The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-05-04 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 4, 2021 – 6:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency. At its meeting on March 17, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of this action, until further notice all City Council and committee meetings will be held by telephone or through other electronic means, with social distancing measures in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Note that while all or most of the members of the City Council will be participating remotely, the Council Chambers will be open to the public during this meeting, assuming that social distancing protocols are followed. Interested individuals may access the meeting by using the meeting connection information below. With both the log-in or dial-in options, the line will be muted. Observers wishing to make comments on any of the agenda items will need to contact the City Clerk no later than 12 noon on the day of the meeting, and provide their contact information and the agenda item which they want to address. Note that any applicable long-distance telephone charges may apply. Public Attendance is available via telephone: 1-312-535-8110 Meeting Access Code: 133 600 5648 # # For viewing City Council meetings, tune in to Comcast Cable Channel 18 or view online at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming during the posted meeting times. Meetings can also be viewed on demand, after the original airing, at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming . 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Adopt Agenda 5.Consent Agenda a.Approve the April 20, 2021 City Council Minutes b.Approve the April 28, 2021 City Council Work Session Minutes c.Acknowledgement of the February 23, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.Acknowledgement of the March 23, 2021 Planning Commission Work Session Minutes e.Appointment of City Representatives to Serve on the MSP Noise Oversight Committee f.Approve Interior Painting Quote for Public Works Facility g.Approve Resolution 2021-37 Final Payment for Eight Contracts for Fire Station Addition/Remodel h.Approve March 2021 Fire Synopsis i.Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing a. Appeal of Zoning Decision for Massage Therapy Use as a Home Occupation in the R-1 One Family Residential Zone (Resolution 2021-36) 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2021-35 Approving a Variance for 573 Hiawatha Avenue - Dale Krystosek 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, April 20, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine referenced the verdict in the Chauvin trial and made a statement that this verdict is not the end of the conversation related to police reform. Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. She commented that item 8b will be removed and will appear on a future agenda. Councilor Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 8 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Miller moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, with items c, h, i, and m. pulled for additional discussion. a. Approval of April 6, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge March 9, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Resolution 2021-32 Accept Park Bench Donation for Rogers Lake Park d. Approve Ordinance 563 Amend City Code for Fire Code, and Approve the Summary Publication e. Approve Purchase of Police Department Patrol Vehicle f. Approve Resolution 2021-29 Final Payment for Sewer Lining Contract g. Approve Resolution 2021-34 Calling for Public Hearing to Vacate Right-of-Way h. Approve Resolution 2021-33 Approve Plans, Authorize Ad for Bids Ivy Falls East Improvements i. Accept Notice of Retirement, Authorize Recruitment of Part-Time Office Support Assistant j. Approve Ordinance 564 Amending 2021 Fee Schedule for Parks – Rec Fees – Tennis k. Approval of March 2021 Treasurer’s Report l. Approval of Claims List m. Approve Building Activity Report Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye Councilor Duggan aye PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-32 ACCEPT PARK BENCH DONATION FOR ROGERS LAKE PARK Councilor Duggan commented that this is the second time this family has made a park bench donation. He thanked the family for their support and hopes other residents would consider a donation in the future. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-32 ACCEPT PARK BENCH DONATION FOR ROGERS LAKE PARK. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 8 H) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-33 APPROVE PLANS, AUTHORIZE AD FOR BIDS – IVY HILLS EAST IMPROVEMENTS Councilor Duggan asked when the last time was that these roads were improved or updated. He asked about the thickness of the substructure and driving surface. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the City reconstructed these streets in the early 1990’s. He explained that the roadway is a minimum of four inches of pavement over six inches of aggregate base. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-33 APPROVE PLANS, AUTHORIZE AD FOR BIDS – IVY HILLS EAST IMPROVEMENTS. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye I) ACCEPT NOTICE OF RETIREMENT, AUTHORIZE RECRUITMENT FOR PART-TIME OFFICE SUPPORT ASSISTANT Councilor Duggan recognized Pam Deeb who has been the receptionist at City Hall for the past 15 years, and whose notice of resignation was being considered. Councilor Mazzitello commented that Ms. Deeb is the reason he is here. He stated that when purchasing his home, he came to City Hall to ask questions and was made aware of the open Public Works Director position. He stated that he is appreciative of her great work. Mayor Levine expressed thanks for the years of service. Councilor Duggan moved to accept NOTICE OF RETIREMENT, AUTHORIZE RECRUITMENT FOR PART-TIME OFFICE SUPPORT ASSISTANT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Mayor Levine aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 8 M) APPROVE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Councilor Duggan commented that even with the limited opportunities communities have today, the City continues to outpace itself in building activity, which is encouraging and speaks well for the City, its staff, and all departments. Councilor Duggan moved to approve BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye PUBLIC COMMENTS Jason Eggers, 2260 Wagon Wheel Court, stated that he came before the Council 18 months ago to request an ordinance to allow for the temporary use of goats for brush clearing. He stated that he is present to request a follow up. He stated that he is interested in becoming a vendor for supplying goats, as he has property in Wisconsin where he could house the goats. He stated that he would propose to fence an area on his property, have six to eight goats, and have the Council review that as a demonstration example to determine how effective the goats are in removing invasive species. He stated that once completed, his wife would plan to plant native plants in the area. He stated that buckthorn removal is more effective if done in the spring or early summer. City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that staff can provide a status report at the next meeting. He stated that an ordinance amendment would be required. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff is looking at a temporary goat licensing program but noted a full ordinance amendment would be required. He stated that he intends to bring that forward to the Planning Commission on May 27th and would follow to the Council on June 1st, if recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti commented that a similar demonstration project was done at Pilot Knob in the past. He noted that there are a number of residents interested in this activity. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 8 A) RESOLUTION 2021-30 APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to consider a request for an Administrative Critical Area Permit for the property located at 711 Woodridge Drive. Councilor Duggan referenced language in the proposed resolution which states, “shed improvement” and noted that it would not be an improvement as the shed is not currently there. Mr. Benetti commented that this action would approve the open deck and porch and future shed. Councilor Duggan commented that it is difficult to approve a shed with no details about it. Mayor Levine asked if sheds are typically approved without knowing the materials to be used. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the typical shed materials. He commented that the applicant could provide more input on those details. Councilor Duggan asked the distance between the rear of the shed and bluff line. Mr. Benetti replied that the distance is 50 feet or more from the bluff line which meets the City standards. Mayor Levine asked if there is a height limit for sheds. She commented that anyone could paint something a color they desire. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a shed could be up to 15 feet in height. He confirmed that there are not architectural standards guiding things such as color. Councilor Mazzitello asked if there is a provision in the Critical Area Code requiring natural appearing exteriors. Mr. Benetti confirmed there is language which states that accessory structures should match the principal structure. Councilor Mazzitello commented that it appears the shed will abut a paved surface and asked whether the shed could act as a detached garage, storing a small vehicle. He asked for details on the proposed use of the shed. Sean Hoffman, applicant, provided details on the location of the shed, noting that it would not be large enough to store a vehicle. He stated that he plans to put his lawn tractor and those types of things in the shed. He stated that he plans to have a tin roof, similar to the roof on the porch addition, with hardy board siding. He stated that his home is brick. He confirmed that the shed would be similar in color to his home. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the shed would be standing in the future when he no longer owns the property. Mr. Hoffman commented that he does not plan to move. He stated that he plans to pour a cement slab for the shed as well. Councilor Paper commented that this is a perfect example of what the Council talked about when the moratorium was created, to allow for these small projects to come through. April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 8 Councilor Duggan asked for guidance on the fifth whereas statement and asked if there is better language to replace “shed improvement”. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that the language could read “proposed deck, porch project and shed” eliminating the word improvement if that is of concern. He stated that it is clear that the application is for a deck, porch and shed. Councilor Duggan accepted that clarified language. Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-30 APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE, as amended. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye Councilor Duggan aye B) WORK PLAN OF MASTER GARDENERS FOR 2021 Item removed from agenda. C) 2020 PARKS AND RECREATION YEAR IN REVIEW Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence presented a review of the 2020 accomplishments related to Parks, Recreation, and the Par 3 Golf Course. She also provided a preview of the upcoming recreation season and programming. Councilor Duggan asked if the Par 3 is currently open. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that the course opened on March 13th. Councilor Duggan commended staff on the report and all the continued great work. Councilor Paper thanked staff for the thorough report. He asked if certain performers would be coming back. Ms. Lawrence commented that the details are still being worked out for some performing groups and provided additional details. Councilor Paper asked when the new sign would be installed at the Par 3. Ms. Lawrence replied that the sign is being delivered to the City later this week and should be installed next week. Councilor Paper asked if staff is aware of the number of rounds that have been played this year at the Par 3. Ms. Lawrence replied that the course was open for 19 days in March with over 700 rounds played . For April, the weather has not been ideal and she estimated about 900 rounds have played so far. April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 8 Councilor Paper asked for details on the irrigation that was done last summer. Ms. Lawrence commented that during the challenge with COVID last year, they watered the grass enough to keep it alive, but not in a manner that kept it healthy. Councilor Mazzitello commented that this is a fantastic report, and another reminder of the great job staff does. He commented that Ms. Lawrence is a recent graduate of the American Public Works Association Leadership Academy and asked for a brief update from her. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that she completed the program as part of her master’s degree program. She stated that she found the most benefit in meeting public works directors and superintendents from the metro area to get input on the daily activities and challenges they face. She stated that after completion of the program she is more appreciative of the public works department and work they complete. Councilor Duggan suggested a masked ball for children as part of the summer programing. Mayor Levine thanked staff for the great presentation. She stated that as a previous member of the PRC she has a deep appreciation of the work parks and recreation does and the benefit that provides to the community. She recognized the achievement the City was able to accomplish in turning a profit on the Par 3 even without concessions and planning for the rebranding. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that tree removal will be taking place at Wentworth Park on April 21st and the parking lot will be closed most of the day. On May 1st there will be a family golf season kickoff event at the Par 3 beginning at 9 a.m. On May 15th,, the See a Truck event will be held at Mendakota Park at 10 a.m. Work continues on the Marie Park playground remodeling project, which has a completion date of June 1st. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper thanked staff for the parks presentation. He also expressed appreciation for the Mendota Heights Police Department, its leadership, and the Officers. Councilor Duggan commented that the City continues to show consideration for others in the streets and parks as well as awareness of neighbors. He thanked all responders, and the Police Department, for their service during these challenging times. He hoped that the city would have an in-person 5K this year. He stated that perhaps a wall plaque could hang at City Hall recognizing park bench donors. He thanked all that participated in the most recent Planning Commission, staff and attorney discussions related to the variances and challenges related to requests that come forward. Councilor Mazzitello stated that two weeks ago he was able to attend a memorial service for Jim Danielson, who served the City for 32 years. He reminded the Council of a previous discussion to honor Mr. Danielson. He stated that in respect to the events of today, regardless of how people feel about the Chauvin trial, he is hoping the results will be the first step in healing communities and that people are seen for who they are rather than what they are. April 20, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 8 Councilor Miller commented that he found Councilor Paper’s comments to be on point and agrees with those comments. Mayor Levine recognized that communities are experiencing pain on top of a pandemic. She recognized the Police and Fire Departments who are serving additional hours. She recognized the additional contributions Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provides on a state level in terms of police licensing and standards. She stated that the City is two thirds of the way through the April My Water Pledge and she invited residents to participate. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Work Session Held Via WebEx Tuesday, April 28, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was called to order on April 28, 2021. The meeting was held virtually using WebEx. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Council members Duggan, Mazzitello, Miller, and Paper were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Recreation Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Community Development Director Tim Benetti, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. SPACE NEEDS STUDY – CITY HALL City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced Quinn Hutson and Jessica Harter, representing CNH Architects, who was hired to perform a space needs analysis of City Hall and the Police Department. Mr. Hutson reviewed the building history, the site and building analysis, the goals, and recommendations. Mr. Hutson stated the city hall building was built in 1988. He reviewed the building maintenance that has taken place since that date. Councilor Duggan questioned if the 2018 water remediation project is complete and was it successful. Mr. McNeill stated the water infiltration and mold issues have been taken care of. The west wall still has issues that needs to be addressed. Mr. Hutson reviewed the site analysis, which includes 3.24 buildable acres. The infrastructure issues include poor circulation and flow leading to decreased functionality and inadequate access to utilities. He stated the building infrastructure is in good shape to provide a remodel and addition to. The street access is excellent and has good visibility. Mr. Hutson noted the shortage in space, lack of secure storage, and security as issues. Other issues noted included squad cars having only one outlet to Lexington Avenue, insufficient separation between secure and public areas, Council Chambers lacking multiple exits, lack of garage space to securely store all squad cars, lack of a police training area, lack of meeting room and office space. Mr. Hutson noted the program goals including building and staff security, preservation of the character of the city, efficiency and flow of the building, maintaining the GreenStep city status, and ADA accessibility. April 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page 2 Mayor Levine noted the need to remodel in a way to respect staff and to provide them the space they need so they can productively do their job. Council Duggan stated the key to the design of the original building was to fit it into the neighborhood. He asked what significant needs are not being met by the current building. Mr. McNeill stated that safety is a significant concern that must be addressed, especially for the police department. Mr. Hutson reviewed the overall site plan and the building additions that are being proposed. He stated the upper level has a space shortage of about 1,992 square feet. The plan proposes an addition to the Council Chambers to provide an additional exit to the room, and an addition to the north side of the building to include open office work spaces and a break room for employees. Councilor Miller asked if the garage space proposed for the lower level would be built to accommodate a second story above it for future expansion. Mr. Hutson stated that would be a good plan. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the additional eight work spaces being planned for the new addition to the north would accommodate any future staff hired. Mr. Hutson stated those spaces are only for the existing staff members. Mr. Hutson reviewed the lower level proposal. He estimated the lower level has a space shortage of approximately 7,379 square feet and lacks security. The proposal plans for an addition to the north side to provide a garage space for squad cars, a training classroom, an evidence garage, an armory, and office space. The current space would be reconfigured to allow for a property storage area, a vehicle sally port, larger locker rooms, and a squad room separate from the staff breakroom. Councilor Duggan asked for the staff capacity of the current space, compared to the proposed staff capacity of the proposed new space. Mr. McNeill stated the proposed space does not allow for additional staff capacity. Chief McCarthy stated the proposed plan does not include space for additional employees. She stated the proposed plan addresses security issues and mainly adds space for a garage, armory, storage and classroom. It does not add room for the department to grow. Councilor Paper asked about the proposed secondary access for police vehicles and if that would be only used in emergencies. Mr. Hutson stated the slope would be evened out over the distance and would only be used in times of emergency. This could also help to address the water infiltration issue of the west wall. Councilor Mazzitello stated the planning should include needs for the future, and the Council should look at the costs for a new building on a new site. Mr. Hutson discussed the proposed costs of the plan. Based on January 2021 building costs, the estimated costs totaled $4,263,964, including a contingency of 15%. He stated that phasing the construction of this project is a possibility. He estimated that building a separate police department building at a new location, greater than 17,000 square feet, is estimated to cost $4.9 to $5.3 million for the building only, not including soft costs or the remodeling of city hall. Mr. McNeill discussed the fiscal impacts for the city. A bond issuance of $4.6 million would increase taxes on an averaged priced home in Mendota Heights, valued at $458,744, by $67.44. He reviewed resources of the city, which include the Bourn property, the water tower fund, the Par 3 bond levy retirement in 2023, and the general fund balance. April 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page 3 The Council members discussed the options of a larger remodel of the current building to accommodate future growth and more needs of the police department, building a new city hall/police department building at the Mertensotto baseball field site, moving the baseball field to the current city hall building location, or building a new city hall/police department building at the Public Works site. The Council directed city staff to calculate the space needed for a new city hall/police department building to be built on the site of the Mertensotto baseball field and calculate space needed to move the baseball field to the current city hall site. If there is adequate space for the city hall and baseball field space exchange, the Council would like to see a cost proposal for a new city hall/police department building from CNH Architects. The Council also asked to see a proposal from CNH Architects which increases the size of the additions to City Hall and Police Department to accommodate more space for future growth and adds more needs of the police department. UPDATE ON SOCIAL EVENTS SCHEDULED Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator, reviewed with the Council the various social events that are being planned for this summer. The Councilors suggested adding a dance at Market Square Park and a food truck event. It was suggested that these two events be added to the Parks Celebration in August. DISCUSSION OF IN-PERSON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS The Councilors were in agreement to start in-person meetings as soon as possible. PAR 3 SENIOR PASS PROPOSAL A Senior pass was presented as an option for the playing at the Par 3. This idea will be forwarded along to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation. ADJOURN Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:36 pm. ____________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 23, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Andrew Katz and Brian Petschel (arrived/appeared at 7:22 p.m.). Those absent: None. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2021 Community Development Director Tim Benetti opened the floor for nominations for the Chair position for the next one year. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO NOMINATE LITTON FIELD AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2021. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO NOMINATE PATRICK CORBETT AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER KATZ SUGGESTED THAT EACH NOMINEE BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. COMMISSIONER FIELD STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND HAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN BOTH MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND SAINT PAUL. COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME EXPERIENCE BUT IS EAGER TO PARTICIPATE AND LEARN MORE AND WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS CHAIR. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED TO ELECT LITTON FIELD AS CHAIR: COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH NAY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM AYE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AYE COMMISSIONER CORBETT NAY COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9 AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED TO ELECT PATRICK CORBETT AS CHAIR: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON NAY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NAY COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD NAY COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE AYES: 3 NAYS: 3 COMMISSIONER LITTON FIELD WAS ELECTED TO THE POSITION OF CHAIR. Community Development Director Tim Benetti opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM TO NOMINATE SALLY LORBERBAUM AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2021. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO NOMINATE PATRICK CORBETT AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM RECOGNIZED THAT SHE IS NEW TO THE GROUP BUT PREVIOUSLY SERVED 12 YEARS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SIX OF THOSE YEARS AS CHAIR. SHE WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN THIS POSITION. COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN THIS POSITION AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMEONE RECEIVE THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY SERVED IN THIS CAPACITY. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED TO ELECT SALLY LORBERBAUM AS VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER TOTH NAY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AYE CHAIR FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ NAY COMMISSIONER CORBETT NAY February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM AYE AYES: 3 NAYS: 3 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED TO ELECT PATRICK CORBETT AS VICE CHAIR : COMMISSIONER JOHNSON NAY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NAY COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR FIELD NAY COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE AYES: 3 NAYS: 3 Community Development Director Tim Benetti reported a tied vote for the candidates. The Commission decided to table the decision of Vice Chair to the next meeting when Commissioner Petschel is present to break the tie. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of December 17, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2020. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ABSTAIN COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ABSTAIN Hearings There were none. February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9 New or Unfinished Business A) REVIEW OF DRAFT ORDINANCE REGULATING ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND USES IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the intent was to have a draft ordinance for the Planning Commission to review tonight but legal counsel wanted additional time to work with staff to draft an ordinance that would be relevant to the current case laws and that would be fair and reasonable. He stated that staff intends to bring back more information for the Commission to review in the near future. Commissioner Toth asked if the City has been approached by business owners to open this type of business in the past. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he received a call from a party two years ago that was interested in bringing a sexually orientated business into the community, which is when he realized the City did not have an ordinance addressing those types of businesses. He stated that he told that interested party that the business is not listed as an allowed use and the business owner moved on. He stated that following that, the City enacted a moratorium, but staff was too busy during that time and was unable to accomplish that goal. Commissioner Corbett asked if any work has been done to determine the numbers related to the percentages listed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that initially the draft he prepared simply provided a mechanism for those businesses to be conditionally allowed in industrial zones with distance standards from certain types of existing businesses. He noted that the City Attorney provided additional input and wanted to ensure that analysis and mapping was done related to that five percent. He stated that staff will use the GIS mapping services to show that five percent and confirmed that would be part of the overall presentation that comes forward. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would be shocked if there is five percent of land available in that manner today. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that staff will complete the analysis and work together with the City Attorney in a manner that would be defensible. Commissioner Corbett noted that Mendota Heights is an established community, and he would not want to see rezoning occur simply to make the five percent feasible. Chair Field recognized that this is complicated and agreed that staff should use more time preparing this matter. February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9 Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2021 (Continued) Chair Field noted that Commissioner Petschel is now present and suggested that the tabled Vice Chair election be resumed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reported that both Commissioner Lorberbaum and Commissioner Corbett were nominated for Vice Chair and that vote ended in a tie vote, therefore Commissioner Petschel is needed to break the tie. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED TO ELECT SALLY LORBERBAUM AS VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER TOTH NAY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AYE CHAIR FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ NAY COMMISSIONER CORBETT NAY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM AYE AYES: 4 NAYS: 3 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED TO ELECT PATRICK CORBETT AS VICE CHAIR: COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE CHAIR FIELD NAY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NAY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON NAY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL NAY COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE AYES: 3 NAYS: 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPORTED THAT COMMISSIONER SALLY LORBERBAUM WAS ELECTED TO THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIR. February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9 B) REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR GRAZING OF INVASIVE VEGETATION Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to once again discuss and provide thoughts, comments, and direction on creating a new ordinance (or policy) regulating the temporary keeping of goats for prescribed grazing and invasive/noxious vegetation management on properties in Mendota Heights. 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). Commissioner Petschel asked what was considered during the last discussion, as he thought an ordinance was proposed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the previous discussion was just a discussion with intent to bring forward an ordinance in the future. He suggested that this move forward more quickly as with spring coming forward more people may be interested in this opportunity. Chair Field commented that there are two clients in his office that operate these types of businesses. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that many communities are beginning to allow this type of prescriptive grazing and if there is a need or demand, he does not see a problem with allowing the activity with a permit and allowed period of time. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the current status and how this activity could occur without an ordinance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is currently not an ordinance allowing goats. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the goats that were used to reduce invasive species near the Mendota Bridge were allowed without an ordinance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that five years ago the City participated in a pilot project with the DNR for a temporary managed grazing project. He noted that was a temporary use for that purpose. He stated that staff will work to bring back a draft ordinance for the Commission to review. February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9 C) REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) MODEL ORDINANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Model Ordinance. This draft document was prepared by the Department of Natural Resources for all of those metropolitan communities situated along the Mississippi River with similar critical area overlay districts, including the City of Mendota Heights. 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). Chair Field asked if staff and the City Attorney may draft modifications as deemed necessary. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the City could make the ordinance its own to fit within the Mendota Heights community but at minimum it must conform to the base rules of the DNR. Commissioner Katz recognized that the City currently has a moratorium in place but expressed concern with the ability for property owners to clear cut without proposed construction. He asked who would be charged with enforcement. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that vegetation removal requires a Critical Area Permit and therefore would be prohibited during the moratorium. He noted that the City would allow for invasive species management as suggested by the DNR. He used the example of goats and noted that if that is allowed, it could occur during the moratorium as the purpose is invasive species management. He stated that enforcement would be charged to staff, noting that there are some staff members actively in the community and neighbors typically report on that type of activity. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the Council has drafted goals for the next two years that include drafting a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Commissioner Petschel asked if the moratorium would apply to permits that would not increase the size of the structure and would be more maintenance type activities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the intent was to stop major development projects and noted that maintenance type activities would still be allowed as exemptions. Commissioner Petschel commented that he believed many of those activities also require a Critical Area review. February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is an administrative Critical Area Permit which is review administratively by staff and approved by the City Council via the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any appetite for there not to be a required review by the Planning Commission and City Council for maintenance type activities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that language could be drafted in that nature if that is the desire. Commissioner Petschel commented that while it does not happen often, the Commission sometimes reviews applications that do not require a fundamental change to the buildings, but the review is required because of the location of the property. Chair Field confirmed that could be part of the overall discussion. He noted that with the moratorium Critical Area Permits could not be applied for. Commissioner Johnson commented that within the packet it was stated that additional optional language was shown from the DNR. She asked if there was additional language proposed by the DNR that was not included. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this is the model language that was sent to all communities. He noted that the optional language is optional, and the community can choose whether or not to incorporate that language. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: The City will be completed a TIF analysis for a new building off Pilot Knob on the old Lloyd’s BBQ site for a 75,000 square foot office facility. He stated that the applicant has a proposed tenant that would bring 20 new jobs to the community. He stated that the applicant would be looking for nine-year TIF assistance to provide for a private road, driveway, and utilities. He stated that the Commission will not be seeing the plan but noted that the plan does meet all the requirements of City Code. He stated that in the future it could be helpful to provide a stipulation for commercial/industrial development that would require review by the Planning Commission and therefore intends to bring an ordinance amendment to the Commission in the future. He stated that as the ordinance is drafted this is a permitted use and therefore does not require Site Plan Review by the Commission or City Council. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the ordinance amendment would apply based on building size or for any commercial/industrial development. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the intent would be to draft the language to require any new commercial or industrial Site Plan to come before the Commission and Council for review. February 23, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Corbett asked the process for TIF requests. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a TIF request is reviewed and considered through public hearing by the City Council. He provided additional details on the TIF being requested in this case. He confirmed that the site is currently vacant. Commissioner Corbett asked if anything has been done to make it easier to obtain variances as previously discussed by the Commission. Chair Field agreed that was previous direction and he would be in favor of ensuring that discussion continues as it would provide fairness to the different property owners. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided an update on plowing activities for the season. Adjournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:53 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING MARCH 23, 2021 A workshop training session of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. Because of the ongoing pandemic, the training session was held virtually. The following Commissioners were in attendance: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Andrew Katz and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None. The following staff members were in attendance: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, City Administrator Mark McNeill. Community Development Director Tim Benetti joined at 7:20 PM. Also in attendance: City Councilor John Mazzitello, and City Attorneys Elliot Knetsch and Joel Jamnik with Campbell-Knutson Law. Discussion Items: City Administrator McNeill introduced Attorneys Knetsch and Jamnik from the law firm of Campbell Knutson. The attorneys discussed several common land use issues which come before Planning Commissions, and spent a significant amount of time on variances. The city attorneys also reviewed a number of court case studies where variances and zoning decision-making by other municipalities were either upheld or reversed by the courts for specific reasons. The city attorneys explained the rationale for such court decisions, and answered a number of questions from the commissioners. This was not an official meeting of the Commission, and no votes were taken or decisions were made. Adjourn: Upon no additional questions or comments from the commissioners, city attorneys and city staff, the workshop session officially adjourned at 8:54 PM. Minutes taken by: Mark McNeill City Administrator 03/23/2021 Date: May 4, 2021 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: MSP Noise Oversight Committee Appointment Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to make appointments for City representation on the MSP Airport’s Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). Background: A letter (attached) was recently received from the NOC Technical Advisor, asking that the City notify it of primary and alternate representatives for the next two years. As shown, the terms run from June 26, 2021, to June 25, 2023 For the past four years, Councilor Jay Miller has served as the City’s primary representative on the NOC. However, due to work conflicts (the NOC typically meets at 1:30 PM on Wednesdays), Councilor Miller has had to miss several meetings. In those cases, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson has filled in as first alternate, or former ARC Chair Dave Sloan as second alternate. These are the applicable sections of the NOC by-laws: ARTICLE III Powers and Duties of Membership Subject to the voting provisions herein set forth, the membership shall have the following powers and duties: 1. Both airport user and community appointed members must be vested to represent their constituency and vote accordingly ARTICLE XI Reporting Relationship and Responsibility in MAC’s Process 4. Each member will be responsible for reporting to his or her respective appointing authority. As shown, there is no requirement that the primary representative be an elected official. In this case, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson has had the most experience with the NOC, and so would be the logical person to serve in that capacity. Newly elected ARC Chair Gina Norling is agreeable to serving as first alternate, and ARC Vice-Chair Arvind Sharma would serve as second alternate. Recommendation: We recommend that Cheryl Jacobson be appointed as primary representative, Gina Norling as first alternate, and Arvind Sharma be appointed second alternate. Action Required: If the Council concurs, it would, by motion make the following appointments to serve as Mendota Heights' representatives to the Noise Oversight Committee, for the upcoming two year term: Primary—Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator First Alternate—Gina Norling, ARC Chair Second Alternate—Arvind Sharma, ARC Vice Chair Mark McNeill, City Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 4, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Approve Interior Painting for Public Works Facility COMMENT: INTRODUCTION Staff is asking for approval of a contract to paint the interior of the Public Works facility garage space. BACKGROUND The Public Works garage was built in two phases. The original constructions is from 1978 and a garage addition was added in 1992. The garage spaces in both sections have never been painted, and so are a concrete block color, and are now dirty in a lot of places. Public Works is proposing to have the garage walls and ceiling painted in a grey color for the lower part of the walls, and white on the upper areas on the walls, and the ceiling and ceiling trusses. The painting will provide better lighting in the garages. The painting will be done in phases. Public Works will move materials away from the walls, and then would pressure wash the walls in preparation for the painting. The work is expected to take about a week to perform. DISCUSSION Staff solicited three quotes for the repainting. The quotes for the work are: Steinbrecher Painting Company $27,750 Colorful Concepts Painting $31,811 TMI Coatings, Inc. $183,900 BUDGET IMPACT This project is proposed to be financed through the city facility infrastructure fund which has adequate reserves for this work. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the quote from Steinbrecher Painting Company in the amount of $27,750. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion to approve the quote from Steinbrecher Painting Company in the amount of $27,750. This requires a simple majority vote. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 4, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Final Payment and Acceptance of Fire Station Addition/Remodel COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2021-37, to accept work and approve eight final payments for the fire station addition/remodel. Background The City Council awarded 20 contracts on March 5, 2019, for the remodel/addition of the fire station. The City Council approved the final payment for four of the contracts on December 15, 2020, seven of the contracts on January 19, 2021, and one contract on February 18, 2021. The contract work for eight of the components for the project have now been completed, inspected, and approved. These eight contracts are ready for final payments. This will start the one-year guarantee period. All required paperwork needed for the final payments have been submitted. Discussion The eight contracts ready for final payment are: Name Pay Request Original Contract Amount Contract Northland Concrete $12,836.05 $251,100.00 CP-03 Concrete Industrial Construction Specialists $18,510.33 $352,153.00 CP-05 Structural & Miscellaneous Steel Rosenquist Construction, Inc. $13,923.45 $228,204.00 CP-06 Roofing Ford Metro $9,760.42 $125,670.00 CP-08 Glazing, Aluminum Storefronts Steinbrecher Painting Company $2,162.50 $78,250.00 CP-12 Paint Ryan Mechanical $27,524.57 $931,900.00 CP-17 Mechanical A.J. Moore Electrical $59,548.82 $1,152,500.00 CP-18 Electrical McNamara Contracting $7,649.06 $122,597.36 CP-19 Asphalt Paving Total: $151,915.20 Budget Impact There are sufficient funds to cover these eight final payments. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept the work and approve the final payments descried herein. Action Required If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2021-37 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR EIGHT MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION REMODEL AND EXPANSION FINAL PAYMENTS”, by simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-37 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR EIGHT MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION REMODEL & EXPANSION FINAL PAYMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed on March 5, 2019, with the City of Mendota Heights, and with: Northland Concrete, Industrial Construction Specialists, Ronsenquist Construction, Inc., Ford Metro, Steinbrecher Painting Company, Ryan Mechanical, A.J. Moore Electrical, and McNamara Contracting having satisfactorily completed the eight component improvements for the fire station expansion/remodel in accordance with such contract. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said eight contracts are hereby accepted and approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue proper orders for the eight final payments on such contracts in the amount of: 1. Northland Concrete $12,836.05 2.Industrial Construction Specialists $18,510.33 3. Rosenquist Construction, Inc. $13,923.45 4.Ford Metro . $ 9,760.42 5.Steinbrecher Painting Company $ 2,162.50 6.Ryan Mechanical $27,524.57 7.A.J. Moore Electrical $59,548.82 8.McNamara Contracting $ 7,649.06 taking the eight contractor’s receipts in full. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of May 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 4, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: March 2021 Fire Synopsis COMMENT: Fire Calls In March, the Fire Department was paged for service a total of 24 times. Types of calls: Fires: 1 On the evening of March 25th, Mendota Heights Fire responded to a call for a vehicle fire. Medical/Extrication: 6 The fire department responded to five EMS medical runs and also extricated a patient from a pickup truck after it had come off of 35E and ended up on its side and lodged between a tree and the freeway fence. Hazardous Situations: 3 In March, the department was paged out for two natural gas leak issues. One call involved a cut 2” gas line and the other call involved the smell of natural gas and the incident was turned over to Xcel Energy. The third call was for a possible vehicle fire that ended up not actually being on fire but the vehicle did fill with smoke. Service Calls: False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 6 Six of the monthly calls were coded as either system malfunctions (2), unintentional (3), or false alarm other (1). Good intent Calls: 2 Just two calls were coded as good intent. Upon arrival, there were no actual problems found for either of the calls. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5 The month of March had the department paged and cancelled five times before we were able to arrive on-scene at the address of the incident. Mendota Heights 20 calls Lilydale 1 call(s) Mendota 1 call(s) Sunfish Lake 1 call(s) Other 1 call(s) Total: 24 calls Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 1 The fire department responded to one mutual aid call. March Training March 3 18:30 SCBA Orientation/stations This drill was the final mandatory training dedicated to the new airpac use and familiarization in multiple scenarios. March 4 07:00 SCBA Orientation/stations This drill was the final mandatory training dedicated to the new airpac use and familiarization in multiple scenarios. March 6 08:00 SCBA Orientation/stations This drill was the final mandatory training dedicated to the new airpac use and familiarization in multiple scenarios. March 10 18:30 Mandatory 2 BBP/RTK Blood Borne Pathogens and Right to Know This is a mandatory drill and is required by OSHA. March 11 07:00 Mandatory 2 BBP/RTK Blood Borne Pathogens and Right to Know This is a mandatory drill and is required by OSHA. March 17 18:30 Mandatory 1 FF Safety/Survival This drill had multiple stations focusing on familiarity with the upcoming new SCBA airpacs. The main station had firefighters in dark, smoky conditions. The firefighters then had to locate the airpac components, then after finding the airpac compartments, firefighters had to assemble them and then continue the drill in zero visibility. March 22 18:30 Technology Systems This was a multiple station drill dedicated to familiarization and usage of both in station and in the field technology systems that firefighters need to be familiar with and comfortable using. March 23 07:00 Technology Systems This was a multiple station drill dedicated to familiarization and usage of both in station and in the field technology systems that firefighters need to be familiar with and comfortable using. March 29 18:30 EMS “C” This drill is part three of the four required trainings for firefighters to maintain their EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) certification. This class is not required for firefighters who maintain a higher level of medical training (EMT’s, paramedics, etc.). March 30 07:00 EMS “C” This drill is part of three of four required trainings for firefighters to maintain their EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) certification. This class is not required for firefighters who maintain a higher level of medical training (EMT’s, paramedics, etc.). Number of Calls 24 Total Calls for Year 69 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $70,000 Structure - MH Residential $0 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $500 $500 $1,000 Vehicle - Contract Areas $500 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $500 $500 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 5 Vehicle accident w/injuries Extrication 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$1,000 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0 Spills/Leaks 2 Carbon Monoxide Incident $1,000 Power line down Arcing, shorting $71,000 Hazardous, Other 1 SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $500 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent 2 Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 20 52 44 HazMat release investigation 1 5 5 Good Intent, Other 1 1 4 FALSE ALARMS 1 2 4 False Alarm 1 9 15 Malfunction 2 Unintentional 3 Total:24 69 72 False Alarm, other 1 MUTUAL AID 1 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 24 Inspections 44 Investigations 0 WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection 0 Fire Calls 404 1085 1178.5 Meetings 17.5 84 294 Meetings 1 Training 445.5 1196.25 683.5 Special Activity 55.5 106.5 158 Administration 16.5 Fire Marshal 63 148 0 Plan Review/Training 1.5 TOTALS 985.5 2619.75 2314 TOTAL:63 Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MARCH 2021 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 4, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Resolution No. 2021-36 Affirming a Decision from the Board of Appeals Denying an Appeal to Allow a Massage Therapy Business as a Home Occupation Use in the R-1 One Family Residential District Introduction The City Council is asked to consider and adopt a resolution affirming a decision from the Board of Appeals denying an appeal to allow a massage therapy business as a home occupation use in the R-1 One Family Residential District. The Appellant in this case is Ms. Julie A. Olson. Background Julie A. Olson is a certified (professional) massage therapist practicing for over 18 years in Minnesota, and is seeking an appeal from an official zoning decision made by the city’s zoning administrator regarding the allowance or licensing of a massage therapy business in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. Ms. Olson is seeking to operate on the property located at 2159 Delaware Avenue, which is currently owned by Mike and Julie Gerend. The applicant requests her business be allowed as a permitted home occupation use and to operate from an accessory structure on the property. On April 27, 2021, the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Appeals (per City Code Title 12-1L- 3), conducted a separate public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of this 04/27/2021 report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Board of Appeals unanimously (7-0 vote) adopted separate Resolution No. 2021-31, a resolution of denial by the Board of Appeals to allow a massage therapy business as a home occupation use in the R-1 One Family Residential District. A copy of this resolution is also appended to this council memo report. Action Requested As per City Code Title 12-1L-3: Appeals, the City Council must conduct its own public hearing in this appeal matter. Upon closing the hearing, if the City Council wishes to affirm this decision of denial made by the Board of Appeals, it may adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-36 AFFIRMING A DECISION FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS DENYING AN APPEAL TO ALLOW A MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. If the Council wishes to over-turn this decision, you should table this matter, and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution reversing this decision, which can be considered at the May 18, 2021 meeting. (Note: the 60-day statutory review period on this application expires June 7, 2021) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-36 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING A DECISION FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION TO ALLOW A MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Julie A. Olson (the “Applicant”) has requested an appeal from a decision made by the zoning administrator denying a request to allow a massage therapy business as a permitted home occupation use and activity in the R-1 One Family Residential District, with said business to operate within an accessory structure and at the property located at 2159 Delaware Avenue (the “Subject Property”), as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-03; and WHEREAS, City Code Title 3-6-1: Therapeutic Massage Enterprises contains specific provisions regarding the placement of massage therapy businesses in nonresidential districts, and City Code 12-1B-2: Definitions (Zoning) provides specific definitions and provisions related to accessory uses or structures, dwellings, home occupations, and massage therapy (therapeutic massage) businesses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1L-3, the City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, must determine by resolution, all appeals from any order, requirement, permit or decision made by the zoning administrator under Chapter 12 - Zoning and from any interpretation by the zoning administrator of the text of this chapter; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the Mendota Heights Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing at the regular Planning Commission meeting on the proposed appeal application, and whereupon receiving a report from city staff and allowing comments from the applicant and general public, the Board of Appeals closed the hearing and after careful consideration to this appeal matter, unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2021-31, a resolution of denial to allow a massage therapy business as a home occupation use in the R-1 One Family Residential District and at the subject property. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the decision from the zoning administrator and Board of Appeal denying a request to allow a massage therapy business as a permitted home occupation use and activity in the R-1 One Family Residential District and to operate within an accessory structure in the R-1 Zone is hereby affirmed; and that Resolution No. 2021-31, adopted by the Board of Appeals on April 27, 2021, is hereby accepted with the following findings-of-fact: 1. The subject property of 2159 Delaware Avenue is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and as such, this request to operate a massage therapy business as a home occupation at his location violates the following provisions: a) the proposed massage therapy use would be conducted by a non-homestead or legal resident of the subject property; and Res No. 2021-36 page 2 b) the proposed massage therapy use would be conducted in a room or area outside of the principal structure, which in this case is a converted barn/accessory structure, which is not allowed by City Code. 2) The R-1 One Family Residential district does not allow a massage therapy business use as either a permitted use, conditional use, or as an accessory permitted use in any residential district. 3) The requested and proposed massage therapy use does not meet the qualifications or provisions as an allowed home occupation in a residential district. 4) City Code Title 3-6-1 provides for the licensing requirements for massage therapists and therapy businesses in the city, and it generally states: “Is located in a fixed location in a nonresidential district within the city wherein massage therapy services are provided.”; and since the subject property is located in a residential district, any allowed massage therapist use or license would violate this provision. 5) Massage Therapy businesses or uses in the City of Mendota Heights are only permitted in a nonresidential district, which include the B-1 Limited Business, B-2 Neighborhood Business, and B-3 General Business districts, and by CUP in the I-Industrial district. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of May, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Planning Staff Report DATE: April 27, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-03 APPEAL [ZONING DECISION] APPLICANT: Julie A. Olson (Mike & Julie Gerend- Owners) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2159 Delaware Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / LR - Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 7, 2021 INTRODUCTION The applicant Julie A. Olson is seeking an appeal of an official zoning decision made by the city’s zoning administrator regarding the allowance or licensing of a massage therapy business in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. The applicant is requesting said business be allowed as a permitted home occupation use, and to operate from an accessory structure on the subject property. BACKGROUND This matter was first brought to staff’s attention when the city clerk was contacted by Ms. Olson requesting a license to operate a new massage therapy business at a residential property located at 2159 Delaware Avenue. The property is owned by Mike and Julie Gerend. Ms. Olson would be using a space inside a separate, large accessory building situated near the north corner of the Gerend property. This structure is a converted barn, with a fully finished interior living space and adjacent vehicle parking area. According to Ms. Olson’s letter of intent, she is a certified (professional) massage therapist practicing for over 18 years in Minnesota. Ms. Olson is requesting to operate her massage business Monday - Saturday, from approximately 10:00 am to 8:00 pm each day; with no more than five clients per day. She operates alone and does not have any employees. ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1L-3: Appeals: Board Of Appeals; Planning Commission Serve As: The planning commission is designated as the board of zoning appeals and shall determine, in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan, by resolution, all appeals from any order, requirement, permit or decision made by the zoning administrator under this chapter, and from any interpretation of the text of this chapter, or any determination by the zoning administrator as to the location of the boundary of a zoning district as shown on the zoning map. The Board of Appeals –in this case the Planning Commission, is tasked with conducting a public hearing, and must give careful consideration of this appeal from the interpretation of the City Code or the decision made by the zoning administrator. The City Council may review and revise any decision of the Board, in compliance with Title 12-1L-3.(D) of the City Code. Massage Therapy businesses or uses are only permitted in the B-1 Limited Business, B-2 Neighborhood Business, and B-3 General Business districts. Massage therapy services are also allowed by conditional use permit in the I-Industrial district, provided it is related to an accredited teaching program through a permitted post-secondary college, business or vocational school. This requested appeal [application] is not a variance or a “use variance”, which by State Statute are not allowed to be granted by municipalities. The Appeal provisions differ from the Variance provisions within City Code. Generally speaking, the appeal for consideration before the Board of Appeals is whether or not the Applicant can be allowed to operate a massage therapy business as a “home occupation” on a residential zoned property; and whether the Applicant is permitted to operate such use from an accessory structure on the subject property. Definitions for Consideration According to City Code Title 3-6-1: Therapeutic Massage Enterprises, the following is a detailed definition and description of massage therapy businesses: MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS: Any enterprise, establishment, or operation, whether under control of an individual or legal entity, providing or offering to provide massage therapy services within the city for a fee or other consideration paid either directly or indirectly, that: A. Has one or more massage therapists, employed or contracted to provide massage therapy services for the massage therapy business; or B. Is located in a fixed location in a nonresidential district within the city wherein massage therapy services are provided. Any health or medical facility, office, or clinic operated by state licensed medical professional(s) or any health or medical-related business operated by state licensed medical professional(s) which provides therapeutic massage to its patients shall not be deemed as a massage therapy business. Per City Code 12-1B-2: Definitions-Zoning, the following definitions are identified and should also be considered in the determination of this appeal application: ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE: A use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. DWELLING: A building or one or more portions thereof occupied or intended to be occupied exclusively for residence purposes, but not including motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, nor trailers, tents, cabins or trailer coaches. HOME OCCUPATION: Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements: a) when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling; b) when that occupation is conducted in not more than one room within the principal structure; c) when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street; d) when the principal structure becomes the base of operation for that occupation using only that equipment or machinery which is usually found in a home; and e) when not involving the retail sales of products produced off the site. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for the general practice of his profession. No accessory building shall be used for such home occupation. MASSAGE THERAPY (THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE) BUSINESS: Any establishment or place providing to the public at large therapeutic massage services, other than a hospital, sanatorium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home, or other institution for the hospitalization or care of human beings, duly licensed under the provisions of Minnesota statutes sections 144.50 through 144.69. Land Use / Zoning Code Compliance The subject property is currently zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided LR-Low Density Residential in both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the new 2040 Plan. There are no business/industrial districts nearby or adjacent to this property, so the likelihood or thought of re-guiding/rezoning the property would not be supported or recommended. Title 3-6-1 provides for the licensing requirements for such massage therapists and therapy businesses in the city, and it specifically states: “Is located in a fixed location in a nonresidential district…” The R-1 Zone district is limited to a small number of low-level/less-intensive uses, such as single family dwellings, schools, churches, parks, cemeteries, nursery/daycare schools, etc. “Home Occupations” are allowed as permitted accessory uses - as regulated by city code. In this case, the home occupation must meet all of the requirements or provisions established by the definition noted above. This report provides the following response statements regarding the home occupation provisions contained in the definition: a) when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling; Response: according to Ms. Olson’s application, she currently resides in Burnsville, and does not plan to relocate or reside in the current residential dwelling on the subject property. The Gerend’s are the current owners of the property and dwelling; and are not the Applicant(s) requesting the allowance to operate as massage therapists in their dwelling. b) when that occupation is conducted in not more than one room within the principal structure; Response: according to Ms. Olson’s narrative letter, the massage therapy use is to be operated in “…a beautiful space that they [Gerends] have created in their converted barn on the property. It is a fully modern free standing structure with its own parking, a private room for massage and a sitting area for clients to enjoy.” The converted barn is considered an accessory structure and not a principal structure, therefore the use cannot be allowed in the barn, regardless if the structure can easily support or accommodate such use or activity. c) when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street; Response: The dwelling and the accessory structure are both located approx. 700-ft. or more from Delaware Avenue. The property is fairly wooded and is well screened with natural and planted vegetation along the roadside and property. The barn, and therefore the proposed location of the massage business “occupation”, should not be visible from the street. d) when the principal structure becomes the base of operation for that occupation using only that equipment or machinery which is usually found in a home; and Response: The Applicant has indicated the proposed massage business would operate from the converted barn, and not the residence, which is the principal structure in this case. e) when not involving the retail sales of products produced off the site. Response: Staff is unaware or is unable to provide a response if retail sales of products will be or may be offered on this site; but in any event, staff would discourage any forms of retails sales of products. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Planning Commission) should consider one of the following proposed alternatives of action: 1. Deny the appeal from Julie A. Olson seeking to overturn the city zoning administrator’s decision to not allow a massage therapy business as a home occupation use in the R-1 One Family Residential District, specifically at 2159 Delaware Avenue, and present a draft resolution of denial based on certain findings-of-fact to the City Council for final consideration and adoption; or 2. Approve and grant the appeal from Julie A. Olson seeking to overturn the city zoning administrator’s decision to not allow a massage therapy business/license in the R-1 One Family Residential District, specifically at 2159 Delaware Avenue, and present an amended draft resolution of approval based on revised findings-of-fact that support such a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration and adoption; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While some form of home occupations are allowed in residential zoned properties, they are heavily restricted for a reason, and are meant to be very passive or limited in their activity, as per the provisions contained in the City Code definition of home occupations. Based on these current and existing City Code provisions, it remains the Zoning Administrator’s position that a massage therapy use or business can and should only be licensed in an established and recognized business district; and because this use is being proposed in a residential district and within an accessory structure, this appeal should be denied (Alternative No. 1 – above). If the Board of Zoning Appeals desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2021-31 DENYING AN APPEAL TO ALLOW A MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE. The motion and action to adopt this resolution requires a simple majority vote. SITE / LOCATION of USE PICTURES FRONT OF BARN (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) SIDE VIEW OF BARN INTERIOR VIEW – TOWARDS KITCHEN INTERIOR VIEW – SEATING AREA DINING ROOM – PROPOSED MASSAGE ROOM (CONVERTED) VIEW LOOKING EAST TOWARDS DELAWARE FROM PARKING-DRIVEWAY 66666666666666666666666666666666666666HUBER DR DELAWARE AVEPRIVATE RD HIGH POINT RD CHARLTON RD300'302'299'239'234' 207' 20 4 '181'172'74'156'150'149'93'1 3 2 ' 13 0 '127'120'103'101'133'60'154'192'40'Th is im agery is c opyrigh ted and lic ensed by Nearm ap US Inc , wh ic h retainsownersh ip of th e im agery. It is being provided by Dak ota County under th eterm s of th at lic ense. Under th at lic ense, Dak ota County is allowed toprovide ac c ess to th e “Offline Copy Add-On for Governm ent”, on wh ic h th isim age servic es is based, at 6-inc h resolution, six m onth s after th e c apturedate, provided th e user ac k nowledges th at th e im agery will be used in th eirnorm al c ourse of business and m ust not be resold or distributed for th e LOCATION MAP 2159 DELAWARE AVE.(Gerend res.) City ofMendotaHeigh ts 0 290 S CALE 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. 4/23/2021 Dear Mr. Benetti, Zoning Board, and City Council members, My Name is Julie Olson. I am a certified massage therapist. I have been practicing for 18 years in the state of Minnesota. I graduated from Center Point School of Massage Therapy in 2003. I have received certification from Body Therapy Associates San Diego, California. I have been trained in Swedish, integrative, deep tissue, myo-facial release, pregnancy (pre and post-natal) massage as well lymphatic drainage, reflexology, aromatherapy and ear candling. For nine years I have been an independent contractor for a yoga and healing center in Mendota Heights, MN. While working with them, I have been involved with the Mendota 5-K, the Holiday Tree Lighting ceremony, and professionally interact with many of the surrounding small businesses. My 18 year career has included work as an employee for businesses in Eagan, Shakopee, Woodbury, Bloomington, Burnsville and Lakeville. Throughout, I have maintained my license, including background checks in good standing. As a therapist I have worked with chiropractors, spas, free-standing massage chains, and private massage businesses. This past year, due to CoVid-19, my business was closed for three months. Working in a therapeutic and healing field this was very difficult both professionally and personally. In times of change and stress, people often come to me to decompress, to receive care to maintain physical and emotional support. I was unable to offer this for my clients. I spent time focusing on how I could continue in this field and offer a safe place to provide massage therapy when we were able to reopen and to move forward professionally. I want to be able to provide massage as long as I am physically able. When we reopened in June I was extended a business opportunity presented to me by clients Mike and Julie Gerend, owners of the property at 2159 Delaware Ave. They have a beautiful space that they have created in their converted barn on property. It is a fully modern free standing structure with its own parking, a private room for massage and a sitting area for clients to enjoy. The land surrounding the barn butts up to Dodge Nature center. The driveway is long and split, going in one direction to the main residence and the other side to the barn and parking. The parking can accommodate ample room for massage clients, and still maintain privacy for other neighbors including the road leading to the property. I would be open Monday through Saturday from 10 am to 8 p.m. with a maximum of five clients per day. Some of that time would be for administrative duties by me. I will have no employees. During CoVid 19 and beyond, I would maintain strict sanitation protocols, following the CDC guidelines for massage therapists as well as local policies for businesses owners. Minors would be required to have a parent accompany them and written consent to receive service. All Clients would be spaced an hour apart. There will be no signs visible from the road. Marketing will be done from my website and online scheduling and referrals. There will be no retail products sold. All deliveries of supplies will go to my home address.. The reason for my appeal for the R1 zoning is the space is private, and my business is small enough to help me to continue to maintain a good work environment for myself and clients on a small scale, while being able to continue to serve clients in the community, being able to keep it manageable for me. It is my intent to maintain privacy to the residential neighbors and The Gerend family Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Julie A. Olson, CMT CHAPTER 6 THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISES 1 SECTION: 3-6-1: Purpose 3-6-2: Definitions 3-6-3: License required 3-6-4: License application 3-6-5: License eligibility 3-6-6: Restrictions and regulations 3-6-7: Display of license 3-6-8: Prohibited business or operations 3-6-9: Appeal 3-6-10: Penalty 3-6-11: Severability Notes 1 1. Pursuant to ordinance 521, there is a moratorium on issuing licenses until April 3, 2019. 3-6-1: PURPOSE: The city recognizes therapeutic massage, as distinguished from other forms of massage, as a scientific health care and/or maintenance technique or procedure for the human muscles, tendons, tissues, and the like. The city also recognizes the potential for illicit massage operations or establishments in the wake of legitimate, professional therapeutic massage establishments. Accordingly, in order to prevent illicit massage operations and protect against the existence of illicit massage establishments or operations in the city and to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, including the protection of the city's legitimate massage therapists' profession and reputation, the city deems it necessary to regulate therapeutic massage establishments and massage therapists through the licensing process. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-2: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings stated: APPROVED INSTITUTION: An educational institution holding approved status with the United States Department of Education, Minnesota Office of Higher Education, or by any state licensing board. APPROVED PROGRAM: A professional massage program or educational institution approved by the Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMTA) or the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences (NACCAS). CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASS: A post graduate continuing education class, provided it is an approved class with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or another nationally recognized certification licensing organization. MASSAGE THERAPIST: A person who practices or provides therapeutic massage to another for a fee or other consideration paid either directly or indirectly. A person licensed as a medical doctor, chiropractor, osteopath, licensed nurse, physical therapist, or athletic director or trainer shall not be deemed as a massage therapist. Likewise, a podiatrist, beautician (cosmetologist) or barber who confines his/her treatment to the scalp, face, and neck or the lower leg and feet in the case of a pedicure shall not be deemed as a massage therapist. MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS: Any enterprise, establishment, or operation, whether under control of an individual or legal entity, providing or offering to provide massage therapy services within the city for a fee or other consideration paid either directly or indirectly, that: A. Has one or more massage therapists, employed or contracted to provide massage therapy services for the massage therapy business; or B. Is located in a fixed location in a nonresidential district within the city wherein massage therapy services are provided. Any health or medical facility, office, or clinic operated by state licensed medical professional(s) or any health or medical-related business operated by state licensed medical professional(s) which provides therapeutic massage to its patients shall not be deemed as a massage therapy business. MASSAGE THERAPY OR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE: The rubbing, tapping, pounding or kneading of a person's skin, muscles, and tissues or the stretching of body limbs (e.g. Thai massage) for the purpose of easing mental and physical tension, the breaking up of fatty tissues, relaxing muscles, or alleviating muscle spasms, and the improvement of circulation through the body. STUDENT OF MASSAGE THERAPY: A person who is enrolled in and attends an approved institution or approved program as defined herein, or is attending a continuing education class. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-3: LICENSE REQUIRED: A. Massage Therapist License Required: Except as provided for by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.709, as amended, it is unlawful for any person to practice therapeutic massage therapy or provide or offer to provide therapeutic massage therapy within the city without a license therefore issued by the city. B. Massage Therapy Business License Required: It is unlawful for any person or entity to operate a massage therapy business within the city without a license therefore issued by the city. C. Exceptions: 1. This section shall not apply to, and no massage therapy business license shall be required for a student of massage therapy, completing course work at an approved institution or an approved program of study, provided: a. The massage therapy is provided during and as part of a course or clinical component of the approved institution's or program's course work, or during a continuing education class; and b. The student of massage therapy is supervised by an instructor, certified by the approved institution, program, or sponsor of the continuing education class, while the student is providing or performing massage therapy. A notice, which advises the public that the person who may provide massage therapy services is a student of massage therapy and is not licensed by the city, shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the room in which the massage therapy is provided. D. License Period And Renewal: A license issued under this chapter shall be an annual license, expiring on June 30 of each year. Any massage therapy business and/or therapist doing business within the city as of the effective date of this chapter, shall file all required license applications hereunder, along with the license and investigation fees, no later than May 1 of each year. A license may be annually renewed, provided the licensee complies with the renewal application process as follows: 1. The licensee shall complete the renewal application materials provided by the city; 2. The completed renewal application materials, along with the license fee, shall be filed with city clerk no later than May 1 of the renewal year; and 3. The massage therapy business license renewal application shall provide all information regarding ownership interests in the business. E. License And Investigation Fees: The license and investigation fees shall be determined by the city council as set forth in the fee schedule. 1. All licenses shall expire on the last day of June in each year. Each license shall be issued for a period of one year, except that if a portion of the license year has elapsed when a new application is made, a license may be issued for the remainder of the year for a pro rata fee. In computing such fee, any unexpired fraction of a month shall be counted as one month. 2. In the case of a massage therapy business that is wholly owned and operated by a massage therapist licensed under this chapter and does not have any employee(s) or contracted person(s) other than the massage therapist licensed owner providing massage therapy services for or through the massage therapy business, only the massage therapist license fees shall be required. 3. If it is found at any time during the term of the license period that the massage therapy business is not wholly owned and operated by the massage therapist licensed under this chapter or it has an employee(s) or contracted person(s) other than the massage therapist licensed owner providing massage therapy services for or through the massage therapy business, then the massage therapy business license fees shall be required to be paid on a prorated basis for the remaining term of the massage therapy business license, in addition to any licensing fees required for the employee(s) or contracted person(s). (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-4: LICENSE APPLICATION: A. Massage Therapy Business License Application. An original application for a license to operate a massage therapy business shall be filed, along with all required fees, with the city clerk. The investigation fee is applied to the city's costs of the background investigation of the massage therapy business and all persons or entities that individually have at least a five percent (5%) financial interest in the massage therapy business. The property containing the massage therapy business must be in compliance with all federal, state and local applicable laws and ordinances. The police department shall conduct the background investigation before consideration of the license by the city council. The application shall provide: 1. All applicants (business or individual): a. Whether the applicant/owner is an individual, corporation, partnership, or other form of organization; b. Full name, address, date and place of birth, and telephone number of the applicant, all owners and operators, including the designated on-site manager or agent of the applicant; c. The address of the premises where the massage therapy business is to be located if proposed to have a fixed location in which the services are provided and if the applicant does not own the premises, a copy of the lease agreement to occupy the premises; d. Statement of whether all taxes and special assessments due and owing on the premises on which the applicant proposes to operate the massage therapy business are current, and if taxes are delinquent, the years for which the taxes on the premises are delinquent (this information is required by the applicant only if the applicant or other entity in which the applicant has an interest has the legal duty to pay said property taxes or assessments due and owing, through an ownership interest or lease provision); e. The name of the business if the business is to be operated under a name or designation other than the name of the applicant. This designation shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the certificate required by Minn. Stats. §§ 333.01 and 333.02; f. Proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter; g. The applicant shall produce at the time of filing an application the applicant's proof of identification, which may be established only by one of the following: (1) A valid driver's license or identification card issued by Minnesota, another state, or a province of Canada, and including the photograph and date of birth of the applicant; (2) A valid military identification card issued by the United States Department of Defense; (3) A valid passport issued by the United States; or (4) In the case of a foreign national, by a valid passport. For purposes of proof of identification, the "applicant" shall mean the on-site manager or agent for a massage therapy business filing application and the natural person signing the application for a massage therapy business license; h. The application shall identify the full name, address, date and place of birth, and telephone number of the natural person, designated by the applicant as the massage therapy business's on-site manager or agent, along with the notarized written consent of such a person to: (1) Take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises operation; and (2) Serve as agent for service of notices and other processes relating to the licenses; I. With respect to the owner, operator, or any person who has a five percent (5%) financial interest in the proposed licensed massage therapy business and the appointed on-site manager or agent of the applicant, information as to any and all criminal convictions of any state, county, or local law or regulation; j. Proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota law; and 2. Individuals: a. The full name, address, date and place of birth, and telephone number of the applicant; b. Whether the applicant and on-site manager or agent have ever used or have been known by a name other than his or her name on the application, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and places were used; c. Whether the applicant is a United States citizen or is legally permitted to be in the United States and providing proof thereof; d. The street addresses and cities at which the applicant and on-site manager or agent have lived during the preceding ten years; e. Names, addresses, and dates of the applicant's and on-site manager's or agent's employers for the preceding ten years; f. Whether the applicant and on-site manager or agent have ever been engaged in the operation and/or provision of massage services. If so, they shall furnish information as to the name, place, and length of time of the involvement in such an establishment; and 3. Partnerships: a. The full name(s), address(es), date(s) and place(s) of birth, financial interests of all general partners and all of the information concerning each general partner that is required of individual applicants in provision (2) of this section; b. The full names(s), address(es), date(s) and place(s) of birth, and telephone number(s) of the manager partner(s) and the interests of each managing partner in the massage therapy business; c. A copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the application. The license shall be issued in the name of the partnership; and 4. Corporations And Other Organizations: a. The name of the corporation or business firm, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; b. A copy of the certificate of incorporation shall be attached to the application. If the applicant is a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as required by Minn. Stat. § 303.06, shall be attached; c. The name of the manager(s), proprietor(s) or other agent(s) in charge of the business and all of the information concerning each manager, proprietor, or agent that is required of applicants in provision (2) of this section; d. A list of all persons who own or have a five percent (5%) or more interest in the corporation or organization or who are officers of said corporation or organization, together with their addresses and all the information regarding such persons as is required in paragraph (2) of this section. B. Massage Therapist License Application. An original application for a massage therapist license shall be filed, along with all required fees, with the city clerk. The police department shall conduct a background investigation before consideration by the city council. The application for a license under this subsection shall be made on a form supplied by the city clerk and shall request the following information: 1. The applicant's full name, address, date and place of birth, telephone number, weight, height, eye color; 2. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's current employer, if applicable; 3. The applicant's employers for the previous ten years, including each employer's name and address and dates of employment; 4. The applicant's addresses for the previous ten (10) years; 5. Whether the applicant is a United States citizen or is legally permitted to be in the United States and providing proof thereof; 6. Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name other than his or her name, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and the county and state where used; 7. Proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter (proof of insurance coverage may not be available to the applicant at time of application, but proof of insurance coverage shall be submitted to the city clerk before a license is issued). The requirement to provide general liability insurance coverage shall not apply to a massage therapist who is an employee of a massage therapy business and covered by the massage therapy business general liability insurance policy; 8. The applicant shall produce at the time of filing an application the applicant's proof of identification, which may be established only by one of the following: a. A valid driver's license or identification card issued by Minnesota, another state, or a province of Canada, and including the photograph and date of birth of the applicant; b. A valid military identification card issued by the United States Department of Defense; c. A valid passport issued by the United States; or d. In the case of a foreign national, by a valid passport. 9. Information as to any and all criminal conviction(s) of any state, county, or local law or regulation; 10. One of the following: a. Proof of successful completion of a minimum of five hundred (500) hours of therapeutic massage training/course work that includes subjects of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, ethics, massage theory and research, and massage practice from an approved institution or program; or b. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a comprehensive massage therapy program consisting of the course work stated above in subclause a. issued to the applicant from an approved institution or an approved program; or c. Proof of passing the National Certification Exam offered by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or proof of passing the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) Massage and Bodywork Licensing Examination (MBLEx). (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-5: LICENSE ELIGIBILITY: A. A massage therapy business shall not be issued a massage therapy business license or any license previously issued may be revoked upon the following grounds: 1. The proposed fixed location or premises in which the massage therapy business proposes to provide massage therapy services is not located in a permitted zoning district for therapeutic massage services and has not received required permits under the City Code; 2. The owner, operator, or any person who has at least a five percent (5%) financial interest in the proposed licensed massage therapy business or the appointed on-site manager or agent of the applicant has a conviction for, or was charged with, but convicted of a lesser charge of a crime, or is under a stay of adjudication from, a charge involving a violation of any massage therapy-related regulation in any other jurisdiction, any prostitution-related offense, criminal sexual conduct, indecent exposure, surreptitious intrusion, disorderly house as defined by Minnesota Statutes, theft, felony drug offense, any crime of violence as defined by Minnesota Statutes, or any other similar crime or offense within five (5) years of the date of application; 3. The owner, operator, or any person who has at least a five percent (5%) financial interest in the proposed licensed massage therapy business had a massage therapist- or massage therapy business-related license in another jurisdiction that was suspended or revoked within ten years preceding the date of application. 4. The application failed to identify the full name, address, and date and place of birth of the natural person designated by the applicant as the massage therapy business's on-site manager or agent, along with the notarized written consent of such a person to: a. Take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises and operation; and b. Serve as agent for service of notices and other process relating to the license; 5. The on-site manager or agent designated by the applicant is not a United States citizen or is not legally permitted to be in the United States; 6. The applicant provided false, misleading or misrepresented information in the application; 7. The massage therapy business is proposed to be operated on premises on which property taxes, assessments, or other financial claims by the state, county or city are due, delinquent, and unpaid (but not including delinquent taxes, assessments or other financial claims that are being appealed through the customary means by the applicant), provided the applicant or other entity in which the applicant has an interest has the legal duty to pay said taxes, assessments, or claims due and owing; 8. The applicant, if not covered by a massage therapy business insurance policy, does not have general or professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter; 9. The applicant has been denied a license under this chapter within the preceding twelve (12) months; or 10. The applicant has employed or allowed massage therapists not licensed by the city to provide massage therapy at the business site licensed within the past twelve (12) months. B. A massage therapist shall not be issued a massage therapist license or any license previously issued may be revoked upon the following grounds: 1. The applicant has a conviction for or was charged with, but convicted of a lesser charge or is under a stay of adjudication relating to, a crime involving a violation of any massage therapy-related regulation in any other jurisdiction, any prostitution-related offense, criminal sexual conduct, indecent exposure, surreptitious intrusion, disorderly house as defined by Minnesota Statutes, theft, felony drug offense, any crime of violence as defined by Minnesota Statutes, or any other similar crime or offense within five years of the date of application; 2. The applicant had a massage therapist or massage therapy business-related license in another jurisdiction that was suspended or revoked within ten (10) years preceding the date of application; 3. The applicant is not eighteen (18) years of age or older; 4. The applicant is not a United States citizen and is not legally permitted to be in the United States; 5. The applicant has not earned or did not provide: a. Proof of successful completion of a minimum of five hundred (500) hours of therapeutic massage training/course work that includes the subjects of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, ethics, massage theory and research, and massage practice from an approved institution or approved program; or b. Proof of a diploma or certificate of graduation in a comprehensive massage therapy program consisting of the course work stated above in subclause a. issued to the applicant from an approved institution or an approved program for massage therapy; or c. Proof of passing the National Certification Exam offered by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or proof of passing the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) Massage and Bodywork Licensing Examination (MBLEx); 6. The applicant provided false, misleading or misrepresented information on the application; 7. The applicant does not have general and professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter for applicants not covered by a massage therapy business insurance policy; or 8. The applicant has been denied a license under this chapter within the preceding twelve (12) months. (Ord. 544, 10-2- 2019) 3-6-6: RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS: A. Massage therapy business licenses granted for massage therapy services or operation at a fixed location or premises do not permit the business to provide massage therapy services at any location other than the premises identified on the license, except a licensed massage therapist employed or contracted by the massage therapy business licensee may provide massage therapy services: 1. To a client at the client's residence or place of care if in a long- or short-term care facility, such as a hospital, nursing home, or convalescence facility; or 2. In connection with a special event or function whereby the massage therapist provides massage therapy services to attendees of the event or function. B. The act of any employee of a message therapy business licensee is deemed to be the act of the licensee. The licensee shall be responsible for all acts and conduct attributable to and in connection with massage therapy services provided by employees of the licensee or occurring on the premises of the massage therapy business. C. The person who is receiving a massage shall at all times have his/her anus, intergluteal cleft (buttocks crease), and genitals covered with clothing or properly draped with non-transparent material. The person who is receiving massage therapy of the breast or buttocks (gluteal) shall have the breast or buttock (gluteal muscle) that is not then immediately receiving massage therapy properly covered and draped with non-transparent material. D. The licensee and all employees of the licensee shall at all times be fully clothed and shall not expose his/her breast, buttocks, anus, or genitals. E. At no time shall the massage therapist touch or offer to touch or massage the penis, scrotum, mons veneris, vulva, or vaginal area of any customer or person inquiring of or receiving massage therapy services. F. No beer, liquor, narcotic drug, or controlled substances, as such terms are defined by state statutes or the City Code, shall be used or ingested or be present during any massage therapy session. G. No doors or massage rooms, when occupied by one or more persons, shall be locked. All locks, if any, shall be keyed only from the exterior of the massage rooms. H. Only massage therapists who are licensed by the city shall practice or provide therapeutic massage services for licensed massage therapy businesses or within the licensed massage therapy business premises as identified in its license. I. The licensee shall comply with any and all provisions of this chapter, all provisions of the City Code, and any state law or regulation. J. The licensee shall not provide any massage therapy services and the identified premises for a licensed massage therapy business shall not be open between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of any day. K. The licensed premises under a licensed massage therapy business, if any, shall, during all operating hours, be open to inspection by any public health, building, zoning, code or police officer to determine whether this chapter and all other laws are being observed. All persons, as a condition to being issued such license, consent to such inspection by such officers. It is unlawful for any licensee or agent or employee of a licensee to hinder or prevent a city inspecting officer from making such inspection. The licensed premises must carry adequate property liability insurance coverage. L. If a licensed massage therapy business's on-site manager or agent ceases to be located at the licensed premises or ceases to act in such capacity for the licensee without appointment of a successor, the license issued pursuant to such appointment shall be subject to revocation or suspension. M. No license issued under this chapter may be transferred or assigned. Massage therapy business licenses shall terminate upon any change in officers or ownership interests of the licensee, unless the change is approved by the city council, in which case the license shall only continue in force until the end of the regular license term. N. The licensee shall have in effect during the license period general liability and professional liability insurance providing minimum coverage of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) combined single limit per occurrence. The requirement for general and professional liability insurance coverage shall not apply to a licensed massage therapist who is an employee of and covered under a massage therapy business general and professional liability insurance policy provided proof of such coverage is provided to the city. The licensee shall provide to the city a certificate of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage as required herein. O. The licensee shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances of health and sanitation. P. Violation of any law or regulation relating to the license issued under this chapter, or any building, safety or health regulation, shall subject the license to revocation or suspension. Q. As of July 1, 2020, all massage businesses and therapists currently licensed in the City must comply with all provisions of this chapter when they renew their license. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-7: DISPLAY OF LICENSE: The license of the massage therapy business and of every massage therapist employed thereby, shall be displayed in an open and conspicuous place on the premises and shown to law enforcement officers upon request. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-8: PROHIBITED BUSINESS OR OPERATIONS: No massage therapy business shall be used or operated as or in conjunction with an adult use business as defined in this Code. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-9: APPEAL: A. Notice Of Action: If the city council denies the issuance of a license, or suspends or revokes a license, the administrator or designee shall send to the applicant, or licensee, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action. The written notice shall also provide notice of the applicant or licensee's right to an appeal of the denial, suspension or revocation to a third-party hearing officer. The written notice of appeal must be filed with the city within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice of action. B. Hearing: The hearing officer shall hold a hearing to consider the appeal within fourteen (14) days after the appeal request is received. The hearing officer shall make written findings of fact and a disposition on the matter. Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee or applicant shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence on its behalf. C. Suspension: The City Administrator or a designee may immediately suspend a license issued under this chapter for up to twenty (20) days upon the occurrence of any unlawful acts as identified in this chapter. Any adverse license action resulting from a suspension shall be processed, and is subject to appeal, as provided in this section. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-10: PENALTY: Violation of a provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, a person may be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or such other amount set by law, or imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (90) days, or such other term set by law, or both. Each act of violation and each day on which a violation occurs or continues is a separate violation. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) 3-6-11: SEVERABILITY: In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any part of this chapter to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this chapter not specifically included within the judgment. (Ord. 544, 10-2-2019) April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 20 Board of Appeals A) PLANNING CASE 2021-03 JULIE A. OLSON (APPLICANT) AND MIKE & JULIE GEREND (OWNERS), 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE – APPEAL OF ZONING DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED MASSAGE THERAPY USE AS A HOME OCCUPATION IN THE R- 1 ZONE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Julie A. Olson was requesting an appeal of an official zoning decision made by the City’s Zoning Administrator regarding the allowance or licensing of a massage therapy business in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. The applicant is requesting said business be allowed as a permitted home occupation use, and to operate from an accessory structure on the subject property. The item was presented under a duly noticed public hearing process; copy of notice was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all neighboring property owners within 350- feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received from the neighbors. 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 denial of the appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision that a massage therapy use or business can and should only be licensed in an established and recognized business district. Staff is also recommending that the Board of Appeals denying the request to allow massage therapy as a Home Occupation Use in a residential district. Commissioner Katz stated that he had a question related to other businesses that request to operate out of the home. He stated that he understands that this is massage therapy in this case, but asked how the City deals with people who want to, for example, cut hair out of their home. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that issue does come up periodically and typically the standard has always been whether you would normally find a barber chair or a salon chair inside of a normal residential home. He stated that equipment that would normally be found inside of a home can be part of a Home Occupation. He stated that it is a gray area and the City typically limits the Home Occupational uses that are, for all intents and purposes, very benign. They do not want to see a lot of traffic or deliveries, no employees, no retail sales, and uses one room of the home, and gave the example of an insurance agent or an accountant. He stated that they tend to keep it to a low level and low activity for a home occupation. Commissioner Katz asked if the City had granted any permits like that before. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Home Occupations are an allowed permitted accessory use as long as they meet the requirements of the City’s definition of a home occupation. He stated that people have called and asked him about various services and noted that April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 20 the pandemic made home occupation requests much more popular. He gave examples of requests to operate lawn mower repair services or auto services which are ones that are not wanted in residential areas because they are just trouble from the day they begin. Commissioner Katz stated that his understanding is that in the past the request has always come from the homeowner itself, but in this case, it is coming from someone else who uses the property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was correct and this is a situation where this individual has to be licensed by the State of Minnesota and has to be site specific to the license and the City is the only issuer of the license and the City cannot issue the license unless they approve the location. He stated that if she is not approved for the location, the City will not issue the license. Chair Field clarified that the owner of the property is part of the application but the person who is requesting to provide the massage therapy is not the owner of the home. Julie Olson stated that she is a massage therapist currently working in Mendota Heights where she has worked for 9 years. She stated that she has been a massage therapist for almost 19 years. Part of the reason she wants to share a bit with the Commission about her education and background is to support the idea of why the City should consider doing this in a residential area. She stated that she realizes it is not a normal thing that happens and has had some bad connotations with it in the past. She explained that she had graduated from Center Point School of Massage in Minneapolis and also got some of her education in San Diego, California as a prenatal therapist. She noted that she has also done some additional trainings since she has graduated from massage school to maintain her continuing education credits. She stated that she is also licensed through each individual city that she works at and has worked at several over the last 19 years such as Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Woodbury, and Shakopee. She stated that she has always maintained good standing with her licensure and passed all her background checks. This past year, due to COVID, her business was closed for 3 months which was a very difficult situation both professionally and personally, because she works in a therapeutic and healing field. She explained that in times of change and stress, people often come to her to decompress and receive care as well as maintain physical and emotional support. She was unable to offer that service for her clients and spent time focusing on how she could continue in this field and offer a safe place to provide massage therapy when they were able to reopen and move forward. She stated that she wants to be able to provide massage as long as she is physically able. She stated that when they reopened in June, she was presented with a business opportunity by clients Mike and Julie Gerend, who own the property at 2159 Delaware Avenue. She explained that they have a beautiful space that they have created in the converted barn on their property which is a fully modern, free-standing structure, has its own parking, a private room for massage and a sitting area for clients to enjoy to have a space to relax and regroup. The land surrounding the barn butts up to the Dodge Nature Center and the driveway is a long, split driveway going in one direction to the main residence and the other to the barn and parking. The parking can accommodate ample room for massage clients and still maintain privacy for neighbors including the road leading to the property and the Gerend family. She would plan to be open Monday through Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a maximum of 5 clients per day. Some of the time would be for administrative duties that she would complete and explained that she would have not employees. She stated that during April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 20 COVID and beyond, she will maintain strict sanitation protocols following the CDC guidelines for massage therapists as well as local policies for business owners. Minors would be required to have written consent and be accompanied by a parent or guardian. All clients would be spaced an hour apart, no signs would be visible from the road, marketing would be done from her website, scheduling would be done on-line and through referrals, which is most of her clientele. She stated that she will not sell any retail product and all deliveries will go to her home address in Burnsville. She explained that the reason for her appeal is so she can offer a space that is private, form a small business, and help her continue to maintain a good work environment for herself and her clients on a small scale. She stated that it is her intent to maintain privacy to the residential neighbors and the Gerend family. Commissioner Corbett asked if Ms. Olson could elaborate on the opportunity that was presented to her. He asked if she would be paying to lease this space and asked what is advantageous about this space versus a zoned, appropriate commercial business use space. Ms. Olson stated that she is currently in a business space that is in the appropriate zoning and the benefit of going to a private residential area would be to keep a smaller scale as far as foot traffic. She stated that one of the things that was difficult during COVID was because she had to take into consideration all the foot traffic that was coming in and out, and not just her own clients which really limited what she could do. She stated that having a smaller scale available for both clients and herself would help facilitate keeping it low profile. Commissioner Katz asked how long Ms. Olson was hoping to be able to use this space for her work. Ms. Olson replied that she is hoping to have the space as long as she can. She stated that she is a seasoned therapist and the reality is that her body will not be able to do this work forever. She stated that she is hoping to maintain this small business as she ages for as long as she can and as long as the Gerend’s are willing to have her in that space. She stated that to answer Commissioner Corbett’s earlier question, when this opportunity was offered to her, it was offered from the Gerend’s just as she was getting started back working after being closed, as an alternative for her business. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mike Gerend, 2159 Delaware Avenue, stated that Ms. Olson has been a great massage therapist for a number of people that he knows and this whole idea was hatched out of a desire to help. When COVID hit, the people in the health and fitness industry who should have been supported as much or more than anyone as an essential business, were hurt the absolute worst and treated the most harshly. He stated that the individuals that were hurt the most were customers of Ms. Olson and were the kind of people that need massage therapy for both physical and mental healing. He stated that it was an unfortunate situation and he saw Ms. Olson potentially having to look for new space in a very trying situation after a very difficult period of time which brought to mind the possibility of using the barn space since it is not used very often. He explained that they put a lot of tender loving care into the property when it was renovated. He noted that at one point in time he was the President of Lifetime Fitness and has employed thousands of massage therapists across April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 20 the country and even built studios for them. He explained that he understands the healing benefits that they provide and the conditions that they need and he felt the barn would be the perfect place to provide the kind of healing environment in a time when people need it more than they ever have. He stated that Ms. Olson needed a softer landing and felt like her clients also needed that. He stated that the business terms and length of time are pretty loose because he honestly just said to her that he didn’t really care and asked her to figure out what would be fair along with what would make her business work. He stated that the terms are pretty informal and they are just trying to make something work. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Katz stated that he was thinking of the scenario when the City has people who just call independent contractors to their residence and the massage therapist comes and brings their own chair or table and sets it up at their home, provides the service and leaves. He asked if those people were not licensed in the City if they were in violation of City Ordinance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he believes that they would be in violation because the City only allows licensed therapists at a specific fixed location. He stated that if people are hiring someone to come into their home and provide this service, there is really no way to track it. He stated that he would hope that there are at least licensed massage therapists, but believes under the City’s licensing program, they have to be at a fixed location. Commissioner Katz stated that he questions how other cities handle those situations and whether there are ordinances that allow for individuals to come and work in the home temporarily. Chair Field stated that he believes this line of questioning is going down a line that is not germane to the case at hand. Commissioner Katz stated that he disagreed and wonders if in this case it is a situation where the ordinance does not necessarily match what the application is. He stated that it may be better to go and ask the City Council to take a look at the issue if there is something that may be more appropriate rather than just saying that it isn’t allowed without looking at the overall issue. Chair Field stated that he would object to Commissioner Katz disagreement on the basis that this is not a home business because the applicant does not reside in the home. Commissioner Katz noted that the homeowner is part of this application. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 20 Chair Field stated that was true but they would not be performing the service and this is an accessory structure. He stated that he doesn’t want the Commission to go down a rabbit hole that they aren’t being asked to go down. Commissioner Katz stated that he understands Chair Field’s point, but does not necessarily agree with it because he thinks that is the reason that this is being appealed to the Commission. Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of the statutory constraints and asked if the Commission was allowed by Minnesota law to grant any kind of use variance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that as the report indicates, this is coming dangerously close to allowing for a use variance, but when Ms. Olson approached the City Clerk requesting this license at the residential property that request was denied. He stated that Ms. Olson asked if she could still operate it as a home occupation with different standards applied to her because it is site specific and just for her which is the crux of her appeal. Use variances, as the Commission learned at the last workshop, are not allowed, which State statute makes very clear. He gave the example of a convenience store in a residential area that could not be granted a variance. In this case, because the City does allow for certain levels of professional services under a home occupation and Ms. Olson is clearly a professional that is providing a service, it would meet part of some home occupation, if she lived there and if this was not run out of an accessory structure. He stated that even if she did own this property and was not operating out of the accessory structure, the debate would go on about whether the City would allow a massage therapy license at this residence. The City Council has chosen the three districts as a permitted right for massage therapist services, so this would be going against the home occupation and the massage therapy ordinance. He stated that the Council could consider allowing massage therapy as a home occupation but he believes the ordinance for massage therapy was just gone through a few years ago, so he is not sure if there would be an inclination to change it at this point in time. Chair Field stated that the Council could do something, but as a Planning Commission, they have some very clear charges. He stated that speaking editorially, he would love to find a way to make this work, but he cannot. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FROM JULIE A. OLSON SEEKING TO OVERTURN THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION TO NOT ALLOW A MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE R- 1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY AT 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-31, A DENIAL BASED ON CERTAIN FINDINGS-OF-FACT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION. FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD REITERATED THAT HE DOES NOT RELISH MAKING THIS DECISION, BUT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, GIVEN THE EXISTING CODE, THE REQUEST JUST DOESN’T FIT. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 20 COMMISSIONER KATZ AGREED THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE WANTS TO DO AND WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO WORK WITH MS. OLSON ON THIS, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO OPERATE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT ARE SET WITHIN THE ORDINANCES. HE STATED THAT HE THINKS THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL TYPE OF INSTANCES WHERE THE CITY SHOULD HAVE SOME DIFFERENT ORDINANCES IN PLACE IN ORDER TO HAVE A BIT OF FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY LIKE MS. OLSON. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 4, 2021 meeting. Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: May 4, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-35 Approving a Variance for 573 Hiawatha Avenue [Planning Case No. 2021-01] Introduction The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a variance on reduced setbacks from the side yard and rear yard areas, in order to construct a new detached garage on a residential property. The property is located at 573 Hiawatha Avenue and is owned by Mr. Dale Krystosek. Background The subject property is 14,234-sq. ft. (0.33 acres) in size; contains a 1,555 sq. ft., 1-1/4 story single-family dwelling built in 1940; and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential zone. The property has a 20’ x 25.5’(518-sq. ft.) detached garage with an attached 11’ x 20’ (220-sf.) carport, for total garage space of 738-sq. ft. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage/carport, and replace it with a new 24’ x 26’ (624-sq. ft.) detached garage in generally the same location, with the same reduced setbacks established by the old garage. On April 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of this 04/27/2021 report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion in either approving or denying this application. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Variance for the property located at 573 Hiawatha Avenue, with conditions and specific findings-of-fact supporting this approval. Action Requested If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-35 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE. This action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. If the Council wishes to over-turn this recommendation, make a motion to table this matter; and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution of denial for final consideration at the May 18, 2021 meeting. (note: the 60-day statutory review period expires May 25, 2021) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-35 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-01) WHEREAS, Dale Krystosek, (the “Applicant”) applied for a Variance on the property located at 573 Hiawatha Avenue (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, per City Code 12-1D-3, accessory structures such as garages must be set back a minimum of 10-feet from any side or rear property boundary lines; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance to construct a new 24’ x 26’ (624-sf.) detached garage structure on the subject property, but maintain previously established setbacks of 1.88 to 1.94 feet from the southerly or side lot line and 3.44 to 3.90 feet from the northerly or rear lot line, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-01; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the application for Variance, with certain findings-of-fact to support such approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance requested under Planning Application Case No. 2021-01 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may 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.” Res 2021-35 Page 2 B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements: i.) the proposed 624-sq. ft. detached garage to the existing property is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request. ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1924 and developed in 1940, creating some unique circumstances not created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing garage, which in turn generated some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for replacing and adding a reasonable garage structure to the property in the rear yard area, except by means of a variance. iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the approval of this variance; and iv.) This new garage with variances is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements contained in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community. C. 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 will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 573 Hiawatha Avenue only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021-01, dated and presented April 27, 2021 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution No. 2021-35. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: Res 2021-35 Page 3 1) The new detached garage must match the architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling on the subject property. 2) The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. 3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new garage addition. 4) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 573 Hiawatha Avenue, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-01 is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of May, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res 2021-35 Page 4 EXHIBIT-A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 573 Hiawatha Avenue Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-17100-01-190 Deed Document No. 3184339 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Cherokee Park Heights, and the Easterly 10 feet of Lot 19, Block 1, Cherokee Park Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. (Abstract property) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 1 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE:April 27, 2021 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case 2021-01 VARIANCE to Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for Detached Garage APPLICANT:Dale Krystosek PROPERTY ADDRESS:573 Hiawatha Avenue ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:May 25, 2021 INTRODUCTION Mr. Dale Krystosek, the owner of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, is requesting a variance from the required side- yard and rear-yard setback standards in order to replace an existing legal nonconforming garage with a new garage structure. BACKGROUND The subject property is 14,234-sq. ft. or 0.33 acres in area, and contains an existing 1,555 sq. ft., 1-1/4 story single-family dwelling, originally built in 1940. The parcel is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development. The property also contains a 20’ deep by 25.5’ wide (518-sq. ft.) detached garage, with an attached 11’ x 20’ (220-sf.) open carport extension. Carports are considered “garage space” – so the total area of this detached garage is 738-sq. ft. This garage is in poor and deteriorating condition. As per the survey/site plan, the existing garage is located 1.88 – 1.94 feet from the southerly or side lot line; and 3.44 – 3.90 feet off the northerly or rear lot line. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage and carport, and replace it with a new 24’ x 26’ (624-sq. ft.) detached garage in the same location, in order to align with the existing driveway. City Code allows homeowners (without an attached garage) to have up to 750-sf. of detached garage space, and up to 1,000-sf. of garage with approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Code also requires accessory structures such as garages to be set back a minimum of 10-feet from any side or rear property boundary lines. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct the new garage with the existing setbacks established by the old garage structure. Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 2 ANALYSIS Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land As noted in the applicant’s narrative and application submittals, the existing garage structure is in a state of disrepair that would make continued maintenance an unrealistic option (see attached pictures). Title 12-1D-1(D)(4) allows for the normal maintenance of a legal nonconforming structure, which does not intensify the nonconformity. In this case, the applicant is seeking to make a structural improvement, but maintain some existing (reduced) setbacks already established by the old garage. The applicant is also decreasing the overall nonconforming structure by reducing the current garage footprint from 738-sq. ft. to 624-sq. ft., which represents a reduction of 114-sf. of garage space or 18% less covered area. As noted, the parcel and structures are legal nonconformities from the following R-1 District and accessory structure requirements: Standard Existing Condition Conforming Lot Area 15,000-sq. ft.14,234-sq. ft.NO Lot Width 100-ft.110-ft.YES Front Yard 30 ft.29.34-ft.YES Side Yard 10 ft. on each side or ½ of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15 ft. 14.7-ft. (west) 64.4-ft. (east)YES Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater 61.9-ft. YES Accessory Structure - Side and Rear Yard (over 144 sq. ft.) 10 ft.1.88 – 1.94 ft. (west) 3.44 – 3.90-ft. (north) NO Detached Garage Size 750 sq. ft. (permitted) 1,000 sq. ft. (CUP) 738-sq. ft. (existing) 624-sq. ft. (proposed)YES Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. 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: x Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. x Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. x Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. x Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. x Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 3 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. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response: 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code) Applicant’s Response: The layout of the original (current) garage, driveway and house on the property make compliance with the setbacks impractical when replacing the garage.. In order to have adequate and safe turn-around area for my vehicles, I need to rebuild the garage in [its] current location (2.0 feet from property lines). Staff’s Response:County Assessor records indicate the property was developed over 80-years ago, where setbacks at that time may not have been followed very closely -or possibly may not have existed at that time. In any event, the current garage does not meet setbacks, and is therefore considered a legal, non-conforming structure in its present state. City Code allows single-family residential parcels without an attached garage to have one detached garage up to 750 sq. ft. or up to 1,000 sq. ft. with a conditional use permit; however, any detached garage must maintain a setback of 10-feet from adjacent lot lines. Although this property contains an existing 738-sf. detached garage not meeting required setbacks, the proposal to replace with a slightly larger detached garage of 624-sq. ft. appears to be a reasonable request in this case, even with the added allowance to rebuild in the same location as the old garage with the same and reduced setbacks. The subject parcel is zoned and guided LR- Low Density Residential in the 2030/2040 Comprehensive Plans and a new detached garage perpetuates residential use of the property. According to the applicants, the existing garage is in poor and unredeemable condition and is probably undersized for today’s vehicle sizes and storage utilization. The applicant has also indicated he intends to re-use most of the existing garage foundation and plans to keep the driveway in its current location. In light of this, staff feels a new detached garage with reduced setbacks in this case is a reasonable request and the property will remain to be used in a reasonable manner as prescribed by Code. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: Original garage and driveway were located close to the property line. Two large trees would be damaged or killed if garage were moved to comply with 10-ft. setbacks. Not granting the variance would necessitate backing vehicles out of driveway 140’, creating a safety hazard. This property is one of many located in the “North End” neighborhood, which contain a number of non-conforming lots and properties throughout this area. The subject property is part of the Cherokee Park Heights plat of 1924, in which most or many of the lots were platted as 50-ft. wide by 130’ deep lots. This property actually consists of two original 50’ wide lots, plus 10-ft. from another, or 110 feet in width. Although unable to confirm, one can assume this home originally started off as a single dwelling with a detached garage on one or a combination of the lots, and these structures may have been built early on with without any setback standards. Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 4 The reduced setbacks or non-conforming issues are indicative of a shared trait among many other properties in this “North End” neighborhood and some adjacent neighboring properties. Even though staff has acknowledged that other non-conforming lots or properties where variances may have been granted do not add precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), it is acceptable for the city to allow some flexibility and favorable weight to such physical circumstances with this lot. As for the rear yard setback, this area abuts to an unimproved 20-foot wide alley platted under the Cherokee Park plat. It is unlikely the city will ever install an alley in this block, so it is possible this alley could one day be vacated and conveyed to neighboring properties, which would negate the need for a rear-yard setback variance if needed. Staff finds there may be some or enough unique circumstances related to this property, particularly with the reduced setbacks on the garage “not created by the owner...”that may lend support in the granting of a variance in this case; and also gives some added weight to creating or supporting the practical difficulties argument for the property owner. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: Granting the variance would improve the essential character of the neighborhood by replacing an old, crumbling garage with a new garage in the same location. All neighbors within all directions of the property have consented to the variance. The surrounding neighborhood is all but residential in character, and contains a mix of attached and detached garages with the assorted dwellings. This new garage represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to remove and replace the older, functionally obsolete and deteriorating garage with a newer and up-to-date garage for the owner. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their architectural design plans that the new garage will be made to match the existing home, will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling, the neighboring properties or overall neighborhood. Many other properties in the vicinity feature garages both attached and detached, that may not meet some required setback standards. As noted previously, based on aerial mapping review and interpretation of this neighborhood area, it appears a number of homes and accessory garage structures (including the subject property) do not meet some of the required setbacks under the R-1 District standards. Nevertheless, staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by granting this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to remove and replace a garage that better suits his needs. In order to reuse the old foundation of the garage, the applicant is requesting to place the new garage on the same setbacks established by the old garage; which helps minimize and reduces the loss of valuable trees, back yard space and other improvements. The new garage should not impact any neighboring properties. Although one can conclude this new attached garage will provide some economic value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale), the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable explanations for Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 5 requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting this variance. b)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. Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district, as this proposed garage is consistent and allowed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End in the community. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: x LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. x LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. x LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. x LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties. The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner. The proposed garage poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new garage and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A.Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B.The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements: i.) the proposed 624-sq. ft. detached garage to the existing property is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 6 the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request. ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1924 and developed in 1940, creating some unique circumstances not created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing garage, which in turn generated some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for replacing and adding a reasonable garage structure to the property in the rear yard area, except by means of a variance. iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the approval of this variance; and iv.) This new garage with variances is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements contained in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community. C.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 will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D.Approval of the Variance is for 573 Hiawatha Avenue only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E.The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021- 01, dated and presented April 27, 2021 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later) F.The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1) The new detached garage must match the architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling on the subject property. 2) The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. 3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new garage addition. 4) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date. Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 7 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the 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 for reduced setbacks. The proposed garage is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; there appears to be enough space to fit the garage on the property and meet required setbacks; and therefore this variance is not considered a reasonable request on the property; and furthermore the applicant failed to adequately justify the need for granting this variance. 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 to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variance with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said variance to Dale Krystosek of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, with the conditions noted therein. Attachments 1. Site Pics 2. Aerial/Site Location Map 3. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 4. Petition List of Neighbor’s Support of Variance 5. Survey/Site Plan 6. Garage Plans Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 8 SITE / STRUCTURE PICTURES – 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE LOOKING TOWARDS HOME / DRIVEWAY LOOKING BACK TOWARDS GARAGE FRONT OF GARAGE / CARPORT SIDE VIEW – GARAGE/CARPORT SIDE / REAR VIEW OF GARAGE REAR VIEW OF GARAGE Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 9 LOOKING NORTHWARD - ALLEY LOOKING SOUTHWARD - ALLEY REAR YARD – LARGE EVERGREEN /BRICK OVEN 66666666666666666666666666666666 6 6666666 656020 0 19966818 1 2 3 5 17 2 19 3 168 162146144143 9190135133 13 0 8454 124 123 8011379 95 110 74107 14 0 71105 70 104101 81 100 6662 6160575552 5351 2565017625448 45 4140 2384438 3637 56 343332 30 2975272182535 20199 1 7 8 1411610513 025 91 13 0 2913 0 10 168 5013 0 405013 0 10551010508470 5013 0 13 0 40255013 0 9 123 13 0 60 25613 050 2911074 5070 55 13 0 30 606 566 572 605 597 613 573 567598 563 574591 564 583 588 569 557 565 586 580 576 605 559 561 555 600 562 572 564568 560 556 569 552 623 565 551HIAWATHA AVEMIRIAM S T G A R D E N L N SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY350'348.8'239' 32 6 . 8 '253.4'200.85'213' 103'125.8'249.6'117.6' 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE (2021-01 Dale Krystosek) City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or 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. 4/7/2021 (;,67,1* New Garage: 24' x 26'(624-sq. ft.) Letter of Intent Dale Krystosek Property, 573 Hiawatha Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Project Description The owner/ applicant is proposing to tear down existing old garage (approximately 70 years old) and rebuild a new garage within same footprint (approximately 2 feet from property lines). The variance request is based on the following considerations: 1. Moving Garage to meet the setback requirement would significantly reduce vehicle turn-around area. Moving the garage to comply with the 10-foot setback requirement would significantly reduce the vehicle turnaround area. Currently there is barely enough room between garage and house to turnaround after backing vehicle out of garage. Moving garage 8 to 10 feet back from back lot line and back from southwest property line would make vehicle turnaround nearly impossible. Meeting the setback requirement would result in the need to back my vehicle out of driveway every time I use it which is approximately 140 feet - creating a safety hazard. New garage in current location would result in a reduced project footprint area. The new garage is slightly larger than the old garage, but the carport would be removed and not re-built. I believe that rebuilding my garage is a reasonable use of my property. Moving garage to meet setback would significantly reduce turnaround area. Currently there is barely enough room between garage and house to turnaround. x Meeting setback requirement would much reduce the necessary vehicle turnaround area and would result in the need to back my vehicles out of the driveway. x The long driveway is approximately 140 feet in length, (nearly half the length of a football field). x Backing a vehicle along the long narrow driveway to Hiawatha Avenue on a daily basis seems unreasonable and would create a safety hazard during the backout on the driveway and also when backing onto the avenue. x Compliance with setback requirements would shift the garage (and garage door) out of alignment with the driveaway, creating an additional functional issue and potential safety concern (see photo below). Driveway looking from current garage toward Hiawatha Avenue. The driveway is narrow (approximately 10 feet wide with narrow clearance on both sides) Driveway looking from Hiawatha Avenue toward garage (approximately 140 feet – nearly half the length of a football field). Note that the garage door is currently centered in line with center line of the driveway. 2. Potential Large Tree Damages/Safety Hazard x There are several very large trees near the existing garage including a very large white pine and a large white spruce. x Moving the garage over 8-10 feet would likely damage tree root systems and/or kill 100-year-old giant white pine and white spruce. x There is a playground style swing set near the garage with a glider swing designed for the handicapped child of the previous owner. x Moving the garage would bring the garage wall much closer to the swing and would create a potential safety hazard for children using the glider swing set. Moving garage over 8-10 feet would likely damage or kill 100- year-old giant white pine and white spruce. Moving garage would create potential safety hazard for handicap glider swing set x Moving garage to comply with setback would create potential safety hazard for handicap glider swing set (photo on left). x Garage wall would be much closer to swing, so when fully swinging, a potential dangerous safety situation could occur. Compliance with the setback requirement would negatively impact the following features on my property: x Potentially damage root systems or kill the large white pine (foreground) and white spruce (background) x Create a potential safety hazard for swing set (see photo below) x Much reduced usable space around the restored brick outdoor fireplace (middle). 3. Exisiting garage is in extremely poor condition. The current owner is only the second owner of the home which was built in 1941 by the previous owner. The exisiting garage was built in two phases, the first in the 1940s and the second phase built in about 1958. At this time there are holes in the walls allowing daylight through along with decayed studs and rafters. There are raccoons living in the garage attic. The garage needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The owner is willing to invest the capital to rebuild if allowed to re-build within the current footprint. Proposed New Garage Requesting variance for 2 foot setback from property lines for new garage with reconstruction in same location as the old garage. All immediate neighbors have signed consent form. Summary – Over the past 3-4 years, the owner and applicant has made significant investments and put in hard work to upgrade the property and be a good citizen of the neighborhood and city of Mendota Heights. x Constructing the new garage in current location would result in a reduced overall project footprint area. The new garage is slightly larger than the old garage, but the carport would be removed and not re-built, thus reducing the total project footprint. x Moving garage 8 to 10 feet back from back lot line and back from southwest property line would make vehicle turnaround nearly impossible when exiting the garage. x If the new garage was constructed to meet the setback requirement, I would need to back my vehicle out of my narrow driveway approximately 140 feet to Hiawatha Avenue creating a safety hazard. x All neighbors directly adjacent to my property are in support of the variance. The six closest neighbors to the project have signed the City of Mendota Heights Neighbor Signature of Consent for Variance Request Form (attached). x I believe that rebuilding my garage in the current location is a reasonable use of my property. Over $3,000 have been invested in purchasing and planting white cedar and white spruce trees on the property since purchasing the home. In 2020, the owner restored the outdoor brick fireplace which had been built by the original owner but had fallen into disrepair over the past many decades. The owner invested in a white cedar glider swing the first year after purchasing the home. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 20 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-01 DALE KRYSTOSEK, 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Dale Krystosek, owner of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, was requesting a variance from the required side-yard and rear-yard setback standards in order to replace an existing legal nonconforming garage with a new garage structure. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; a Neighbors Consent (petition) was submitted. Neighbors on both sides of the property as well as behind Mr. Krystosek have also provided support for this request. No other comments or objections have been received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett noted that Community Development Director Tim Benetti referenced findings-of-fact on page 5 and he did not see that in his packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the approvals are listed on pages 5, 6, and 7. Commissioner Corbett thanked Community Development Director Tim Benetti for clarifying this now and noted that he was used to seeing it broken out in a different format so missed it when he was looking through the information. Commissioner Katz stated that he does not want to get into too much information regarding alleys, but confirmed that this is kind of a unique situation with having one that is in an unimproved type of situation. He asked what would happen if the Commission were to walk forward with this and this eventually is not an alley anymore. He asked if that meant this would eventually become some of his property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this would be correct and explained that usually, when the City vacates an alley, that was probably never improved, such as this one, and was platted as part of the original Cherokee Heights Addition, if a petition is submitted to the City, typically half is vacated to every property on either side, which means they would gain 10 feet of extra property. Commissioner Katz noted that this would further reduce the impact of the garage, but understands that would be at some point in the future and not being considered right now. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 20 Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that it would in the future and noted that if the Planning Commission approves the 3-foot variance on the back side, with the extra 10 feet, they would clearly make the 10-foot setback off the alley. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Dale Krystosek, 573 Hiawatha Avenue, stated that he would like to add a few things to Community Development Director Tim Benetti’s presentation. He stated that to meet the setback guidelines, it would create difficulty getting in and out of his driveway which is about 130-140 feet long. He explained that the current situation is that there is just enough room to do a 3-point or 4-point turn to get his vehicles out of the garage as opposed to backing out all the way to Hiawatha Avenue. He explained that he has six neighbors who readily signed the consent. He stated that he has spent a lifetime working in conservation and really likes the big trees in his backyard and would prefer not to have to damage their roots. His request is a net reduction in project area and would appreciate it if the Commission would grant the variance. Commissioner Johnson stated that item #4 on the sixth page of the packet refers to grading and construction activity and asked about grading in the side yard that butts up to 583 Hiawatha Avenue. She stated that she would also like to know if the eaves will overhang onto the property since it is so close to the property line and if there were plans for gutters for the new structure. Mr. Krystosek replied that they plan on no disturbance to the neighbor to the south. He stated that there is a privacy fence along the property line and his contractor has assured him that there will be no damage to the fence and noted that he believes the contractor included gutters as part of their project plans. Commissioner Johnson noted that she did not see information relating to gutters in the packet. Mr. Krystosek stated that he believes there are plans for gutters and even though there are no run- off issues in the area, but will make sure that they are added to the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that if gutters are added, she wondered where they would discharge because the new structure will have a larger roofline even though the total project area will be less because of the covered walkway. She noted that this means that there will be more watershed and explained that she had done the calculations for it and found it will add quite a bit more gallons of water towards that neighboring property than the current garage. She explained that she had asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek to take a look at the elevations of the property to see which way they drained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he spoke with Commissioner Johnson earlier because she had questioned the drainage pattern on the property. He noted that it looks like the area on the south side drains back to the alley and then to some other property. He noted that their analysis did not get into volume of water. Mr. Krystosek noted that the current carport does have a roof that sheds water so he believes Community Development Director Tim Benetti was correct when he stated that the total roof and April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 20 structure area will be smaller. He explained that he is managing his land so it absorbs water and noted that he had planted about 150 trees on the borders for a hedge and tries to maintain the water on the site. He stated that he knows that there is eventually some drainage off the property that goes to the Mississippi River, but believes most of it will be absorbed on his property. He shared his willingness to put in a rain garden as a way to address this potential issue. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-01, THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS-OF-FACT ON PAGES 5, TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE TO DALE KRYSTOSEK OF 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN ON PAGES 6 AND 7. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INCLUDE IN THE CONDITIONS THAT GUTTERS BE ADDED TO THE GARAGE AND ASKED IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED HE DID NOT THINK THAT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS SITUATION HAS ALREADY BEEN WELL DISCUSSED. HE NOTED THAT HE APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A LARGER ROOF BUT DOES NOT THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE CONCERN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY OR THAT THIS CONDITION NEEDS TO PUT ON THE APPLICANT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 4, 2021 meeting.