Loading...
2020-07-07 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 7, 2020 – 5:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall Welcome to this meeting of the Mendota Heights City Council. Because of COVID-19 related physical distancing requirements, the capacity of the City Council Chambers is limited to a total of 23 individuals, including City Council and staff. If the room is at capacity, those without a specific interest in the topic being discussed may be asked to wait in the lobby, so as to make room for individuals with a direct interest in the item being considered. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of June 16, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the May 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Resolution 2020-37 Appoint Election Judges for State Primary and General Election d. Accept Community Service Officer Resignation e. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Improvements f. Acknowledge May 2020 Par 3 Financial Report g. Approve May 2020 Fire Synopsis h. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearings none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2020-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of “COSGRIFF PLACE” – 1875 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2020-11) b. Resolution 2020-39 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for New Cellular-Wireless Communication Equipment at Deerwood Bank - 1060 Dakota Drive (Planning Case No. 2020-12) c. Resolution 2020-40 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Increased Elevation for New Single Family Dwelling – 638 Ivy Falls Avenue (Planning Case No. 2020-13) 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan (arrived at 5:07 p.m.), Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. He noted an additional item 7d. Discuss Council Meeting Dates/Times. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda with the addition. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Petschel aye Mayor Garlock aye PRESENTATIONS UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL City Administrator Mark McNeill provided an update on the progress of the fire station expansion/remodel. 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. page 3 a. Approval of June 2, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approve the Transfer of the Off-Sale Liquor License and Tobacco License to New Owner, Starlights 168 Liquor LLC, dba Mendota Liquor Barrel, 766 North Plaza Drive c. Approve Off Sale 3.2% Liquor License Renewal for Speedway #4516 d. Approve New Licenses for Haiku Japanese Restaurant, On Sale Wine and 3.2% Liquor e. Approve the Renewal of Massage Business and Therapists Licenses f. Approve City COVID-19 Preparedness Plans g. Approve Police Officer Hire h. Approve Building Activity Report for May 2020 i. Approval of May 2020 Treasurer’s Report j. Approval of Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Petschel aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Miller aye PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) APPROVE RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR 529 FREEMONT STREET Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Auston & Arden Miller-Zeman are seeking a Right-of-Way License Agreement from the city to construct a new four foot decorative, picket-style fence in their front yard, and within the abutting Fremont Street ROW. Councilor Petschel applauded the homeowners for discovering the gas line running through their front yard and asked if the City should be aware of the location of these lines. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the City has the larger gas mains mapped along with utility mapping. He explained that most permits require a Gopher One call to have the property staked to identify any lines running through it. He stated that in this case, it is most likely a neighborhood gas line and not a main gas line. page 4 Councilor Paper commented that this request makes sense. Councilor Duggan asked if there has been assurance that the fence in the proposed location would not be on top of a gas line. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Gopher One did a good job identifying the utilities and gas lines in the area. He stated that staff is comfortable with the placement of the fence. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be a post construction inspection of the fence in relation to the gas line, to ensure that everyone will be safe. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that could be done. Mayor Garlock commented that there was an upgrade for the gas lines in this area within the last six to nine months and everything was well marked during the transition. Councilor Duggan suggested that “whereby” be replaced with “whereas” in the resolution. He also suggested that the post construction inspection be added as a requirement. Councilor Miller moved to approve the Right-of-Way License Agreement with Auston and Arden Miller- Zeman of 529 Freemont Street as amended. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Petschel aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye B) CITY HALL AND FIRE STATION PUBLIC USE POLICIES UPDATE City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Council was being asked to establish a Use Policy for public meeting rooms reserved by the public in City Hall and at the Fire Station. Councilor Duggan asked if there will be copies provided to the users of these rooms to explain the cleaning requirements when they are done using the room. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that City staff would be completing the cleaning to ensure it is done properly. He confirmed that there would be a fee charged to reserve and use the rooms. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt the public meeting room use policy for rooms reserved at City Hall and the Fire Station. page 5 Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Petschel aye C) SET MEETING DATE FOR JOINT COUNCIL AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Administrator Mark McNeill stated the Council was being asked to establish a date for a joint meeting with Park and Recreation Commission. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 14th at 5:30 p.m. at the Fire Station. C) DISCUSS COUNCIL MEETING START TIME City Administrator Mark McNeill stated the Council was being asked to discuss the start time for the regularly scheduled Council meetings. Councilor Miller stated that he may have issues with the 5:00 p.m. start time in the fall after the start of the school year. Councilor Duggan asked if the August 5th meeting had been changed back to its regular Tuesday night because of the rescheduled Night to Unite that originally pushed that meeting to Wednesday. It was the consensus of the Council that meetings could continue to be held at 5:00 p.m. until further notice. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the Council will revisit this topic at the second meeting in August and will continue meeting at 5 p.m. Mr. McNeill stated that typically the Council holds special budget workshops and suggested Thursday August 13th and Tuesday August 18th with a potential third date of August 20th, meetings to start at 1:30 p.m. The Council confirmed consensus with the budget workshop dates, starting at 1:30 p.m. page 6 City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that Night to Unite has been postponed from August 4th to October 6th. He stated that staff would recommend changing the August Council meeting date from Wednesday, August 5th back to August 4th and changing the October 6th meeting to October 7th. Mayor Garlock moved to change the August Council date from August 5th to August 4th and to change the October Council date from October 6th to October 7th. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Councilor Petschel aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan aye COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill provided an update on the purchase agreement with Grand Real Estate Advisors, noting that the closing would be scheduled to occur prior to July 30th, and advised that things appear to be on track. He stated that it is being planned that City Hall will reopen to the public on July 6th with in-person Council and Commission meetings beginning in July. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel commented that everyone’s nerves are on edge in this time and encouraged residents to not use fireworks after dark. Councilor Duggan congratulated City staff on their COVID-19 preparedness plan for the City. He asked if there is an update on the Highway 13 slope failure. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that Highway 13 is open to traffic and the contractor is awaiting approval from MnDOT to complete the restoration work. He noted that any closures would be posted on the City’s website. Councilor Duggan congratulated the graduating students of 2020. Councilor Miller stated that school is out and there will be more kids on bikes, scooters, and skateboards. He encouraged drivers to stay alert. page 7 Councilor Paper thanked City staff for the accommodations which have been made during these times, including public works and the police department. He stated that he is reassured by the increased patrol presence and commended parks staff for their work noting that the parks look great. Councilor Petschel commended public works for the incredible cleanup job on the stone of the City’s entrance monument along Dodd Road. She commented that corner looks the best it has looked in the past 30 years. Mayor Garlock commented that he is looking forward to the opening of City Hall and open meetings. He stated that he misses seeing everyone in person and is glad that the Council will return to in-person meetings soon. He thanked staff for all they have done to work through this situation. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Councilor Petschel aye Mayor Garlock aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Miller aye Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 5:47 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair John Mazzitello, Commissioners Mary Magnuson, Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Andrew Katz, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 28, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2020 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE Commissioners Magnuson and Katz joined the meeting. Chair Mazzitello noted that he will continue in the position of Chair tonight as Commissioner Magnuson is out of town and is attending remotely. Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-09 JOHN AND PAULA GROSENICK, 791 EMERSON AVENUE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that John and Paula Grosenick, owners of 791 Emerson Avenue, are requesting consideration of a variance of three feet from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement to accommodate an addition to their home. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; the City reviewed one letter of objection from the immediate neighbor to the east, which was included in the staff report. page 9 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 Magnuson stated that she noticed the different measurements and asked if there is a standard way in which the front setback is measured. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that page three of the report includes the definition of how setbacks are defined and measured. He stated that this lot is uniquely shaped and unusual with the curvilinear roadway segment along the front lot line. He stated that he provided the other measurements for comparison. Chair Mazzitello opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti read aloud the five-page letter received from adjacent neighbor Mary C. Sweeney of 781 Emerson Avenue, dated May 19, 2020, which expressed her concerns related to the request; and read a second addendum letter from Mrs. Sweeney received on May 26, 2020 (letters appended to these minutes). John Grosenick stated that he is present, as well as his wife and their architect/designer, should there be any questions. Commissioner Corbett asked for details on the barrier to making the addition fit within the setbacks. Jeremy Young, with Roycroft Design, the applicant’s architect, replied that they felt that this was the most logical and least impactful approach. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she understands the aesthetics but asked if there was consideration to setting back the third stall on the garage. She noted that if the third bay were setback three feet there would still be sufficient space for any type of vehicle. Mr. Young replied that by doing that, it would completely change the roof line, which would take away the symmetry. He stated that the goal was to make this look like everything was created at once rather than making this look like an addition. He noted that countless hours were spent modeling different approaches. Commissioner Field stated that he understands that the reason for this design is architectural, aesthetics and cost which does not warrant a practical difficulty for a variance. Mr. Young replied that reducing the size would actually have a lower cost. page 10 Chair Mazzitello asked the applicant to define the practical difficulty that would warrant the variance. Mr. Young replied that the difficulty is the symmetry of the house. Chair Mazzitello confirmed that is an architectural element. Commissioner Toth stated that perhaps it would have been nice to see the alternate option with two garage doors rather than three. He stated that this request is a three-foot variance and noted that there would be more questions if the request was for a five-foot variance. Mr. Young stated that had it not been for this unique lot, he would have not even recommended applying for the variance. He stated that he has not dealt with a lot of this shape in his career. Commissioner Toth commented on the uniqueness of the lot, noting that if the home were to be positioned five feet to the west, this would not be an issue. He stated that the Commission has to consider the uniqueness of the lot and presence of the current structure as well. Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Mazzitello asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT THERE IS A LACK OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ARTICULATED IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST AND ALSO ARTICULATED ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Field stated that he would like to find a way to get to the desired outcome but was having a hard time finding practical difficulties. Commissioner Magnuson agreed and noted that her motion is based on the lack of practical difficulties and that there are a variety of options available to the property owner to meet the required setback. page 11 Commissioner Corbett agreed that the practical difficulty test was not met and there are other options available to the homeowner. Paula Grosenick stated that their last resort was coming before the City to request a variance. She stated that they have been numerous conversations and redesigns, but the symmetry and the roofline are a significant consideration. She stated that she believed that they were within the setback and were surprised that they protruded into the setback. She stated that the practical difficulty would be related to the curve of the road and the placement of the home on the lot. Commissioner Field stated that although he has empathy for the neighboring property owner that expressed opposition to the request, his decision is based on the lack of practical difficulty. Commissioner Toth stated that he feels that the applicant has done their diligence in attempting to put this together with their architect, but noted that this will not be the last time the Commission considers a request for a variance of this size. He believed that the applicant has other options that comply with the setback. Commissioner Katz stated that while he has heard many similar comments related to the uniqueness of the lot, there are other options available to the applicant that comply. He hoped that when the applicant makes the next design plan, the applicant puts more thought into the encroachment of the neighboring lot. Chair Mazzitello stated that while he struggles with the true practical difficulty for this lot, the comments from the neighboring property owner should also be considered. He stated that if it were not for the three-foot encroachment into the setback, this project could move forward with just a building permit. He hoped that the neighboring property owner could be considered if the applicant changes their design. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH NAY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON AYE Chair Mazzitello advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 2, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • There are three applications that could come before the Commission the following month. page 12 Adjournment COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:47 P.M. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE page 13 page 14 page 15 page 16 page 17 page 18 page 19 page 20 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 7 , 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution 2020-37 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 State Primary and General Election, and appointing individuals to the Absentee Ballot Board. 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. Training for these judges will be completed in July. 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 $12.00/hour for regular judges, and $17.00/hour for Head judges and Absentee Ballot Board judges. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 2020-37 Appoint Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board. This action requires a majority vote of the city council. page 21 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2020 - 37 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AND THE ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD FOR THE 2020 STATE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION 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 August 11, 2020 State Primary and the November 3, 2020 General Election at the hourly rate of $12.00 for regular election judges and $17.00 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 7th day of July, 2020. City Council City of Mendota Heights __________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 22 Exhibit A 2020 State Primary and General Election Judges C. Leigh Gerber Pam Ehrlich Roland Beihl Joe Coppersmith Carol Tunell Michaela Calhoun Suzanne Ferguson Noelle Wang Jean Haskell Richard O'Connor Bridget Hahn Michael Kluznik Susan Weis Lisa Czech Steven Commers Joe Slater Jane Zilch Jolene Novak-Haverkamp Peter Beagan Sally Reinhardt George Sonnen Nancy Nelson Ellen Sloane Kathie Woods Linda Byrne Stephen Santos Kathy Canniff Michelle Zarmbinski Judith O'Gara Mario Reyes Sue Holman-Sutich Kasey Tunell Linda Weinzettel Elizabeth Moran-Johnson Garnet Holmstadt Nancy Price Evelyn Sunness Alice Beihl Linda Birnbaum Kathy Miller Nedine Thera Sharon Nelson Diana Schutter Robin Ehrlich Billie Slater Kimberly Sheahan Connie Powell Jeanne Dill Absentee Ballot Board Lorri Smith, City Clerk Nancy Bauer, Deputy City Clerk Nedine Thera Michelle Parker Kathy Packer Pam Deeb Sharon Hinze Sheila Robertson Kristen Schabacker Kristin Wittrock Meredith Lawrence page 23 DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Community Service Officer Resignation INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Community Service Officer Alyssa Milligan. BACKGROUND Alyssa Milligan has submitted her resignation from the position of Community Service Officer effective June 26, 2020. The Department will seek City Council approval to post the position for hire at a later date. BUDGET IMPACT The Community Service Officer position is a budgeted position. A positive budget variance will result due to the vacancy. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resignation of Alyssa Milligan from the position of Community Service Officer. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Alyssa Milligan from the position of Community Service Officer. page 24 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the parcels located within the potential Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer & Streambank Stabilization Project COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Application for determination of wetland boundary for the proposed Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer & Streambank Stabilization Project. BACKGROUND The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers Chapter 8420 of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A Wetland Delineation and Determination Report for 13 acres of 14 public and privately owned parcels located south of Ridge Place, north of State Hwy 62, and west of Dodd Road (location map attached). The application was submitted by Barr Engineering, on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights, applicant, on May 18, 2020. DISCUSSION Barr Engineering delineated the subject property on October 8th, 2019. The National Wetland Inventory Map shows three wetland types within the study area, or potential project site. No Public Waters are shown within the study area on the MN Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory. The City’s Natural Resources Technician reviewed the delineation on-site on May 18th, 2020, and concurred with the determination as submitted in the report. No additional comments were received from the Technical Evaluation Panel. BUDGET IMPACT None, this process is a judicial requirement of the City. If council accepts the report, a Notice of Decision will be sent to Technical Evaluation Panel members and their respective agencies (Dakota County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, Army Corps of Engineers), as well as the applicant and any members of the public that requested notice. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve and accept the Wetland Delineation Report and Determination as submitted by Barr Engineering, and direct staff to issue the Notice of Decision. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion accepting the Wetland Delineation Report and Determination, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 25 page 26 page 27 page 28 page 29 page 30 page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 page 58 page 59 page 60 page 61 page 62 page 63 page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75 page 76 DATE: July 7 , 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Acknowledge May Par 3 Financial Report INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND Attached is the May Par 3 Financial Report. The Par 3 officially opened for the 2020 season on April 27. During the month of May, the course had a total of 3,138 rounds of golf played. For the month of May, the Par 3 had a total revenue of $34,992. This includes greens fees and recreation programs. Due to COVID-19 the course is not offering golf cart rentals or concessions. Including the month of May, the Par 3 had a year-to-date revenue total of $60,139. The course’s May expenditures totaled $19,876. The year to date total was $49,973. The course currently has positive operating revenue of $10,166 for the 2020 season. Staff is very happy with these numbers due to a few notable expenses that have been incurred and included in these numbers. • A large portion of the year’s liability insurance has been paid for the 2020 year • A majority of worker’s compensation insurance has been paid for the 2020 year • Chemicals and turf consultation totaling $9,256.87 has been paid for a large part of the season These notable expenses will not be incurred each month, so if the course’s revenue can stay consistent, the course should be able to produce a favorable operating balance for the year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. ACTION REQUIRED If the council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. page 77 page 78 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: May 2020 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls: May had the Mendota Heights Fire Department being paged to 31 calls for service. The calls reflected the following geographic locations: Mendota Heights 22 calls Lilydale 3 calls Mendota 2 calls Sunfish Lake 0 call(s) Other 4 calls Types of calls: Fires: 1 We were paged to a vehicle fire on 35E northbound just south of Highway 62. In addition, we responded to a house fire in West St Paul (but this call is accounted for under Mutual/Auto Aid requests). Medical/Extrication: 7 We were paged to seven calls that were medical in nature and two of those requests were for extrication as well (although only one actually required extrication). Hazardous Situations: 4 One call was for downed power lines and a power outage in the area. A second call was for an electrical power line and there was concern that groups were looking to damage the electrical lines in the area. In addition, we were paged out for two CO alarm calls but both had no CO detected in the homes. Good Intent: 4 The MHFD was called out four times for calls that ended up having no hazard involved after investigating. False Alarms: 6 Six calls for service came in that were later coded as false alarms. Of those, four were due to malfunction and two were due to unintentional activation. page 79 Dispatched and Cancelled En Route: 5 The MHFD had five different calls that we were dispatched to but the calls were cancelled before our arrival. (This number does not include the two additional cancelled calls while en route listed below under Mutual/Auto Aid requests). Mutual/Auto Aid Requests: 4 In May, the MHFD responded to three calls in West Saint Paul after being requested for mutual/auto-aid. Of those three requests, two of them were cancelled before our arrival and the third was to assist at an actual structure fire. In addition, to those three calls, the MHFD also responded to St. Paul to assist with fires that appeared to have been set due to civil discontent. The MHFD sent an engine and crew, Chief 1 and the Chief 1 Tahoe. In addition, South Metro sent a Chief and an engine. Inver Grove Heights sent a ladder truck and crew. Training Requirements 1/1/20 – 6/30/20 Due to COVID 19, the months of March, April and May had our traditional trainings replaced with online opportunities. Classes shown in bold below were mandatory and ones that are not in bold were optional. A total of 14 training opportunities had to be fulfilled (the same as in any other six month training period). 1. Bloodborne Pathogens/Right to Know/Lock Out-Tag Out (February & March) 2. SCBA / Firefighter CPR (February & March) 3. Incident Report Writing (Elite online) 4. COVID-19 & Medical PPE Videos 5. Water Mapping & Air Entrainment (two courses online - UL Fire Safety Academy) 6. Suppression Tactics in Single Family Homes (online course - UL Fire Safety Academy) 7. On-Hands Training at the Fire Station in June (multiple dates being offered) 1. BNSF Railway HazMat (online) 2. Introduction to Heat Transfer and Fire Measurements (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 3. Research for the Development of More Effective Tactics (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 4. Evidence-Based Approaches to Reduce Exposure Risks (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 5. Cardiovascular and Chemical Exposure Risks during Training (online UL Fire Safety Academy) 6. Xcel Energy Responding to Gas and Electrical Emergencies (online through Xcel) page 80 Number of Calls 31 Total Calls for Year:133 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $0 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $3,000 $3,000 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $3,000 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 6 Vehicle accident w/injuries 1 Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$3,000 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $0 Spills/Leaks Carbon Monoxide Incident MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $3,000 Power line down 2 Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $3,000 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal 3 CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 22 88 117 HazMat release investigation 3 9 11 Good Intent, Other 3 2 6 3 FALSE ALARMS 0 8 4 False Alarm 4 22 11 Malfunction 4 Total:31 133 146 Unintentional 2 False Alarm, other FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH MUTUAL AID 4 INSPECTIONS Total Calls 31 INVESTIGATIONS RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 544.5 2262.5 2431 MEETINGS 48 420.5 357.5 ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 215 1013.5 1725.5 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 38 341 193.5 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING FIRE MARSHAL 0 48.5 TOTAL:0 TOTALS 845.5 4037.5 4756 REMARKS: Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MAY 2020 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 page 91 page 92 page 93 page 94 page 95 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of “COSGRIFF PLACE” – 1875 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2020-11) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a combined preliminary and final plat of a new subdivision to be titled “COSGRIFF PLACE”. The property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane, and the applicant is John Cosgriff. Background Earlier this year, the Cosgriff’s and their southerly neighbor Joy Van of 1885 Hunter Lane, jointly applied for a lot line adjustment, which approved splitting-off a 154’ x 154’ parcel from Mrs. Van’s property lying directly behind the Cosgriff property. The Cosgriff’s were looking to combine this parcel with their own, thereby creating a larger sized parcel for their own benefit. This split was approved on March 4, 2020 under Resolution No. 2020-15. After the Cosgriff’s completed the purchase, they sought to combine the two parcels; however, Dakota County officials deemed the combination unfeasible, as the two original parcels were situated in two different subdivision plats. County officials stated when two (or more) separated parcels are requested to be combined for tax purposes, they must lie within the same plat or subdivision boundary. If not, the lot combination cannot take place unless the city approves a new plat. Then, and only then will the county accept a new plat for recording, thereby recognizing the two parcels as one. At the June 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this subdivision item, and a virtual public hearing was conducted. There were no written comments or objections filed on this request. A copy of the 06/26/2020 Planning Report and related attachments, along with excerpt minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0) to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place. Action Required The City Council may affirm this recommendation by adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2020-38, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF COSGRIFF PLACE, LOCATED AT 1875 HUNTER LANE. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 96 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-38 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF COSGRIFF PLACE LOCATED AT 1875 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-11) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2020-11, John Cosgriff (the “Applicant”) applied for a new Preliminary and Final Plat (subdivision) of lands to be titled “Cosgriff Place” for the property located at 1875 Hunter Lane (the “Subject Property”), and which is legally described in attached Exhibit A: and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting to combine and re-plat two (2) parcels into one larger legal parcel, described and illustrated on the proposed Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place, and which are attached as Exhibit B.1 and B.2, respectively, and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested subdivision plat request (by 6-0 vote). page 97 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation of approval by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission regarding the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020- 11, and for the property located at 1875 Hunter Lane, is hereby affirmed, and the Preliminary and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of July, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 98 EXHIBIT A ADDRESS: 1875 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 PID No.: 27-18200-00-050 and 27-53500-01-023 Lots 4 and 5, Colliton Place except all that part of Lot 4 lying north of the following described line: Commencing on the East line of said Lot 4 at a point 90 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence in a Westerly direction parallel with the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 316 feet to a point; thence in a Northwesterly direction to a point on the West line of said Lot 4 which is 26.55 feet North of the intersection on said West line and the first above described line extended and there terminate, all according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. and That part of Lot 2, Block 1, which lies easterly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, all in OAK POINT, Dakota County, Minnesota and which lies northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 5, COLLITON PLACE, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property page 99 EXHIBIT B.1 page 100 EXHIBIT B.2 page 101 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-11 Preliminary/Final Plat of “Cosgriff Place” APPLICANT: John Cosgriff PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1875 Hunter Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 26, 2020 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION John Cosgriff is requesting consideration of a preliminary plat and final plat of a two parcel combination to be titled “Cosgriff Place”. The subject property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments or objections on this item. BACKGROUND Mr. & Mrs. Cosgriff are completing the construction of their new home at 1875 Hunter Lane. At the Feb. 27th planning commission meeting, the Cosgriff’s and their southerly neighbor, Mrs. Joy Van of 1885 Hunter Lane, jointly applied for a lot line adjustment, which approved the splitting-off of an approx. 154’ x 154’ square-shaped parcel from Mrs. Van’s property lying directly behind Cosgriff’s main parcel. The Cosgriff’s would then combine it with their own property to create a larger, unified parcel. The added parcel would create 111,250-sf. in total lot area. This split was approved in Res. No. 2020-15 (03/04/20). page 102 The Cosgriff’s intended to keep the added parcel as an untouched and preserved natural extension to their current rear yard area. No new development was planned, and the city conditioned that this new parcel must be combined with the Cosgriff’s main tax parcel to avoid any creation of a “non-conforming parcel” without any access or frontage on a public roadway system. After the Cosgriff’s purchased the parcel from Mrs. Van, they sought to combine the smaller parcel with the larger main parcel by lot combination application with Dakota County. However, Dakota County officials deemed the combination unattainable, as the two original parcels were legally established or within two different subdivision plats. County officials stated that when two (or more) separated parcels are requested to be combined for tax purposes, they must lie within the same plat or subdivision boundary. If not, the lot combination cannot take place unless the city approves a new plat; and only then will the county accept a new plat for recording, thereby recognizing the two parcels as one. This preliminary and final plat approval is more of a “house-keeping” item, which will help facilitate the Cosgriff’s desire to merge and create the two legal parcels into one unified (and owned) larger parcel, which is what Cosgriff’s originally sought under the earlier lot line adjustment request. All necessary and required drainage and utility easement are shown on the plat maps, and will be dedicated under the recording of the final plat. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place, based on specific findings of fact which support such a recommendation of denial; or 3. Table the request, and require city staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information as needed or requested, and extend the application review period (if needed) in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place, without any added conditions and/or findings of fact, since those were already established and confirmed in the Lot Line Adjustment request under Planning Case No. 2020-02. Attachments - Location Map - Preliminary Plat of Cosgriff Place - Final Plat of Cosgriff Place page 103 1875 HUNTER LANE (Cosgriff Property) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 104 page 105 page 106 B) PLANNING CASE 2020-11 JOHN COSGRIFF, 1875 HUNTER LANE – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that John Cosgriff is requesting consideration of a preliminary plat and final plat of a two-parcel combination to be titled “Cosgriff Place”, located at 1875 Hunter Lane. 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. John Cosgriff, applicant, stated that he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Mazzitello referenced the existing plat, which includes a lot to the north. He asked what would happen to that lot when this is replatted to Cosgriff Place. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that lot to the north would remain as a part of the existing subdivision that it belongs to. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that no comments were received prior to tonight’s meeting for this case. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVE OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT OF COSGRIFF PLACE, WITHOUT ANY ADDED CONDITIONS AND/OR FINDINGS OF FACT, page 107 AS THOSE WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND CONFIRMED IN THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST UNDER PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-02. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE Motion passed 6 to 0 in favor. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2020 meeting. page 108 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-39 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for New Cellular- Wireless Communication Equipment at Deerwood Bank - 1060 Dakota Drive [Planning Case No. 2020-12] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Verizon Wireless, to install three (3) new cellular-wireless communication panels on top of the existing Deerwood Bank facility, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. Background The subject parcel is located just east of the Dakota Drive intersection with Lexington Avenue. The property is 1.66 acres in size, and contains a two-story, 17,120-sf. bank/office building. The property is owned by Dakota Financial Center, LLP, and Verizon Wireless will be installing and maintaining the new cellular equipment on the property. Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas and related equipment installations. The plans call for the placement of three, dual-panel antenna arrays on top of the bank building. The cell panels will be supported and connected to three equipment ground cabinets placed next to the bank’s existing trach enclosure, near the southeast corner of the site. At the June 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this CUP item, and a virtual public hearing was conducted. There were three written comments of objections filed on this request, and a comment of concern from the immediate child-care center operators to the east was verbalized (by staff) into the public record. A copy of the 06/26/2020 Planning Report and related attachments, along with excerpt minutes are appended to this memo. Staff has also included info from the American Cancer Society, FDA and others on health and safety studies related to cellular equipment. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve Conditional Use Permit to Verizon Wireless, for the new cellular-wireless communication equipment on top of the Deerwood Bank building, 1060 Dakota Drive, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-39 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VERIZON WIRELESS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE. Action on this resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 109 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-39 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CELLULAR-WIRELESS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-12] WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless (the “Applicant”) acting on behalf of Deerwood Bank (the "Owners”) request approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a new cellular- wireless telecommunication equipment on top of the Deerwood Bank building, located at 1060 Dakota Drive, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-12, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-1D-14 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use permit request, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit, which would allow the installation of new cellular-wireless telecommunication equipment on top of the Deerwood Bank building, located at 1060 Dakota Drive, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval, as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit approving the new cellular-wireless telecommunication equipment on top of the Deerwood Bank building, located at 1060 Dakota Drive, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-12, is approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such wireless equipment and facilities. B. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. page 110 C. Installing the new wireless antennas and equipment will help increase the capacity and coverage needed in the city’s service area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit approving the new cellular-wireless telecommunication equipment on top of the Deerwood Bank building, located at 1060 Dakota Drive, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. All new cellular-wireless equipment to be installed will be fully compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Code Section 12-1D-14. 2. Applicant shall obtain all necessary building and electrical permits prior to beginning any equipment installation work. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of July, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 111 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1060 Dakota Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 PID: 27-19750-02-010 Legal Description Lot 1, Block 2, Dakota Valley View Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property page 112 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless (Deerwood Bank – Property Owners) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1060 Dakota Drive ZONING/GUIDED: B-2 Neighborhood Business / B-Business ACTION DEADLINE: July 20, 2020 (60-Day Review Period) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Verizon Wireless is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) for new wireless/cellular antenna equipment, to be installed on top of the existing Deerwood Bank facilities, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. Title 12-1D- 4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas and related equipment installations, subject to conditions. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has received two separate comments (husband and wife) expressing some concerns and objection to the CUP request item. Copies of these comments are appended to this report. BACKGROUND / DESCRIPTION of REQUEST The subject parcel is located just east of the Dakota Drive intersection with Lexington Avenue. The property is 1.66 acres in size, and contains a two-story, 17,120-sf. bank/office building. The property is owned by Dakota Financial Center, LLP, and Verizon Wireless will be installing and maintaining the new cellular equipment on the property, while leasing space from the landowners. The plans call for the placement of three, dual-panel antenna arrays on top of the bank building. The cell panels will be supported and connected to three equipment ground cabinets placed next to the bank’s existing trach enclosure, near the southeast corner of the site. page 113 According to the Verizon Wireless engineers, “…a new cell site is proposed by a wireless carrier for one or both of two reasons: Coverage and Capacity. A site proposed due to a coverage need is simply intended to fill in an area where the existing wireless coverage is insufficient for devices to connect to the network. Capacity needs are different, in that a capacity site is typically built in an area that has coverage from another site. A capacity need arises when the existing site is responsible for providing that coverage to a large amount of customers, to the point that it cannot handle all of the connections in that area.” The report further states the installation of new cellular communications on the subject property (identified as “MIN AUGUSTA”) is a capacity site. The existing site to the south is serving a large enough number of customers that performance has dropped below acceptable levels. The area served is primarily between HWY 494 and HWY 110 in the Mendota Area. The area appears to primarily serve businesses and homes in the heart of Mendota and Mendota Heights. ANALYSIS Title 12-1D-14 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. 5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. Wireless Antenna Facility Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: C. Building Mounted Antennas: 1.Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools, businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or townhome dwellings. Response: The proposed antenna panels will be mounted on top of an established business – Deerwood Bank, which is located in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District. 2.Flush Mounting; Color: a.Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness. b.In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude more than fifteen feet (15') above the roofline of the building. page 114 Response: The proposed cell panels are roof-mounted only. The applicant has provided a structural engineering and coverage reports that support the request to place these panels on top of the bank building for added and uninterrupted coverage. The new cell panel equipment will be compliant with the 15-foot height limit (above the roof-line), per City Code. The building color matching standard applies to flush or wall mounted panels and antennas only. E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. Response: The proposed cell equipment is not considered a freestanding tower; no guyed wires will be present. The framed panels (sleds) are weighted down on top of the building’s roof, as per the structural engineering report. The plans appear to show the new roof-top panels will be mounted on galvanized steel frame (typically gray- colored), and other parts of the panels are noted with “solid color” (color not specified) in the details plan. The color standard noted under this subpart however, states antennas that protrude in the air must be painted eggshell, which is an off-white or slightly tan/yellow tinted color base. As part of this CUP consideration, the Planning Commission may discuss or suggest a different (or preferred) paint color or scheme on the new cell equipment. No advertising or signage (either for the cell provider or bank) is proposed to be placed or displayed on the wireless antenna panels, nor will it ever be allowed. No lighting currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facilities. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. Response: Applicants are required to comply with this provision. page 115 G. Accessory Structures for Antennas: 1. Location and General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Response: The accessory or support cabinets are planned to be installed next to the existing screened trash enclosure for the bank’s property. These cabinets are secured behind a separate fenced-in area, with locked access doors. H. Additional Requirements: 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half (11/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. Response: Since this equipment is being installed on private property, the landowner wields more power or authority over the cell provider’s space and equipment than the city; therefore, any unused or obsolete equipment shall be their responsibility to have removed if needed. As for an abandonment bond, the city normally requires such bonds on city infrastructures (i.e. water towers, buildings, etc.), and does not usually requests/requires a bond when equipment is being affixed on private buildings. Finance Dept. staff also does not support the taking or keeping of a bond for equipment on private properties. page 116 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Interference with Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. Response: The applicant has provided for the city review Capacity and Coverage Analysis Report and maps (see attachments to this report). 5. Compliance with FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision; see attached letter. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Response: Not applicable. 7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. Response: See attached maps. 9. Costs to Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. page 117 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Response: Not applicable; the Applicant has not requested variances to any provisions or standards required to install the proposed cellular equipment or facilities. 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed cellular/wireless communication equipment at 1060 Dakota Drive, based on the findings of fact that the new equipment will be fully compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Code; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed cellular/wireless communication equipment at 1060 Dakota Drive, with specific findings of facts as determined by the Planning Commission that support such a denial; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information if requested by the Planning Commission; and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60-days, in compliance with MN STATUTES 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed wireless antenna equipment will not result in any significant physical changes to the existing bank building; and the visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods will hopefully be reduced by the placement of the antenna structures near the center of the bank building’s roof. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the new cellular-wireless antenna communication equipment at 1060 Dakota Drive, with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in this planning report. page 118 C) PLANNING CASE 2020-12 VERIZON WIRELESS, 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Verizon Wireless is seeking a conditional use permit for new wireless/cellular antenna equipment to be installed on top of the existing Deerwood Bank facilities, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas and related equipment installations, subject to conditions. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; comments were received that will be read as part of the public hearing. 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 Toth asked which other locations were considered for this project. Karyn Acevedo of TechScape Wireless, consultant for the applicant, Verizon Wireless, stated that this was the only location that would work based on the locations of the existing sites. She commented that this site is positioned centrally between the existing locations. Commissioner Toth asked for background information on a tower that was discussed on the north side of City Hall, near the police station. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in his four years he cannot recall discussions of a tower on City Hall property. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he recalls previous discussions related to a tower at City Hall and at Wentworth Park but noted that he was not a part of those discussions. Commissioner Mazzitello commented that the applications were over one decade ago and were ultimately denied by the City Council. Chair Magnuson asked if the highest point would measure 41.5-foot height. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that is the overall proposed height of the antennas on top of the building. The antenna structures are planned to be no higher than 15- feet above the flat roof line, per City Code. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti read aloud written comments received from residents at 1075 Mary Adele Avenue and 1044 Dakota Drive, and summarized verbal comments received from Uba ?, the operator/owner adjacent business Minnesota Childcare Center, regarding page 119 her concerns of potential radiation or cell radio waves affecting the health and safety of children next door (written comments attached hereto). Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Magnuson asked the applicant if there have been any studies related to radio waves/radio activity relative to the towers. Ms. Acevedo replied that there are studies that have been completed with results on either side of the issue. She provided details on the FCC Telecommunications Act and required licenses that require operators to operate within the safety thresholds. Commissioner Toth commented that these are panels on top of a rooftop that will not extend above 14 feet 5 inches from the rooftop. He stated that it appears the panels will be proportionately in the middle of the building; therefore, they should not be visible for those walking or driving in the area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the intent is to ensure the panels are unobstructed, therefore there will most likely be some visibility of the structure on the roof to some degree, but it would depend on the perspective. Commissioner Corbett stated that in the picture in the staff report it appears that there is a landmark or structure on the roof that is visible in one of the site pictures. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that could be a dish antenna, or part of the air conditioning unit or vent stack. Commissioner Corbett commented that the panels will most likely be twice as high as the existing equipment on the roof. Commissioner Toth referenced the FCC rules and asked how close antennas can be to existing gas stations, using the example of possible lightning strikes to an antenna. Ms. Acevedo replied that the towers are grounded and have lightning rods. She stated that she has never heard of a situation of that nature happening and could not imagine that there would be an impact to a gas station nearby. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE page 120 COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED CELLULAR/WIRELESS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AT 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT ABIDES BY ALL REGULATIONS IN TITLE 12-1D-4 OF THE CITY CODE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE Motion passed 6 to 0 in favor. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2020 meeting. page 121 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for Cellular-Wireless Antenna Equipment 1060 Dakota Drive (Deerwood Bank) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed conditional use request: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such wireless equipment and facilities. 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3. Installing the new wireless antennas and equipment will help increase the capacity and coverage needed in the city’s service area. page 122 From:Tim Benetti To:Tim Benetti Subject:FW: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:26:00 AM -----Original Message----- From: Please Do Not Click Reply [mailto:support@govoffice.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:34 PM To: cityhall <cityhall@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a form. Form: Contact City Hall Site URL: www.mendota-heights.com ------------------------------------------------- First and Last Name: John Buri Email Address: jrburi@stthomas.edu Phone Number: (651)253-3132 Comment or Question: I am contacting you to say that I am opposed to the construction of a new cell phone tower behind our current property at 1075 Mary Adele. When we moved to Mendota Heights (from Saint Paul), we were seeking a "more country feel" without leaving a general urban environment. We found that here in Mendota Heights. It seems that there are many other locations where a new cell phone tower could be built without disrupting such a serene neighborhood. page 123 From:Tim Benetti To:Tim Benetti Subject:FW: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:29:08 AM -----Original Message----- From: Please Do Not Click Reply [mailto:support@govoffice.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:06 PM To: cityhall <cityhall@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a form. Form: Contact City Hall Site URL: www.mendota-heights.com ------------------------------------------------- First and Last Name: kathy buri Email Address: kmburi@hotmail.com Phone Number: (612)859-5849 Comment or Question: I would like to give my input into the proposed cell phone tower at the deer bank location. We live at 1075 Mary Adele. The houses on my side of the street already have power lines running through our front yards. It seems unfair to put a cell tower behind our back yards. I propose another location so that four houses are not penalized in their front yards as well as behind our back yards. Thank You! Kathy Buri page 124 1060 DAKOTA DR. (Deerwood Bank) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. HWY 62 LEXINGTON AVENUEDAKOTA DRIVE page 125 MIN AUGUSTA Capacity and Coverage Analysis 05 /06/2020 Joshua Martin, RF Engineer – Verizon Wireless This document will demonstrate the purpose of the proposed Verizon cell site MIN AUGUSTA in Mendota, MN. This site is primarily a capacity site providing an offload to the cell site to the south. Capacity Offload vs. Coverage Typically a new cell site is proposed by a wireless carrier for one or both of two reasons : Coverage and capacity . A site proposed due to a coverage need is simply intended to fill in an area where the existing wireless coverage is insufficient for devices to connect to the network . Capacity needs are different, in that a capacity site is typically built in an area that has coverage from another site . A capacity need arises when the existing site is responsible for providing that coverage to a large amount of customers , to the point that it cannot handle all of the connections in that area . Capacity Analysis MIN AUGUSTA is proposed as a capacity site . The existing site to the south, MIN MENDOTA, is serving a large enough number of customers that performance has dropped below acceptable levels. The area served by MENDOTA is primarily between HWY 494 and HWY 110 in the Mendota Area. The area appears to primarily serve businesses and homes in the heart of Mendota and Mendota Heights. In the following requested coverage plots it will be apparent MIN AUGUSTA does not cover a large geographic area but it will certainly unburden the area currently served by MIN MENDOTA. Coverage Analysis Coverage is most often demonstrated by RSRP levels, or the power levels received by a device connecting to the network. Measured in decibels, higher RSRP results in more reliable connections . Certain benchmarks of RSRP is what we look for when we make a determination that coverage is “good” (RSRP greater than -85 dB), “fair” (typically RSRP between -85 dB and -95 dB), and “poor” (RSRP less than -95 dB). Connections are possible in all three categories, however, in fair to poor coverage areas, the connection may become less reliable, especially if there are other obstacles in the way (being indoors, significant foliage or other structures , etc.) The coverage maps on the following pages will show the existing coverage , as well as the proposed coverage once MIN AUGUSTA is activated . Red areas show where the coverage is “good”, green where coverage is “fair”, and blue where coverage is “poor”. The goal then of any site with a coverage objective is to maximize “good” coverage and minimize “poor” coverage. page 126 MIN Augusta and sites within 2 miles page 127 Name Latitude Longitude Street Address MIN AUGUSTA 44.8831 -93.144825 1060 Dakota Drive SUNFISH 44.8875 -93.109385 1897 Delaware Ave. MENDOTA 44.8692 -93.147989 2411 Lexington Ave. South WATCHER 44.9027 -93.16475 2259 Rockwood Avenue SHEPARD 44.9111 -93.146644 1082 Montreal Ave. MIN JUPITER SC 1 44.8577 -93.16772222 2660 Eagan Woods Drive MIN JUPITER SC 2 44.8637 -93.169644 1457 Northland Drive MIN JUPITER SC 3 44.8637 -93.1628 1357 Northland Drive MIN JUPITER SC 4 44.8637 -93.159639 1286 Northland Drive Verizon Wireless Sites in Prediction Area page 128 Current RSRP Levels page 129 RSRP Levels with MIN AUGUSTA page 130 Current Best Server Map page 131 Best Server Map with MIN AUGUSTA page 132 page 133 page 134 page 135 page 136 page 137 page 138 page 139 page 140 page 141 page 142 page 143 page 144 page 145 page 146 page 147 page 148 page 149 page 150 page 151 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 152 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 153 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 154 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 155 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 156 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 157 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 158 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 159 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 160 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 161 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 162 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019page 163 page 164 page 165 6/24/2020 Cell Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 1/8 Cell Phone Towers The widespread use of cell phones in recent decades has led to a large increase in the number of cell phone towers (also known as base stations) being placed in communities. These towers have electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit cell phone signals using radiofrequency (RF) waves. Cell phone towers are still relatively new, and many people are understandably concerned about whether the RF waves they give off might possibly have health effects. At this time, there’s no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects. However, this does not mean that the RF waves from cell phone towers have been proven to be absolutely safe. Most expert organizations agree that more research is needed to help clarify this, especially for any possible long-term effects. How do cell phone towers expose people to RF waves? Cell phone base stations can be free-standing towers or mounted on existing structures, such as trees, water tanks, or tall buildings. The antennas need to be high enough to adequately cover a certain area. Base stations are usually from 50 to 200 feet high. Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers mainly through RF waves, a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, they are forms of non-ionizing radiation. This means they do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) rays are thought to be able to cause cancer. page 166 6/24/2020 Cell Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 2/8 The electromagnetic spectrum illustration above shows the possible frequencies of electromagnetic energy, ranging from extremely low frequencies (such as those from power lines) to extremely high frequencies (such as x-rays and gamma rays), and includes both non-ionizing and ionizing radiation. At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. But the levels of energy used by cell phones and towers are much lower. When a person makes a cell phone call, a signal is sent from the phone’s antenna to the nearest base station antenna. The base station responds to this signal by assigning it an available RF channel. RF waves transfer the voice information to the base station. The voice signals are then sent to a switching center, which transfers the call to its destination. Voice signals are then relayed back and forth during the call. When RF signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station during calls, the RF waves produced at the base station are given off into the environment, where people can be exposed to them. On the ground near a cell phone tower RF waves from a cell phone tower antenna, like those from other telecommunication antennas, are directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy from RF waves decreases rapidly as the distance from the antenna increases. As a result, the level of exposure to RF waves at ground level is much lower than the level close to the antenna. At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of energy from RF waves is hundreds to thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower. Image credit: National Cancer Institute page 167 6/24/2020 Cell Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 3/8 On a roof with a cellular antenna When a cellular antenna is mounted on a roof, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited. Indoors with a base station mounted on the outside of the building The level of energy from RF waves inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside, depending on the construction materials of the building. Antennas are pointed away from the side of the building, and the energy level behind the antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. On top of this, wood or cement block reduces the exposure to energy from RF waves by a factor of about 10. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits. Near a 5G base station Newer, smaller versions of base stations (often referred to as small cells), which are part of fifth generation (5G) cellular networks, are discussed below. Do cell phone towers cause cancer? Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there isn't a lot of evidence to support this idea. Still, more research is needed to be sure. What expert agencies say The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer. ACS generally looks to other expert organizations to determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), including: Other major organizations might also comment on the ability of certain exposures to cause cancer. What they say about cell phone towers So far, neither IARC nor the NTP have classified the cancer-causing potential of RF waves from cell phone towers specifically. However, some other agencies have commented on cell tower safety. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said this about cell phone towers near homes or schools: “[R]adiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS [personal communications service] transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) The US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) page 168 6/24/2020 Cell Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 4/8 What they say about RF radiation in general Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) More recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a technical report based on results of studies published between 2008 and 2018, as well as national trends in cancer rates. The report concluded: “Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation].” So far, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not included RF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens, which lists exposures that are known to be or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. What studies have shown Researchers generally use two types of studies when trying to determine if something might cause cancer: The following is a brief summary of the major studies that have looked at this issue to date. However, this is not a comprehensive review of all studies that have been done. Studies in people living near cell phone towers So far, not many studies in people have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk, and the results of these studies have not provided clear answers. Both of these studies relied on estimates of RF exposure. Neither of them measured the actual exposure of people to RF waves from nearby cell phone towers. This limitation makes it harder to know what the results of these studies might mean. Studies looking at cell phone use The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower typically is many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and cancer, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research. For more information, see Cellular (Cell) Phones. Lab studies on RF waves RF waves given off by cell phone towers don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phone towers might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of Studies looking at groups of people Studies done in the lab (using lab animals or cell cultures) A large British study comparing families of young children with cancer with families of children without cancer found no link between a mother’s exposure to the towers during pregnancy (based on the distance from the home to the nearest tower and on the amount of energy from RF waves given off by nearby towers) and the risk of early childhood cancer. Researchers in Taiwan compared children with cancer to a group of similar children without cancer. They found slightly higher overall risk of cancer in those who lived in towns that had an estimated RF exposure from cell phone towers that was above the midpoint level in the study. However, this finding was less apparent when RF exposure was categorized in other ways. page 169 6/24/2020 Cell Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 5/8 Additional resources these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far. Large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for most or all of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands. While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF waves from cell phone towers. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer. Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that the RF waves used in cell phone communication might somehow impact human health. What about 5G networks? Fifth generation (5G) cellular networks are now being rolled out in many parts of the United States and in other countries. 5G networks are capable of transmitting much larger amounts of data over shorter periods of time than previous generations (4G, 3G, etc.). Earlier generation networks have used RF wavelengths below 6 gigahertz (GHz). 5G networks will use some wavelengths in this range, but will also use some higher frequency wavelengths, at the lower end of the millimeter wave spectrum (which ranges from 30 GHz to 300 GHz). While these RF waves are higher frequency (higher energy) than those used by older generations, they are still forms of non-ionizing radiation, so they still lack the ability to directly damage DNA. The higher frequency waves used by 5G travel shorter distances and don’t go through objects (such as buildings, or even tree leaves) as well as lower frequency waves. Because of this, 5G networks require many more, smaller versions of base stations (often referred to as small cells) in some places, especially in densely populated areas. These small cells can be mounted on streetlights, utility poles, buildings, and other structures. This could result in the antennas being closer to people, although small cells typically operate at much lower power levels than the larger (macro) base stations. The addition of the higher wavelengths from 5G networks could also expose people to more RF waves overall. At the same time, these higher frequency RF waves are less able to penetrate the body than lower frequency waves, so in theory they might be less likely to have any potential health effects. But so far this issue has not been well studied. At this time, there has been very little research showing that the RF waves used in 5G networks are any more (or less) of a concern than the other RF wavelengths used in cellular communication. page 170 6/24/2020 Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard? | FDA https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard 1/2 Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard? Some people are concerned that radio frequency energy from cell phones will cause cancer or other serious health hazards. Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC. Key points: Cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy, a type of non-ionizing radiation. The available scientific data on exposure to radio frequency energy show no categorical proof of any adverse biological effects other than tissue heating. Public health data show no association between exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use and health problems. Cell Phones and Radio Frequency Energy Cell phones emit low levels of non-ionizing radiation when in use. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones is also referred to as radio frequency (RF) energy. As stated by the National Cancer Institute, "there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating." See Radio Frequency Energy and Cell Phones (/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/radio-frequency-radiation- and-cell-phones) for the basics on radio frequency energy and non-ionizing radiation. Scientific Consensus on Cell Phone Safety page 171 6/24/2020 Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard? | FDA https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard 2/2 Scientific studies: The FDA’s physicians, scientists, and engineers regularly analyze scientific studies and publications for evidence of health effects of exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. The weight of nearly 30 years of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from use of cell phones to health problems, such as cancer. Public health data: The FDA also monitors and analyzes public health data on cancer rates in the U.S. population. The data clearly demonstrate no widespread rise in brain and other nervous system cancers in the last 30 years despite the enormous increase in cell phone use during this period. In fact, the rate of brain and other nervous system cancers diagnosed in United States has decreased for the last 15 years or so. See Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety (/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/scientific-evidence-cell-phone- safety) for details on the scientific studies and public health data. Determinations by other organizations: Many national and international organizations also monitor radio frequency research. This section highlights some of these agencies’ considerations. National Cancer Institute (NCI): Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet (https://www.cancer.gov/about- cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet) Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Wireless Devices and Health Concerns (https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns) World Health Organization (WHO): Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile- phones) (http://www.fda.gov/about-fda/website-policies/website-disclaimer) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): Mobile Phones (https://www.icnirp.org/en/applications/mobile-phones/index.html) (http://www.fda.gov/about-fda/website- policies/website-disclaimer) Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission: Conclusions on Radio Frequency (RF) Fields (https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/electromagnetic- fields07/l-2/11-conclusions.htm#1) (http://www.fda.gov/about-fda/website-policies/website-disclaimer) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), European Union: Final opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) (https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consultations/public_consultations/scenihr_consultation_19_en)  (http://www.fda.gov/about-fda/website-policies/website-disclaimer) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (https://publications.iarc.fr/126) (http://www.fda.gov/about- fda/website-policies/website-disclaimer) National Toxicology Program (NTP): Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html) See Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety (/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/scientific-evidence-cell-phone- safety) for more details. page 172 6/26/2020 Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones | FDA https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/radio-frequency-radiation-and-cell-phones 1/2 Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space. For example, an electric heater operates by heating metal wires and the wires radiate that energy as heat (infrared radiation). Radio frequency radiation is a type of electromagnetic radiation, which is a combination of electric and magnetic fields that move through space together as waves. Electromagnetic radiation falls into two categories: Electromagnetic Radiation Examples Sources Include: Non-ionizing radiation: Routine exposure to non-ionizing radiation is generally perceived as harmless to humans Radio frequency (RF) Microwaves (MW) Infrared light Visible light Some Ultraviolet Light (UV) Light bulbs, computers, Wi-Fi routers, portable phones, cell phones, Bluetooth devices, FM radio, GPS, and broadcast television Ionizing radiation: High energy radiation with the potential for direct cellular and DNA damage Some Ultraviolet Light (UV) X-rays Gamma rays X-ray machines, radioactive material, nuclear ssion, nuclear fusion, and particle accelerators Generally, when people hear the word radiation, they’re thinking of ionizing radiation, like X-rays and gamma rays. Ionizing radiation carries enough energy to break chemical bonds, knock electrons out of atoms, and cause direct damage to cells in organic matter. In fact, ionizing radiation carries more than a billion times more energy than does non-ionizing radiation. A little ionizing radiation can be used to produce x-ray images for diagnosis. A lot of ionizing radiation is needed to kill cancer cells in radiation therapy. By contrast, non-ionizing radiation does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds or strip electrons from atoms. Scientific consensus shows that non-ionizing radiation is not a carcinogen and, at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC, non-ionizing radiation has not been shown to cause any harm to people. page 173 6/26/2020 Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones | FDA https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/radio-frequency-radiation-and-cell-phones 2/2 Cell phones emit low levels of non-ionizing radiation while in use. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones is also referred to as radio frequency (RF) energy. As stated by the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes- prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet), "there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating." For a more detailed description of radio frequency radiation, see Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer- causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html) (http://www.fda.gov/about- fda/website-policies/website-disclaimer) from the American Cancer Society. For more information about the electromagnetic spectrum, see NASA’s Tour of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (https://science.nasa.gov/ems). For more information about radio frequency safety, see the FCC’s RF Safety FAQ (https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio- frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety). page 174 CoverBack CoverShort Fold Fold Fold Fold Fold Facts About RF Energy FCC: RF Safety FAQ https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/ electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency- safety/faq/rf-safety FDA: Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell- phones/radio-frequency-radiation-and-cell-phones CTIA: Wireless Health Facts https://www.wirelesshealthfacts.com/faq/ Additional Resources Sources 1 Adapted from https://www.fda.gov/radiation- emitting-products/cell-phones/radio-frequency- radiation-and-cell-phones” 2 https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-maintains- current-rf-exposure-safety-standards 3 https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download 4 https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download 5 https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting- products/cell-phones/scientific-evidence-cell- phone-safety 6 https://www.audubon.org/news/no-5g-radio- waves-do-not-kill-birds 7 https://americanbeejournal.com/why-we- shouldnt-fear-5g/ Energy Emissions of Household Items Electromagnetic Spectrum1 Non-IonizingUltraviolet Microwaves Infrared X-rays Radioactive elements X-ray Machine Tanning Bed Light Bulb TV Remote Radar Cell Phones & Small Cells AM, FM, TV Gamma rays Radiowaves Ionizingpage 175 Fold Fold Fold Fold Page 4 MYTH: 5G is new and has not been researched. FACT: Scientists in the U.S. and around the world have conducted research on RF energy for decades. In December 20192, in a unanimous and bipartisan decision, the FCC affirmed that the same RF safety standards that apply to earlier wireless technologies (e.g., 3G and 4G) apply to 5G. The FCC took action after a lengthy proceeding, in consultation with multiple federal agencies and close examination of the RF research. In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a report reviewing studies on RF health and safety from the last ten years, and found that “there are no quantifiable adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current cell phone exposure limits.”3 The research continues to this day, and agencies continue to monitor it. MYTH: 5G use of millimeter wave spectrum is harmful. FACT: RF energy exists all around us, and has many helpful uses. For example, baby monitors use RF energy to convey information and light bulbs use it to provide light. 5G technology uses RF energy to enable very fast wireless internet access service. And 5G technology that uses millimeter wave spectrum is subject to the same FCC safety standards that apply to all frequencies of spectrum used for wireless communications. So, 5G networks using millimeter wave spectrum are not only helpful, but also must meet FCC safety standards. MYTH: : Wireless carriers clustering in an area will cause cumulative RF energy to exceed FCC limits. FACT: The cumulative RF energy generated by the aggregate antennas must fall within FCC limits. MYTH: 5G networks put our children at risk. FACT: No matter which generation of technology we use, all Verizon networks and equipment must comply with federal government safety standards. Those standards have wide safety margins and are designed to protect everyone, including children . MYTH: 5G will harm the environment and wildlife, disrupting migratory patterns and killing off birds. FACT: Reports suggesting harmful effects of RF to non-humans, including birds, honey bees, and other insects have been largely discredited. Audobon magazine6 published a piece observing that there is no evidence that 5G radio waves kill or otherwise harm birds. The American Bee Journal7 also published a piece addressing why there is “no good reason to expect [5G] to harm honeybees.” BOTTOM LINE: Telecommunications networks and equipment that comply with FCC standards are safe for communities and consumers. Panel 4 RF 101 Radiofrequency (RF) energy is used to transmit information without wires. It has been safely used for over 100 years. Today, RF is used for life’s daily connections – from radios and televisions to smart watches/ fitness trackers and wireless headphones, Bluetooth and WiFi routers , and even baby monitors. RF energy is also used for the wireless technology that provides connectivity for your mobile devices. Separating the myths from the facts page 176 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-40 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Increased Elevation for New Single Family Dwelling – 638 Ivy Falls Avenue [Planning Case No. 2020-13] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to LDK Builders, Inc., which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling three feet (3’) above the previous dwelling structure’s elevation on this site. Background The subject site is located mid-block between Dodd Road to the east and Sylvandale Road to the west. The site consists of 25,191-sf. in area, and 110 linear feet of frontage along Ivy Falls Avenue. The property previously contained a 1,296-sf. dwelling built in 1955, which has since been removed by LDK. LDK Builders earlier submitted a building permit for a new 5,380-sf. two-story dwelling. City Code Section 12-1E-1 provides for minimum requirements for R-1 Districts, such as floor area, dimensions, basements and roof pitches. One additional standard requires new homes shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1’) above the pre-existing (dwelling’s) conditions. LDK experienced a high ground water level on this lot, and have requested to place the new home three feet (3’) above the previous dwelling elevation. City Code allows for excess height exceptions, provided a CUP is requested and approved. At the June 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item, and a virtual public hearing was conducted. There were no written comments of objections filed on this request, except a comment of concern from the immediate neighbors to the west was verbalized (by staff) into the public record. A copy of the 06/26/2020 Planning Report and related attachments, along with excerpt minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve a Conditional Use Permit to LDK Builders, Inc., which would allow the applicant to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three- feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, based on the findings-of-fact to support such a recommendation, with certain conditions. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-40 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LDK BUILDERS, INC. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE. Action on this resolution requires a simple majority vote. page 177 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING INCREASED ELEVATION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-13] WHEREAS, LDK Builders, Inc. (the “Applicant”) requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling three feet (3’) above a previous dwelling structure, located at 638 Ivy Falls Avenue (the “Subject Property”), as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-13, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Applicant purchased the Subject Property, removed the previous structure (single-family dwelling) and submitted a building permit to redevelop the property with a new single family dwelling; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1E-1 provides for Minimum Requirements for Single- Family Residential Districts, with the additional standard found under Subpart A. Dwellings: 5. First Floor Elevation: a) Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1') above the existing condition; and WHEREAS, upon beginning the construction of the new dwelling structure, the Applicant discovered a higher than normal ground water level on the subject property, which necessitated the raising of the structure: and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1E-1 also allows submittal of a conditional use permit requesting the first floor elevation [of a new dwelling] to be increased by more than one foot (1') from the existing condition in order to meet one or more conditions, which in this case are: (2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion; and (4) comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the city engineer; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use permit request, and whereupon closing the hearing, page 178 recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit, which would allow the allow the Applicant to construct a new single-family dwelling three feet (3’) above a previous dwelling structure on the subject property, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval, as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit to allow the Applicant to construct a new single-family dwelling three feet (3’) above a previous dwelling structure on the subject property, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-13, may be approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The known presence of the high groundwater in this residential neighborhood and property creates significant site impacts and hardship for developing this site; whereby a new dwelling one-foot (1’) above previous dwelling elevation makes it nearly impossible to safely and effectively develop this lot without raising the new elevation at least three-feet (3’). B. The proposed redevelopment and use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed dwelling structure will be compliant with the all other standards and conditions included in the City Code and State Building Codes. D. The new single-family dwelling represents a considerable reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit to allow the Applicant to construct a new single-family dwelling three feet (3’) above a previous dwelling structure on the subject property, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-13, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling first floor-elevation shall be constructed no higher than the proposed first floor elevation of 937.3 feet as noted on the survey from Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., original date 05/29/2020 and last revised 06/24/2020. 2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable and other City Code and Minnesota State Building Codes. 3. The applicant shall obtain a revised and approved building permit prior to any resumption of excavation or construction on the new dwelling structure. 4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. page 179 5. Residential construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. These work hours shall be strictly adhered to by the Applicant/Owner and all contractors working on the property. 6. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the CUP is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a revised building permit for construction of the proposed dwelling within one-year from said approval date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of July, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 180 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 638 Ivy Falls Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Legal Description: The East One Hundred and Ten Feet (110’) of the West Six Hundred and Sixty Feet (660’) of Lot Two of BAUER'S ACRE LOTS, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for Dakota County, Minnesota. PID: 27-13350-00-025 [Torrens Property] AND That part of the North 80 feet of Lots 16 and 17, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 3, Mendota, lying between the East and West lines of the East 110 feet of the West 660 feet of Lot 2, BAUER'S ACRE LOTS, both lines extended Southerly, Dakota County, Minnesota. PID: 27-03800-17-050 [Abstract Property] page 181 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Increased Elevation of Dwelling APPLICANT: LDK Builders, Inc. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 638 Ivy Falls Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: July 29, 2020 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling 3 feet (revised from an original request and public notice of 4-feet) above the previous dwelling structure. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. The city received one comment from a neighboring resident expressing concerns of the new home at this location. BACKGROUND The subject site is located mid-block between Dodd Road (east) and Sylvandale Road to the west. The site is a rectangular shaped property, consisting of two legal, combined parcels, totaling 25,191 sq. ft. in area, with 110-ft. of linear frontage along Ivy Falls Avenue. The property previously contained a 1,296-sf., single-story dwelling with a two-car tuck-under garage, built in 1955 (see images-below). page 182 LDK Builders purchased this property late last year and removed the old dwelling. Afterwards, they submitted a new home building permit for a new 5,380-sf. two-story, single-family dwelling (see partial elevation images – below). City Code Section 12-1E-1 provides for Minimum Requirements for Single-Family Residential Districts, such as minimum floor area, structure dimensions, basements and roof pitches. Subpart 5 of this section requires certain standards for first floor elevations of new homes: a. Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1') above the existing condition. c. By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one foot (1') from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions: (1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2') above the 100-year flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). (2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of Minnesota or by a certified hydrologist, and the results provided for review and consideration. (3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. (4) Comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the city engineer. The original plan called for a new home to be built one-foot (1’) above the previous dwelling’s elevation of 934.3-ft. (see survey image & info –below). However, while digging for the new foundation, the builder discovered an unusually high groundwater level approx. 4-5 feet below the normal surface elevation, and work was halted immediately. page 183 The builder requested city staff’s guidance on this groundwater and building elevation issues; and with the Public Works Director’s knowledge and experience of working in this Ivy Falls neighborhood area, and other issues and concerns with other residential dwellings in this same neighborhood, it was suggested that the builder re-design and request to raise the proposed home elevation by an amount or level high enough to stay out of the high groundwater on this lot. After personally meeting with the builder on the subject lot, the builder and city staff agreed to revise the original proposed elevation request from 938.3 (4’ increase) to a reduced 937.3, or 3-ft. above the original dwelling elevation. The developer also agreed to submit a revised plan on the house with slightly reduced roof pitches and roof-lines of house, in order to reduce (as much as possible) the impacts the higher elevated home may present with the properties next door. A conditional use permit is required for any such request to develop a new home in excess of one-foot (1’) above the elevation of the old home; and this request falls under the category of subpart c.(2) and c.(4) noted above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a) Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. page 184 A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: This Ivy Falls Avenue neighborhood consists of a variety of one and two-story homes, some with similar “tuck-under” garage designs as the previous dwelling’s design of the 1950’s. There are also appears to be a few, newer homes with straight drive in garages as well. Staff is unsure if these similar tuck-under garage style homes were built due to the presence of high ground water elevations existing back in the 1950’s, or if this was simply a preferred building style at that time. The previous home was setback 14.7 ft. from the west lot line (with 642 Ivy Falls Ave.) and 46.2-ft. from the easterly line (with 630 Ivy Falls Ave.). The new home is now planned to have setbacks of 30.4-ft. from the west and 15.6-ft. from the east line. Regardless of this new two-story design, increased setbacks and higher elevation, staff does not believe the proposed new home location and elevation will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community, as this new home should fit nicely with the other established residential homes. The new home is for single-family living only, so there should be no serious or increased impacts to traffic congestion or safety, and there appears to be no conclusive evidence or reasons to believe a new home would seriously depreciate surrounding property values due to this home. Staff feels the proposed use of the subject property as a single-family dwelling, even one that is elevated higher than the neighboring properties, remains in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: City Code Section 12-1E-1 (noted above), states all single-family dwellings shall have a basement under at least 50% of the first floor level. For usefulness and habitable space reasons, most basements are built with 9-10 foot walls of either poured concrete or concrete blocks. Since this proposed basement (and any basement) is preferred by most residential owners to be kept warm and dry, and due to the debilitating effect water has on structures, it is imperative this basement space be kept free and clear as much as possible from any groundwater penetration or saturation, which can cause leaks, structural failures and property damage to the home, and pose potential health and safety impacts (i.e. mold) for homeowners. The east side elevation of the new home is shown at 934-ft., while the next door home at 630 Ivy Falls is shown at 932.5-ft., so a 1.5+ ft. difference on this side. The west side of the new home is shown with a ground elevation of 933-ft., while the home to the west at 640 Ivy Falls is at 927.8-928.4-ft., which is almost a 6-ft. difference. This difference however, is minimized even further by the greater (almost 2x) setback from this side-yard, which should help lessen the impacts of the higher home elevation when viewed from this neighboring property. The Applicant is providing a reasonable request to raise the elevation of this new home, due to the known presence of groundwater in this area. Raising this home by such a level may likely set the house a bit higher than others on each side of it, but it should all be done within all other site development standards (setbacks, roof-heights, etc.) that are required for single family structures. It is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use for the subject residential site conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code (zoning) and the comprehensive plans. page 185 REQUESTED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three-feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, based on the findings-of-fact to support such a recommendation, with certain conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three-feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, with specific findings of facts determined by the Planning Commission that support such a recommendation of denial; or 3. Table the requested planning application item, direct staff or the applicant to provide additional information (if needed); and allow this item to be brought back for further review at a future planning commission meeting; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the conditional use permit to LDK Builders, Inc. to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three-feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, based on the findings of fact of support, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling first floor-elevation shall be constructed no higher than the proposed first floor elevation of 937.3 feet as noted on the survey from Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated May 29, 2020. 2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable and other City Code and Minnesota State Building Codes. 3. The applicant shall obtain a revised and approved building permit prior to any resumption of excavation or construction on the new dwelling structure. 4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Residential construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. These work hours shall be strictly adhered to by the Applicant/Owner and all contractors working on the property. 6. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the CUP is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a revised building permit for construction of the proposed dwelling within one-year from said approval date. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location/Aerial site map 2. Survey/Site Plan 3. New Dwelling Elevation Plans page 186 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for 638 Ivy Falls Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The known presence of the high groundwater in this residential neighborhood and property creates significant site impacts and hardship for developing this site; whereby a new dwelling one-foot (1’) above previous dwelling elevation makes it nearly impossible to safely and effectively develop this lot without raising the new elevation at least three-feet (3’). 2. The proposed redevelopment and use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed dwelling structure will be compliant with the all other standards and conditions included in the City Code and State Building Codes. 4. The new single-family dwelling represents a considerable reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. page 187 SITE PHOTOS – 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE page 188 page 189 D) PLANNING CASE 2020-13 LDK BUILDERS, 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling three feet above the previous dwelling structure. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one comment was received that will be part of the public hearing. 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 Toth asked if the grade change would change in any way that would impact the runoff received by the adjacent neighbor or whether that would remain the same. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there will be some slight changes on the east side. He stated that staff is aware of issues with the property to the east and this request will ensure that this site handles its own drainage, noting the diagram showing the flow for this property. He stated that the applicant is also placing drain tiles that would tie into the City storm system. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti summarized verbal comments received from the neighbor to the west that will be a part of the record. He stated that the applicant will work with the neighbor to resolve any concerns. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LDK BUILDERS, INC. TO RAISE THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING BY THREE FEET FROM page 190 THE PREVIOUS DWELLING’S ELEVATION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF SUPPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED NO HIGHER THAN THE PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION OF 937.3 FEET AS NOTED ON THE SURVEY FROM SATHRE- BERQUIST, INC., DATED MAY 29, 2020. 2. THE PROPOSED DWELLING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE AND OTHER CITY CODE AND MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODES. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A REVISED AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO ANY RESUMPTION OF EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION ON THE NEW DWELLING STRUCTURE. 4. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 5. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE 7 A.M. TO 8 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 9 A.M. TO 5 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. THESE WORK HOURS SHALL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO BY THE APPLICANT/OWNER AND ALL CONTRACTORS WORKING ON THE PROPERTY. 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AND CORRESPONDING SITE PLAN. IF THE CUP IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A REVISED BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM SAID APPROVAL DATE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE Motion passed 6 to 0 in favor. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2020 meeting. page 191 638 IVY FALLS AVE. (LDK Builders) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 192 page 193 page 194 page 195 page 196 page 197