staff and the developer agreed it was a good idea to have the Planning Commission
hold this review
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the various land uses in The Village and the location of the lots under
consideration as they relate to surrounding streets, elevations and look of the proposed building (inside and
out), access points, landscaping plans, parking areas, typical vehicle movement paths, and location of the
amenities inside.
A Neighborhood Meeting was held by the developer on Thursday, December 5 at Mendakota Country Club.
The meeting was well attended, and the developer received a number of positive comments and addressed
concerns and issues.
Commissioner Mazzitello requested the parking calculations for the restaurant and the office. Mr. Benetti
replied that he was unable to provide that at this time because he did not know how many seats are being
provided for in the restaurant. The developer may have an idea or that knowledge.
Developer Presentation
Mr. Judd Fenlon, owner of Grand Real Estate Advisors, gave the same presentation to the Council that was
presented at the Neighborhood Meeting on December 5, 2019.
page 10
• Project Partners:
o Mr. Judd Fenlon, Mr. Brian Kippers, Mr. Steve Norton, and Mr. Paul Dzubnar
• Project Amenities:
o Easy access to a number of amenities
o Proximity to the current trail and ability to better connect that trail and the surrounding
neighborhoods
o Lots of green space; including the buffer on the north end of the site
o 55+ age group is a critical component and in high demand
o Smaller size (47 units) is nice from a community standpoint
o Amenities play an important role in creating community connections
o Offer housing types for people who have raised their families in Mendota Heights and who
want to continue to live there
o The Village is a popular amenity
o Ability to draw in the Dodd Road frontage by installing a good, full service, family-style
restaurant option
• Building Amenities:
o First floor
Main entrance with large lobby
Soft seating
Coffee bar
Co-working space
Wellness Center / Workout Room / Hydration Station
Restrooms
Restaurant
Some living spaces
o Second floor
Large community room
Rooftop terrace for residents
Living spaces
o Third floor
Living spaces
o Lower (underground level)
Parking spaces
Shop room
Dog washing station
• Exterior Design
o Intent is to blend in with the architecture already in The Village
o Sloped roof
o Break up the length of the building
Using a combination of gable roofs and hip roofs
Incorporating balconies and the support for the balconies in a way that articulates
the face of the building
o Provide the restaurant with its own architecture
Stone
Outdoor patio space with a small roof (weather coverage and noise mitigation)
o Materials would include
Brick and stone, vertical board and batten siding, shakes and lap siding that would
be hearty materials
page 11
Chair Magnuson asked for the proposed seating capacity of the restaurant. Mr. Fenlon replied that the
anticipation is approximately 130-140 seats.
Chair Magnuson noted that the restaurant would be open to the public and that the co-working station would
be as well. She then asked if the co-working station would be based on membership. Mr. Fenlon replied
that it would be based on monthly passes.
Chair Magnuson stated that she was not seeing any type of security between the public spaces and the living
spaces. Mr. Fenlon replied that they have discussed this quite a bit and noted that there is a door that will
be controlled access. Residents within the building will have a key fob to get to and from the restaurant
without going outside; however, patrons of the restaurant will not be able to open that door. Chair Magnuson
asked about installing a similar type door on the other side of the lobby in the hallway. Mr. Fenlon replied
that there is one there as well.
Chair Magnuson asked if the fitness center was only available for residents. Mr. Fenlon replied that it would
be available for residents as well as members of the co-working space. She then asked what they plan to do
about noise, vapors, etc. for the 2-bedroom +den unit directly above the restaurant, adjacent to the
community room. Mr. Fenlon replied that there will be a shaft that goes from the kitchen up all of the way
through the roof; the exhaust for the kitchen equipment. They will not be venting out the side wall and
having it make its way up the side of the building. From experience he has found that venting up through
the roof is the best and only way to go to mitigate those concerns. As for noise, the shell of the restaurant
space will be built out of a concrete block and additionally there are sound mats and noise mitigation that
can go on the underside and top side of the deck.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked for the staffing level of the restaurant. Mr. Fenlon replied that he did not
know the answer to that question, but he would ask Mr. Dzubnar and get back to him Commissioner
Mazzitello then asked if they would be comfortable providing an estimate or range on that number for the
Conditional Use Permit application and showing those parking requirements for what they are proposing
versus what is codified. Mr. Fenlon replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Katz had questions about the parking – the calculations for the parking that come into from
the different businesses as there are going to be multiple businesses besides the residents. He noted the
planned underground parking of approximately 67 stalls and asked if that was restricted to only residents.
Mr. Fenlon replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Katz explained that he did not understand where the
parking would be for the patrons of the restaurant as well as the co-working space. Mr. Fenlon replied that
there are two surface lots with a total of 64 parking spaces. There is also on-street parking along Maple and
Linden and proximity to a public parking ramp. Commissioner Katz then asked if they felt comfortable,
based on the number of patrons anticipated for the restaurant, the staff, and employees, and their previous
experience, that there would be ample parking. Mr. Fenlon replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Katz noted that he had heard some concerns, based on emergency vehicle use or the ability
to get around these tight spaces, that they are tighter. Mr. Fenlon replied that, as Mr. Benetti alluded to,
they did a plan that showed both how a semi-trailer as well as an emergency vehicle would make it through
the lot. There are some adjustments that they are going to need to do to some of the islands to make those
movements easier.
Chair Magnuson stated that she was not concerned about the density of the apartment complex; however,
the restaurant is what complicates the parking for her. If they are looking at 130-150 seats in the restaurant,
and if it proves to be a popular busy spot, they are going to be looking at some parking issues. She
encouraged them to look at that and plan to address those with more specific details in their application.
page 12
Commissioner Petschel stated that one thing he has noticed in that area, and it might simply come down to
signage, is that there are parking patterns for people who basically only want to park in that central corridor
around the park. There is parking behind the buildings and they will not go to it; they will just orbit around
that interior area thinking that is the only parking available. Meanwhile, all of the spots in the back of the
building or underground are empty.
Commissioner Mazzitello requested, with the preponderance of the parking being off the lot of the
restaurant, and he was sure their engineers and architects are giving thought to pedestrian connectivity
crossing Linden and Maple, that these are shown on their plans. They are going to lose some on-street
parking crossing Maple right across from the restaurant and there are codified parking distances from
crosswalks. They should make sure that is all taken into account.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brad Wallace, 715 Linden Street, lives just north of the proposed development. He noted that the
developers have been very gracious about working with their homeowner’s association and for the most
part, the homeowner’s association is supportive of the project. The only issue that seems to come up is
parking. The neighbors are worried that the parking is going to overflow to those areas where the
townhomes are. The on-street parking there is residential parking. If there was some way to work out
restricted parking up that way, in front of those townhomes, it would ease a lot of minds.
Commissioner Petschel asked if he was referring to permitted parking. Mr. Nelson replied that he was
referring to some type of signage, not permitted parking.
Chair Magnuson asked if those units had underground parking. Mr. Wallace replied in the affirmative and
stated that both the condominiums and the townhomes have underground parking; however, they do not
have any guest parking. Guests typically park on the street.
Commissioner Katz asked if he felt it was pretty busy during the day with a lot of guest parking along the
street and most of those spaces are taken. Mr. Wallace replied that sometimes it is very busy but other times
it is not. If there is any type of event or holiday gathering, the parking becomes very busy.
Mr. Judd Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, noted that his question may be more for Public Works (which are
terrific), asked about snow removal. He stated that there was mention made of snow removal. If this
restaurant is as successful as everyone hopes, the whole issue of getting rid of snow is a big one because
parking lots get smaller and the streets get narrower. Whatever the developer could do, in conjunction with
Public Works, would be appreciated.
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, based on public testimony, asked the applicant to provide an image of snow
removal movements, similar to what they did showing truck and emergency vehicle movements, when they
submit their application.
page 13
Commissioner Katz asked them to entertain thoughts on taking the surface lot that is currently there and
turning it into a multi-level ramp as this would possibly alleviate parking concerns.
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.
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.
page 14
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
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
page 15
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.
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.
Unfinished Business (Planning Items)
A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20
METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE
VARIANCE
page 16
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.
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?
page 17
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.
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.
page 18
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 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.
page 19
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 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.
page 20
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-____.
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 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.
page 21
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.
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
page 22
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)
General Planning Items
A) REVIEW AND APPROVE THE 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE /
CALENDAR
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that there are some different meeting dates for 2020;
most of which work around specific religious holidays. A lot of the dates were moved due to elections.
December 2020 was left open as he wanted to obtain their opinion on what date they would prefer. The
Commission suggested keeping the regular date of December 22, 2020, with the understanding that changes
can be made.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti informed the Commission that the draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan is on its way to the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). The six-month jurisdictional
review period lapsed approximately one week ago. He anticipates a very nice, hopefully, review letter from
them soon. In any case, any changes or suggestions they provide will be brought back to the Planning
Commission under public hearing for a recommendation on a final version.
Mr. Benetti also stated the Planning Commission’s recording secretary, Ms. Darlene (Dar) Oehlke was
resigning her position due to other work commitments and promotion at her full-time job. Mr. Benetti
stated Dar does a great turnaround of these minutes; and has been a great asset for the community, the
council and the commissions she served. Ms. Oehlke has been very good at what she does, and city staff
is going to miss her. The city is currently seeking a new recording secretary service the first of the year.
Commissioner Noonan’s last meeting will be in January 2020. The Council has begun the process of
opening the window for the posting of the new positions for commissioners; typically appointed by the City
Council. Posting will be on the city’s website very soon.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:58 P.M.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
page 23
Request for City Council Action
DATE: February 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-09 Appoint Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board
COMMENT:
Background
Section 204B.21 of the Minnesota Election Laws requires that election judges shall be appointed
by the governing body of the municipality, and the appointments shall be made at least 25 days
before the election.
Discussion
Attached for your consideration is a resolution appointing election judges for the upcoming
Presidential Nomination Primary. The individuals listed have indicated their willingness to serve.
To serve as an election judge, the law requires a two hour training session. Head judges and
Absentee Ballot Board judges must complete an additional one hour of training. In addition, all
judges working at the Presidential Nomination Primary must complete one hour of training that
focuses on the processes unique to its administration. Training for these judges will be completed
in February.
The resolution also authorizes the City Clerk to appoint additional judges and designate persons to
serve on the absentee ballot board as needed.
Staff is recommending that the election judges pay be set at $11.00/hour for regular judges, and
$15.00/hour for Head judges and Absentee Ballot Board judges.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 2020-09 Appoint Election Judges and
Absentee Ballot Board. This action requires a majority vote of the city council.
page 24
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2020 - 09
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES
FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION PRIMARY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 204B.21 of the Minnesota Election Laws, election judges shall
be appointed by the governing body of the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the appointments shall be made at least 25 days before the election at which the
election judges will serve; and
WHEREAS, election judges shall receive at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for
each hour spent carrying out their duties at the polling place and in attending training sessions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights
that the individuals listed on the attached Exhibit A are appointed to serve as election judges for the
March 3, 2020 Presidential Nomination Primary at the hourly rate of $11.00 for regular election judges
and $15.00 for head election judges and election judges serving on the Absentee Ballot Board.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized to appoint additional election
judges as needed for the conduct of elections.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of February, 2020.
City Council
City of Mendota Heights
__________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 25
Exhibit A
2020 Presidential Primary Election Judges
Peter Beagan
Roland Beihl
Alice Beihl
Linda Birnbaum
Linda Byrne
Michaela Calhoun
Steven Commers
Joe Coopersmith
Susan Davis
Jeanne Dill
Pam Ehrlich
Suzanne Ferguson
Jean Haskell
Sue Holman-Sutich
Garnet Holmstadt
James Johnson
Judith Klepperich
Michael Kluznik
Kathryn McKeag
Billie McQuillan
Kathy Miller
Nancy Nelson
Jolene Novak-Haverkamp
Richard O'Connor
Judith O'Gara
Kathyrn Packer
Nancy Price
Sally Reinhardt
Mario Reyes
Stephen Santos
Billie Slater
Ellen Sloane
George Sonnen
Sherri Stein
Evelyn Sunness
Nedine Thera
Carol Tunell
Kasey Tunell
Noelle Wang
Linda Weinzettel
Kathie Woods
Bridget Zappa
Michelle Zarmbinski
Jane Zilch
Absentee Ballot Board
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Nancy Bauer, Deputy City Clerk
Pam Deeb
Sharon Hinze
Meredith Lawrence
Kathy Packer
Kristen Schabacker
Nedine Thera
Kristin Wittrock
page 26
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Approve Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Response Tree Planting Grant
Agreement
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) for the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Community Forest Response Tree Planting
grant.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of November 6th, 2019, the City Council approved staff to apply for the Emerald
Ash Borer Community Forest Response Tree Planting grant. Staff submitted this application to
the MN DNR, requesting $12,715 in grant funds. The grant was awarded for the full amount
requested. The total estimated project cost is $18,893.75. It is a requirement of the grant
agreement that the grantee (the City) will provide a 25% match ($6,178.75). This match can be
met using cash, in-kind, or a combination of both. Grant funds are provided to the City on a
reimbursement basis.
The project entails the planting of 100 shade trees over the course of the grant period. Whenever
possible, trees will be planted in close proximity to public ash trees that have been removed, or
are to be removed, due to EAB. The goal of the project is to help regain canopy loss due to EAB.
DISCUSSION
The grant period begins once the State has obtained all required signatures, and ends June 1,
2022, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. Invoices
are to be submitted by the City, according to the schedule set forth by the State and disclosed in
the grant agreement.
page 27
As a condition of the grant, the City must communicate with, and educate the public on EAB and
the grant project, while identifying the State as a sponsoring agency and acknowledging the
Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as a funding source. Other conditions include,
but are not limited to:
• Only tree species that make up less than 10% of the community forest for Mendota
Heights will be funded. This means grant funds cannot be spent on the purchase of Maple
(Acer) and Spruce (Picea) species.
• No other tree species may be planted other than those specified in the approved species
list (attached).
• All trees planted with grant funds are to be maintained based on the City’s Three Year
Maintenance Plan (Exhibit C of the grant agreement).
• Accomplishment reports and maps of completed work are required to be submitted with
all requests for reimbursement.
• Compliance with required grant management policies and procedures set forth through
Minn.Stat.§16B.97, Subd.4 (a) (1).
BUDGET IMPACT
The grant agreement requires a 25% match of the project costs (in-kind, cash, or combination
there-of). Any cash matching funds would be taken from the City’s tree removal budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest
Response Tree Planting grant agreement with the Minnesota DNR, and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute such agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approving the attached STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. This action requires a
simple majority vote.
page 28
TREE SPECIES_COMMON
NAME
TREE SPECIES_SCIENTIFIC
NAME FAMILY
HEIGHT AT
MATURITY LIGHT SOIL SPACING
MOISTURE
REGIME
GROWTH
RATE
SALT SPRAY
TOELRANCE
Aspen (bigtooth)Populus grandidentata Salicaceae 60-80 ft Full Sun Sand-Clay 30 ft Dry-Moist Fast Moderate
Aspen (quaking)Populus tremuloides Salicaceae 60-80 ft Full Sun-Part Shade Sand-Clay 30 ft Dry-Moist Fast Moderate
Basswood/Linden Tilia americana Malvaceae 60 ft Full Sun-Shade
Sandy Loam-
Clay Loam 30 ft Moist-Wet Moderate Sensitive
Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis Juglandaceae 50-70 ft Full Sun-Shade Sand-Loam 40-50 ft Dry-Moist Slow Tolerant
Black walnut Juglans nigra Juglandaceae 50-70 ft Full Sun Sand-Clay 40-50 ft Dry-Moist Moderate Tolerant
Blue Beech Carpinus caroliniana Betulaceae 30 ft Part Sun-Shade Loam-Clay 35 ft Medium Slow Moderate
Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Cannabaceae 50-75 ft Full-Partial Sun
Sandy Loam-
Silty Clay 35-50 ft Dry-Wet Fast Sensitive
Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos Fabaceae 45-75 ft Full Sun
Sandy Loam-
Clay 30-40 ft Dry-Wet Fast Tolerant
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba Ginkgoaceae 40-50 ft Full Sun Sand-Loam 20-30 ft Moist-Wet Moderate Tolerant
Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Betulaceae 25-40 ft Full Sun Sand-Clay 15-40 ft Dry-Moist Slow Moderate
Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata Oleaceae 30 ft Full Sun Sand-Loam 25 ft Dry-Moist Moderate Tolerant
Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus Fabaceae 50-70 ft Full Sun
Sandy Loam-
Clay 30-50 ft Moist-Wet Slow Tolerant
Mountain Ash Sorbus americana Rosaceae 30 ft Funn Sun-Part Shade Sand-Clay 15 ft Moist Slow Sensitive
Mulberry Tree Morus rubra Moraceae 50 ft Full Sun-Part Shade
Sandy Loam-
Loam 40 ft Medium-Moist Moderate Moderate
Northern Catalpa Catalpa speciosa Bignoniaceae 40-60 ft Full Sun Sand-Clay 20-40 ft Dry-Moist Fast Moderate
Ohio Buckeye Aesculus glabra Sapindaceae 20-40 ft Full Sun-Part Shade Sand-Clay 20-40 ft Dry-Wet Moderate Moderate
Ohio Buckeye 'Autumn Splendor'Aesculus x arnoldiana 'Autumn Splendor'Sapindaceae 25 ft Full Sun Loam 25 ft Medium-Dry Moderate Moderate
Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Cornaceae 25 ft Part Sun-Shade Sand-Loam 30 ft Medium Moderate Sensitive
Princeton American Elm Ulmus americana 'Princeton'Ulmaceae 60-80 ft Full Sun Sand-Clay 40-60 ft Dry-Moist Fast Tolerant
St. Croix American Elm Ulmus americana 'St. Croix'Ulmaceae 40-80 ft Full Sun
Sandy Loam-
Clay 80-90 ft Moist Fast Tolerant
Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Fagaceae 35-70 ft Full-Partial Sun Loam-Clay 25-50 ft Dry-Wet Medium Moderate
White Oak Quercus alba Fagaceae 60-80 ft Full Sun Sand-Clay 60-80 ft Medium-Dry Slow Sensitive
*THE 20-10-5 RULE IS TO BE FOLLOWED: <20% WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY (MULT. SPECIES W/IN SAME FAMILY HIGHLIGHTED), <10% WITHIN A SINGLE GENUS, <5% WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES
**ALL TREE STOCK USED WILL BE 1" BARE ROOT, #10 CONTAINER, OR A COMBINATION
REPLACEMENT TREE SPECIES FOR EAB
page 29
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT
This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 (“State”) and the City of Mendota Heights, 1101
Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (“Grantee”).
Recitals
1. Under Minn.Stat.§84.026, Subd. 1, and Minnesota Session Law 2019, 1st Special Session, 191, Chapter 4,
Article 2, Section 2, Subdivision 6(d), the State is empowered to enter into this grant.
2. The State is in need of Urban and Community Forestry Services.
3. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant
contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn.Stat.§16B.98, Subd. 1, the Grantee agrees to
minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant.
Grant Contract
1 Term of Grant Contract
1.1 Effective date:
January 16, 2020, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat.§16B.98, Subd.
5, whichever is later. Per Minn.Stat.§16B.98 Subd. 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee until this
grant contract is fully executed.
1.2 Expiration date:
June 1, 2022, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.3 Survival of Terms.
The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State
Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 12. Publicity and Endorsement; 13.
Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 15 Data Disclosure.
2 Grantee’s Duties
The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will:
Comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn.Stat.§16B.97,
Subd. 4 (a) (1).
Perform the duties specified in Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, which are incorporated and made a
part of this agreement.
3 Time
The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance
of this grant contract, time is of the essence.
4 Consideration and Payment
4.1 Consideration.
The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows:
(a) Compensation
The Grantee will be paid compensation in an amount not to exceed $12,715.00; on a reimbursement
basis for qualifying purchases.
According to the breakdown of costs contained in Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated into
this grant contract, the Grantee agrees to meet a minimum 25% funding match. The total project cost
is $18,893.75. Grantee agrees to match at least $6,178.75 of this project cost.
page 30
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 2
(b) Travel Expenses
Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee
as a result of this grant contract will not exceed $0.00; provided that the Grantee will be reimbursed
for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in
the current "Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management
and Budget (MMB). The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses
incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for out of state
travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state.
(c) Total Obligation.
The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this
grant contract will not exceed $12,715.00.
4.2 Payment
(a) Invoices
The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the
services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services.
Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule:
1. June 1, 2020
2. December 1, 2020
3. June 1, 2021
4. December 1, 2021
5. June 1, 2022
(b) Unexpended Funds
The Grantee must promptly return to the State any unexpended funds that have not been accounted
for annually in a financial report to the State due at grant closeout.
4.3 Subcontractors, Contracting, and Bidding Requirements
The Grantee agrees that if it subcontracts any portion of this project to another entity, the agreement
with the subcontractor will contain all applicable provisions of the agreement with the State.
Per Minnesota Statute 471.345, Municipalities as defined in Subd.1 must follow that Uniform
Municipal Contracting Law if contracting funds from this grant contract agreement for any supplies,
materials, equipment, or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real
or personal property.
(a) Support documentation of the bidding process utilized to contract services must be included in the
grantee’s financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if
applicable.
(b) For projects that include construction work of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per
Minnesota Statue 177.41 through 177.44. Consequently, the bid request must state the project is
subject to prevailing wage. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be
comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. A prevailing wage form
should accompany these bid submittals.
5 Conditions of Payment
All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State’s satisfaction,
as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive
payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local
law.
6 Authorized Representative
The State's Authorized Representative is Emma Schultz, Community Forest Project Specialist, 500 Lafayette
Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 259-5274, emma.schultz@state.mn.us, or her successor, and has the
responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services provided under
page 31
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 3
this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify
acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment.
The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician, 1101 Victoria
Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, (651) 255-1123, kristas@mendota-heights.com. If the Grantee’s
Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately
notify the State.
7 Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete
7.1 Assignment
The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without
the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this
grant contract, or their successors in office.
7.2 Amendments
Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been
executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or
their successors in office.
7.3 Waiver
If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision
or the State’s right to enforce it.
7.4 Grant Contract Complete
This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other
understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
8 Liability
The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims
or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this
grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar
any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant
contract.
9 State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction are subject to
examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of
six years from the end of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required
period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later.
10 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Rights
10.1 Government Data Practices
The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch.
13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data
created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant
contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this
clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to
in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee
instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The
Grantee’s response to the request shall comply with applicable laws.
10.2 Intellectual Property Rights - Not Applicable
page 32
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 4
11 Workers Compensation
The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. §176.181, Subd. 2, pertaining to workers’
compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State
employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these
employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of
these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility.
12 Publicity and Endorsement
The Grantee will publicly post and promote project information and purpose as pertains to this grant
contract.
12.1 Publicity
Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring
agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized
Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets,
press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee
individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or
services provided resulting from this grant contract. All projects primarily funded by state grant
appropriations must publicly credit the State of Minnesota, including on the grantee’s website when
practicable.
12.2 Endorsement
The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.
13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all
legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court
with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
14 Termination
14.1 Termination by the State
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written
notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro
rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
14.2 Termination for Cause
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to
comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the
purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take
action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds
and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if:
(a) It does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature.
(b) Or, if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services
covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated
to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the
Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the
contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source,
not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a
reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice.
14.4 Additional Alternate Termination Language
Additional alternate termination language may be negotiated on a case-by-case basis after the state
agency has consulted with their legal and finance teams.
page 33
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 5
15 Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its
social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification
number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the
payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and
state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent
state tax liabilities, if any.
1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as
required by Minn. Stat. '' 16A.15 and 16C.05
Signed: Jen Franklin
Date: January 16, 2020
SWIFT Contract/PO No(s). 171433 / 3-165677
2. GRANTEE
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant
contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws,
resolutions, or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
3. STATE AGENCY
By:
(with delegated authority)
Title:
Date:
Distribution:
Agency
Grantee
State’s Authorized Representative
page 34
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 6
Exhibit A: Grant Project Deliverables
Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Response Tree Planting
City of Mendota Heights Deliverables
Grant Sum Total: $12,715.00
Grant Contact Deliverables
Grantee must address reducing the impact EAB will have on ash in their community
Grantees must provide photo documentation of the project’s progress at appropriate
phases, and illustrations, diagrams, charts, graphs, and maps to show results
Projects must publicly post and promote grant project information and purpose
Work with DNR to fully execute and report on the impacts of the work plan by meeting the
requirements as submitted in the City of Mendota Heights’s application:
Project Overview
It is estimated that the City of Mendota Heights currently has over 1,300 ash trees in its parks,
right-of-way, and public open spaces. It is estimated that a minimum of 85 public ash trees will
need to be removed within the grant period. The goal of the project is to replace these with 100
newly planted shade trees. Replacement trees will be shade tree species, 1-2” caliper bareroot or
a container class size #15 or smaller, and species native to the area will be selected whenever
feasible. Trees will be planted within close proximity to the tree that was removed whenever site
conditions allow. The 20-10-5 diversity rule and the MN DNR's Tree Planting Guide will be
followed for all replacement trees. The City has two certified tree inspectors on staff and requires
all hired contractors to have an ISA Certified Arborist on staff. The City plans to update the
City's EAB management plan, create a tree inventory, and continue with treatment of 45 ash
trees within the grant period. The goal of the project is to fully regain the canopy loss of
removals performed within the grant period. The canopy loss resulting from EAB is and will be
significant within the City, due to the number of ash within boulevards, parks, and public open
spaces. This canopy loss can cause increases in surface water temperature due to exposed paved
surfaces that were once shaded, contribute to increased runoff caused by decreased interception,
evaporation, and infiltration of precipitation, and cause increased erosion. All of these factors
negatively impact surface waters, including Lake Augusta, an impaired water, and the
Mississippi River, as many ash reside in the MRC Critical Area. The proposed project will
mitigate for these impacts by replacing ash trees as quickly as possible with high-quality shade
trees.
Timeline
February 1, 2020 - Estimated Program Start
Winter 2020-Spring 2020 - ANTICIPATED MILESTONE - First-ever City Gravel Bed
Constructed
Spring 2020/Fall 2020 - Tree Planting
Fall 2020 - MILESTONE - 30 Trees Planted To-date
Spring 2021/Fall 2021 - Tree Planting
Fall 2021 - MILESTONE - 65 Trees Planted To-date
Spring 2022 - Tree Planting
Fall 2022 - MILESTONE - 100 Trees Planted
page 35
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 7
Project Impacts on Priority Landscapes
The canopy loss resulting from EAB is and will be significant within the City, due to the number
of ash within boulevards, parks, and public open spaces. This canopy loss can cause increases in
surface water temperature due to exposed paved surfaces that were once shaded, contribute to
increased runoff caused by decreased interception, evaporation, and infiltration of precipitation,
and cause increased erosion. One mature tree is estimated to have the ability to use up to 100
gallons of water a day in evapotranspiration, resulting in a potentially large increase in runoff.
All of these factors negatively impact surface waters, including Lake Augusta, an impaired
water, and the Mississippi River, as many ash reside in the MRC Critical Area. As runoff
increases, as well as surface water temperature, the recreational use of our surface waters and the
aquatic life that depend on them will be negatively impacted. The impact on air quality is also
significant, as up to 48 lbs of CO2 can be absorbed annually by one tree, or an estimated 48,000
lbs of additional CO2 could be released into the atmosphere. It also will significantly and
negatively impact the look, feel, safety, and enjoyment of public streets, parks, and open spaces,
which are highly used by City residents. The proposed project will mitigate for these impacts by
replacing ash trees as quickly as possible with high-quality shade trees.
Project Impacts on Priority Populations
The project includes replacing diseased ash trees throughout the City, the majority of which are
located within the boulevard in all neighborhoods, including low-income and aging
communities. Without the grant funds, replanting would most likely not occur in and around
boulevards, affecting diverse populations. The grant funds will allow for canopy replacement in
all areas of the City, especially in neighborhoods that do not include open space or public parks.
The City is dedicated to providing public transportation opportunities, as well as providing
pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. The project will aid in increasing and preserving tree canopy
in and around these areas as well. It also addresses ash trees in all public parks and open spaces,
which are used by diverse populations throughout the City. The City, its residents, and local
native tribes have worked hard to preserve the Oheyawahe historic site, which overlooks the
bdote, or junction of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. This place has special meaning to the
Mdewakanton Dakota, and other tribes in the area. The project will also focus on maintaining
and increasing tree canopy in and around this area.
Communication
The City uses several avenues and methods to communicate with its residents and the public. All
of these will be used to communicate and educate the public on EAB, the grant project, and how
it will benefit residents. Some of these communication tools include:
Friday News: An electronic publication sent to all those who subscribe on a weekly basis,
and is also posted on the City's website
Heights Highlights: A quarterly newsletter sent via mail to all residents, and is also
posted on the City's website.
The City's Website: The City has an EAB page, where information is updated frequently.
The City is in the process of developing a Natural Resources page where information on
the grant will also be posted.
Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings:
Information on the project as well as information on EAB will be communicated at
meetings. Meetings are televised.
page 36
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 8
Personnel
Natural Resources Technician: Certified Tree Inspector, B.A. in Environmental Studies,
15 years’ experience in Forestry, 20 years’ experience in Natural Resources. Duties
performed: Tree inspection, planting, tree care, gravel bed construction.
Public Works Superintendent: Certified Tree Inspector, over 20 years’ experience in
forestry/horticulture. Duties performed: Removals, tree care, gravel bed construction.
Public Works Staff: Four Permanent Employees, all are certified Tree Inspectors. All
have been trained in EAB through the MDA. One of the permanent staff also has an
Associate’s degree in Landscape Horticulture. Duties performed: Planting, tree care,
gravel bed construction.
Volunteers: Tree Care Advisor, Master Gardener, or completed training by the MN
Department of Agriculture, the MN Department of Natural Resources, or qualified city
staff. Duties performed: Planting, tree care, monitoring.
Tree Planting
Grant funds will not fund the purchase of trees that are over-represented in your community. Any
genera that comprise 10% or more of the community forest make-up will not be funded.
Numbers derived from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2010 Rapid Assessment
will be used unless an updated inventory is provided. For Mendota Heights this means grant
funds cannot be spent on purchasing:
Picea (Spruce): listed at 39.6%
Acer (Maple): listed at 16.0%
No trees may be planted other than those specified in the Species List provided by grantee. As
stated in the RFA, species list and numbers can be amended following the submissions of tree
inventory/survey data. All trees planted with grant funds are expected to be maintained based on
the City of Mendota Heights’s Three Year Maintenance Plan submitted as Exhibit C. Trees that
do not survive will need to be replaced prior to grant close-out utilizing the warranty the city has
with the nursery that stock was purchased from, or at the expense of the City of Mendota
Heights.
Requesting Reimbursement
Accomplishment reports and maps of completed work will be submitted with all requests for
reimbursement.
Partial payment form along with invoices and proof of payment for grant-funded
purchases, Cash Match form along with proof of payment, and In-Kind Match form
Partial payments may be submitted as needed and must include all up-to-date required
documents and accomplishment reports
Accomplishment reports will include grant contract deliverables and their impacts
Photo documentation of the project’s progress at appropriate phases, and illustrations,
diagrams, charts, graphs, and maps to show results
Maps will:
o Identify the location ash have been removed
o Identify the location ash stumps have been ground
o Identify the location and Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of ash that have been
treated
o Identify the location and species of trees that have been planted
page 37
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 9
All trees removed, treated, and planted will be mapped and submitted as shapefiles, with
the planted trees identified by species, to obtain grand fund reimbursement. If your
community does not have access to shapefile-generating software, please notify your
DNR Urban and Community Forestry Team Member, and they will work to assist you.
Following the submission of invoices and accomplishment reports, a compliance check will be
conducted by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staff. Staff will do a site evaluation
ensuring that tree species submitted on maps are correctly identified and planted in accordance
with the standards set in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Pocket Guide to
Planting Trees.
Staff will also ensure that the project adheres to the 20-10-5 guideline which means that
following planting, a community has no more than 20% of their trees within a single family, no
more than 10% of their trees within a single genus, and no more than 5% of their trees within a
single species. Staff will confirm that planted tree stock is 1-2 inch caliper bareroot or a
container class size #15 or smaller.
Acknowledgments
Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF)
Since the citizens of Minnesota created this funding source, it is critical to the
transparency of the fund that they are aware of how the funds are used.
Acknowledgement of the ENRTF should be included in all project communications and
outreach – including press releases, media interactions, signs, publications, event
advertisements & invitations, websites, newsletters, printed materials, presentations, and
social media.
Acknowledgement can be made through use of the ENRTF logo. Contact an Urban and
Community Forestry Team Member to obtain the ENRTF logo. Projects are encouraged
to display it within their efforts whenever possible and appropriate. It is available in
color, black and white, or grayscale in a variety of file formats (.ai, .eps, .png, .jpg, .gif).
Acknowledgement can be made by tagging ENRTF on Facebook (Minnesota
Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund) and mentioned on Twitter (@mnenrtf)
when the City of Mendota Heights posts about a project that has been supported by
ENRTF. Not only will this fulfill the acknowledgement requirements, but it allows
LCCMR to share Mendota Heights’s project accomplishments with their followers,
including commission members.
Acknowledgement can be made through use of ENRT attribution language. If choosing
to acknowledge ENRTF funding through attribution language, please include at a
minimum:
“Funding provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust
Fund.” (verbal)
- or -
“Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural
Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on
Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).” (written)
page 38
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 10
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources needs to be acknowledged in publications,
audiovisuals, and electronic media developed as a result of this award.
Including any publications or outreach materials related to this grant or agreement, a
statement of affiliation with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, e.g., “This
publication made possible through a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.” OR “This project was conducted in cooperation with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.”
Logo is permitted for use and can be obtained by contacting an Urban and Community
Forestry Team Member.
page 39
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 11
Exhibit B: Project Budget
Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Response Tree Planting
City of Mendota Heights
Item State Grant Funds Cash Match In-kind Match Total
Personnel and Owned
Equipment $3,400.00 $850.00 $3,000.00 $7,250.00
Eligible Expenses as
referenced on RFA
$9,315.00 $2,328.75 $11,643.75
Totals $12,715.00 $3,178.75 $3,000.00 $18,893.75
page 40
7UHH0DLQWHQDQFH3ODQ7HPSODWHIRU1HZO\3ODQWHG7UHHV
<HDUDQG6HDVRQRI3ODQWLQJ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ
3URMHFW&RRUGLQDWRU
3KRQH (PDLO
6L]H FDOLSHUIRUGHFLGXRXVKHLJKWIRUFRQLIHUV RI7UHHVWREH3ODQWHG
7\SHRI6WRFNWREH3ODQWHG %DUHURRWHWF
'HVFULEHKRZWKHDFWLYLWLHVEHORZZLOOEHFRPSOHWHG
7UHH0DLQWHQDQFH3HUVRQQHO
D 'HVFULEHZKRLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUPDLQWHQHQFH
E 9ROXQWHHUVKRPHRZQHUVRULQH[SHULHQFHGVWDIIWKDWZLOOSURYLGHPDLQWHQDQFHVKRXOGUHFHLYHEDVLF
WUDLQLQJDQGOLWHUDWXUHRQSURSHUPDLQWHQDQFHWHFKQLTXHV,VWUDLQLQJQHHGHGDQGKRZZLOO\RXGRLW"
F+RZZLOO\RXLQVSHFWWUHHPDLQWHQDQFHZRUNSHULRGLFDOO\WRPDNHVXUHLWLVEHLQJGRQHFRUUHFWO\"
7UHH:DWHULQJ3URFHVV
'HVFULEHLQGHWDLOKRZWUHHVZLOOEHZDWHUHGWKHWLPHSHULRGDQGIUHTXHQF\RIZDWHULQJ7UHHVVKRXOGEH
ZDWHUHGZHHNO\IRUWKHILUVWWR\HDUVZKHQWKHJURXQGLVWKDZHGXQOHVVLWKDVUDLQHGLQFKLQDZHHN
ǣ
City of Mendota Heights
Krista Spreiter
651-216-9063 kspreiter@mendota-heights.com
100 1" caliper or #10 container
Bare root and/or #10 container
Public Works Staff, including full-time employees and several seasonal employees, as well as the
Natural Resources Technician. Trained volunteers may also be used in monitoring, tree care, and
planting, including Master Gardeners and Tree Care Advisors within the community.
Permanent Staff have been and will continue to be trained through conferences and trainings such as
MNSTAC trainings, and the Shade Tree Short Course. Seasonal staff, volunteers, or others that are not
already trained will be trained by trainings given by the MN Department of Agriculture, the MN
Department of Natural Resources, or qualified permanent staff and/or community Tree Care Advisors
depending on the requirements of the volunteer activity.
Weekly inspections and site visits to plantings and planting locations to check soil moisture/watering,
mulch quantity and placement, structural integrity and staking (if applicable). Inspections will be done by
qualified staff.
Rainfall will be monitored through a rain gauge daily and weekly. Any weekly rainfall deficits below 1 inch will
be compensated for with weekly watering, or in dry/windy conditions, watering will be done multiple times per
week. Water will be provided by a water truck. Soil moisture will also be monitored to determine when
watering is needed. When watering, the entire root zone within the dripline will by watered. Watering bags will
also be used. These activities will continue throughout the period of ground thaw (early spring through
ground-freeze), for up to 5 years. After 5 years, trees will be monitored weekly for soil moisture and signs of
drought-stress.
Spring 2020 - Life of Trees
page 41
0XOFKLQJ7UHHV
:LOO\RXPXOFK\RXUWUHHVDQGLIVRKRZZLOO\RXPDLQWDLQPXOFK"
6WDNLQJDQG7\LQJ7UHHV
([SODLQLIVWDNLQJLVQHFHVVDU\GXHWRPRZLQJYDQGDOLVPRUZLQGFRQGLWLRQVDQGGHVFULEHSODQVIRU
LQVSHFWLRQDQGUHPRYDO
&KHFNLQJ7UHH+HDOWK
7KHJUDQWHHZLOOFKHFNWUHHVHYHU\±PRQWKVWRLGHQWLI\DQGDGGUHVVSUREOHPV'HVFULEHLQVSHFWLRQ
SURFHVVDQGIROORZXS
7UHH3URWHFWLRQ
<RXQJWUHHVLQEXV\XUEDQDUHDVPD\EHHDVLO\GDPDJHGE\KXPDQDFWLYLW\DQLPDOVDQGHTXLSPHQW
'HVFULEHKRZSODQWHGWUHHVZLOOEHSURWHFWHG
3UXQLQJ
1HZO\SODQWHGWUHHVVKRXOGQHHGOLWWOHSUXQLQJLIWKH\ZHUHSURSHUO\FDUHGIRULQWKHQXUVHU\,QWKHILUVW
\HDUDIWHUSODQWLQJUHPRYHRQO\GHDGRUEURNHQEUDQFKHV ,QODWHU\HDUVZHDNO\DWWDFKHGOLPEVFDQEH
UHPRYHGDQGFRUUHFWLYHSUXQLQJFDQEHGRQHLIQHHGHG'HVFULEH\RXUSUXQLQJPDLQWHQDQFHF\FOH
7UHH:DUUDQW\
7UHHSODQWLQJVKRXOGLQFOXGHDZDUUDQW\IURPWKHQXUVHU\IRUUHSODFHPHQW GXHWRSRRUFRQGLWLRQRU
PRUWDOLW\ 7KHJUDQWHHVKRXOGEHSUHSDUHGWRIXOO\UHSODFHDOOWUHHVWKDWDUHLQSRRUFRQGLWLRQRUGLHSULRUWR
LQVSHFWLRQDWWKHHQGRIWKHSURMHFWJUDQWDJUHHPHQWXQOHVVORVVZDVGXHWRQDWXUDOGLVDVWHU'HVFULEH\RXU
WUHHZDUUDQW\RUKRZWUHHVZLOOEHUHSODFHG
Yes, all newly-planted trees will be mulched throughout the root zone at a depth of 2-3" throughout the
dripline, keeping mulch at least 2-3" away from the trunk. Mulch will be maintained using mulch purchased
in bulk, that will always be on-had at the Public Works facility.
Staking should not be necessary, unless wind conditions require. Stakes will be placed outside the root
zone in a triangular formation, using non-abrasive bracing material. Bracing will typically be placed at 2/3
the height of the trunk from the ground, and attached to stakes at a parallel angle to the ground. Trees
will be inspected weekly to ensure staking is still needed or is affective. When trees no-longer require
staking, stakes will be removed. Trees will never be permanently staked.
Trees will be inspected weekly in the first 6 months of planting. After 6 months, trees will be inspected
every 3-6 months for, but not limited to: disease, heat/drought stress, bark damage, broken or
storm-damaged branches, encircling roots, soil conditions, structural integrity, growth rate, canopy, pests,
etc.
Tree guards and tree wrap will be used late summer/fall through snow melt to protect against sun scald
and animal damage. Fencing will be used in the summer months, if necessary, in areas of high-traffic or
other areas where trees may be especially susceptible to pedestrian/vehicle activity, animal damage, or
landscape equipment damage.
No pruning will be done in the first two years, unless absolutely necessary. After this period, trees will be on a
2-year pruning cycle through the first 10 years. In following years this may be increased to every 4-6 years.
Pruning will be done by the City's hired tree care consultant during the winter months, unless deemed absolutely
necessary due to public safety, etc. No more than 25% of live branches will be pruned in one pruning. All tree
care consultants hired by the City are required to have an AIS Certified Arborist on staff.
The City will request a two-year warranty, and require a one-year warranty agreement, from any supplier
that is chosen to provide tree stock. Additional research will be done to ensure the supplier chosen is
reputable, guarantees neonicotinoid-free plant stock, and is MNLA certified.
page 42
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Policy for Donation of Equipment to Non-Profit Organizations
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to adopt a policy which would govern the donation of specific surplus
equipment to non-profit organizations.
Background:
In 2016, the State Legislature adopted a law (MSA 471.3459) which spells out requirements for the
donation of specific surplus equipment to non-profit organizations. The applicable section of the law
states:
Subd. 1Defintions:
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.
(b) "Local government" means a county, home rule or statutory city, town, or joint powers entity
formed by any of these local governmental units.
(c) "Nonprofit organization" means an organization formed under section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
(d) "Surplus equipment" means equipment used by a local government public works department,
and cellular phones and emergency medical and firefighting equipment that is no longer needed
by the local government because it does not meet industry standards for emergency medical
services, police, or fire departments or has minimal or no resale value.
Subd.2. Donation
A local government may donate surplus equipment to one or more nonprofit organizations.
Before the local government makes any donations, it must adopt a policy on how it will
determine what equipment is surplus eligible for donation and how it will determine which
nonprofit organizations may receive donations. The policy must address the obligations of the
local government to disclose to the nonprofit that the surplus equipment may be defective and
cannot be relied upon for safety purposes.
page 43
Note that this covers public works, and public safety equipment. It does not cover more routine items,
such as office equipment or furniture.
The attached proposed policy is based on a model policy which was provided by the League of Minnesota
Cities. It spells out how surplus materials are identified; that they be first offered to other City
Departments; that materials be declared surplus by the City Council; that public advertisement of the
availability be made for a minimum of 10 days; that eligible non-profit organizations make a written
request for the goods; describe how the receipt of the goods will benefit the organization if requests from
more than one non-profit organization is received, and that there are no warranties implied—the goods are
donated in an “as is” condition.
Recommendation:
The City does not currently have a written policy, and so our recommendation is to adopt this as
proposed. It is timely to do this, as the City may be making donations to non-profit organizations as a
result of the Fire Station undergoing a housecleaning of obsolete equipment at the present time.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt a Policy for Donation of Surplus Equipment to
Nonprofit Organizations.
Mark McNeill,
City Administrator
page 44
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Policy for Donation of Surplus Equipment to Nonprofit
Organizations
Purpose
The purpose of this Policy is to establish procedures for the Donation of Surplus Equipment by
the City to Nonprofit Organizations as required by Minnesota Statue § 471.3459.
Scope
This policy applies to all City departments that generate Surplus Equipment and governs the
actions of all City employees and officials.
Definitions
“City” means the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
“City Administrator” means the chief appointed official of the City, or his/her designee.
“City Council” means the governing body of the City.
“Donation” means to contribute, donate or give Surplus Equipment at no cost to a Nonprofit
Organization that serves a public purpose and benefits its community as a whole.
“Eligible Organization” means a Nonprofit Organization serving one or more of the following
functions: cultural, historical, educational, safety, social services, environmental or economic.
“Fair Market Value” means the price at which property would change hands between a willing
buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having
reasonable knowledge of all relevant facts.
“Nonprofit Organization” means an organization formed under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
“Policy” means this Policy adopted by the City Council.
“Surplus Equipment” means equipment used by the City’s Public Works Department, and
cellular phones and emergency medical and firefighting equipment that are no longer needed by
the City because the materials do not meet industry standards for emergency medical services, or
for Public Works, Police, or Fire departments or has minimal or no resale value.
“Surplus Equipment Form” means the form attached as Exhibit I to this Policy that must be filled
out by for on behalf of a Nonprofit Organization which might be the recipient of a Donation of
Surplus Equipment.
page 45
Procedure
The City shall determine all Surplus Equipment and may offer it for Donation in conformance
with the following guidelines:
1. Identify Surplus Equipment. Department supervisors are responsible for monitoring their
equipment and shall identify and report all Surplus Equipment to the City Administrator on a
regular basis.
2. Determine the Fair Market Value of Surplus Equipment. The City Administrator shall work
with individuals who are knowledgeable about value, to determine the Fair Market Value of the
Surplus Equipment.
3. City Council Declaration. The City Administrator will forward a list of the Surplus Equipment
with each item’s Fair Market Value to the City Council who shall approve or deny the Surplus
Equipment as eligible for Donation. The City has no obligation to make a Donation of Surplus
Equipment. Surplus Equipment that is not donated may be sold, recycled or discarded in the
discretion of the City Admninistrator.
4. Donation. After the City Council has determined the Surplus Equipment is eligible for
Donation, the City Administrator is responsible for coordinating the Donation of the Surplus
Equipment in accordance with the terms of this Policy.
5. Transfer between Departments. All Surplus Equipment must first be considered for transfer
between departments for the benefit of the City.
6. Advertisement. Surplus Equipment shall be posted as eligible for Donation on the City’s
website. The City may also use other reasonable means to notify Eligible Organizations about
the availability of Surplus Equipment. The City shall wait at least 10 days after advertising
Surplus Equipment before approving any Donation.
7. Surplus Equipment Form. Eligible organizations interested in Surplus Equipment shall make a
written request to the City on a Surplus Equipment Form for the surplus items.
8. Approval of Donation. If the Surplus Equipment has a Fair Market Value less than $500, the
City Adm inistrator shall approve the Donation to an Eligible Organization, subject to review by
the City Council. If the Surplus Equipment has a Fair Market Value greater than $500, the City
Council must approve the donation by a majority vote of the City Council.
9. Prioritization of Donations. If more than one Eligible Organizations requests a Donation for
the same Surplus Equipment, the City shall consider factors it deems relevant including how the
Surplus Equipment will be used, the benefit to the Eligible Organization, the impact on the City,
how the Donation will accomplish goals of the City Council, and any previous Donation to the
Eligible Organization.
page 46
10. Conflict of Interest. All City employees and officials are prohibited from taking possession of
any Surplus Equipment on behalf of an Eligible Organization.
11. As Is. A Donation of Surplus Equipment is made “as is” with no warranty, guarantee or
representation of any kind, express or implied, as to the condition, utility, or usability of the
Surplus Equipment offered. The Surplus Equipment may be defective and cannot be relied upon
for safety purposes.
12. Title. The City Administator shall cause any title or other ownership documents to be
transferred to the Eligible Organization at the time of transfer. Any fees required to transfer the
Surplus Equipment are the responsibility of the Eligible Organization.
13. Transportation. In the Surplus Equipment Form, the Eligible Organization must provide a
detailed plan for transporting the Surplus Equipment from the City to the Eligible Organization.
The Eligible Organization must pay all expenses associated with the transportation of the Surplus
Equipment.
14. Delegation. The City Administrator may delegate specific responsibilities for implementing
this Policy.
15. Documentation. The City Administrator shall document the Donation of all Surplus
Equipment and shall keep such records in accordance with the City’s Records Retention
Schedule.
16. Review of Policy. The City Administrator is responsible for maintaining and reviewing this
Policy. Any changes to this Policy must be approved by the City Council.
page 47
City of Mendota Heights
Surplus Equipment Request Form
Organization Name:
Organization Address:
Organization Website, if available
(Attach proof of status as a nonprofit corporation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.)
Organization Purpose:
Point of Contact
Name:
Address:
Email:
Phone:
City Surplus Equipment of Interest:
How will the requested Surplus Equipment benefit your organization?
How do you plan to transport the surplus property from the City to your location?
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The City makes no agreement, warranty or representation,
either express or implied, as to the value, design, condition, merchantability or fitness for any
particular purpose or use of the Surplus Equipment by the recipient or any other user.
The recipient acknowledges the Surplus Equipment may be defective and that it cannot be relied
upon for safety purposes. The recipient has a duty to inspect the Surplus Equipment before it is
used for any purpose.
The recipient acknowledges that the City is not a manufacturer of the Surplus Equipment or a
dealer therein; that the Surplus Equipment is being provided “as-is” and “with all faults,” it being
agreed and understood that all of the aforementioned risks are to be borne by the recipient or user
of the Surplus Equipment.
page 48
In no event shall the City be liable for any damages in connection with or arising out of the
recipient’s or any other person’s or entity’s use of the Surplus Equipment.
I acknowledge that the Donation of any Surplus Equipment to my organization is subject to the
City’s Policy for Donation of Surplus Equipment to a Nonprofit Organization.
I have authority to request a Donation from the City and to bind my organization to the terms of
this form.
Signature of Applicant _____________________________________
Date _______
page 49
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Fire Station Surplus Materials
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to declare certain materials currently located at the Mendota Heights Fire Station to
be surplus, and therefore eligible for sale, donation, or other disposal.
Background:
The switchover from the 1984 portion of the Mendota Heights Fire Station to the new addition is
scheduled for March 26th to 29th. After that time, all materials must be out of the original building, so that
remodeling work can commence.
Most of the furniture in the original station is being replaced, as is some equipment and certain kitchen
equipment. The stoves in the kitchen are commercial grade, but are more than 35 years old, and are
rusted through in several places; those would be removed, and added to the Public Works Department’s
scrap metal pile. Communications equipment which is being replaced by current technology is obsolete,
and should be landfilled.
Some of the kitchenware and kitchen utensils are owned by the Mendota Heights Fire Relief Association;
it will be up to the Relief Association as to how to dispose of materials that is owned, but no longer
needed.
The materials were first been offered to other City Departments, but there were no takers. There will be
updates as the moving process continues.
So as to comply with state law regarding the disposal of publically-owned materials, a Fire Station
“garage sale” will be scheduled for February 29th. Items will be tagged with a price, and anyone who is
interested is eligible to come and purchase.
As the “housecleaning” proceeds further, other excess material will be identified. The Council will be
advised of updates in the list, so that those too may be added to the items that are for sale, or to be
disposed.
In order for this disposal of materials to take place, the City Council will need to declare the obsolete
material as being excess. That can be done by means of adopting the attached resolution, 2020-10. Items
which are not sold will be donated to non-profit agencies, or thrown.
page 50
Financial Impact:
While the proceeds of the sale are expected to be small, those will go into the Fire Station fund which is
the source of payment for the fire station remodeling project.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Council adopt the resolution that declares the material contained therein to be
excess, and thus eligible for disposal.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2020-10
A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL IN TO BE
SURPLUS, AND AUTHORIZING ITS SALE, DONATION, OR DISPOSAL
page 51
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-10
A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL IN TO BE
SURPLUS, AND AUTHORIZING ITS SALE, DONATION, OR DISPOSAL
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights follows the requirements in State Law and City
Code for the appropriate disposition of unused or unneeded property; and
WHEREAS, in preparation for the expansion into the addition to the current building, an
inventory of equipment and material has been made, and the Fire Chief recommends that
following materials currently owned by the City should be considered surplus property:
• Pizza Ovens (2)
• Stove Top/Ovens (2)
• Built in Dishwasher (1)
• Kitchen Utility Carts with Casters (2)
• Banquet Tables (approximately 14)
• Meeting Chairs--red (approximately 36)
• Plastic Folding Chairs--white (approximately 60)
• Miscellaneous Radio Communications Equipment
• Conference table (1)
• Conference table Side Chairs (8)
• Lounge tables (3)
• High top Chairs (3)
• Recliner Chairs (2)
• Ottomans (2)
• Wall Mount Gasoline Storage Container (1)
• Floor Standing Gasoline Storage Container (1)
• Work bench module (1)
• Industrial Storage Rack (1)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this
matter and declares the afore listed material to be surplus, and of no further need or value to the
City; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby
declares the listed materials, furnishings, and equipment to be surplus, and authorizes the
Mendota Heights Fire Department to publically sell, donate to eligible non-profit organizations,
or dispose of in accordance with local and state laws.
page 52
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of February, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST
___________________________
_______________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 53
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Response to January 21 Public Comments
Comment:
There were two questions raised at the January 21, 2020 City Council meeting to which responses are
provided below:
1. Question regarding variances and criteria to be met.
The attached memo from the City Attorney addresses this question.
2. Question Regarding Remote Participation by City Councilmembers who are physically absent
from a public meeting.
The ability to have a member of a public body participate from a remote location is dictated by
requirements of state law. It is not as simple as merely setting up an on-line Skype meeting.
The attached pages are from the League of Minnesota Cities Handbook. The relevant information on
interactive meetings is in Section G. That shows that all members of the City Council, and all members
of the public at that location (in Mendota Heights’ case, the City Council Chambers) must be able to see
and hear each other at the main location. The absent member must also be at a public location, except for
a specific circumstance when the member is deployed as an active member of the military.
The City has accommodated an absentee elected participant when workshop meetings, or meetings which
are eligible to be closed under state law, are held in the City’s conference room. There, a tablet computer
has been set up, and connectivity has been made through a “Facetime” application. The participants at
the meeting in this more confined space can then see and hear the absent councilor, and vice versa. To
comply with state law, a public location at the remote end for the absent participant must be identified,
and posted locally.
However, because of the size of the City Council Chambers, that arrangement will not work without a
renovation of the audio visual system. Last year staff sought a quote to make the necessary changes. The
price that we got at that time was $8000. We were told not to pursue it.
Obviously, at such time as the Council Chambers audio-visual system would be renovated, it would make
sense to include interactive capability at that time. In the meantime, if there is an interest in pursuing this
now and making the monetary investment, the Council should so advise.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 54
page 55
page 56
JANUARY 31,
2020
TO:
COPY:
Mendota Heights City Council
City Administrator Mark McNeill; Community Development Director Tim Benetti
FROM: Andrew J. Pratt, Mendota Heights City Attorney
REGARDING: Variances
Background
At the January 21, 2020 regular meeting of the Mendota Heights City Council, public comment was
received regarding the baseline criteria for the granting of variances. A question was formulated as to
what that criteria is, and the City Administrator directed me to prepare a brief memo on this topic. As
the City Council is aware, several variance applications have recently been considered by the Planning
Commission and City Council, and a refresher on City Code and state statute variance guidelines may
be helpful.
State Statute
State law governing variances is found at Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Clause
(2) of this statute provides the “practical difficulties” test, which is as follows:
• The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the zoning ordinance;
• 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 locality.
All parts of the practical difficulties test must be met to grant the variance. In addition, variances are
only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
ordinance 1 and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
While it is not a part of the aforementioned three-part test, the statute elaborates that “[e]conomic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” The statute goes on to mention practical
difficulties in the context of “inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems” and earth-
1 This requirement is somewhat interesting, because the very need for a variance is to allow something not permitted by the
zoning ordinance. The variance must not be so far afield from the general themes of the zoning ordinance. This test is
almost always met, since most variances are minor deviations from a setback requirement, impervious surface requirement,
etc., and otherwise meet the general themes of the zoning ordinance.
page 57
sheltered construction variances. Additionally, the statute makes it clear that a variance cannot be
granted to permit a use that is otherwise not allowed in the zoning ordinance (e.g. allowing for an
industrial use in a residential district). Finally, the statute provides that a governing body may impose
conditions in the granting of variances, as long as each condition is “directly related to” and bears “a
rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.”
City Code
Section 12-1L-5 of the City Code governs variances. The City Code generally mirrors the state law
regarding variances, as the “practical difficulties” test is used. The state law test is mirrored, except the
last prong requires the essential character of the “neighborhood” may not be altered (state law uses
“locality”). This difference may result in the final prong of the “practical difficulties” test to be applied
more locally, to a specific neighborhood, rather than the entire City.
Additionally, “[e]conomic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” (Emphasis
added). The word “alone” is instructive, as it is clear that a variance may be granted even if it improves
the economic standing of the applicant. Indeed, the vast majority of variances probably do contain an
economic incentive, as they may allow a building to be more accessible for business opportunities, or
to cover more area that may be used for more business space, or to allow a house to be built more
efficiently. However, the sole reason for the variance request cannot simply be based on economic
considerations. Staff and legal counsel will be able to isolate the reasons for asking for a variance, and
if the only reason is economics, denial will be recommended.
Just as in state law, all parts of the “practical difficulties” test must be met to grant a variance. In
addition, City Code contains the following considerations relating to the effect of a proposed variance
on the:
• Health, safety and welfare of the City;
• Traffic conditions;
• Light and air;
• Danger of fire;
• Risk to the public safety;
• Effect on value of properties in the surrounding area;
• Effect on Comprehensive Plan; and
• Variance not to merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate an
undue hardship or difficulty.
City staff and legal counsel have developed a template for City Council resolutions that approve or
deny a variance, to take into account all of the aforementioned factors. It is vital that a complete
record is developed on either side of the Council’s decision, to protect against future legal actions.
page 58
Variance regulations changed almost a decade ago, in response to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. This decision eviscerated the old “undue
hardship” standard for variances, by requiring municipalities to ask whether the subject property could
still be used in a reasonable way without the variances. This test is incredibly difficult to meet, and the
next year the Minnesota Legislature implemented the “practical difficulty” standard. Since this
change, there is a dearth of case law challenging variance approvals or denials. The majority of
challenges to land use decisions appear to be whether the municipality complied with the 60-day rule,
found at Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99. Of course, the City Council must carefully consider all
variance requests, as when doing so it is acting in a “quasi-judicial” capacity, applying the relevant facts
to the City Code standard. A court will not give as much deference to the City when it acts in this
capacity, as opposed to when it implements an ordinance or a policy through its legislative capacity.
Conclusion
Land-use variances are a complicated and controversial topic, and I am happy to provide more
information to the City Council as necessary. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding
this memorandum. I may be reached at 612.339.7121 or apratt@bestlaw.com.
page 59
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Office Support Assistant Hire
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve the hiring of Sheila Robertson for the position of Office Support
Assistant
BACKGROUND
The hiring of an Office Support Assistant was approved by the City Council at its December 17
2019 meeting. Staff has completed the recruitment process and is pleased to recommend the hiring
of Sheila Robertson for the position. Sheila has a degree in Health and Exercise Science from
Gustavus Adolphus College and comes to the city from Minnetonka Community Education.
A conditional offer has been extended, contingent upon the successful completion of a background
check, pre-employment drug screen and approval of the City Council. Sheila’s anticipated start
date is February 24.
BUDGET IMPACT
This is a budgeted position.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends the City Council approve the hiring of Sheila Robertson as an Office Support
Assistant with an hourly salary of $24.91, which is step four (the midpoint) of pay grade four of
the City’s Compensation Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Sheila Robertson to the
position of Office Support Assistant.
page 60
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Labor and Employment Law Attorney
Comment:
Introduction:
The Council is asked to approve the use of the law firm of Kennedy and Graven to provide legal counsel to
the City with questions on Labor and Employment law.
Background:
Labor law (union contract issues) and personnel and employment law are specialized area of law, and most
municipalities have retained firms that specialize in these areas, rather than using general municipal law
lawyers.
For the past two years, the City has used the law firm of Abrams and Schmidt for advice on employment
and labor law. However, as of the end of January, that firm has gone out of business, necessitating the need
to seek other firms.
Three firms which are known to practice in this area were contacted. One declined to make a proposal. Of
the other two, staff reviewed their credentials, rates, and references. Staff is familiar with both responding
firms.
Financial Impact:
We are recommending the firm of Kennedy and Graven. Their quote is $215 per hour for the primary
attorneys, and $170 for associates. The cost of legal services is provided in the 2020 departmental line
items. The overall cost depends on how much time is billed; we anticipate that will there will be fewer
billable hours in 2020. In 2019, approximately $9000 was billed from the previous provider of legal
services for labor and employment law.
Recommendation:
Based on the comparison of the two firms, we are recommending using Kennedy and Graven for the City’s
labor and employment law attorney.
Action Required
The Council should, by motion, authorize the law firm of Kennedy and Graven to be the principal advisor
to the City in the areas of labor and employment law.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 61
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: December 2019 Fire Synopsis
COMMENT:
Fire Calls
The final month of 2019 concluded with a total number of 31 calls for the month. For the year, that
brought us to a total of 374 fire calls for service. When you add in the medical calls that HealthEast
responded to in 2019 for Mendota Heights, Mendota, Lilydale and Sunfish Lake that total is 1,108 calls.
Combined, fire and medical calls made up a total of 1,482 requests for service, of which, the vast majority
originated from our station. For the fire department, the 374 fire calls was an all-time record and was up
over 20% from 2018 alone.
Of the 31 calls that we were called for in December 2019, here is how they broke down: 24 calls were to
Mendota Heights, there was one call each to Lilydale, Mendota and Sunfish Lake. In addition there was a
call in Inver Grove Heights that we were mistakenly paged to. There were three calls in Eagan that we
were auto-aided to.
Types of calls:
• Actual Fires: (2) We were called to one structure fire due to smoldering embers that had
been discarded in the garage and later rekindled. It was later determined that there was limited
extension into the wall between the garage and the house. We also responded to a trash fire
• Medical: (3) The MHFD responded to three calls that were medical in nature.
• Mutual Aid: (4) Three of our calls were auto aid requests for assistance from Eagan, and
one of our auto aid request was to South Metro Fire.
• Hazardous Situation: (3) We were paged to a vehicle accident where one person filled
their vehicle fuel tank and it was leaking fuel. The department also responded to a gas station that
had a natural gas leak in their car wash. We were also paged to a home that had carbon monoxide
inside the residence.
• Service Call: (1) On a very icy morning, we were requested by police to assist with
shutting down access to the Mendota Bridge via Highway 55 and Highway 62.
• Good Intent: (6) During December, we had five calls that we were dispatched to but then
the calls were cancelled before arriving on scene. We were also paged for a call with a smell of
rotten eggs but no hazard was found.
• False Alarms: (12) The month also had us respond to five calls that were deemed to be due
to malfunctioning equipment and seven false alarms due to unintentional activation.
page 62
December Training:
December 4 18:30 Ice Rescue - this drill occurred at Rogers Lake. Firefighters practiced rescue
techniques of a victim in the water using methods that minimized risk to rescuers relative to the condition
of the victim being rescued.
December 5 07:00 Ice Rescue - this drill occurred at Rogers Lake. Firefighters practiced rescue
techniques of a victim in the water using methods that minimized risk to rescuers relative to the condition
of the victim being rescued.
December 11 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.
A station was set up with scenarios firefighters needed to go through a proper response scenario.
December 12 07:00 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. A
station was set up with scenarios firefighters needed to go through a proper response scenario.
December 18 18:30 Multi-Family Ops/Hose Management - this drill is a mandatory drill going over
procedures for fire attack at a multi-family housing unit such as apartments or condos. The drill was held
at Eagan Fire’s Station #2 in their training tower area.
December 19 07:00 Make Up - this drill was open for firefighters that were short the minimum
number of training courses over the past six months and needed to make up a topic.
December 19 18:30 Make Up - this drill was open for firefighters that were short the minimum
number of training courses over the past six months and needed to make up a topic.
page 63
Number of Calls 31 Total Calls for Year 374
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $1,200
Structure - MH Residential 1 $500 $100 $202,600
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined $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 1
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $500 $100 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 3
Vehicle accident w/injuries
Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$20,000
Medical, other
HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $207,800
Spills/Leaks 2
Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $54,500
Power line down
Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $263,500
Hazardous, Other
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0
Assist Police or other agency 1
Service Call, other
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent
Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 24 292 235
HazMat release investigation 1 1 29 16
Good Intent, Other 19 11
FALSE ALARMS 114 30
False Alarm 4 30 16
Malfunction 5 Total:31 374 308
Unintentional 7
False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
MUTUAL AID 4 INSPECTIONS 31
Total Calls 31 INVESTIGATIONS
RE-INSPECTION
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
MEETINGS
FIRE CALLS 464 5562.5 4158
MEETINGS 14.5 911 479.5 ADMINISTRATION 8.5
TRAINING 224.5 3482 1937.75
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 29 626.75 2340.75 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 4
FIRE MARSHAL 43.5 226.4 523
TOTAL:43.5
TOTALS 775.5 10808.65 9439 REMARKS:
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 2019 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Mendota Heights
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 553 – Amending Certain Regulations and Standards Regarding
the Keeping of Domestic Chickens in the City of Mendota Heights
[Planning Case No. 2019-29]
Introduction
The City is being asked to consider adopting proposed Ordinance No. 553 (Exhibit-A), which would
authorize a number of amendments to City Code Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning
regarding the keeping of domestic chickens in residential districts.
Background
On March 7, 2017, the City adopted Ordinance No. 508 (Exhibit-B) Regarding the Keeping of Domestic
Chickens for residential uses. This original ordinance amended certain sections of City Code Title 5 -
Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning; and upon its adoption, the city issued 5 new chicken permits.
On March 6, 2018, city staff presented a one-year update on the ordinance to the city council, along with
findings on approved chicken permit locations; and discuss any edits, changes or revision to the ordinance,
if necessary. Council suggested a few added allowances for chicken permits, including increased number
of chickens, larger coop-run [accessory] structures, and composting of waste and bedding materials.
Council further directed staff to bring back an amended ordinance for adoption at a future meeting.
On January 28, 2020, staff presented a report and (draft) ordinance to the Planning Commission for first
consideration (Exhibit-C). This ordinance was presented under a fully-noticed public hearing; with no
comments from the public. The commission made one minor language revision to the draft ordinance.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a zoning code amendment request and
has broad discretion, provided said action is constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting
the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval (by 5-2 vote) of proposed Ordinance No. 553 as
presented herein. If the City Council desires to affirm this recommendation, make a motion adopting
ORDINANCE NO. 553 AMENDING PARTS OF CITY CODE TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS
AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS.
Action Requested
The action on the proposed ordinance requires a simple majority vote.
page 76
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 553
AMENDING PARTS OF TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND
PART OF TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE
REGARDING KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows:
Title 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the
double-line struck-through language as follows:
5-3-10: CHICKENS:
A.Up to four six (6) female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a
residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an
accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code.
Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the
chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the
outside.
B.The Animal Warden and/or Zoning Administrator has the authority to enter upon
private premises wherever chickens are kept or a domestic chicken permit license has
been issued, whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being
mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals.
Section 2.
City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows:
Title 12-1D-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting
the double-line struck-through language as follows:
EXHIBIT-A
page 77
12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
C.Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts:
2.Chicken coops and runs in all residential districts:
b.Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken
shall be in accordance with the following:
(1)Limit: No more than four six (6) chickens shall be kept or harbored on the
premises to which the permit applies.
(8)Disposal Of Waste: Fecal waste or coop related litter shall be removed at
such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such
waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage. Waste
or litter is allowed to be composted on the property, provided the composting
is done in a sturdy, weather resistant compost bin or dedicated enclosure.
Should the composting be done in an unhealthy or ineffective manner, whereby
creating a public nuisance or complaint from a neighboring resident, the permit
holder shall immediately cease all waste composting on the property and
remove such waste composting bin(s) if so ordered by the Zoning Administrator
or Animal Warden.
(13)Abatement and Enforcement: Should an applicant have their permit
revoked as per Subpart (12) above; or chooses not to renew their domestic
chicken permit; or if the chicken coop ceases to operate for a period of six (6)
months or more, the applicant or owner of the property must remove the coop
structure and all appurtenances within thirty (30) days from written notice by
city.
3.Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential
districts:
a. Number And Size:
(1)Accessory buildings (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed
one thousand (1,000) square feet.
(2)Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not
to exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure
plus a chicken coop and run provided the total area of both structures shall not
exceed one hundred forty-four (144) two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet.
(3)Property is more than four (4) acres*: Total area cannot exceed four hundred
twenty-five (425) square feet, provided:
page 78
(A)No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty-five (225)
square feet; the exception being a single structure with an attached chicken coop
and run shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet in total area.
(B)No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected.
*In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be
located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance
or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street,
alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below
the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this
title shall be excluded.
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according
to law.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this _____ day of February, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 79
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 553
AMENDING PART OF TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND PART OF
TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE
REGARDING KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, MN ordains:
The City of Mendota Heights Code of Ordinances, Title 5 – Police Regulations, Chapter 3,
Domestic Animals AND Title 12 – Zoning, Chapter 1, Zoning Regulations, Article D. General
Zoning Provisions are hereby amended with new language allowing additional number of domestic
chickens; allowance for composting waste materials; increasing total area sizes of accessory
buildings; and providing abatement and enforcement provisions; all regarding the keeping of
domestic chickens in the city.
The ordinance will take effect ____, ___________, 2020. The complete text of this ordinance
may be obtained at the city hall or from the City’s website at www.mendota-heights.com.
Adopted this _____ day of ______________, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
/s/ Neil Garlock, Mayor
Attest:
/s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 80
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 508
ORDINANCE 508 AMENDING PART OF TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND
TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING
THE KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows:
Title 5-3 is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows:
Chapter 3 Domestic Animals
Title 5-3-1: Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definition:
CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly
referred to as domesticated fowl.
Title 5-3-7: Impoundment and Redemption Provisions, subparagraph B is hereby amended as
follows:
B. Enforcement Officials Designated; Powers: The city council shall designate the
animal warden and may, if it so determines, appoint such additional persons as it may
deem necessary to aid and assist the animal warden in the performance of his/her
duties hereunder. All references to the animal warden in this chapter shall be deemed
to include such assistants. Such persons and the police officers of the city are
authorized to cite owners of dogs or other animals for violations of this chapter in
addition to their authority to impound dogs as prescribed by subsection C1 of this
section.
Title 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub-section 5-3-10 as follows and
renumbering the subsequent sub-sections:
5-3-10: CHICKENS
A. Up to four female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential
premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory
structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such
structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the
chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the
outside.
EXHIBIT-Bpage 81
Ord. 508 Page 2 of 5
B. The Animal Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there
is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat
to the health and safety of people or other animals.
5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS:
Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for
the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except
where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999)
5-3-12: PENALTY:
Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor,
be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003
Code)
Section 2.
City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows:
Title 12-1B-2: Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions:
ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets
including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of
companionship or egg production for household use only.
CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens.
CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens.
ROOSTER: A male chicken.
Title 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new
paragraph 2 as follows:
2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts
a. Number, Size and Building Requirements:
1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as
stipulated in this Title.
2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to:
A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of
two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor
page 82
Ord. 508 Page 3 of 5
area of the run must have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken.
The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred and
forty-four (144) square feet.
B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of ten (10) feet tall,
whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is
part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken
coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten (10) feet tall.
C) The coop and run must be set back 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines
of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard
and are not permitted in the front yard of the property.
3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include:
A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather-
resistant, protective covering material, decay-resistant wood, or if exterior
finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected
from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding,
fascia wrap); and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure
regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code.
C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must
be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests.
D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop
and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory
structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code.
E) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other
similar material.
b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken
shall be in accordance with the following:
1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to
which the permit applies.
2) Roosters are prohibited.
3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is
prohibited.
4) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for
personal use or consumption.
5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting.
page 83
Ord. 508 Page 4 of 5
6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids.
7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary,
and odor-free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or
other pests at all times.
8) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent
odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double
bagged and disposed of in city garbage.
9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance.
Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public
nuisance.
10) Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at
any reasonable time by the City Zoning Administrator, Animal Warden or
their designee.
11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with
the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee,
which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an
amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall
be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit
renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The
permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A) The full name and address of the following persons:
a. The applicant signed thereto; and
b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept
and for which the permit would apply;
B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be
kept;
C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises;
D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be
kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and
run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications
provided in Section 12-1D-3;
E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association
rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which
the application is sought;
page 84
F) If the a plicant is not the fee owner of the remises on which the chickens
are sou ht to be kept and for which the ermit would apply, the
application shall be si ned bv all fee owners of the premises.
G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessarv.
12) A permit granted under this section of the code mav be revoked bv the
Zoning Administrator or Animal Warden with a findin in writin to the
applicant that a violation of an of these standards has occurred or that there is
a threat to public health safety or welfare. Such revocation mav be appealed
to the Cit Council whose decision shall be iinal.
Title 12-1D-3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub-paragraph 2 as
follows:
3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts:
2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to
exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a
chicken coo and run provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one
hundred forty-four (144) square feet.
Title 12-1E-3C. Permitted Accessory Uses is hereby amended to add the following use:
Keepin of chickens for noncommercial urposes as re ulated in Section 5- 3-10 and in
Section 12-1D-3 of this code
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this seventh day of March, 2017.
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS
c...Qi.c, 6/J e
Neil Garlock, Mayor
Ord. 508 Page 5 of S
page 85
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-29
City Code Amendments to the Ordinance Regulating the Keeping of
Domestic Chickens in the City of Mendota Heights
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider a few amendments (changes) to City Code Title 5 - Police
Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning regarding certain provisions and standards related to the keeping of
domestic chickens in the city.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the Pioneer Press newspaper.
DISCUSSION
On March 7, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 508 – Regarding the Keeping of Domestic
Chickens for residential uses throughout the city (attached hereto). This ordinance specifically amended
certain sections of City Code Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning. Upon adoption of the
ordinance, the city immediately issued five new permits in 2017.
On March 6, 2018, and as per the direction of the council, city staff presented a one-year update review of
the ordinance in progress, along with any findings on approved chicken permit locations; and discuss any
edits, changes or revision to the ordinance, if necessary. Upon concluding the discussion, the council
directed staff to make the following changes:
•Increase the number of allowable chickens from four to six;
•Reduce the annual permit to $15 per chicken coop;
•Increase the maximum allowable size of backyard structures with a chicken coop to 200 square
feet, with the provision that if the coop use is removed, then the structure must be removed as well;
•One-year inspection for first-time permit holders and complaint-driven inspections thereafter; and
•Composting will be allowed, unless there is a complaint.
EXHIBIT-C
page 86
After the March 2018 meeting, staff revised the domestic chicken permit application, which incorporated
these new standards and allowances granted by the Council for chicken coop permits, including a reduced
(one-time only) fee, allowance for up to six (6) chickens, and the composting option.
After the March 6th meeting, staff began to question and investigate if the increased coop/run and accessory
structure size up to 200-sq. ft. was adequate. Assuming a homeowner has the maximum sized allowed
accessory shed of 144-sq. ft. on their property, the remaining allotment of 56-sq. ft. seemed small compared
to other approved coop/run sizes, which ranged from a low average of 50-75 sq. ft. up to a high average of
90-100 sq. ft. in sizes. With that in mind, staff suggests the original proposed 200–sq. ft. limitation be
increased slightly up to 225-sq. ft., which equals the same size allowance for single accessory structures on
lots 4-acres or more (per City Code Sect. 12-1D-3.a.(3).
Staff is also recommending to consider allowing a single accessory structure on lots greater than 4 acres be
granted an increase from the current 225-sq. ft. limit up to 300-sq. ft. in total (shed, coop and run), but only
when the chicken coop/run are attached or affixed to the outside of the main accessory structure. The city
would ensure that any new coop/run areas cannot be situated inside the main area of an oversized accessory
building, for the purpose of increasing the overall structure space. The coop/run would serve as an
attachment that can be removed should the homeowner choose not to renew or permit is revoked.
As noted earlier, the city approved five (5) new chicken coop permits after adoption of the original
ordinance in 2017. In 2018 the city renewed the five original permits and approved seven new permits (12
total); while in 2019 the city renewed ten and approved five new permits (15 total), and authorized two
deferrals as requested by the permit holders.
Since the adoption of the original ordinance, there have been no complaints or investigations against any
of the properties that have an approved chicken coop permit.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
Since part of this ordinance amendment involves Title 12-Zoning, the Planning Commission is required to
provide a review under a public hearing process, and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
The Planning Commission may consider one of the three following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 553 as presented, which amends certain sections
of Zoning Code Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning; or
2.Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment, and make no changes to Title 5 -
Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning, with findings to support such recommendation; or
3.Table the request, and direct city staff to provide additional information for further consideration
by the Planning Commission, and present this information at the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing; allow comments; discuss with city staff the requested zoning code amendments;
and make a motion to recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 553 as presented herein.
Attachments
1)Draft Ordinance No. 553
2)City of Mendota Heights’ Domestic Chicken Permit Application
3)Original Ordinance No. 508
page 87
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 553
AMENDING PART OF TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND
PART OF TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE
REGARDING KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows:
Title 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the
double-line struck-through language as follows:
5-3-10: CHICKENS:
A.Up to four six (6) female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a
residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an
accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code.
Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the
chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the
outside.
B.The Animal Warden and/or Zoning Administrator has the authority to enter upon
private premises wherever chickens are kept or a domestic chicken permit license has
been issued, whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being
mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals.
Section 2.
City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows:
Title 12-1D-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting
the double-line struck-through language as follows: D R A F T
page 88
12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
C.Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts:
2.Chicken coops and runs in all residential districts:
b.Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken
shall be in accordance with the following:
(1)Limit: No more than four six (6) chickens shall be kept or harbored on the
premises to which the permit applies.
(8)Disposal Of Waste: Fecal waste or coop related litter shall be removed at
such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such
waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage. Waste
or litter is allowed to be composted on the property, provided the composting
is done in a sturdy, weather resistant compost bin or dedicated enclosure.
Should the composting be done in an unhealthy or ineffective manner, whereby
creating a public nuisance or complaints from neighboring residents, the permit
holder shall immediately cease all waste composting on the property and
remove such waste composting bin(s) if so ordered by the Zoning Administrator
or Animal Warden.
(13)Abatement and Enforcement: Should an applicant have their permit
revoked as per Subpart (12) above; or chooses not to renew their domestic
chicken permit; or if the chicken coop ceases to operate for a period of six (6)
months or more, the applicant or owner of the property must remove the coop
structure and all appurtenances within thirty (30) days from written notice by
city.
3.Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential
districts:
a. Number And Size:
(1)Accessory buildings (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed
one thousand (1,000) square feet.
(2)Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not
to exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure
plus a chicken coop and run provided the total area of both structures shall not
exceed one hundred forty-four (144) two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet.
(3)Property is more than four (4) acres*: Total area cannot exceed four hundred
twenty-five (425) square feet, provided:D R A F T
page 89
(A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty-five (225)
square feet; the exception being a single structure with an attached chicken coop
and run shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet in total area.
(B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected.
*In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be
located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance
or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street,
alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below
the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this
title shall be excluded.
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according
to law.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this _____ day of February, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk D R A F Tpage 90
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
E X C E R P T S
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, March 6, 2018
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.
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also
present. Councilor Duggan was absent.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ONE YEAR REVIEW OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS ORDINANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that in March 2017, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 508 – Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Chickens, and asked for a review after one year.
The fee for a domestic chickens permit is $25, with an annual $25 renewal fee. Since its adoption, the City
has received more than ten inquiries and has officially approved five permits. Mr. Benetti inspected all five
permit holder’s properties and found that all of the coops were in good condition. No violations were noted.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the regulation requirements including a limit of 4 chickens, roosters are prohibited,
slaughtering of chickens is prohibited, no sale of eggs, eggs are for personal consumption only, chickens
cannot be raised or kept for fighting, food materials stored outside must be in a closed container with a lid,
coops must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, fecal waste shall be removed to prevent odors
and must be double bagged and disposed of, chickens shall not be kept in a manner to cause a public
nuisance, and any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable
time by Zoning Administration, the animal warden, or their designee.
Some of the feedback the City has received includes requests to allow for the composting of chicken waste,
increasing the limit to six chickens, reducing the permit fee, consideration of a larger size allowance for a
coop or a larger coop/shed combination, objection to inspection of the coop without the homeowner’s
permission.
Councilor Miller asked how many complaints had been received in the last year regarding chickens. Mr.
Benetti replied that no complaints have been received. Councilor Miller pointed out the ordinance language
“... The animal warden or any police officer may enter the premises where any animal is kept in a reportedly
cruel or inhumane manner . . .” and asked if the city had not received any complaints, why staff did not
work with the homeowners to schedule the inspections.
He also asked what the annual cost is to license a dog. Staff replied that the license fee for a neutered or
spayed dog is $10/annually or $15/annually for a non-neutered or non-spayed dog. Councilor Miller stated
that the $25/annual fee for chickens seems to be excessive. Councilor Petschel stated that the license fee
page 91
for a dog does not include an inspection of where the pet lives; however, the keeping of chickens requires
an annual inspection and the higher priced fee would cover the cost of staff time. Councilor Miller then
asked how much staff time was put into the annual inspections. Mr. Benetti replied that it took him
approximately four hours to inspect all of the sites and complete the follow-up work.
Councilor Paper asked if it was necessary to inspect annually going forward since the results of this first
year were so positive. Mr. Benetti expressed his agreement but would do whatever the Council decided.
However, he would like to be able to inspect a property without causing undue angst from the property
owner.
Mayor Garlock stated that if Mr. Benetti feels comfortable inspecting only upon receipt of a complaint,
then that would be fine with him. He suggested that for a first-time permit holder, a one-year inspection
should be completed, then inspect on a complaint basis only. The Councilors expressed their agreement to
that suggestion.
Councilor Petschel expressed concern about allowing the composting of the chicken manure. In the
literature she has read, if composting is taking place and the weather gets very hot or rainy, there can be a
considerable odor. She is also concerned with the risk of salmonella. Even the Center for Disease Control
acknowledges this risk. The City of Eagan requires double bagging for this reason.
Councilor Miller stated he appreciates those concerns, however, he believes the permit holders would do
their best to mitigate the hazards. From an environmental standpoint, to be able to compost makes sense.
Councilor Paper agreed and noted that if composting is not done in a thoughtful and intelligent manner,
then there would be complaints and the right to compost could be taken away. Councilor Petschel stated
she could only support this if there is language in the ordinance that would give staff the backing they need
to enforce the removal of the privilege to compost from that resident.
Mayor Garlock recapped the direction to staff:
• Increase the number of allowable chickens from four to six
• Reduce the annual permit to $15 per chicken coop
• Increase the maximum allowable size of backyard structures with a chicken coop to 200 square
feet, with the provision that if the coop use is removed, then the structure must be removed as well.
• One year inspection for first-time permit holders and complaint-driven inspections thereafter.
• Composting will be allowed unless there is a complaint
Mr. Benetti suggested this ordinance be reviewed by the Council in one year. The Council agreed.
Ms. Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane, provided a brief update on the experience her family has had since
they received their chickens. From the minute the chickens joined her family, it has been a blast. The family
has learned a lot through the process of getting a coop and a run built. They eagerly waited for their first
eggs. They participated in the annual Twin Cities Coop Tour and had approximately 100 people visit their
home. She expressed her appreciation for the recommended ordinance changes.
A proposed ordinance to update the Code language will be brought back to the Council at a future meeting.
page 92
B) PLANNING CASE 2019-29
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 553 – AMENDING CERTAIN
REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS REGARDING KEEPING OF DOMESTIC
CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City is asked to consider a few
amendments to City Code Title 5 – Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning regarding certain
provisions and standards related to the keeping of domestic chickens in the city.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the statement that composting will be allowed unless there is a
complaint. He asked what would prevent him from making a complaint that would shut down that
ability for someone.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff would visit the site to complete
a review before making the determination. He confirmed that there would be consistent
enforcement. He stated that the expectation would be on the homeowner completing the
composting to complete the activity in an effective manner. He stated that if there is a complaint,
that staff verifies upon site review, the homeowner would be provided the opportunity to resolve
the issue and if that is not done, staff would remove the ability for the homeowner to compost.
Commissioner Noonan noted that there are specific criteria/tests listed in the ordinance that would
be used for regulation as well.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he feels comfortable with the criteria included and the staff
process described, noting that his concern was simply that there was a consistent manner in which
enforcement would occur.
Commissioner Toth asked if a half acre lot could have an accessory building of 144 square feet
and a chicken coop sized up to 144 square feet.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that any lot under four acres could have
one accessory building up to 144 square feet and could be allowed an additional 81 square feet for
the chicken coop, for a total of up to 225 square feet.
Commissioner Toth asked why the increase is proposed from four to six chickens and what the
recommended living area is for one chicken.
page 93
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the request was received from current
chicken permit holders to increase the number of allowed chickens. He noted that the staff report
includes the detailed information on the recommended living space for each chicken.
Commissioner Toth stated that perhaps many residents choose to have chickens over the next two
years and asked if there have been considerations on the other impacts the keeping of chickens
could have on rodents, predators, and other elements of that nature.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the City has only received 12 permits
out of the over 5,000 households, which is a very limited scope. He did not foresee a proliferation
of chicken keeping throughout the city in the future.
Chair Magnuson referenced the language related to composting and suggested that the language
to be amended to a complaint from a resident, as the currently proposed language could be
interpreted to require complaints from multiple residents.
Commissioner Noonan asked if a resident could construct a chicken coop of 225 square feet if they
do not have any other accessory structures.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the size of the chicken coop is limited
and therefore a coop of that size would not be allowed.
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 CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Noonan stated that he does not support the keeping of chickens in an urban
environment.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 553 AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 2 (Noonan and Toth)
NAYS: 5
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 553 AS WITH THE
MODIFICATION NOTED BY CHAIR MAGNUSON.
page 94
AYES: 5
NAYS: 2 (Noonan and Toth)
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
• Appointment of new and incumbent Planning Commissioners
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Litton Field will join the Commission
at its meeting in February. He reported that Commissioner Mazzitello was reappointed by the
Council.
• Recognition of Commissioner Michael Noonan for his service to the Commission
Chair Magnuson stated that it is with great regret that this is Commissioner Noonan’s last meeting
and thanked him for all of his input and experience. She stated that the contributions from
Commissioner Noonan have furthered the business of the Commission over the past nine years.
She presented Commissioner Noonan with a plaque thanking his for his service to the Commission.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 95
DATE: February 4, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Work Session Meeting
Comment:
Introduction:
At its meeting of February 4th, the Council will be asked to establish a meeting time to hold a work
session.
Background:
At the January 21st meeting, the Council set a work session for February 6th. However, that date no longer
is viable, and a new date must be found.
The topics for the meeting are:
1. Discussion of Wentworth Park Warming House
2. Lexington Walking Trail
3. 2020 City Council Goals
4. City Administrator Annual Evaluation Process
A calendar for February is attached.
Action Required:
The Council is asked to establish a date and time at which to hold a work session.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 96
City of Mendota Heights
www.mendota-heights.com
February 2020
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
City Council Mtg
7pm
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Parks Comm Mtg
6:30pm
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Presidents’ Day
City Hall & Public Works
Closed City Council Mtg
7pm
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Precinct Caucus Day
No public meetings
after 6pm
Ash Wednesday Planning Comm Mtg
7pm
(Moved from 2/26)
page 97