Loading...
2020-07-21 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 21, 2020 – 5:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Moment of Silence – In memory of Officer Scott Patrick (EOW July 30, 2014) 5. Adopt Agenda 6. Consent Agenda a. Approval of July 7, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of July 14, 2020 Joint Council and Parks Rec Commission Minutes c. Approve Refund of Massage Therapist License d. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the parcel located at 681 Brookside Lane e. Accept Wetland Delineation Report for the parcel located at 1770 Dodd Road f. Approve Resolution 2020-42 Accepting Donation Of Television g. Approve Resolution 2020-36 Donation of Park Bench and Shade Trees h. Accept the Retirement of Firefighter Rich Gapinski i. Accept the Resignation of Firefighter Joe King j. Authorize the purchase of a dryer system for Turn-Out Gear k. Approve Building Activity Report for June 2020 l. Approval of June 2020 Treasurer’s Report m. Approval of Claims List 7. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 8. Public Hearings none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2020-39 Approving a Conditional Use Permit request from Verizon Wireless for New Cellular-Wireless Communication Equipment at Deerwood Bank - 1060 Dakota Drive (Planning Case No. 2020-12) TABLED FROM THE JULY 7, 2020 MEETING b. Resolution 2020-41 Denying – OR – Approving the Preliminary Plat and Variance request from Fred & Beverly Peterson, requesting a proposed three lot subdivision titled “MOEHN ADDITION”, located at 1770 Dodd Road (Planning Case No. 2020-10) c. License Agreement for 696 Brookside Lane d. Contract for Construction of Wentworth Park Warming House 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Moment of Silence—In Memory of Officer Scott Patrick COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its meeting of July 21st, the City Council and members of the audience will be asked to observe a moment of silence to remember Officer Scott Patrick. BACKGROUND Officer Patrick was shot and killed while in the service of others on July 30, 2014. As a way to remember his sacrifice, it is the practice of the Mendota Heights City Council to observe a moment of silence at its second regular July meeting. This is the meeting which is the closest to, and in advance, of the anniversary date of his death. ACTION REQUIRED Those in attendance at the July 21st City Council meeting will be asked to observe a moment of silence to honor the memory of Mendota Heights Police Officer Scott Patrick. _________________________ Mark McNeill City Administrator page 3 page 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 7, 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, Miller, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Paper was absent. Mayor Garlock stated that after holding the Council meetings virtually for the past three months, the Council is now meeting in person and he reviewed the rules for in person meetings. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented. a. Approval of 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 Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer-Streambank Improvements f. Acknowledge May 2020 Par 3 Financial Report g. Approve May 2020 Fire Synopsis h. Approval of Claims List page 5 Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. 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) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider a resolution approving a combined preliminary and final plat of a new subdivision to be titled “Cosgriff Place”, located at 1875 Hunter Lane. Councilor Duggan referenced the map of the property and received confirmation that the portion in red is the portion to add to this property. He asked for details about the property behind that portion marked in red. Mr. Benetti stated that he believed that is privately owned by the property owner to the south. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2020-38 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF COSGRIFF PLACE LOCATED AT 1875 HUNTER LANE. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 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) Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a brief background on this item. The Council was asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Verizon Wireless, to install three new cellular-wireless communication panels on top of the existing Deerwood Bank facility, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. Councilor Duggan asked about the distance between the proposed equipment and the neighboring residential properties. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the distance is about 150 feet. page 6 Councilor Duggan asked what the distance is between this proposed site and the nearest existing cellular equipment. Mr. Benetti commented that the distance is about one mile. Councilor Duggan commented that he understands that this equipment is on the roof of the building and would transmit through waves at that height, which is ten to 15 feet above the existing buildings, therefore there should be of no harm to the health of residents in the area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that to be true. He noted that the only harmful potential is if a person were to stand directly in front of the tower when it is turned on. He noted that the equipment is serviced when the equipment is turned off. Councilor Duggan asked for clarification of the information included in the analysis and technical report. Mr. Benetti provided additional details on the structural engineer review that would be required to ensure the roof can support the equipment. Councilor Duggan asked if the total height would be below the maximum height allowed by the City Code. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that this height would be under the allowed height. Councilor Duggan asked if all of the equipment would be located on the roof. Mr. Benetti commented that there will be a separate outdoor secured facility next to the trash enclosure. He noted that it would be matched to look like the existing trash enclosure and the equipment would be similar to an electrical transformer and would not transmit waves. Councilor Duggan commented that the applicant is meeting all the requirements asked by the City. He asked how capacity needs are known. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the company has done its own analysis and would have a list of customer complaints. Councilor Duggan asked what would happen if this is installed and the customers are still not happy with the cell phone coverage. Mr. Benetti commented that the company would complete further analysis to determine if additional equipment would be needed in other locations. Councilor Duggan commented that he would want to ensure that the company would fix any failures that could result from this equipment interfering with other equipment. Councilor Petschel commented that people in the city are not getting good cell phone coverage because of the dead spots in Mendota Heights and additional equipment arrays, such as this, are needed. Councilor Duggan asked if additional coverage is needed to the south. Mr. Benetti displayed the coverage map, noting that the area to the south is covered by antennas at the water tower site. Mayor Garlock commented that, from his experience, this spot in Mendota Heights is the worst spot for coverage. He provided examples of when police officers would lose connectivity on their computers when driving through this area. page 7 Councilor Petschel commented that when she campaigned, going door to door, she received many complaints from residents related to connectivity in this area. She stated that the Council provided direction to staff to reach out to cellular providers to ask them to address this issue. She commented that there are more people working from home now and the need for good coverage is increasing. Councilor Miller asked for clarification on RSP. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided details on the reception level and displayed the coverage map. Councilor Miller commented that it does not appear that this will increase the coverage by very much. He commented that it would be nice to know why this location was chosen over other locations, such as on top of the City Hall building. Mr. Benetti stated that he believes the applicant studied the possibility of the water tower but there is already good coverage in that area, therefore the bank location was chosen to provide an increase in coverage to the north. He noted that not all business owners are interested in having this equipment on their building and therefore it is a hunting game to find a good location. Councilor Miller asked if anyone on the Council was a part of the discussion related to a cell tower at City Hall. Councilor Duggan commented that he was a part of that discussion related to cellular equipment and creating the City’s regulations. He stated that he was unsure of the details related to the City Hall location. Councilor Petschel commented that the structure proposed for City Hall would have been obtrusive because of its size and height. She noted that this is not just an issue of coverage but also of capacity. She commented that the green area on the maps receives fair coverage and believed that the quality of coverage would increase once this is installed. Councilor Miller commented that he is not against this, as connectivity is important, but it would be nice to have an expert present to address questions. He stated that he would like to know why this location was chosen over other locations, as this is adjacent to a daycare center. Councilor Petschel commented that there are two equipment installations on top of the Eagle Ridge apartment building, which has been done with success and no impact to the residents. Councilor Duggan commented that there are similar arrays on top of the Henry Sibley High School. He applauded the applicant for completing the study and identifying the challenges. He stated that he would want to include a statement that Verizon would come back to provide better coverage, should this not work. Councilor Miller stated that he would prefer to have the information presented by the applicant. He stated that he is not opposed to the request, but when looking at the diagram, he did not believe that this would provide the amount of change desired. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that this is not meant to be a cure all but is meant to address a dead spot and is based on the locations available. Councilor Petschel commented this will provide that additional capacity that is needed. page 8 Councilor Duggan suggested an amendment to a proposed condition in the resolution, which would require the applicant to come back if this does not provide the desired solution. Councilor Petschel agreed that she would want some type of verification after installation that would ensure that the problem has been addressed. Mayor Garlock commented on the frustration involved for public safety attempting to get information on the way to a dangerous call when driving through this dead spot. He stated that this situation has been unacceptable for public safety. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that a CUP could be revoked if the criteria is not met. He commented that it would seem that the intent would be to add an additional step that would begin the discussion. Councilor Petschel asked if language could be included that would state if the antenna equipment fails to address the current dead spot for public safety at the Highway 62/Lexington Avenue intersection, then the applicant would review the technology and make adjustments as needed. City Attorney Andrew Pratt provided suggested language that could be included as an additional condition. Mayor Garlock asked for comments from the public. Tim Curley, 2049 Patricia Street, former owner of Curley Furniture which is now Mendota Daycare, asked if this is 4G or 5G equipment. He commented that it would be nice to have a representative from the applicant present. He is confused on where the water tower site is located on the coverage map. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that this would be the same equipment that is on the water tower, which is 4G equipment. Mr. Curley asked if the applicant could upgrade to 5G once the equipment is installed or whether that would require an additional approval. He noted the proximity to the daycare and residential properties. He asked why the City would not locate this equipment on City property in order to obtain that revenue. He believed that this request should be tabled, and the applicant should be present at the next meeting. Ekraam Abdilahi, owner of Mendota Child Daycare Center, stated that she is concerned with the potential health impacts to the children at the daycare facility. She commented that the City should ensure that the health of residents is protected along with providing increased coverage. Councilor Duggan commented that perhaps it would be reasonable to invite the applicant back in two weeks to provide comments on this request. He asked if there is a record of health prior to installation that would be used for comparison after the installation. Councilor Petschel commented that there are two engineers on the Planning Commission, one being an electrical engineer. She stated that there has been no evidence that non-ionizing radiation has an impact on health. She stated that the radiation from this type of equipment would be similar to a radio or television remote control. She noted that once inside a building, the structure itself reduces the impact as well. That page 9 information from numerous studies and the American Cancer Society was provided in the packet showing that data. These structures have been around for some time and are located in multiple places around Mendota Heights. She is not convinced that delaying the vote would make a difference. Councilor Miller stated that he is not opposed to the project but wants to make sure that whatever is done makes the most sense. He stated that he would find it helpful to have a representative from the applicant present to answer questions. He asked the timeline impact of delaying the decision for two weeks. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the applicant’s representative would have been present tonight but couldn’t due to medical reasons. He hoped that the applicant could attend the next meeting. He noted that the 60-day review period would expire on July 20th, while the Council’s next meeting will be July 21st and therefore the Council should request/extend the review period by 60 days. City Attorney Andrew Pratt explained that the City has a right to extend the application by 60 days, but it is better to have a collaborative process. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that if the applicant does not agree to the extension, the City Council could hold a special meeting to take action or issue a 60-day extension itself. Mayo r Garlock moved to table RESOLUTION 20202-39 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VERIZON WIRELESS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1060 DAKOTA DRIVE to the next meeting, and to requesting a 60-day extension for review. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 C) RESOLUTION 2020-40 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INCREASED ELEVATION NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING – 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-13) Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated the Council is being 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 above the previous dwelling structure’s elevation on this site. Councilor Petschel stated that for a long time it was rare to have teardowns in Mendota Heights. She stated that now people are willing to tear down older homes in order to build a new home. She explained that the ordinance was written to ensure that the new home would not be raised up to dwarf the existing homes in the neighborhood. She stated that one exception to this would be where there are groundwater issues. Her concern would be the neighborhood further downhill. She stated that it appears there is a depression between the homes and the neighbor has a gutter that drains into that depression. She stated that she would want to ensure that the existing conditions are not exacerbated for the existing neighbor. page 10 Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the old home was set closer to the westerly neighbor and this proposed new placement would allow additional space for grading between the homes. He stated that the applicant is willing to improve that area and ensure that it does not impact the neighbors. He noted that the drainage system will empty to the street and not to the adjacent properties. Councilor Duggan asked how they would ensure that the three feet is not impactful to the neighboring property owners. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff analyzed the plan to ensure that it would not impact the neighbors. Councilor Duggan commented that he would want to ensure that the engineer for the applicant is working with the City’s engineering department to ensure that the drainage would not impact the neighbors. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided additional details on the proposed drainage plan. He stated that the grading to the east would be easily completed. He noted that minimal grading would be required to the back of the home. He noted that to the west there will be a swale that goes out to the street with a retaining wall. He stated that the grading and drainage of the lot will be substantially improved with this project compared to the existing conditions. He noted that the sump pump will be connected to the City drainage system and will run underground. Councilor Miller moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2020-40 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LDK BUILDERS, INC. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATION AT 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that restroom facilities at parks are now open for use Monday through Friday and are cleaned daily. Weekend users should plan ahead as the facilities are not open on the weekend. Mayor Garlock stated that the City’s 5K walk/run will now be completed virtually over a three-day period. He encouraged participants to run the traditional course. He also encouraged participants to patronize the local businesses, which typically benefit from this event. All proceeds will be donated to Special Olympics of Minnesota. He encouraged everyone to register online or in person at City Hall. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel commended public safety, public works and City staff for continuing to perform throughout the challenges of the past few months. She referenced a recent fire in Mendota Heights and commented on the great job the Fire Department did in handling the fire in a high-risk area. page 11 Councilor Miller commented that the recent fire was a challenging situation. He commented that it was a great example of how the city benefits from shared resources through the mutual aid agreements in place. He was thankful of the great relationships that the City has built with neighboring communities. Councilor Duggan thanked all the city staff and residents for the great work that has been done in the past few months. He encouraged everyone to stay safe. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Joint City Council – Parks Recreation Commission Work Session Held July 14, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was held at the Fire Station, 2121 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. TOUR OF FIRE STATION Members present took a tour of the new Fire Station facilities. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Councilors Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Parks and Recreation Commission members present included Cotter, Klepperich, Meyer, and Sherer. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk. TWO YEAR PROJECT DISCUSSION City Administrator Mark McNeill gave an overview of the Special Parks Fund, stating that the fund currently has a balance of $626,000. An additional amount of $192,000 is anticipated when the development of The Village vacant lots occurs later this year. These funds can be used for acquisition of park property, development of a park, or improvements to our parks. The money cannot be used for operation costs or maintenance costs. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence and Mr. McNeill informed the group that the Par 3 Fund is no longer an enterprise fund. The Par 3 Fund is now classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Councilor Petschel noted that the Par 3 bonds will be paid in full in the year 2023. After that, some or all of this money could go to the Special Parks Fund and be available to help sustain the parks. The Mayor agreed with that statement. Councilor Paper suggested that the City may have to look at another referendum in the future to help maintain the parks. Councilor Duggan stated that the Par 3 funds are all city monies and maybe only a portion should be used for parks. Administrator McNeill said that the use of the amount of property tax levy for parks would be a decision which would be made by the City Council which is in office at that time. The following parks projects were discussed: 1. Wentworth Grant Requirements. The warming house replacement is estimated to cost $169,000, which does not include utilities or concrete costs. The Wentworth parking lot improvements are estimated to cost $90,000. It was noted that the playground was completed in 2019. It is page 13 anticipated that the warming house and parking lot will be completed in 2021. If received, the grant will reimburse the city $180,000 for these expenditures. 2. Wentworth Tennis Court Replacement. Public Works Director Ruzek stated that after the Parks tour, it was unanimous that this tennis court should be replaced. The city is hopeful to receive a USTA grant, which is typically $20,000. The project would be completed in 2021, and is estimated to cost $80,000. There was consensus to move this project forward. 3. Replace tennis courts with pickle ball courts at Valley Park, or construct new pickle ball courts at another area. The Valley Park tennis courts could be turned into 2 pickle ball courts at a cost estimated to be $80,000. There was concern about the noise this may cause for the Valley Park neighborhood. Another option being considered is to construct new pickle ball courts at the current skate park, Hagstrom King Park, or at Mendakota Park. Friendly Hills Hockey rink should also be considered to be used for pickle ball courts. This is estimated to cost $120,000. There was consensus to look for other areas for the pickle ball courts due to the noise they may cause at Valley Park. It was noted that the Marie Park pickle balls courts see a lot of use. Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator, noted that the users of the Marie Avenue pickle ball courts would like to see an area dedicated specifically for pickle ball courts. Mayor Garlock stated he would like to see the city expand the pickle ball options. Councilor Petschel recommended that the Friendly Hills hockey rink be striped for pickle ball courts, and to see how much use these courts receive, then to discuss this item again in the future. The Council and Commission members agreed. 4. Basketball court expansion at Hagstrom King. This basketball court would be expand to almost a full court at a cost of $16,000. There was consensus to move this project forward. 5. Mendakota Dugouts. Mr. Ruzek stated he received one quote for $96,000 to construct dugouts at the ballfields in Mendakota Park. There was consensus that Mr. Ruzek should get one more quote, then the Council would be asked to approve proceeding with the project. 6. Playground Replacement at Marie Park. It is proposed to replace this playground equipment estimated to cost $160,000. This project would be completed in 2021. Mr. Ruzek suggested that this be bid out as a whole design bid. This would allow the bidders to be creative, keeping the current equipment if they can fit it into the plan. Commissioner Cotter stressed that the Parks and Recreation Commission needs to have consistency in budgeting, and then a park could be updated every year. Mayor Garlock agreed and suggested that a 10 or 20 year long-term improvement plan be developed. 7. Determine future of Dog Park. Five years ago, the off leash dog area was designated as being an interim use at its current location, near Pilot Knob Hill. The designation is scheduled to expire this year. Since that time, some improvements have been made to improve this use as an off-leash dog park. There was consensus to continue the off leash dog area designation for another five years at its current location. 8. Determine Future of Skate Park. Issues with the skate park were discussed. It was noted that if this is to continue to be used as a skate park, then improvements will be needed. $10,000 has been budgeted this year to make improvements in the park features. For safety purposes, the entire base surface of the park will need to be replaced in the coming years. Councilor Paper stated that he does not think the city should eliminate this park. He suggested the city figure out a better way to maintain it. There was consensus to hold off on spending the $10,000 that was budgeted for this year to improve the features, and to put that money towards the replacement of the base surface in the coming years. page 14 ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 15 page 16 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 21 , 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Refund of Massage License fees COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to discuss the refunding of massage therapist license fees for two currently licensed massage therapists. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the renewal of massage therapist licenses on June 16, 2020, for the new period which started on July 1, 2020. On July 13, 2020, two massage therapists, Delaina Hinrichs and Roger Hinrichs requested that their license fees be refunded because they have not worked at Green Lotus for the past few months. The massage therapist license fee is $50 per year. The background investigation fee is $50 per year. The City Code regulating massage is silent on the refunding of these fees. Staff is recommending that a pro-rata share of the massage license fee of $50 be refunded to each therapist. The investigation fee is not recommended to be refunded since the police department did conduct the background investigation before the license was issued. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council refund a pro-rata portion of the massage therapist license fee, which would be $45.84 each, for Delaina Hinrichs and Roger Hinrichs. page 17 page 18 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 21, 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 parcel located at 681 Brookside Lane COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Application for determination of wetland boundary for the parcel located at 681 Brookside Lane. 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 and Joint Water Resources Application was submitted for the privately owned parcel located at 681 Brookside Lane. The application was submitted by MNR Inc. on behalf of Mallory Madden, applicant and property owner, on June 22, 2020. DISCUSSION MNR delineated the subject property on May 29, 2020. The National Wetland Inventory Map shows one wetland basin, Type 1(seasonally flooded basin)/PFO1A (floodplain forest) within the study area. No Public Waters are shown within the study area on the MN Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory map. The City’s Natural Resources Technician reviewed the delineation on-site with the delineator on July 7, 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 MNR, Inc., 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 Joint Water Resources application, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 19 Introduction Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. (MNR) was contracted by Mallory Madden to provide wetland delineation services for the approximate 0.7-acre property located at 681 Brookside Lane in in Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota (Appendix A, Figure 1). On May 27th, 2020 MNR conducted a routine wetland delineation within the property to determine current wetland boundaries. In all, the boundary of one wetland was delineated within the survey area. Two intermittent streams were also located within the subject property. Objective To determine and delineate the current wetland boundaries located within the approximate 0.7-acre property. This information will be used for site planning by the homeowner for improvements to their property. Methodology Prior to conducting the fieldwork, existing data were reviewed. These data include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and the MN DNR National Wetlands Inventory Update June, 2013 (Appendix A, Figure 2), the U.S. Department of Agriculture digital Soil Survey of Dakota County (Appendix A, Figure 3), and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory (PWI) (Appendix A, Figure 4). Recent climate data (precipitation and temperature) were also obtained for the survey location. Delineation efforts were based on the Routine “Onsite” Determination Method contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Supplement Version 2.0, Aug. 2010 to the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87_1. According to this methodology, wetland boundaries are determined based on the evaluation of the three parameters (hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) required for an area to be defined as a wetland. The wetland boundary for each wetland on-site was identified as the upper-most extent of each area that met the criteria required to be defined as a wetland: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland A’s delineated boundary was marked with pink pin flags with representative letters and numbers A1-A35 (Appendix A, Figure 5). For the single wetland within the subject property, two sample transects were established where the wetland/upland transition occurs. At each transect the vegetation, soils, and hydrology were investigated at two positions in the landscape, one within the wetland and one within the upland. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were documented following the aforementioned delineation protocols. Soils were characterized based on soil matrix/mottle colors and texture, as well as the presence/absence of hydric soil indicators. The dominant vascular plant species were identified and the cover was estimated visually. The indicator status of the dominant plant species was taken from the State of Minnesota 2016 Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List. 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X). Hydrologic indicators (i.e. presence/absence of inundated and/or saturated soils, drift lines, drainage patterns, water marks, etc.) were evaluated to determine wetland hydrology. Finally, the wetland was classified based on the Cowardin, Circular 39 and Eggers & Reed wetland descriptions. All collected field data is summarized in the Wetland Determination Data Forms (Midwest Region) included in this report (Appendix C). Climate Data To provide context for the wetland survey effort, recent climatic conditions were investigated for the local area, including precipitation and temperature data and are included in Appendix D. page 20 Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – 681 Brookside Lane, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 2 Results The survey area is comprised of a single-family residence with associated yard with landscaping, a small area of deciduous woodland, one wetland area and two intermittent waterbodies. In total, MNR delineated and located the boundary of one wetland within the property along with mapping two intermittent waterbodies. The delineated wetland continues off-site to the west of the subject property. The following table summarizes the delineated wetland by Circular 39 type, Cowardin classification, Eggers and Reed Plant Community and by size in acres. Table 1. Wetland Classification, Type and Area Wetland ID Circular 39 Type/s Cowardian Classification Eggers and Reed Plant Community Type Size (acres) A 2 PEMB fresh wet meadow 0.16 The single wetland was delineated using methods and criteria that follow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement to the COE Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Version 2.0, Aug. 2010. The boundary of Wetland A was flagged and located by MNR and also located by Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Wetland A Wetland A is a Type 2 (PEMB; fresh wet meadow) wetland located in the northern half of the property and is approximately 0.16 acre in area within the property. This wetland is part of a larger wetland complex that extends to the west on the adjacent property. Several seepage areas with discharging water were observed within this wetland along its southern boundary. Two intermittent linear waterbodies flow through Wetland A and at the time of the survey, water was observed flowing to the northeast into a culvert that drains this area off-site. Wetland A is not mapped on the National Wetland Inventory. Transect 1 Typical wetland plant species documented at the sample point at Transect 1 for Wetland A include: jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Typical upland plant species documented at sample point at Transect 1 for Wetland A include: common burdock (Arctium minus), creeping Charlie (Glechoma hederacea), Virginia stickseed (Hackelia virginiana), daylily sp. (Hemerocallis sp.), and white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima). From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped within the area of Transect 1 for Wetland A is described as Kato silt clay loam, which is listed as a hydric soil. The soils investigated within the wetland sample point met the Black Histic (A3) hydric soil indicator. Wetland hydrology indicators recorded at Transect 1 for Wetland A include two primary and two secondary indicators: high water table (A2), saturation (A3), geomorphic position (D2), FAC-neutral test (5x). Both soil saturation and the water table were observed and/or measured at the soil surface. Transect 2 Typical wetland plant species documented at the sample point at Transect 2 for Wetland A include: jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). Typical upland plant species documented at sample point at Transect 2 for Wetland A include: black walnut (Juglans nigra), box elder (Acer negundo), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). page 21 Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – 681 Brookside Lane, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 3 From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped within the area of Transect 2 for Wetland A is described as Palms muck, which is listed as a hydric soil. The soils investigated within the wetland sample point met the Black Histic (A3) hydric soil indicator. Wetland hydrology indicators recorded at Transect 2 for Wetland A include two primary and two secondary indicators: high water table (A2), saturation (A3), geomorphic position (D2), FAC-neutral test (5x). Both soil saturation and the water table were observed and/or measured at the soil surface. Intermittent Waterbodies Located within Wetland A are two intermittent waterbodies that flow through the property from east to west. The southern waterbody enters the property from the south and flows in a northernly direction where water was observed flowing from a culvert. The seepage points located along Wetland A’s southern boundary also contributes to the flow of water that was observed in this southern waterbody. The northern waterbody flows from the east to west where it connects to the southern waterbody at the western extent on the property. From that point on the property the two waterbodies become one and flow off-site to the north into a culvert. Both waterbodies had clear, flowing water within their banks with a sandy and silty substrate. The width of these two waterbodies varies across the property from a couple feet to several feet wide with an established bed and bank. These two waterbodies are not mapped as a DNR public watercourse but they flow into one approximately 800’ from the back of the property which eventually connects to Pickerel Lake. page 22 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! up pit a1 wet pit a1 culvert culvert up pit a2 wet pit a2 culverta1 a2a3 a4 a5 a6 a7a8a9 a10 a11 a12a13 a14a15a16 a17 a18 a19a20 a21 a22 a23 a24 a25a26a27a28a29 a30 a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 896870 8648948928828868908 9 0 864880868864 888886 884 876 874 882872 87 0 880868 878 866 ¯ Delineated Wetland681 Brookside LaneMendota Heights, MN 0 50 10025Feet Figure 5 Wetland Aappx. 0.16 acre Wetland Pin Flag Location Wetland Boundary (appx. 0.16 ac.) Survey Area (0.7 ac.) Source: 2016 color 7-county 2' Contour (LiDAR) Transect Intermittent Stream page 23 page 24 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 21, 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 parcel located at 1770 Dodd Road COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Application for determination of wetland boundary for the parcel located at 1770 Dodd Road. 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 and Joint Water Resources Application was submitted for the privately owned parcel located at 1770 Dodd Road. The application was submitted by Soil Investigation and Design, Inc. on behalf of Fred Peterson, applicant and property owner, on June 16, 2020. DISCUSSION Soil Investigation and Design delineated the subject property on May 6, 2020. The National Wetland Inventory Map shows one wetland basin, Type 2 (wet meadow)/PFO1A (floodplain forest) within the study area. No Public Waters are shown within the study area on the MN Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory map. The City’s Natural Resources Technician reviewed the delineation on-site with the delineator on July 8, 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 Soil Investigation and Design, Inc., 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 Joint Water Resources application, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 25 1 Mr. Mrs. Fred Peterson Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Wetland Delineation Report by Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. 2809 78th Ave. N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Date: May 13, 2020 page 26 2 WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY x The site at Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 was inspected on May 8, 2020 for the presence and extent of wetland. x The NWI map showed one wetland complex within site boundaries: PFO1A wetlands exist to the east of the residence. x The entire site was inspected. No other wetlands exist. Please refer to the NWI and “area to be delineated” figures. x The soil survey mapped is not relevant due to filling and soil disturbance. x The DNR Protected Waters Map showed no Protected Water(s) within site boundaries. The nearest Public Water Basin is associated with this wetland. x One wetland was found on the site. We were retained to delineate the wetland area(s) within site boundaries as summarized below. Wetland ID Circular 39 Cowardin Wetland Plant Community Type (Eggers and Reed) 404 Jurisdictional Observations 1 Type 2 PFO1A Forested Temporarily Flooded Wetland 1 is not isolated INTRODUCTION The site was examined on May 8, 2020 for the presence and extent of wetland. The approximately 2.24 acre property is located at Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN 55118 The site has one structure on it a single family residence that is not occupied. The property consisted primarily of deciduous trees and mowed grass in upland portions and wetlands of varying vegetative cover in lowland areas (Figure 1). Site topography consists of a nearly level area with a stream running through it. The easterly side of the stream rises to the east. Adjacent land use was residential to the north, east, west, and south. METHODS Wetlands were identified using Routine Determination methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region Version 2.0) as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pink pin flags. page 27 3 Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 18-32 inches (unless otherwise noted) utilizing Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used in reporting are from the NTCHS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Version 8.2, 2018) which are commonly found in the Midwest. Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. and Kartesz, J.T. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC.) RESULTS Review of NWI, Soils, and DNR Information The MN DNR Revised National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (https://gisdata.mn.gov/) one PEM1C wetland exists on the site and extends to the south and west. (See Figures 2) The Soil Survey of Ramsey County, Minnesota (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/) showed the following soil types within site boundaries (Figure 4). Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Kato silty clay loam Chetek sandy loam, W Water The DNR Protected Waters Map, Hennepin County (https://gisdata.mn.gov/) showed one DNR Protected Water(s) within site boundaries (Figure 3). Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on May 8, 2020. One wetland was identified and delineated on the site (Figure 5). Corresponding data forms are included as Appendix A. The following description of wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that time, vegetation was actively growing and had not yet begun to senesce. Wetland hydrology was assumed to be normal for that date based on the 30-day rolling precipitation total (Appendix B). A survey of the wetland boundaries will be provided after delineation review is completed. Wetland 1 was a Type 2 (PFO1A) Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded vegetation throughout this wetland complex varied from Oak, Quack grass, Creeping page 28 4 Charlie, Ash, Willow and shallow open water. Wetland soils were organic exhibiting saturation at the time if investigation. Adjacent upland was comprised of a similar species. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition and a change in topography. Other Areas No other areas were shown as wetland on the NWI map. Other areas were mapped with hydric soil by the soil survey but did not exhibit hydrology, no other depressional areas dominated by a hydrophytic plant community were observed on the site. V. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Both the delineation and report were conducted in compliance with regulatory standards in place at the time the work was completed. All site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Report completed by: Paul J. Brandt PSS Delineation completed by: Paul J. Brandt PSS I hereby certify that this plan, document, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Soil Scientist under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Print Name: Paul J. Brandt PSS Signature: Date: May 13, 2020 License # 30007 . page 29 page 30 DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Acceptance of Gift from Ed Iago COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to accept the donation of a 50 inch Samsung television set from Mr. Ed Iago. BACKGROUND Ed Iago of West St. Paul was one of the winners of a door prize from the Scott Patrick Memorial 5 K race, held on July 11th. He won the television set. Rather than accept the gift, he instead chose to donate the television to the City of Mendota Heights, saying that the city could use it where it is best needed. Our recommendation is to place it in the employee break room, which would replace the 1990’s-era television currently there. The value of the television is approximately $325. The City appreciates Mr. Iago’s generosity. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the acceptance of the 50 inch Samsung television set. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion pass the following: RESOLUTION 2020-42 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF A GIFT OF A SAMSUNG TELEVISION SET page 31 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-42 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF A GIFT OF A SAMSUNG TELEVISION SET WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts the donation of a 50 inch Samsung television set, valued at $325, from Mr. Ed Iago, to be used where needed within the City of Mendota Heights organization. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this twenty-first day of July, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 32 DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Park Bench Donation – Dog Park COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked accept a park bench donation for installation at the Mendota Heights Dog Park, in memory of Greg Nelson. BACKGROUND The Park Bench Donation program was adopted in 2001. Through the program, a resident may donate $1000 to the city to offset the costs to purchase and install a park bench. Any costs above the donated amount would be the responsibility of the city. DISCUSSION The family and friends of Greg Nelson approached the City to determine a way to honor the memory of Greg Nelson. Mr. Nelson was a frequent user of the dog park, and it was determined that a memorial bench would be a fitting tribute. As such, a check for $1000 has been submitted for the bench, in accordance with the memorial bench policy. The memorial plaque would read: In Memory of Gregory S. Nelson July 16, 1967-February 4, 2020 There is also a desire to find a way to increase the amount of shade in the dog park. After investigating some shade structures, it was determined that planting trees near the memorial bench is preferred. The friends and family have raised and submitted an additional $854 for trees. The City will make certain that any archeological issues are resolved before any planting activity takes place. BUDGET IMPACT The $1000 donation will be used toward the purchase and installation of the park bench. Costs for the bench which exceed $1000 would be drawn from the Parks Equipment/Maintenance budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the acceptance of the park bench and tree donation. Once approved, the bench can be ordered. It is hoped that the installation can take place this fall, and that the tree or trees can be planted after the first frost. page 33 ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion pass: RESOLUTION 2020-36 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF A GIFT FOR A PARK BENCH AND SHADE TREES page 34 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-36 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION OF A GIFT FOR A PARK BENCH AND SHADE TREES WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts $1,854 from the family and friends of Greg Nelson in his memory, to be used for the installation of a memorial park bench and shade trees at the Mendota Heights dog park. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this twenty-first day of July, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 35 page 36 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Firefighter Retirement INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the retirement of Rich Gapinski as a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BACKGROUND Firefighter Rich Gapinski has announced his retirement from the Fire Department effective June 30, 2020. Rich has been an active member of the department for almost 19 years. While his retirement will be formally recognized at the Department’s dinner in February, staff would like to acknowledge Rich’s contributions to the department and community and thank him for his time served. BUDGET IMPACT N/A ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council accept the retirement of Rich Gapinski as a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Rich for his nearly 19 years of service. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the retirement of Rich Gapinski from the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Rich for his nearly 19 years of service to the community as a Mendota Heights firefighter. page 37 page 38 Request for City Council Action DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Firefighter Resignation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Joe King as a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BACKGROUND Firefighter Joe King has announced his resignation from the Fire Department effective July 6, 2020. Joe become a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department on December 10, 2018. During his 1.5 years of service to the department and citizens, Joe has been an active member of the Fire Department. Staff would like to acknowledge Joe’s contributions to the department and community and also thank him for his time serving on the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BUDGET IMPACT N/A ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resignation of Joe King as a firefighter with the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank him for his 1.5 years of service. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should by motion, accept the resignation effective July 6, 2020, from the Mendota Heights Fire Department and formally thank Joe for his 1.5 years of service to our community as a Mendota Heights Firefighter. page 39 page 40 DATE: July 7, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief. Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Turn-out-Gear Dryers Comment: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the purchase of turn-out-gear dryers for installation in the new Fire Station. BACKGROUND The Fire Station construction budget includes the purchase of two gear dryers specifically design for drying firefighters turn out gear. The fire building committee and CNH Architects researched several dryer systems during the station design phase to determine what type of system would work best for the space and meet the department’s needs. The new dryers are located in the new decontamination room. The dryers and the decontamination room are specifically designed to properly clean and dry all of the firefighter’s personal protective equipment. Based on the committee’s research, the room was designed to incorporate gear dryers manufactured by RamAir Inc. Two local distributers submit quotations for the gear dryers. Jefferson Fire and Safety of Middleton WI, and Alex Air Apparatus of Alexandria MN submitted bids. Jefferson Fire was the low bidder with a total price of $17,220 BUDGET IMPACT This expense was planned for in the construction budget, and is within the budgeted amount. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of this system described at the cost of $17,220. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should authorize the purchase of a dryer system from Jefferson Fire and Safety, in the amount of $17,220. page 41 page 42 7/14/2020 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official June 1, 2020 thru June 30, 2020 January 1, 2020 thru June 30, 2020 January 1, 2019 thru June 30, 2019 January 1, 2018 thru June 30, 2018 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 1 670,280.00$ $7,114.39 SFD 3 1,465,280.00$ $16,492.17 SFD 3 2,449,742.00$ $24,090.42 SFD 5 2,738,348.00$ 30,437.15$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,135,000.00$ $63,519.64 Apartment 0 -$ -$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 14 3,568,365.00$ 38,945.03$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 90 1,161,295.00$ 14,127.34$ Misc 293 3,850,367.71$ 50,612.81$ Misc 351 4,809,779.98$ 97,596.50$ Misc 270 3,662,984.73$ 54,582.46$ Commercial 1 654,375.00$ $5,289.69 Commercial 7 1,062,090.00$ $9,670.19 Commercial 14 11,036,914.00$ $41,205.89 Commercial 9 6,412,959.00$ 47,562.64$ Sub Total 92 2,485,950.00$ 26,531.42$ Sub Total 303 6,377,737.71$ 76,775.17$ Sub Total 369 27,431,435.98$ 226,412.45$ Sub Total 298 16,382,656.73$ 171,527.28$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 11 $825.00 Plumbing 101 $8,798.70 Plumbing 136 $16,253.75 Plumbing 126 17,134.55$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 -$ Sewer 2 $150.00 Sewer 10 $750.00 Sewer 4 $300.00 Sewer 28 2,100.00$ Mechanical 26 $2,650.42 Mechanical 129 397.00$ $11,616.99 Mechanical 155 $18,124.80 Mechanical 267 27,185.07$ Sub Total 39 3,625.42$ Sub Total 240 21,165.69$ Sub Total 295 $34,678.55 Sub Total 421 46,419.62$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 232 $11,600.00 Contractor 245 12,250.00$ Total 131 2,485,950.00$ 30,156.84$ Total 543 6,377,737.71$ 97,940.86$ Total 896 27,431,435.98$ 272,691.00$ Total 964 16,382,656.73$ 230,196.90$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals 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 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 21, 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, requesting permission to install three new cellular-wireless communication panels on top of Deerwood Bank, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. This item was tabled at the July 7, 2020 meeting. Representatives of Verizon Wireless intend to be present to answer any questions related to this item. Background The subject property is 1.66 acres in size; contains a two-story, 17,120-sf. bank/office building; and is owned by Dakota Financial Center, LLP. 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 trash enclosure, near the southeast corner of the site. At the June 23, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this CUP item, and a virtual public hearing was conducted. A copy of the 06/23/2020 Planning Report, related attachments, general cellular communication information, and excerpt minutes are appended to this memo. 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 the Deerwood Bank building, located at 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 61 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 62 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 21st 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 63 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 64 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING/GUIDED: ACTION DEADLINE: June 23, 2020 Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Planning Case 2020-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Verizon Wireless (Deerwood Bank – Property Owners) 1060 Dakota Drive B-2 Neighborhood Business / B-Business September 18, 2020 (extended 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 65 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 66 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 67 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 68 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 69 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 70 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 71 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 72 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 73 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 74 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 75 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 76 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 77 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 78 MIN Augusta and sites within 2 miles page 79 Current RSRP Levels page 80 RSRP Levels with MIN AUGUSTA page 81 Current Best Server Map page 82 Best Server Map with MIN AUGUSTA 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 page 96 page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 page 102 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 103 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 104 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 105 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 106 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 107 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 108 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 109 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 110 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 111 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 112 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 113 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 114 page 115 page 116 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 117 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 118 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 119 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 120 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 121 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 122 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 123 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 124 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 125 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 126 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 127 What the expert community tells us Federal Communications Commission “As discussed above, radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS 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.” Learn more. Back to top World Health Organization “Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards . . . From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health eects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations.” Learn more. “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations [cell towers] and wireless networks cause adverse health eects.” Learn more. Back to top American Cancer Society “At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities … 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 is very little evidence to support this idea.” Learn more. page 128 “The incidence of brain tumors in human beings has been flat for the last 40 years… That is the absolute most important scientific fact.” – Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical oicer of the American Cancer Society. Learn more. Back to top National Cancer Institute “… although many studies have examined the potential health eects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans.” Learn more. “No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.” Learn more. Back to top The Food and Drug Administration “Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health eects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits.” Learn more. Back to top International Comission On Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection “ICNIRP has just released new guidelines for exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, and we considered all possible adverse health eects. The only proven eect is that of heating of (parts of) the body, and the guidelines are set to such a low level that this will not occur if they are observed. Adverse health eects resulting from eects on the immune system have not been found and thus also cannot form a basis for exposure guidelines.” – Eric van Rongen, Chairman, International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Learn more. Back to top Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center “’Any individual study might find something unusual,’ Dr. Dauer says. ‘But what’s most important to consider is the weight of evidence across all of them.’ And that, he says, does not show any clear link between cell phones and cancer… The argument that cell phones cause cancer lacks biological plausibility because the energy contained in the waves is too low to cause damage.” Learn more. Back to top Government of Canada “…the vast majority of scientific research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and human cancers . . . With respect to cell phone towers, as long as exposures respect the limits set in Health Canada’s guidelines, there is no scientific reason to consider cell phone towers dangerous to the public.” Learn more. Back to top page 129 European Commission: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) “Overall, the epidemiological studies on mobile phone RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region.” Learn more. Back to top United Kingdom Health Protection Agency Independent Advisory Group on Non- Ionizing Radiation (HPA) “In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health eects in adults or children.” Learn more. Back to top Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research “Extensive research for more than a decade has not detected anything new regarding interaction mechanisms between radiofrequency fields and the human body and has found no evidence for health risks below current exposure guidelines.” Learn more. Back to top Norwegian Institute for Public Health “The studies have been performed on cells and tissues, and in animals and humans. The eects that have been studied apply to changes in organ systems, functions and other eects. There are also a large number of population studies with an emphasis on studies of cancer risk. The large total number of studies provides no evidence that exposure to weak RF fields causes adverse health eects.” Learn more. Back to top Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency “Current research indicates that there is no established evidence for health eects from radio waves used in mobile telecommunications. This includes the upcoming roll-out of the 5G network. ARPANSA’s assessment is that 5G is safe.” Learn more. Back to top page 130  Electromagnetic fields (EMF) Electromagnetic fields and public health Base stations and wireless technologies Backgrounder May 2006 Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters. There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local wireless networks. Health concerns A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health. page 131 The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards. In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established. While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations. Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause. Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks. Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported. page 132 Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity", EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms. From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them. Protection standards International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005). National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded. Public perception of risk Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability. Conclusions Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. WHO Initiatives WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes have funded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years. page 133 While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008. Further Reading ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/documents/emfgdl.pdf IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" Related links Base stations & wireless networks: Exposures & health consequences Fact sheet: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity WHO handbook on "Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields" For more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +41 22 791 2222 E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int 2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields pdf, 100kb What we do  Regions  About us  Subscribe to our newsletters Privacy Legal Notice page 134 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-41 Denying (or Approving) a Preliminary Plat of “MOEHN ADDITION” with a Variance [Planning Case No. 2020-10] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution either denying or approving a preliminary plat of a new subdivision to be titled “MOEHN ADDITION”, with a Variance to allow two lots with no frontage on a public roadway system. The applicants and property owners are Fred and Beverly Peterson. Background The subject property is generally located on the east side of Dodd Road near the mid-point between Marie Avenue to the south and Hidden Creek Trail to the north, with official address of 1770 Dodd Rod. The Peterson property consists of 2.24 acres, with a large section of the back area encumbered by wooded wetlands and the Marie Creek waterway. The Peterson’s are requesting a new subdivision consisting of three (3) lots. All proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum R-1 One Family Residential District standards for lot area (size) and width. However, Lots 2 and 3 do not meet the minimum 100-foot of frontage on a public roadway system as required by Ch. 11 Subdivision and Ch. 12 Zoning; hence the need for the variance. Due to location of the property along State Hwy 149 (Dodd Road), the plat was reviewed by MnDOT, with no special requirements or conditions. The city’s fire department also reviewed the plat to ensure fire service feature codes are met, and has requested the following conditions: i.) provide an approved turn-around near the end of the private driveway; ii.) expand the driveway to either 16-ft. vs. 20-ft. in width; iii.) if 16-ft. is provided, auto sprinkler systems for each new home on Lot 2 and 3 will be required, while no sprinkler system needed if driveway expanded to 20-ft. in width; and iv.) an additional fire hydrant to be installed near the end of the private driveway. Staff will ensure the new subdivision meets all zoning, engineering and fire safety codes prior to any final plat consideration; and all required stormwater treatment standards and erosion protection measures will be met prior to any development taking place on this site. The final plat is anticipated to be presented to the planning commission and city council in the near future. At the June 23, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on the proposed preliminary plat and variance, and a virtual public hearing was conducted. There were six (6) favorable comments in support of the new subdivision plat by the Peterson’s, which are included with the draft minutes for said meeting. A copy of the 06/26/2020 Planning Report and related attachments are all appended to this memo. page 135 Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended to deny (by 5-1 vote) the proposed Preliminary Plat of Moehn Addition and the Variance, with findings-of-fact supporting such recommendations. These findings generally included a statement the practical difficulties test was not met in the variance case, and there were no unique circumstances to warrant the granting of the variance under this plat, all noted in the attached resolution. Action Required The City Council may affirm this recommendation of denial by adopting draft RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 41, DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MOEHN ADDITION WITH A VARIANCE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD. Should the City Council wish to reverse this recommendation, it may consider adopting the alternative RESOLUTION NO. 2020-41, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MOEHN ADDITION WITH A VARIANCE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD. Either action requires a simple majority vote. page 136 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-41 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF MOEHN ADDITION WITH A VARIANCE LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-10) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2020-10, Fred and Beverly Peterson (the “Applicant”) applied for a new preliminary plat (subdivision) of lands to be titled “Moehn Addition”, for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road (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 requests to subdivide the Subject Property into three (3) new parcels legally described and illustrated on the proposed preliminary plat titled “Moehn Addition” and which is attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also requests a Variance to City Code Section 11-3-2.D, which would allow two of the three new lots to have no direct frontage on a public roadway system; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and page 137 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 denial of the requested preliminary plat and variance (by 5-1 vote), with certain findings-of-fact supporting this recommendation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation of denial by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission regarding the proposed Preliminary Plat of Moehn Addition, along with the related Variance to allow two of the three lots to have no direct frontage on a public roadway system, is hereby reversed, and said preliminary plat and its related variance can be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: A. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes of the City. B. With the exception of the public roadway frontage requirements for lots, the proposed lots and other improvements in this subdivision are generally consistent with all applicable Zoning Code and Subdivision Code requirements of City Code. C. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. D. The proposed lots will generally meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. E. Under Title 12-1L-5.A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” F. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to allowing new lots to be platted without required public roadway frontage, by: i.) With the exception of the two lots unable to meet the required public roadway frontage requirement, the proposed subdivision request can still be considered consistent with all other applicable Zoning Code requirements; and therefore the requested variance can be considered a reasonable request. page 138 ii.) The neighboring Pine Creek Estate’s plat layout with flag-lot configurations was approved in 1991-1992, which plat was also approved under a Joint Driveway Agreement, in which said document may have provided for some assumed allowances to the Applicants to develop their lands in a similar fashion in the future, thereby establishing an argument for justifiable precedent and support of this variance to provide additional flag lots in this area; all of which provide some unique circumstances to granting such a variance. iii.) Approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected or negatively impacted by addition of two (or three) new homes in this neighborhood; and iv.) This new plat and related variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. G. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance needed for this Plat will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. H. Approval of the Variance is for 1770 Dodd Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other requested (future) plats or properties throughout the City. All variances must include a project narrative and reasonable justification to the City to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. I. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020-10, dated and presented June 23, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-38. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Preliminary Plat of Moehn Addition, along with the related Variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-10 and for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000.00 for each lot (Lot 2 and 3 only) shall be paid prior to the final plat recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any new building permits by the City. page 139 2. Final layouts and setbacks for each lot must meet current R-1 One Family Residential district standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 3. No unauthorized development, grading, removal or construction activity will be allowed in the 25-foot wetland buffer shown on Lot 3 of the plat. 4. All new stormwater management, construction and grading activities for these lots will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. The wetland line on the plat should use the official delineated boundary Wetland Delineation Report from Soil Investigations and Design, Inc., dated May 13, 2020. 6. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. 7. The Applicant and/or future developer(s) must widen the private driveway to at least sixteen feet (16’) in total width; each new home on Lots 2 and 3 of this subdivision will require an automatic water sprinkler system; provide a turn-around on the driveway to accommodate fire truck movements; and install an additional (new) fire hydrant near the end of the private driveway. 8. 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 or future developer and/or contractors working on the subject properties. 9. Developer’s Agreement will be executed between Applicant and the City detailing the responsibilities of current and/or future parties involved with the development of the platted area, including (but not limited to) a detailed description of the private driveway improvements, municipal utility installations, landscaping, stormwater management, erosion control, and new dwelling and driveway placements. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of July, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 140 EXHIBIT A ADDRESS: 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 PID No.: 27-03800-49-010 and 27-57620-00-010 That part of the following described property: All that part of Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the Easterly line of Jefferson Highway 145.8 feet Southwesterly from the Northwest corner of said Lot 49; thence running East parallel with the North line of said Lot 49, a distance of 310 feet; thence South at right angles with said last described line, a distance of 40 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 49, 500.94 feet; thence South at right angles with said last described line a distance of 90.3 feet; thence West parallel to the North line of said Lot 49, 865.2 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Jefferson Highway; thence Northeasterly along the Easterly line of Jefferson Highway to the point of beginning, including any portion of any street or alley adjacent thereto, vacated or to be vacated. And OUTLOT A, PINE CREEK ESTATES, according to the record plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 141 EXHIBIT B page 142 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-41 RESOLUTION DENYING A PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF MOEHN ADDITION WITH A VARIANCE LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-10) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2020-10, Fred and Beverly Peterson (the “Applicant”) applied for a new preliminary plat (subdivision) of lands to be titled “Moehn Addition”, for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road (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 requests to subdivide the Subject Property into three (3) new parcels as proposed under a new subdivision plat titled “Moehn Addition”; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also requests a Variance to City Code Section 11-3-2.D, which would allow two of the three new lots to have no direct frontage on a public roadway system; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and page 143 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 denial of the requested preliminary plat and variance (by 5-1 vote), with certain findings-of-fact supporting this recommendation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation of denial by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the proposed Preliminary Plat of Moehn Addition along with the related Variance as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-10 is hereby denied, based on the following findings-of-fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5.A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance allowing the two lots (Lots 2 and 3) in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system. Therefore, the proposed plat is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the subdivision plat requires a variance in order to plat the two lots in this location is not considered a reasonable use of the property, and the plight of the owner was due to circumstances not unique to the property, which in effect were created in 1991-1992 by the Applicant, when they elected not to plat or develop their own property (jointly) with the neighboring Pine Creek Estates subdivision. C. The City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) and second prong (plight of the owner is due to circumstances unique to the property) were not met under this variance application, nor effectively demonstrated as a necessity by the Applicant. The City further declares that because these two pronged elements of the test were not met, the remaining third prong (essential character of the neighborhood) is not needed or warrants overturning this recommendation or granting of this variance. page 144 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st 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 145 EXHIBIT A ADDRESS: 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 PID No.: 27-03800-49-010 and 27-57620-00-010 That part of the following described property: All that part of Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the Easterly line of Jefferson Highway 145.8 feet Southwesterly from the Northwest corner of said Lot 49; thence running East parallel with the North line of said Lot 49, a distance of 310 feet; thence South at right angles with said last described line, a distance of 40 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 49, 500.94 feet; thence South at right angles with said last described line a distance of 90.3 feet; thence West parallel to the North line of said Lot 49, 865.2 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Jefferson Highway; thence Northeasterly along the Easterly line of Jefferson Highway to the point of beginning, including any portion of any street or alley adjacent thereto, vacated or to be vacated. And OUTLOT A, PINE CREEK ESTATES, according to the record plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property page 146 Planning Staff Report (Amended 06/23/2020) DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-17 PRELIMINARY PLAT of MOEHN ADDITION with VARIANCE APPLICANT: Fred & Beverly Peterson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1770 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 22, 2020 (for plat and variance - with extension) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants, Fred & Beverly Peterson, are seeking preliminary plat approval to replat their property into three separate lots. The subject property is generally located on the east side of Dodd Road, mid-block between Marie Avenue to the south and Hidden Creek Trail to the north. Property is addressed as 1770 Dodd Road (State Hwy. 149). The proposed plat is to be titled as “MOEHN ADDITION”. 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 Applicants have submitted 5 letters of support (included herein) with no letters of objection received at this time. BACKGROUND The applicant’s survey indicates the total area of the property is 2.24 acres; and consists of parts of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3 and Outlot A, Pine Creek Estates. The property currently contains a 1-1/4 story, 2,209 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a two car attached garage. page 147 The parcel is fairly open in the central section of the lot, with various trees scattered throughout and along the perimeter; with a dense woodland and wetland near the east part of the property. The wetland was delineated by the surveyor on the map, and a Wetland Delineation Report from Soil Investigations and Design, Inc., dated May 13, 2020 was submitted. There is also a 24” HDPE (high-density polyethylene) underground culvert that cuts diagonally across the parcel near the front 1/3 of the lot. The property contains two driveways, with the south driveway coming off Dodd Road and running along the south side of the home, which turns northward behind the house and connects back into the north driveway. This north driveway provides a secondary access to the Peterson’s property off Dodd Road, but also serves as a shared, private driveway for the three homes to the north of this property. This shared driveway was created under the Pine Creek Estates development March of 1992. In 1991, Peter Knaeble and James Taylor requested to re-plat the former Lloyd and Lucille Walker property of 1760 Dodd Road, located immediately to the north. The plat proposed three new lots, with a shared driveway to serve all three lots. The request also included a variance request, since the two back lots did not meet the 100-ft. minimum roadway frontage as was required by City Code at that time. The city planning consultant addressed this issue in his planning report to the Planning Commission (dated Sept. 24, 1991), with the following statements: Due to its long narrow shape, the subject property could be better developed if it were combined with other adjacent properties in a fashion that would allow for the dedication of a public roadway. Such an arrangement could eliminate the need for flag lots and could also contribute to the establishment of a roadway system that could serve a larger area. On this note, the staff has already had inquiries regarding subdivision from the adjacent property owners (note: believed to be Mr. & Mrs. Peterson) to the south who met with us at our September 16th office hours meeting. This property has similar characteristics as the subject property and its subdivision would require similar variances and wetland permits. The combination of these two lots would provide enough room to dedicate the public right-of-way necessary to install a cul-de- sac and thereby eliminate the need for flag lots on either property. The fact that the adjacent property owners are contemplating subdividing their property raises the question of whether there might not be others in this area who would be willing to cooperate in a broader effort. At the very least, we believe it would be prudent to continue the Applicant's request to allow time for them to discuss the possibility of collaborating with the adjacent property owners to the south. Should the City approve the applicant's variance and wetland permit, they would be hard pressed to refuse the same requests from other property owners in this area. In summary, we have serious concerns about the precedent that would be set by granting the variances necessary to allow the proposed flag lots. This concern is related both to the issue of access for emergency and fire vehicles and to the potential impact this precedent would have on the development pattern within the surrounding area. Similar subdivisions could limit the city's ability to develop a roadway system to serve the area. The Petersons at that time in 1991-92 elected not to develop with the Knaeble/Taylor team a plan to install a full-sized public street (recommended by the planners), as they were not ready to develop their lands. Eventually, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Pine Creek plat and related variances, which were later accepted by the City Council, and the final plat approved March 1992. The Peterson’s did however, agreed later to work with the developers Knaeble & Taylor, by sharing the costs of the joint-driveway, sanitary sewer and storm culvert costs, with water service costs deferred “…until and unless any buildable lot adjacent to the driveway owned by the Peterson’s is sold separate and apart from the Peterson’s home.” The Peterson’s have presented to the city a “Covenant to Construct Joint Driveway” document that provides for this language and agreement (attached and included herein). page 148 ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is scheduled to remain guided LR-Low Density Residential under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject property into three parcels, consisting of 1.57 acres of net developed acres, equates to a density calculation of 1.91 units per acre. This calculated level is under the single-family residential maximum density of 2.9 units per acre:  Preliminary Plat The proposed plat creates three new lots from the larger subject parcel: • Lot 1 (yellow shade): Peterson parcel, is noted as 33,657-sf. (0.77 ac.) in area; • Lot 2 (blue shade): is 115.05-ft. in width, 130.5-ft. depth dimension, 15,004-sf. (0.34 ac.) of area; • Lot 3 (green shade): consists of 49,179-sf. (1.13-acres) Revised Plat Map: 06/23/2020 Parts of Lot 2 and 3 will incorporate Outlot A into their platted lands. The 1991 planning file does not clearly explain why this outlot was created under the Pine Creek Estates plat, but it appears it may have been a remnant piece from the old Walker property, which was situated on the opposite side of the new shared driveway. This outlot was eventually conveyed by Knaeble/Taylor to the Petersons. Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below and based on the preliminary plat, all proposed parcels meet the applicable R-1 District standards, except for minimum roadway frontage for the two back lots: Standard Lot 1 Existing Lot Lot 2: New Lot Lot 3: New Lot Lot Area 15,000 sf. 33,657-sf. 15,004-sf. 49,179-sf. Lot Width 100 ft. 138.62 ft. 115-ft. (non-public frontage) 100-ft.(non- public frontage) Front Yard Minimum: 30 ft. 73+/- ft. 30-ft. 30-ft. Side Yard 10 ft. (min.) 15 ft. (max.) 27-ft. & 49-ft. 15-ft. 15-ft. Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% avg. lot depth 130+/- ft. 30-ft. 30-ft. Lot 1 has over 138-feet of frontage along Dodd Road, and is considered a legal, viable lot due to this frontage along a public roadway and proposed size. The other two lots do not have direct access or frontage onto a public roadway, as required by City Subdivision Code 12-3-2: page 149 A. Lot Area, Width and Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. B. Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning ordinance. C. Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. D. Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved street other than an alley. E. Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business use, the setback shall be at least that required by the zoning ordinance. Due to the request by the Applicants to provide access onto the shared (and jointly owned) driveway, and because this driveway is not an approved city street/alley, this plat requires approval of a variance. Lot 3 contains most of the on-site wetlands present on this property. The plat shows the required 25-foot no disturbance buffer or wetland edge, which will not allow any development activity in this area. Any new single-family development on Lot 3 will require a separate Wetland Permit for review and approval. Lot 2 is over 100-feet away from the established wetland edge, therefore no permit will be needed for any future development on this lot. There appears to be an 8-inch PVC sanitary sewer line and three (3) separate water service lines coming off the mains underneath Dodd Road, that run down the north edge of the driveway and branch off and feed the two lots at 1762 and 1768 Dodd Road. Near the end of this driveway, there is an existing sewer and water stubs that turn southward toward the back part of the Peterson lot, both of which will be used to serve new Lot 3 in the future. Lot 2 will have a new separate water service line tied back into the main under Dodd Road, with a new sanitary service connection to the existing 8” service line.  Variance City Code Section 11-1-9 allows for application of variances for new subdivisions or plats from the strict application of the provisions of this title (Subdivision Regulations), provided the request is made under the general requirements and process of Section 12-1L-5 of Zoning Code. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variances. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. page 150 When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Response: Title 11-3-2(D) of the Code requires that “every lot must the have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city-approved street other than an alley.” Although proposed Lots 2 and 3 meet the minimum lot width standards of 100-feet, they do not have frontage on a public roadway. If the city accepts the general understandings and merits of the joint driveway agreement made between the original Pine Creek Estates developers and the Applicants, and the fact the city approved Pine Creek with the current flag-lot configuration as evident today, there appears to be some “precedent” or similar allowance that can be considered in this new subdivision request. Even though the planning consultants in 1991 stated: “…we have serious concerns about the precedent that would be set by granting the variances necessary to allow the proposed flag lots”, there are currently a few other developments or parcels that fit the definition of “flag lots” throughout the city (see Dak. Co. GIS Map images – below), so the value of precedent has been set in other areas of the city. With regards to this value of precedent, the city attorney has offered the opinion: “…approval of a variance is for a specific property only; and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City...” – which is a statement the city now includes on its findings for variances and resolutions of approval. With the exception of the two lots unable to meet this roadway frontage requirement, the proposed subdivision request can be considered consistent with all other applicable Zoning Code requirements. Since there is no change to the residential zoning or land use under this plat, new single-family dwellings in this area and neighborhood can be considered a reasonable use of the properties. The city however, must make a firm determination that by allowing two new lots onto a shared driveway, thereby perpetuating a new “flag-lot” configuration in this area, also constitutes a reasonable request under this proposed plat. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Response: There may be some unique circumstances attributed to this variance request, as the previous Pine Creek Estates development, with its own flag-lot and shared driveway configuration, was not created by the Applicants. Even though the city encouraged the developers (Knaeble/Taylor) to work with the Applicants back in 1991 to jointly develop their lands together, and seek an alternative to the “private drive” scenario by providing a public roadway to serve all lots, the Applicants chose not to join or develop, which was fully within their rights at that time. The understanding the Applicants had page 151 at that time (and since then), is they would be allowed to develop similar to what was approved under Pine Creek Estates plat. The Joint Driveway agreement noted earlier, provides documented evidence that the Applicants agreed to share in some costs for developing and improving the new shared driveway (private roadway) serving the lots in Pine Creek; with language indicating the Applicants would be afforded some allowances to develop similar (lots) in the future. Although this right to similarly develop was never guaranteed to the Applicants under the driveway agreement or the 1991/1992 resolutions of approval, they still provide some suggestions or allowances the Applicants could possibly (and reasonably) develop their lands as proposed under this case. The city must give careful consideration of these issues and the impacts the previous Pine Creek Estates development may have created in this neighborhood, and determine if these add weight to the argument that there are some unique circumstances present in this case. If so, granting this variance for non- roadway frontage may be found acceptable. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Response: The neighborhood is all but residential in character. The two new lots will provide additional housing opportunities for new home-buyers or residents to the community. The two homes built under the Pine Creek development at 1768 Dodd Road (1998) and 1762 Dodd Road (2000), are nice attractive two story dwellings with assessed values of $630,700 and $705,000, respectively. The Applicants are seeking to remain on their property for now, but may likely decide to sell their own homestead and turn it over for future development of new housing. In either case, the two or three lots to be created under this plat [with the variance], will provide opportunity for considerable re-investment by others to build new single-family homes in the community, and which values would likely be at or exceed the current values of the existing dwellings in the Pine Creek development. The current shared driveway/roadway that is used by the existing homeowners in this area, should not be negatively impacted by a large increase in traffic or trip generations caused by the adding of two (or three) new home sites on to this shared driveway. The essential character of the neighborhood should not be altered by granting this variance.  MnDOT Review The plat was submitted to MnDOT May 23, 2020, shortly after the plat maps were received from the Peterson’s consultants/surveyor. As of the preparation of this report, city staff has not received a review comment letter or similar from MnDOT representatives. Staff anticipates little, if any comments on this plat from MnDOT, due to the low level travel or trip generation impacts to the highway roadway system, with the addition of these two new home sites at this location. MnDOT typically requests or requires dedication of additional right-of-way or easements along its roadway systems wherever needed. Should MnDOT request or seek additional right-of-way dedication along Dodd Road, there appears to be enough land to be granted if needed. Please note, since this is only a preliminary plat, the final plat map will likely be presented in the near future to the Planning Commission for follow-up review. The final plat will become the final plan (or map) that shows any approved lot line layouts, easements and ROW dedications. If MnDOT has any conditions or requirements, staff will present them at that time of the final plat review and direct the Applicant to make adjustments to the plat accordingly.  Public Safety Review Fire Department staff reviewed the plat, and have some concerns. There is a fire hydrant located and available near the intersection of the shared driveway with Dodd Road. The driveway measures approximately 450-feet in length, which is an acceptable length for drawing out hoses if needed (600-ft. or page 152 less is recommended). The current driveway is only 14-feet in width. The fire department is requiring the Applicant and/or future developer(s) of these new lots must widen the private driveway to at least 16-feet in total width; each new home on Lots 2 and 3 will require an automatic water sprinkler system; provide a turn-around on the driveway to accommodate fire truck movements; and install an additional (new) fire hydrant near the end of the private driveway. As an alternative, the sprinkler system requirement for the homes on Lots 2 and 3 may be rescinded if the Developers widen the existing driveway to 20-feet instead of 16-feet. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed Preliminary Plat is reasonable, and fits in with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhoods. The Commission must also give careful consideration to the Variance requested under this plat, specifically the allowance to have two lots not meet the required public roadway frontage standard. Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission must select one of the three alternatives for the recommendation: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat of MOEHN ADDITION, along with a Variance to allow two of the three lots in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system, and for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road, based on the following findings of fact that support the approval of the preliminary plat and variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes of the City. B. With the exception of the public roadway frontage requirements for lots, and the need to correct the lot dimensions and area calculations for Lots 1 and 2, the proposed subdivision is generally consistent with all applicable Zoning Code and Subdivision Code requirements of City Code. C. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. D. The proposed lots will generally meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. E. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” F. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to allowing new lots to be platted without required public roadway frontage, by: i.) With the exception of the two lots unable to meet the required public roadway frontage requirement, the proposed subdivision request can still be considered consistent with all other applicable Zoning Code requirements; and therefore the requested variance can be considered a reasonable request. page 153 ii.) The neighboring Pine Creek Estate’s plat layout with flag-lot configurations was approved in 1991-1992, which plat was also approved under a Joint Driveway Agreement, in which said document may have provided for some assumed allowances to the Applicants to develop their lands in a similar fashion in the future, thereby establishing an argument for justifiable precedent and support of this variance to provide additional flag lots in this area; all of which provide some unique circumstances to granting such a variance. iii.) Approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected or negatively impacted by addition of two (or three) new homes in this neighborhood; and iv.) This new plat and related variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. G. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance needed for this Plat will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. H. Approval of the Variance is for 1770 Dodd Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other requested (future) plats or properties throughout the City. All variances must include a project narrative and reasonable justification to the City to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. I. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 10, dated and presented June 23, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) J. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Preliminary Plat and Variance requests; as long as those conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the plat and/or the variance. Conditions related to this planning application are as follows: i.) Park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000.00 for each lot (Lot 2 and 3 only) shall be paid prior to the final plat recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any new building permits by the City. ii.) Final layouts and setbacks for each lot must meet current R-1 One Family Residential district standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. iii.) No development, structures, grading or construction activity will be allowed in the 25-foot wetland buffer shown on Lot 3 of the plat. iv.) All new stormwater management, construction and grading activities for these lots will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. v.) The wetland line on the plat should use the official delineated boundary Wetland Delineation Report from Soil Investigations and Design, Inc., dated May 13, 2020. page 154 vi.) A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. vii.) The Applicant and/or future developer(s) must widen the private driveway to at least sixteen feet (16’) in total width; each new home on Lots 2 and 3 of this subdivision will require an automatic water sprinkler system; provide a turn-around on the driveway to accommodate fire truck movements; and install an additional (new) fire hydrant near the end of the private driveway. viii.) 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 or future developer and/or contractors working on the subject properties. ix.) Developer’s Agreement will be executed between Applicant and the City detailing the responsibilities of current and/or future parties involved with the development of the platted area, including (but not limited to) a detailed description of the private driveway improvements, municipal utility installations, landscaping, stormwater management, erosion control, and new dwelling and driveway placements. 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Preliminary Plat of MOEHN ADDITION, along with a Variance to allow two of the three lots in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system, and for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance allowing the two lots (Lots 2 and 3) in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system. Therefore, the proposed plat is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the subdivision plat requires a variance in order to plat the two lots in this location, is not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. TABLE the request and direct staff and/or the Applicant to provide additional information as requested, and present said information at the next available meeting. page 155 SITE PICTURES 1770 DODD ROAD (PETERSON RESIDENCE) REAR YARD - LOOKING EASTERLY - (TOWARDS PLATTED AREA) LOOKING EASTERLY (LOTS 2 AND 3 AREA) page 156 LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY TOWARDS 1762 & 1768 DODD ROAD LOOKING EASTERLY –LOT 3 WOODLANDS / WETLANDS page 157 SHARED DRIVEWAY - LOOKING WESTERLY - TOWARDS DODD ROAD SHARED DRIVEWAY - LOOKING EASTERLY page 158 1770 DODD ROAD (Peterson 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 159 page 160 page 161 page 162 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner Litton Field. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 26, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-10 FRED AND BEVERLY PETERSON, 1770 DODD ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Fred and Beverly Peterson are seeking preliminary plat approval to replat their property into three separate lots. The subject property is generally located on the east side of Dodd Road, mid-block between Marie Avenue to the south and Hidden Creek Trail to the north. Property is addressed as 1770 Dodd Road and the plat’s title is proposed as “Moehn Addition”. 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. page 163 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 reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if these two applications run together or whether these are two separate actions. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that without the variance the two lots would not be able to be platted in this manner. Commissioner Katz asked if this would create two new flag lots. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that technically these would not be flag lots because they do not provide a dedicated or attached access strip to Dodd Road. He explained that frontage of each of these lots would only be on the private drive. Commissioner Katz asked if there has been discussion to turn the driveway into a new street. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was not discussed. He stated that it was recommended by previous staff in 1991, when considering the Pine Creek Estates development to the north, to have a public road dedicated between both properties, but that would have required a much wider road system with a large cul-de-sac at the end, which would have impacted both sides of the properties. He stated that because the Petersons did not want to develop in 1991, the Pine Creek developer offered to provide a joint driveway agreement that would serve all properties along the private drive and allow Peterson’s to develop in the future. He stated that widening the private drive would assist in fire safety access. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any way a private drive could be differentiated from a private driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this would be looked at as a private driveway as it does not meet the requirement of a private roadway. He stated the opportunity to install a wider private roadway or public roadway was squandered when they allowed Pine Creek to develop in the 1990’s. Commissioner Mazzitello asked the narrowest roadway in the city. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that there is an alley that serves the homes on Valley Curve Road, which would probably be the narrowest. He provided some other examples of narrow roads but was unsure of the widths. Commissioner Mazzitello commented that Mendota Heights has a few private roads, mostly within townhome communities that are owned and maintained by the association. He stated that the last private road was constructed in 2003 within public right-of-way. He agreed that half of the right- of-way should have been platted with the original development with the remainder platted with this but acknowledged that did not occur. Commissioner Katz asked who would pay for the maintenance of the private driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this would stay a private driveway that would be shared by the property owners that abut the driveway and therefore the City would never page 164 maintain or plow the driveway. He stated that the property owners would need to agree to an agreement for maintenance that will be memorialized through the development agreement. Chair Magnuson asked the narrowest roadway width necessary for two cars to pass. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that two 11-foot lanes with an additional two feet for reaction. He commented that there are some streets in Mendota Heights that are 20 feet wide, which is the narrowest width allowed under Fire Code. Chair Magnuson asked the difference between a private drive and alley. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the definition of an alley, which separates the back of lots; and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that an alley is constructed in public right-of-way. Chair Magnuson referenced Finding-of-Fact J, which states that the driveway must be widened to 20-feet in width. She noted that while she does not disagree with that, it does not match the 16- foot width proposed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if a 16-foot-wide driveway were provided and the homes were sprinkled, the Fire Department would accept 16 feet. He stated that if the sprinkler systems were not installed, a 20-foot driveway would be required. Commissioner Toth asked why lot two is the smallest lot. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the original plat had the wrong area and dimensions. He stated that the consultant had to revision the plat to ensure that the lots meet the size requirements. He stated that he recommended that lot three maintain 100 feet of frontage to the private driveway. Commissioner Toth referenced the driveway that would be shared by lots two and three and asked if that would be asphalt or class five. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the driveway would be asphalt; and further stated concrete would also be allowed, but class five would not be allowed. Jon Faraci, with Lake and Land Surveying, representing the applicants, stated that he has an agreement, covenant to construct a joint driveway, which was signed in 1992. He stated that he has easements from the Walkers and Petersons for ingress, egress, and utilities. He noted that the agreement also addresses the shared costs. He explained that the Petersons originally did not want to develop their property in the 90’s and wanted to enjoy it privately. He stated that the Petersons are now reaching retirement and would like to develop the property and use the proceeds to enjoy their retirement. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. page 165 Community Development Director Tim Benetti read aloud the written comments that were received prior to the meeting, which will be incorporated into the record, from property owners at 1771 Dodd Road, 1781 Dodd Road, 1780 Dodd Road, 1769 Dodd Road, 1768 Dodd Road, and 663 Marie Avenue (written comments attached hereto). Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, 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 KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MOEHN ADDITION, ALONG WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO OF THE THREE LOTS IN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION TO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG A PUBLIC ROADWAY SYSTEM, AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1770 DODD ROAD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN. Chair Magnuson called for discussion on the motion. Commissioner Mazzitello commented that he understands the intent of the applicant, noting that the agreement from 1992 makes things grey. He stated that in order to issue a variance, three criteria must be analyzed and met in order to meet the practical difficulties, with No. 1 being the property will be used in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance, and stated the commission can discuss what is reasonable, but that is not the one he is focused on here. The third is whether the variance will alter the essential character or locality of the neighborhood, and since we can see what is completely developed around this site and what is being proposed under this plan, this should not necessarily alter the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Mazzitello concluded by stating he is focused on Criteria No. 2, the plight of the owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. In 1991 there was a plat approved to the north and an agreement in 1992 that the current owner was a party to, and the practical difficulty being presented that there are no options for the two lots (in this proposed plat) was actually created by the owner, so he thinks the application does not meet said criteria; and therefore a reason for denial. No other comments or discussion were added by the commission. page 166 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL NAY COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR MAGNUSON AYE Motion passed 5 to 1 in favor. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2020 meeting. page 167 page 168 page 169 page 170 page 171 page 172 page 173 page 174 page 175 page 176 PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCll!TECTS )00 FIHSl :\VENUE J'(OHTl! SU!TL Y.l!l MINNEAPOLIS. ,V\N .°i;';--101 ()l:!·)N-."UlHl 24 September 1991 91-35 Peter J. Knaeble 1760 Dodd Road Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval, Wetlands Permit, Variance PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into three single-family lots, two of which would be flag lots. The preliminary plat drawing shows all three lots utilizing the same 15-foot access drive, which would run along the south side of the property and enter onto Dodd Road in roughly the same location as the current driveway. Lot 1 would include the existing home owned by Mr. and Mrs. Walker. 2. The proposed lots meet all of the minimum lot requirements within the R-1 District except for Lots 2 and 3, which do not meet the criteria (100 feet). The applicant is requesting a variance for each of these lots. In addition, the property is traversed by two small drainage ways that are identified on the City's Wetland Systems Map. The applicant is requesting a wetland permit to allow the installation of a culvert to accommodate the proposed access drive for Lots 2 and 3 and to allow construction of the proposed single-family homes to within 80 feet of the centerline of the drainage ways. The latter is being requested even though the footprints of the proposed homes, as shown on the Preliminary Plat, do not encroach upon the 100-foot protected area. Apparently the developers would like to have some flexibility in the exact location and size of the potential homes. page 177 Peter Knaeble, Case No. 91-35 Page 2 3. The subject property is a long narrow parcel located east of Dodd Road in an area that has remained predominantly large lot single-family in character. While the property is zoned R-1 it is situated within an area for which no planned pattern of roadways has been defined. This area, which is over 1/4 mile in size is bounded on the west by Dodd Road, on the south by Marie Avenue on the east by Delaware Avenue and on the north by Wentworth Avenue (see attached map). This region contains one of the city's few remaining large contiguous tracts of R-lA zoning. One of the reasons this portion of the city has remained unplanned is the existence of a large wetland system that encompasses much of the central part of the area. Several scenarios for providing roadways through the area have been examined, but no official plan has been adopted. The issue of how to best provide roadways through this area becomes more crucial as properties, like the subject property, around its perimeter are subdivided. The City should consider establishing a master plan to guide the overall development of this area. 4. Due to its long narrow shape, the subject property could be better developed if it were combined with other adjacent properties in a fashion that would allow for the dedication of a public roadway. Such an arrangement could eliminate the need for flag lots and could also contribute to the establishment of a roadway system that could serve a larger area. Obviously, such an arrangement would require not only the establishment of a master plan for the area, but also the cooperation and coordinated effort of surrounding property owners. 5. On this note, the staff has already had inquiries regarding subdivision from the adjacent property owners to the south who met with us at our September 16th office hours meeting. This property has similar characteristics as the subject property and its subdivision would require similar variances and wetland permits. The combination of these two lots would provide enough room to dedicate the public right-of-way necessary to install a cul-de-sac and thereby eliminate the need for flag lots on either property. The fact that the adjacent property owners are contemplating subdividing their property raises the question of whether there might not be others in this area who would be willing to cooperate in a broader effort. At the very least, we believe it would be prudent to continue the Applicant's request to allow time for them to discuss the possibility of collaborating with the adjacent property owners to the south. Should the City approve the page 178 Peter Knaeble, case No. 91-35 Page 3 applicant's variance and wetland permit, they would be hard pressed to refuse the same requests from other property owners in this area. 6. In the interim, we would recommend that the City reexamine the issue of how to provide a system of roads for the surrounding area in a manner that accomplishes the City's development objectives most efficiently and with the least environmental impact. 7. Having said this, it is important to note that the applicant has the right to have his proposal reviewed on its own merits. As we mentioned in the first paragraph, the proposed lots meet all but one of the lot size criteria in the zoning ordinance. Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and do not meet the minimum lot width requirement. The primary concern with flag lots is that they result in homes that are isolated making emergency and fire service more difficult. In the case of the proposed Preliminary Plat, the access drive is particularly long and narrow. The longest flag neck is 452 feet in length. There are several other lots of similar configuration as the subject property within the unplanned area described earlier. By allowing flag lots in this instance the city could be opening the door for many such requests. 8. The Preliminary Plat also shows a small outlot. Such parcels can be a problem in that they are not owned by any of the residents and tend to be left unmaintained. This land should either be incorporated into one of the other lots or could perhaps be offered to the adjacent property owner under some agreement. 9. Permanent access easements would also be required over the narrow portions of Lots 2 and 3. Lot 3 would have to include access easements for both Lots 1 and 2 since it appears that Lot 1 will continue to utilize the existing curb cut onto Dodd Road. Similarly, Lot 2 would have to include access easements for Lots 1 and 3. 10. With respect to the wetland permits, the principal concern would be for the loss of trees on the property. There are significant stands of trees in the areas adjacent to both creeks. According to the Preliminary Plat drawing, there would be no trees affected by locating a house within 80 feet of the creek on Lot 3. However, the plan shows a continuous stand of trees in the area of the creek that runs through Lot 2. The proposed lots are spacious, over twice the minimum size required by the ordinance. There is plenty of room on these lots to accommodate a large home without having to encroach on the 100-foot wetland protection area. We see no reason to grant wetland permits to allow the construction of the homes on Lots 2 and 3 as requested by page 179 Peter Knaeble, case No. 91-35 Page 4 granting wetland permits, even when no demonstrated, the value of the ordinance will be undermined. need is severely 11. In summary, we have serious concerns about the precedent that would be set by granting the variances necessary to allow the proposed flag lots. This concern is related both to the issue of access for emergency and fire vehicles and to the potential impact this precedent would have on the development pattern within the surrounding area. Similar subdivisions could limit the city's ability to develop a roadway system to serve the area. page 180 page 181 place a sign on the gate explaining the new location of the main entrance. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the size of the signs, if they met the requirements. Public Works Director Jim Danielson stated temporary signs are allowed to be 25 square feet and both of these signs are significantly less than 25 square feet, approximately in the neighborhood of six or seven square feet. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that City Council approve a setback variance to allow a temporary sign to be placed on the property line for a period of one year. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 91 -35: KNAEBLE SUBDIVISION Mr. Peter Knaeble appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss his proposal to split 1760 Dodd Road into a three lot preliminary plat that would require two variances to the required 100 foot lot width and would require wetlands permits to place the two houses and a culvert. Mr. Knaeble explained their proposal includes two new flag lots with a common drive. Mr. Knaeble submitted for the public record an outline discussing his presentation. (See attached.) Vice -Chair Krebsbach asked Mr. Knaeble to locate the barns and the sheds on the project. Mr. Knaeble stated the shed and the barn are structures that will come out. He stated the existing house faces on Dodd Road and he further clarified that the red barn is on someone elses property to the rear. Mr. Knaeble stated the plan shows setbacks to the adjacent creeks. He stated the 100 foot setback requirement takes up one half of the property. Mr. Knaeble stated that the front two lots would both exceed 30,000 square feet and that the rear lot would be 60,000 square feet and that this matches neighboring properties on the east side of Dodd Road. Mr. Knaeble stated on the west side of Dodd Road is a subdivision with mostly 15,000 square foot lots. Mr. Knaeble stated he met twice with City staff and on the second occasion the setbacks to the creek were adjusted to 80 feet to allow for homeowner /buyer preferences for larger houses. Mr. Knaeble stated that a 60 foot right -of -way to serve the rear of this property with a cul -de -sac would put the existing homes page 182 into non - conformance regarding their side yard setbacks. Mr. Knaeble stated a public street would require four variances whereas his proposal for two flag lots requires only two variances. Mr. Knaeble stated his proposal, with private drives to the rear of the property, was more sensitive to the trees and the creeks in the area. Commissioner Koll announced the Planner's Report stated that some organization for this area was needed, instead of considering variances for each lot. Commissioner Koll stated a plan is preferred for the area rather than disorganized development on a case by case basis. Commissioner Koll stated that she was concerned about emergency services to flag lots with long private drives. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated roadway plans and area plans had been considered in the past for this square block area and that some of these plans were dated back to the early 1960's. Batchelder stated that the City has not adopted any of these plans. Planning Consultant Tim Malloy gave a presentation on an area plan for a roadway system and development of the "super block" done by Midwest Planning in 1961. Malloy stated at that time a roadway configuration was proposed and showed a park dedication in the middle of the block. Mr. Malloy stated Ridgewood Drive was proposed to go through to Delaware and that cul -de -sacs were shown on the north side of the proposed subdivision before us tonight. Mr. Malloy stated, in the area where these cul -de -sacs were shown, the Ridders own platted lots that are in the shape of a right -of -way, however, they are not dedicated as a right -of -way, they are private platted lots. Mr. Malloy stated any roadway master plan in this area is complicated by the large amount of wetlands and the multiple ownership of private property in this area. Commissioner Tilsen inquired under what scenario could this master plan happen in order to give residents an idea of when this could occur. Planner Malloy stated it would involve doing a master plan for the area, re- examining existing conditions, property ownership, topography and looking at the potentials for development in this area. Commissioner Tilsen stated the southeast area master plan was a different beast than this because there was really only one major owner. Planning Consultant Malloy stated when they started the master plan for the southeast area there were at least a dozen owners involved. Commissioner Friel stated there was a difference between the southeast area and this. He stated there was coordination among the owners that a master plan was page 183 needed. Planner Malloy stated announcements could be made and public hearings could be held in order to do a master plan process and that it would take approximately six to nine months. Mr. Knaeble stated his subdivision was simply a three lot split with private drives that would not preclude any future master planning or roadway systems in this area. He stated he felt his subdivision would not impact or prevent that type of system from occurring in the future. Vice-Chair Krebsbach inquired if a master plan had ever been formally presented in the past. Public Works Director Jim Danielson stated that these roadway plans were presented back in the 1960's and 1970's. Commissioner Friel stated he had some concerns about Outlot A and inquired what was the logic behind this outlot. Mr. Knaeble responded they had looked at this outlot with two options. The first option was Outlot A could go to lot three to enlarge it or the second option would have Outlot A being made available to the neighbors to the south at 1770 Dodd Road. The rear of their property is only 90 feet wide and if they wish to develop in the future it appears they could use some buildable area. Commissioner Friel inquired about the two ten foot driveways shown on the plan. Mr. Knaeble explained that there are two ten foot property strips, however, there would only be one single 15 foot wide driveway and that would provide legal access for each property. Commissioner Dreelan inquired about interest on buying the lots as proposed. Mr. Knaeble responded that, yes, there has been interest and that is why they approached staff to inquire about an 80 foot wetlands permit setback in order to allow bigger houses that prospective buyers intend to build. Vice-Chair Krebsbach opened the public hearing for comments from the audience. Mr. Jim Fischer, of 1758 Dodd Road, stated he lived just north of the subject property and explained there is a lot of water running through that creek in the springtime. Mr. Fischer inquired what will happen to the rate of the water flow through his backyard with this new development. Mr. Fischer stated he was concerned about retaining water as it flows through the creek and can back up into his property. Mr. Knaeble responded that the flow of the water would be handled by a culvert. Mr. Fischer inquired what would become of the house at 1760 Dodd Road. Mr. Knaeble responded the house will page 184 remain as existing, however, the barns and the sheds at the rear of the property would be removed. Commissioner Friel inquired about the extra impervious surface of the new homes and driveways and how that will drain into the watersheds. Mr. Knaeble responded this would not be a significant increase in the amount of water going into the watersheds and he stated he felt the watersheds could handle that additional water. Mr. Jake Deeb, of 1780 Dodd Road, stated he lives to the south of this property. Mr. Deeb stated he has seen the water up to four feet from his house and that in the springtime large amounts of water flow through this creek. In fact, he stated he has canoed it in the spring before. Mr. Deeb stated his house is 15 feet higher than the proposed home levels and the creek rises on occasion pretty high to his house. Mr. Deeb stated he can't perceive that you could dig four feet down anywhere in this area and not have the hole fill up with water. At the request of the Commission, Public Works Director Jim Danielson explained the drainage in this area. Danielson stated the creek on the south has water coming all the way from West St. Paul. Mr. Danielson stated the creek on the north is a small creek and not near as large as the creek on the south. Danielson stated both creeks are identified on the City's wetlands map and any development in this area must seriously consider elevations, drain tiles, soil conditions and culverts to enable the first creek to be crossed and not impede the flow. Danielson stated a City street in this area was not feasible and a private drive was a better way to handle access to this property and preserve the trees and the drainage ways. Mr. Danielson stated the size of the culvert pipe to cross the first creek would have to be coordinated with the City's Engineering Department. Mr. Danielson stated he did not feel this culvert would create any adverse impact on the neighbors. Ms. Juarez, of 1756 Dodd Road, stated the streams are always full in this area and they very seldom run dry. She inquired if there was any guarantee the water won't back up or be retained towards their house which is to the north of the subject property. She stated when the Dodd Road culvert project was done that water backed up at that time and this is a pretty wet area and always has water. Mr. Knaeble responded they won't be damming or impeding the water flow and the culvert they would provide to cross the first creek should provide the same rate of flow as the current stream. Mr. Knaeble stated, as far as the water table is concerned, they page 185 had soil testings done with borings on the subject property and the results showed the proposal is feasible. Mr. Knaeble stated that the culvert will be sized in coordination with the City Engineering Department and their criteria for storm drainage. Mr. Deeb stated that there currently exists restriction on flow downstream from the subject property and inquired if the drainage plan for this area would increase that restriction. Mr. Knaeble responded the development project should not increase or change in any fashion the flow downstream from the subject property. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the City had done any drainage plan for this area. Public Works Director Jim Danielson responded that no master plan for storm water runoff had been done for this area. Commissioner Tilsen stated as each parcel develops they appear insignificant by themselves, however, when all added together it makes a difference on the impervious surface runoff in this area. Tilsen stated this is a unique property because it's on the fringes of water on both sides and it's between two drainage ways. Commissioner Tilsen stated he felt utilities and emergency services would be better served from a system that provides interior access. Planning Consultant Tim Malloy stated a previous master plan for this area had shown a cul-de-sac from the north, however, this would have to be done in cooperation with other owners in the area. Planner Malloy stated a comprehensive look at a cul-de-sac such as this would provide a roadway and storm sewer system for the subject property. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if any attempts had been made to cooperate with adjoining property owners. Mr. Knaeble stated that yes the people to the south are in the audience tonight. Mr. Knaeble stated the properties to the north had not been contacted. Ms. Gretchen Arndt, of Burnet Realty, stated she is representing the Walker's in this real estate transaction. She stated that the Petersons, the property owners to the south, have been consulted. She felt a cul-de-sac proposal was too restrictive to the lot sizes in the area and would impact the wetlands and trees greater than a private drive proposal. She stated the private road design and Outlot A had been planned to help the Petersons should they decide to develop in the future. She also stated City water could connect to the Petersons with this scenario. page 186 Commissioner Duggan stated he was concerned about having two lots so deep with only 20 feet of access. Commissioner Duggan inquired about servicing gas, electric, phone, and water in the future should any of these utilities need to be dug up when there is only 20 feet of access. Mr. Knaeble responded the utilities would not necessarily be restricted to the 20 foot necks as proposed and there would be easements granted for access to all the utilities. Commissioner Duggan inquired how does any emergency service truck turn around in this area. He stated he had some concerns about a 500 foot long private driveway. Mr. Knaeble responded the same situation is occurring with many of the homes in this block. He stated he felt the privacy amenity outweighed the public safety concerns to most buyers. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the sewers were feasible with the elevation shown on the proposed plan. Mr. Tilsen stated the house is only two feet higher than Dodd Road and there is a creek to be crossed. Public Works Director Danielson responded the feeder depends on the house elevation and that trunk lines do exist on Dodd Road. Commissioner Tilsen stated he was concerned about the level of the creek, the level of Dodd Road, the level of the houses, and basement elevations. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if they had talked to others in the neighborhood. Mr. Knaeble responded yes they had talked to other property owners but there had been no interest in coordination. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if there were others in the audience that were in favor of a master plan for this area. Mr. Fred Peterson, of 1770 Dodd Road, stated it was about time the City did something regarding decisions on development in this area. He stated if this area is developed, it should be done properly with the City and not with umpteen driveways. Mr. Peterson stated he would like to see a program developed by the City and that now is the time to do it without giving out special permits, variances, etc. Mr. Peterson stated the Fire Department needs to be able to get their new, expensive trucks back into this area. Mr. Jim Fischer stated he is not opposed to this proposal. He stated it is his belief that Mr. Ridder wants to keep this area as it is, in its current existing condition with large estate lots. Commissioner Friel says it's all good and well to have a comprehensive plan. He stated, however, that people who own property in this area must be in the position to carry it out once a comprehensive plan is decided. page 187 Mr. Friel stated he did not see the current property owners in this area stating a need for such a master plan. Commissioner Friel also stated that comprehensive plans can force development in an area and its been his experience that large developments can be a mess on the impact to the land compared to a small well done development. Commissioner Friel stated he is still troubled about Outlot A and he believes more information should be available on the drainage issues in this area. Commissioner Friel stated this proposal with large lots and private drives, is preferred. Commissioner Friel moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the October meeting. Commissioner Friel stated as a condition of continuing the public hearing the applicant should submit a better proposal for Outlot A and should submit some more drainage information. A friendly amendment by Commissioner Tilsen stated this site should be served by City sewer and water. A friendly amendment by Commissioner Duggan stated vegetation preservation and protection plan and tree study required in the Subdivision Ordinance should be provided and that the 23 factors in the Wetlands Permit Ordinance should be addressed by the developer. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Vice-Chair Krebsbach stated if the developer intends to put bigger homes on the preliminary plat, it should be shown as such. Commissioner Friel suggested the developer should attempt to honor the 100 foot wetlands setback and, as far as Outlot A was concerned, what he was looking for was a more definitive proposal that identifies the future use of that outlot. Vice- Chair Krebsbach stated the City staff should provide an overview of this area and suggested a City Planning Commission tour of the site and area. It was decided that at the end of the meeting the Planning Commission would adjourn to a special meeting on some Saturday in October in order to visit the site. CASE NO. 91- 36: KING/MULFINGER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. King were present to explain their proposal for a conditional use permit to expand their detached garage and to have a rear yard setback variance. Commissioner Dreelan inquired about the tunnel on the plan. Mr. King responded that the tunnel is an idea page 188 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 October 22, 1991 Page 3 for a variance is a matter of "housekeeping". Mrs. Schuster stated that they would like to start the addition as soon as possible and that they may have plans later to demolish the garage. Chair Dwyer stated that the required signatures of consent to the have been received and to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant a 3.7 foot side yard abutting a street setback variance to bring the Schuster's existing garage into conformance with City Code. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mrs. Schuster, Chair Dwyer informed Mrs. Schuster that the construction of the bathroom addition is not to commence until the City Council reviews her request. He explained that the City Council will convene on November 5, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. and that she would be informed of the meeting in advance. CONTINUED HEARING CASE NO. 91-35: KNAEBLE - SUBDIVISION Ms. Gretchen Nordstrom-Aherns, Burnet Realty, was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Walker. She stated that the Walkers have lived at their residence for forty years. Ms. Aherns stated that the subdivision plat has been revised. She stated that they have been able to work out an agreement with the Peterson's (owners of land to the south) to combine Outlot A with their property. She stated that this revised plan is actually the original plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Public Works Director Danielson stated that the approval of the subdivision would be conditioned upon combining Outlot A with the larger lot to the south. Ms. Aherns stated that the Ridder home (barn) was built within the one hundred foot (100') setback. She commented that the neighbors in the area seem to be happy page 189 October 22, 1991 1 Page 4 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 with the proposal. She further commented that they are willing to work with the City Engineering Department. She stated that they feel that this plan will be aesthetically pleasing and that preservation of the Wetlands is important. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public hearing. Mr. Jim Fischer, 1758 Dodd Road, stated that he has no problem with the proposal. He stated that he wants to see the stream stay the way it is. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the hearing. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Knaeble stated that the distance between garage to garage will be of the typical house pad. He stated that it will be fifteen feet (15'). Commissioner Friel expressed concerns relating to the preservation of trees and the Wetlands. Mr. Knaeble stated that there has been a tree survey completed. He stated that about four (4) trees will be eliminated. Commissioner Duggan stated that he would like to see those trees replaced with trees of like value. Commissioner Krebsbach questioned Mr. Knaeble if he anticipates a possible subdivision at the end of the proposed driveway. Mr. Knaeble stated that at this time he does not and that that would entail the City granting easements and more Wetlands Permits. In response to a question from Commissioner Dreelan, Public Works Director Danielson stated that City code requires a minimum of twenty feet (20') between a in length for a driveway. Planning Consultant Uban stated that the existing driveway is fifty-two feet (52') and that the proposed driveway is scaled at forty-two feet 42'). Commissioner Krebsbach questioned if future development to the south) were developed, would a cul-de-sac be constructed. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that criteria should be addressed now for how the City will address flag lots. She stated that in the future other requests may come in page 190 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 October 22, 1991 Page 5 related to flag lots and the City should start setting standards regarding access, setbacks, preservations of trees, etc. Chair Dwyer stated that he felt the question was one of the comfort level of the Planning Commission in allowing this development and its affect on the surrounding property. Chair Dwyer stated that most concerns have been addressed and this development won't affect the development of the surrounding property. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Mr. Knaeble stated that they anticipate construction starting in the Spring. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant the Wetlands Permit and to approve the preliminary plat conditioned upon Out lot A being combined with the property to the south. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to recommend that the City Council consider purchasing the vacant lot on the corner of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road to prevent future development and to provide access off of Marie Avenue, Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to recommend that the City Council request the State of Minnesota to replace the trees on the southeast corner of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road with trees of like value. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the State did submit plans for the drainage work they would be correcting on the corner of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road. He stated that the State did not indicate the amount of trees they would be removing. page 191 Page No. 3149 November 5, 1991 CASE NO. 91-35: KNAEBLE - SUBDIVISION Mr. Peter Knaeble was present to request approval of the subdivision of a three acre parcel located at 1760 Dodd Road into three lots, one of which contains the existing home. Mr. Knaeble briefly explained revisions had been made to the plat based on suggestions from the Planning Commission. He stated that Outlot A will be transferred to the property to the south. He further explained that a driveway culvert will be installed across the creek and that the size will be approved by the City Engineering staff. In response to a question from Mayor Mertensotto regarding road access into the super block area, Mr. Knaeble stated the distance between the exit road and Marie Avenue will be approximately five hundred feet. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Joe Fischer, 1758 Dodd Road, stated his home is to the north of the proposed subdivision. He stated that he is concerned with the creek level. He stated if measures are being taken to control the level of the creek, he would have no problem with the subdivision being approved. Mr. Knaeble reiterated that the creek is protected by the Wetlands setback and that the vegetation that surrounds the creek will remain. He stated that a culvert will be installed according to engineering requirements. There was a brief discussion regarding combining Outlot A with the property to the south. Mr. Knaeble stated that the final plat will reflect the combination of Outlot A with the property to the south. Councilmember Smith questioned if a cul-de-sac could be constructed. Mr. Knaeble stated that due to the existing homes, there would not be enough room for the construction of a cul-de-sac. Councilmember Blesener questioned driveway access to the flag lots. Mr. Knaeble responded that access easements will exist for all of the lots. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the driveway access should be dedicated through the page 192 Page No. 3150 November 5, 1991 private ownership of the lots and not through the City. In response to a question from Councilmember Blesener, Mr. Knaeble stated the driveways will be hard surfaced driveways. The Council briefly discussed a street circulation plan submitted for their information. The Council discussed future plans for the "super block" area. It was the consensus of the Council that a master plan for the super block" area be further reviewed by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and to include area homeowner's in the research. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission should be included in the discussions. Mayor Mertensotto stated final plat should indicate that the creek bed not be disturbed and that it must remain in its existing condition. He stated future property owners should be alerted to this condition. Mr. Knaeble responded that he would prepare a scenic easement to protect the creek bed. Attorney Hart clarified that the scenic easement should run in favor of the City via the property owners. Public Works Director Danielson stated that sewer and water will be brought into this area. Mr. Knaeble stated he will cooperate with the City in working out a utility easement. Councilmember Blesener moved to grant a Wetlands Permit allowing construction within eighty feet (80' ) of the two creeks and allowing a driveway culvert to be installed across the creek with its size to be approved by City Engineering Staff, that the originally proposed Outlot A be transferred to the property to the south and that a conservancy easement document be prepared by Mr. Knaeble in favor of the City of Mendota Heights and the adjoining property owners. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 IVY FALLS CREEK IMPROVEMENT PHASE I - JOB NO. 8814A Council acknowledged a report from Public Works Director Danielson regarding the Ivy Falls Creek Improvement Phase I) project, informing Council that an easement page 193 page 194 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve License Agreement for 696 Brookside Lane COMMENT: INTRODUCTION Thomas and Edythe Hockenberry are seeking a License Agreement from the city to construct a 144 square foot accessory structure within the platted utility easement along their rear property line. BACKGROUND The Hockenberry’s are owners of 696 Brookside Lane and are desiring to construct a shed in their yard for storage of yard equipment. The homeowners applied for an accessory structure permit which was initially denied by staff due to its location being in a platted drainage and utility easement in their rear yard. The platted easement is 20 feet wide along the length of their east property line. The city does own a sanitary sewer which is centered in this easement. The homeowners asked if there were any alternatives as their yard has about 17 feet of fall from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. The “flat” area of their property is within the city easement. The city recently rehabilitated this sewer line and the line has 8 feet of cover. The license agreement is with this specific homeowner and will not run with the land. The license agreement also requires the homeowner to move the shed for a planned project or the city has authority to move the shed if in an emergency. DISCUSSION A License Agreement is the City’s permission for a private entity or property owner to install an improvement or minor structure within city-owned right-of-way. The agreement also provides for ownership, maintenance and liability of the fence by the homeowners. page 195 This agreement was drafted by city staff. The homeowners have reviewed the license document, and accept the terms and conditions of this license agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the attached License Agreement. ACTION REQUESTED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion to approve the attached License Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights, and Thomas and Edythe Hockenberry of 696 Brookside Lane. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 196 ?((G!.66666666666666666 6 666666666666! ! " !66666 6 6 6 6 66666666666666!!2 696 688 675 678 697 693 688 678694 1ST AVEBROOKSIDE LNVANDALL ST329249.7 200.3 696 Brookside Lane Date: 7/16/2020 City ofMendotaHeights040 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 197 LICENSE AGREEMENT This License Agreement (the "LICENSE") is made this 21st day of July, 2020, by and between THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision (the "CITY") and THOMAS AND EDYTHE HOCKENBERRY (the "LICENSEE"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the LICENSEE owns real property in the CITY located at 696 Brookside Lane ("LICENSEE'S PROPERTY"), as legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, LICENSEE’S PROPERTY contains a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement contiguous of the east property line (the " LICENSED PREMISES”); and WHEREAS, LICENSEE desires to construct a 144 square foot accessory structure in the in the LICENSED PREMISES area of the LICENSEE'S PROPERTY; and WHEREAS, the CITY operates and maintains a sanitary sewer main and storm sewer main within the LICENSED PREMISES; and WHEREAS, the LICENSEE is seeking relief to allow this accessory structure to be constructed within the LICENSED PREMISES area under this LICENSE due to the rolling terrain of the LICENSEE”S PROPERTY not having an alternate suitable location; and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to allow LICENSEE to utilize the LICENSED PREMISES for the accessory structure until such time as dictated by this LICENSE. LICENSE NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, and $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. The CITY does hereby grant LICENSEE a non-exclusive revocable license to install and maintain the proposed accessory structure in the LICENSED PREMISES of LICENSEE’S PROPERTY. Such LICENSE shall extend to LICENSEE only and shall not run with the land. 2. Improvements. Other than normal maintenance or repairs to the accessory structure, the LICENSEE shall not make any further additions or improvements in or to the LICENSED PREMISES without the CITY's prior written consent. The LICENSEE will endeavor to adequately maintain the accessory structure on the LICENSED PREMISES 3. Right-to-Access; Accessory Structure Removal. The CITY, its agents, contractors/sub-contractors and utility providers and companies (collectively, the “CITY PARTIES”), shall have full and free right-to-access and inspect the page 198 LICENSED PREMISES, or install, repair and maintain any public or private improvements within the LICENSED PREMISES. The CITY PARTIES have the right to remove the accessory structure, once installed, as part of any public improvement, utility improvement, or in an emergency situation. Should such a situation arise, the CITY PARTIES will endeavor to provide reasonable notice to the LICENSEE of the removal of the accessory structure, and shall repair the LICENSED PREMISES and, if applicable, the LICENSEE’S PROPERTY to the states in which such properties were in prior to access by the CITY PARTIES. 4. Indemnification. LICENSEE shall hold the CITY PARTIES harmless from and indemnify and defend the CITY PARTIES against any claim or liability arising in any manner from this LICENSE and the LICENSEE's use of the LICENSED PREMISES for the accessory structure, or relating to the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any personal property present on or located in or upon the LICENSED PREMISES, including the person and personal property of LICENSEE or LICENSEE's employees, invitees, and guests, unless such claim or liability arises from the intentional action or gross negligence of the CITY PARTIES. LICENSEE agrees to pay all sums of money in respect to any labor, service, materials, supplies, or equipment furnished or alleged to have been furnished to LICENSEE in or about the LICENSED PREMISES, and not furnished on order of the CITY. LICENSEE may contest any lien for such services, materials, supplies, or equipment, on the condition that LICENSEE first provide to the CITY cash, bond, credit, or other security against such lien which the CITY reasonably determines to be sufficient, the intent of this Section being that no lien shall ultimately attach to the LICENSED PREMISES. 5. Assignment or Sublicensing. LICENSEE shall not sublicense any portion of the LICENSED PREMISES or transfer or assign this LICENSE without obtaining the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent the CITY may grant or deny at the CITY's sole discretion; provided that the CITY hereby consents to the assignment of LICENSEE'S rights and obligations hereunder in the event of the sale of the LICENSEE'S PROPERTY provided the purchasing party of the LICENSEE'S PROPERTY agrees to the term and conditions of this LICENSE in writing. The CITY's consent to any assignment of this LICENSE shall not be a waiver of the CITY's rights under this Section as to any assignment. 6. Notices. All communications, notices, and demands of any kind that either party may be required or desires to give to or serve on the other party shall be made in writing and personally delivered or certified by U.S. Mail, return receipt requested to the following addresses: To the CITY: City of Mendota Heights Attention: City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 199 With a copy to: BEST & FLANAGAN LLP Attn: Andy Pratt, Mendota Heights City Attorney 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 To LICENSEE: Thomas & Edythe Hockenberry 696 Brookside Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 8. No Representation by CITY. Neither the CITY, the CITY PARTIES, nor any other agent or representative of the CITY has made any warranty or other representation with respect to the LICENSED PREMISES. 9. Termination and Surrender. The CITY reserves the right to terminate this LICENSE at will and the CITY shall give LICENSEE not less than sixty (60) days' notice of any termination. Upon termination of this LICENSE by the CITY, the LICENSEE shall peaceably surrender the LICENSED PREMISES in its unimproved and "as is" condition and shall relocate the accessory structure to an alternate location on LICENSEE'S PROPERTY. The CITY shall enforce this Section by any means possible, legally or equitably. 10. Miscellaneous. a. Choice of Law. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern the validity, performance, and enforcement of this LICENSE. b. Counterparts. This LICENSE may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when taken together will be deemed to be an original. c. Amendment or Modification. This LICENSE may not be changed or modified orally, but only upon written agreement signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, or discharge is sought. d. Severability. If any term or provision in this LICENSE is deemed to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the LICENSE shall remain in effect and be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. e. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations under this LICENSE. f. No Other Agreements. This LICENSE fully governs the relationship between the parties hereto related to the placement of an accessory structure on the LICENSED PREMISES, and no oral representations or promises are included herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and LICENSEE have caused these presents to be executed in form and manner sufficient to bind them at law as of the day and year written above. page 200 CITY: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS A Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision Neil Garlock, Mayor Lorri Smith, City Clerk LICENSEE: Thomas Hockenberry Edythe Hockenberry This instrument was drafted by: The City of Mendota Heights and approved for content by Best and Flanagan, LLP/Andy Pratt, City Attorney page 201 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 696 Brookside Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Parcel ID No.: 27-37625-01-010 LEGAL: Lot 1, Block 1, IVY FALLS CREEK ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota page 202 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 20, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Contract for the Wentworth Warming House Replacement COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a contract with Structural Buildings for the Wentworth Warming House Improvements. BACKGROUND City Council has discussed the need to replace the aging warming house at Wentworth Park with expanded features including restrooms and a larger meeting space. This proposal was discussed with members of the Parks and Recreation Commission at a work session held on July 14th. Staff has previously met with several companies and has solicited three quotes for this replacement. DISCUSSION The ideal dimensions for this space would be a building that is approximately 30 feet wide by 32 feet long, with an 8 foot overhang. Cost estimates for a block building or standard stick building of this size exceeded $300,000. The ideal budget set for this improvement is around $150,000. Staff reached out to builders with the proposed budget amount and feedback was that this budget could provide for a pole style building matching the required size. Two quotes were received for this building which ranged from around $169,000 (Structural Buildings) to $210,000 from a competitive contractor. Staff also met with a contractor that provides precast buildings for municipal use. Due to the size of the building, this contractor is only able to provide the walls for a cost of around $126,000 leaving all roofing, fixtures, heating, lighting, flooring, and finishing on the city to independently contract for. This added cost would likely exceed $100,000. This company submitted a smaller design that would be in budget but the dimension are not adequate for the use. The standard warming house is 15 feet by 30 feet and their scaled down design was only 12 feet by 20 feet (not including restrooms and utility room). Staff also solicited a quote from the contractor that had rebuilt other city warming houses. That estimate was for $150/square foot or $180,000; however, it would also require architectural drawings to be drafted adding to the cost. page 203 The Structural Buildings budget proposal is attached. If approved, the city will be required to submit a $25,000 deposit to begin the design work and securing actual bids. Not included in the contract is demolition of the old warming house, utility work (private and public), and exterior concrete. BUDGET IMPACT The Special Parks fund has used the budget proposal price of $169,000 to be allocated to the project. Upon completion of the warming house, playground replacement and parking lot and trail improvements, the city will be reimbursed $180,000 through a DNR Outdoor Recreation grant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the contract to Structural Buildings for their budget proposal of $169,000 for the Wentworth Warming House Replacement. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to proceed with this improvement, a motion should be made authorizing the Public Works Director to execute the budget proposal to Structural Buildings and issue the $25,000 deposit. page 204 page 205 page 206 page 207 page 208 page 209 page 210 page 211 page 212 page 213 page 214