2023-11-08 City Council Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Wednesday, November 8, 2023 7:00 p.m.
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Pledge of Allegiance
4.Adopt Agenda
5.Consent Agenda
a.Approve October 17, 2023 City Council Meeting Minutes
b.Approve October 17, 2023 City Council Work Session Minutes
c.Acknowledge September 13, 2023 Natural Resources Meeting Minutes
d.Approve Hire for Community Development Manager
e.Approve Hire for Assistant City Engineer
f.Accept City Clerk Resignation and Authorize Position Recruitment
g.Approve 2024 Fourth of July Fireworks Contract
h.Approve Purchase of Replacement Standby Generator for the Main Lift Station
i.Resolution 2023-84 Approving Plans and Authorizing an Advertisement for Bids for
the Marie Park Pond Improvements.
j.Resolution 2023-83 Authorizing Continued Participation in the Dakota County
South Metro SWAT Joint Powers Agreement
k.Acknowledge July, August and September 2023 Fire Synopsis Reports
l.Acknowledge August, 2023 Par 3 Financial Report
m.Approve Claims List
6.Public Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
7.Presentations/Recognitions
a.Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Recognition
8.Public Hearings
a.Resolution 2023-75 Public Hearing for an Easement Vacation – Audrey Addition
b.Resolution 2023-76 Public Hearing for a Right-of-Way Vacation – Summerset
Boulevard
9.New Business
a.Approve Resolution 2023-77 for a Wetland Permit at 2477 Bridgeview Court
(Planning Case 2023-21)
b.Approve Resolution 2023-78 for a Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit
at 2237 Rogers Court (Planning Case 2023-22)
c.Approve Resolution 2023-79 for a MRCCA Permit at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road
(Planning Case 2023-23)
d.Approve Resolution 2023-80 for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit at 809
Hazel Court (Planning Case 2023-24)
e.Approve Resolution 2023-81 for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 2507 and
2511 Condon Court (Planning Case 2023-26)
f.Approve Resolution 2023-82 for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 641
Hampshire Dr. (Planning Case 2023-20)
g.Approve Purchase of Plow Truck
10.Community Announcements
11.Council Comments
12.Adjourn
Alternative formats or auxiliary aids are available to individuals with disabilities upon
request. Please contact city hall at 651-452-1850 or cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Guidelines for Public Comment Period: The Public Comment Period of the agenda provides an opportunity
to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Council. Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per person; presentations
which are longer will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Public
comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign
purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up
to the issues raised or occasionally called on to respond.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, October 17, 2023
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, 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. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent calendar as presented.
a.Approval of October 3, 2023 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of October 3, 2023 City Council Special Minutes
c.Acknowledge July 2023 Par 3 Financial Report
d. Resolution 2023-64 Appoint Election Judges and Establish Absentee Ballot Board
e.Approve Massage Therapist License for Amber Johnstin
f.Resolution 2023-46 Approve Renewal of Contract with Metro Bowhunters Resources Base for
Deer Control and Public Hunt
g.Approve Contract for Police Department Training
h.Approve Reclassification of the Assistant City Administrator Position
i.Accept Police Officer Resignation and Authorize Position Posting
j.Approve 2023-2024 Insurance Renewal and Elect to Not Waive Statutory Limits
k. Resolution 2023-67 Calling for a Public Hearing on an Easement Vacation – Audrey Addition
l.Approve Change Order for the Wentworth Tennis Court Rehabilitation Project
m.Approve Contract for Marie Park Rink Light Conversion
5aCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 1 of 186
n.Approve Resolution 2023-70 Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for 1151
Orchard Circle (Planning Case 2023-25)
o. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
PRESENTATIONS
A)RESOLUTION 2023-68 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,050,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION BONDS, SERIES 2023A AND
LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF
Councilor Lorberbaum recused herself from this item because of her relationship with her employer.
Stacey Kvilvang, Ehlers, presented the results of the bonds sale and asked the Council to consider the sale
of the bonds. She noted a change to the amount of the bonds from $1,050,000 to $1,015,000 through the
sale.
Mayor Levine commented that because the City is a good fiscal steward, its AAA bond rating was
confirmed.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2023-68 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF $1,015,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION BONDS,
SERIES 2023a, AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilor Lorberbaum rejoined the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING
A)RESOLUTION 2023-69 ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE
VICTORIA CURVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Larry Poppler, TKDA, explained that the Council was being asked to preside over an assessment hearing
and adopt the assessment roll for the Victoria Curve Street Improvements.
Councilor Paper asked for details on the Dakota County grant mentioned.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the grant would be about $32,000 for the raingardens at
City Hall and Beth Jacob Congregation.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 2 of 186
Councilor Paper asked for details on the redesign of the sewer that created the delay.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that was mainly due to the rain gardens in order to receive
those grant funds. He noted that future maintenance of the rain gardens would be less because of the
redesign.
Mayor Levine asked when the lift in front of City Hall would occur.
Mr. Poppler replied that would occur by the end of the next week.
Mayor Levine noted that originally the project was going to be $2,000,000 but was reduced to $1,039,000.
She noted that while the design does not fit the standard of the City, it does match with the public input
received from the residents in this area.
Councilor Lorberbaum noted a number that seems missing in regard to a reduction in the assessment.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that staff would support a reduction of three to two for the
Beth Jacob property and three to one for the Culligan property.
Councilor Mazzitello asked if the Culligan assessment could be deferred until that property is developed.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that could be done but there would need to be additional
discussion to that regard. He stated that a letter has been provided from the Culligan property opposed to
any assessment on that land. He noted that although the City had done that before, previous legal counsel
advised the City against that practice.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to open the public hearing.
Councilor Miller, seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Michelle Culligan reaffirmed that they would prefer to not be assessed three units and believe that
should be one unit at maximum. She stated that they would accept one unit.
Larry Alexander, 1203 Victoria Curve, commented on other properties that require access to Victoria
Curve to leave their homes, which would be at least three additional units. He asked why those
properties were not included in the assessment.
There being no one further coming forward to speak, Councilor Paper moved to close the public hearing.
Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2023-69 ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE VICTORIA CURVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 3 of 186
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE ASSESSMENT ROLL: PID 271370001010 BE REDUCED
BY $6,074 TO A TOTAL OF $12,148 AND PID 278125100011 BE REDUCED TO A SINGLE UNIT
ASSESSMENT OF $6,074.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Further discussion: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the area mentioned by Mr.
Alexander is actually located in Mendota and therefore the city would not have the right to assess those
properties individually. He explained that the footage for those properties is accounted for under the City
of Mendota Heights assessment.
Councilor Paper referenced the property located between 1193 and 1179 and asked if that property was
not assessed for this project because it is actually on Hunter Lane.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that property was assessed for the Hunter Lane project,
noting that assessment was over $8,000.
Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she would like to amend the motion to include the ownership of
the parcels along with the PIDS.
Councilor Mazzitello clarified that PID 271370001010 is the Beth Jacob Congregation and PID
278125100011 is the Culligan property. He confirmed that he would accept that as an amendment to the
motion and Councilor Paper accepted.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that her affiliation with Beth Jacob Congregation does not impact her vote
on the assessment as her vote is based solely on the staff recommendation.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A)APPROVE RESOLUTION 2023-71 FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 614 HIDDEN CREEK
TRAIL (PLANNING CASE 2023-15)
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that the Council was being asked to consider adopting
a resolution of approval for a Lot Line Adjustment at 614 Hidden Creek Trail and 620 Hidden Creek Trail.
The applicants, Patrick and Mary O’Reilly, are proposing the adjustment and both affected property
owners support the requested adjustment.
Councilor Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2023-71 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AT 614 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL AND 620 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
B)APPROVE RESOLUTION 2023-72 FOR A VARIANCE AT 1480 SIBLEY MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE 2023-16)
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 4 of 186
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being
asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a request for a Variance from the required yard setbacks
to allow LCS Company to construct an addition on the existing industrial building.
Councilor Mazzitello asked if the existing parking setback is compliant.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that she did not review that standard as that is already
existing and no changes are proposed to the parking.
Mayor Levine commented that these setbacks are quite large as is the right-of-way. She asked if there
would be any chance the building would encroach on the right-of-way.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that it would be very unlikely that any additional right-
of-way would be taken as the right-of-way is already quite large. She noted that the new portion of the
building would still be 100 feet from the right-of-way.
Councilor Paper asked the proximity of this to the Oheyawahe site, expressing concern that perhaps
something could be found in the ground when they start digging.
Mayor Levine replied that this is not part of the Pilot Knob parcel and provided more specific details on
the location. She noted that the tree canopy and vegetation will be a better user experience for the park
users. She noted that if anything were found during construction, the proper process would need to be
followed.
Councilor Lorberbaum thanked the owner for attending, noting that she was able to tour the inside and
outside of the building.
Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2023-72 APPROVING A VARIANCE AT 1480
SIBLEY MEMORIAL HGHWAY (LCS COMPANY).
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Further discussion: Councilor Paper commended the company for choosing to stay in Mendota Heights
and grow the business in this community.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
C)APPROVE RESOLUTION 2023-73 FOR A LOT SPLIT AT 599 CALLAHAN PLACE
(PLANNING CASE 2023-19)
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided background information on the case. The Council is
asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Lot Split at 599 Callahan Place to create two single-
family residential lots. The applicant, Jose Luis Barba, is proposing to subdivide the existing parcel into
two single-family lots that will both be developed with new residential structures.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 5 of 186
Councilor Mazzitello commented that this is a unique situation and asked if the Planning Commission
discussed a timeline for the building on parcel A.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that was discussed on the periphery. She noted that it
was determined that the timeline is unknown because of contractors and supplies. She stated that once
the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the new home, the existing home would need to be demolished
within 180 days.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that within exhibit A the two parcels are referenced but show addresses on
Hidden Creek and therefore should be updated.
Councilor Miller moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2023-73 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AT 599
CALLAHAN PLACE, USING THE PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2023-75 FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT
598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE 2023-5)
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being
asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Variance at 598 Sibley
Memorial Highway.
Councilor Mazzitello thanked the applicant for working with the Commission to develop an acceptable
solution.
Councilor Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2023-74 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Mazzitello commented that Trick or Teeing is a fantastic event and encouraged families to
attend. He echoed the comments of appreciation for those businesses and residents that continue to invest
into their properties and stay in Mendota Heights. He commented that he has visited the newest eating
establishment and encouraged others to check it out.
Councilor Miller commented that the Two Rivers boys and girls cross country teams won their conference
championships. He also expressed thanks from the Fire Department for everyone that attended the open
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 6 of 186
house. He also thanked the Mayor who blessed the new ladder truck, which is currently on its way to
Duluth to be showcased at a convention.
Councilor Lorberbaum thanked the residents that came to the most recent Coffee with Council, with
herself and Councilor Miller. She stated that they had some wonderful conversations. She stated that
between November and December there will be three elections for residents and thanked those that
continue to serve as Election Judges and on the Ballot Board.
Councilor Paper commented that the last 11 days have been very trying for his family and many others in
the community in the wake of the actions in Israel. He stated that he stands in solidarity with Israeli family
as this was the largest loss of Jewish life in one day since the holocaust.
Mayor Levine agreed with all the comments from the Council.
ADJOURN
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayo r Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
____________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Cheryl Jacobson
City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 7 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 8 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session
Tuesday, October 17, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilmembers Lorberbaum,
Mazzitello, and Miller were present with Paper joining discussion at 5:25 p.m.
Others present include City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Public
Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Park and Recreation
Manager Meredith Lawrence, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, City Clerk Christine Lusian
and Xcel Energy Community Relations Manager Kirstin Sersland.
UTILITY FRANCHISE FEES
City Administrator Jacobson introduced Kirstin Sersland Community Relations Manager from
Xcel Energy. Jacobson explained that this discussion built off of the June work session which
focused on city funding tools including utility franchise fees.
Jacobson presentated background information and stated that the city has franchise agreements
for electric and gas with Xcel Energy that were adopted in 2014. She noted that council opted
not to implement the fee with the passage of the ordiances.
Council discussed potential rate structures including a flat or percentage fee to achieve a budget
revenue goal of $350,000. Discussion included services and programs where franchise fees
could be directed to such as natural resources, street improvements, sustainability, maintenance
of aging facilities and the general fund. A specific purposes has yet to be determined.
Councilmembers supported establishment of franchise fees with a graduated flat fee structure to
achieve a revenue goal of $500,000. Staff will provide council flat fee scenarios for
consideration at a future meeting. Staff noted that the collection of fees has a 90-day
implementation timeline and includes notification to the Minnesota Public Utility Commission
and Xcel.
Sersland will have the Xcel Energy legal counsel draft the ordinance amendments adding the fee
and the fee ordinance. Xcel and City will work on the amendment while negotiating contract
terms.
5bCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 9 of 186
CELLULAR COVERAGE
Jacobson started the conversation by reviewing the history of the problem and theories of the
cause of coverage gaps, like terrain and poor air quality. Jacobson explained that wireless
services are not a city utility, but an individual private choice.
Levine generally asked what the city’s role should be in improving wireless service.
Ruzek explained that zoning does not allow antennas in residential neighborhoods and suggested
an option of removing that restriction in code. He added that this issue was discussed in the past
and the community opposed towers in residential spaces. Ruzek further explained that even if the
zoning code is changed, wireless providers would have to agree to bring infrastructure and
provide service.
Lorberbaum agreed that the community does not support cellular towers in R1 districts and she
voted against it in the past while serving as a planning commissioner. She added that when she
voted against it, wireless was not an essential service like it is today.
Ruzek explained that small cell is another option to fill in gaps, but there are only three in the
city currently.
Levine invited Chief McCarthy to comment as it relates to emergency response and public
safety. McCarthy responded that coverage is not great inside the police department and when the
state network is down, hotspots are operational seasonally, and devices need to be positioned
creatively to acquire a signal. McCarthy suggested that users can look into landline phone
service.
Levine explained that there are options to solve this problem, like increasing the allowed pole
height in zoning code or not requiring a variance from providers. Mazzitello added that there are
appropriate places to install a tower other than near someone’s home, like open space, right of
way, park perimeter, all strategic and tactical intentionally reserved for purposes like this.
Miller added that he agrees with Mazzitello, and wants to keep people safe, while also requiring
aesthetic specifications, oversight, and approval. Miller concluded that he wants the solution to
be a win-win for Mendota Heights with the goal and priority being to improve wireless service
coverage.
Paper agreed and said that we need to do whatever it takes such as adding that towers look like
spruce trees now. Lorberbaum agreed. Levine added that companies can co-locate together on
one taller tower. Mazzitello said another thing to consider is if the tower is high enough above
the tree canopy, we might not notice the blades.
Councilmembers directed staff to continue to review options for improvement.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 10 of 186
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
_______________________________
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 11 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 12 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Natural Resources Commission
Wednesday September 13, 2023, 5:00 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Natural Resources Commission was held on Wednesday,
September 13, 2023, at Mendota Heights City Hall; 1101 Victoria Curve.
1.Call to Order
Chair Swank called the meeting to order at 5:00pm.
2.Roll Call
Natural Resources Coordinator Spreiter called the roll. Commissioners present: Swank, Husbands,
Stein, Tupper, Knosalla, and Fahnhorst. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner McCaslin and Student
Commissioner Byrnes. Staff present: Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Spreiter and Assistant City
Administrator Kelly Torkelson.
3.Adopt Agenda
Motion to approve the agenda by Fahnhorst, second by Stein.
Motion passed 6-0.
4.Approval of Minutes
a.Approval of August 9, 2023 Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes by Tupper, second by Husbands.
Motion passed 6-0.
5.Public Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
6.New Business
a.Oak Award Program
Natural Resources Coordinator Spreiter shared draft criteria developed by the Education and
Outreach committee for the Oak Award program. She shared different levels of the proposed
award program. She noted the award nominations will be accepted each fall and awarded each
January.
Commissioner Tupper shared additional information on the criteria, structure and examples.
Commissioner Fahnhorst asked if there was a limit on a number of awards given each year. He
recommended the allowance of multiple awards each year.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 13 of 186 5c
Commissioner Knosalla asked what the award would look like.
Commissioner Tupper will look into different options of plaques and other structures.
Assistant City Administrator Torkelson advised the commission to determine a set number of
recipients so that it could be budgeted for accordingly.
Commissioner Stein suggested featuring the winners in City publications.
Commissioner Tupper noted that the project should occur within the City.
Commissioner Fahnhorst noted that several volunteers just appreciate the recognition, if a
monetary award isn’t feasible.
Motion to recommend the Oak Awards program to the City Council by Fahnhorst, second by Stein.
Motion passed 6-0.
b.Natural Resources Commission Site Tour
Natural Resources Coordinator Spreiter noted the upcoming tour at Valley Park, and the several
projects they hope to view. The tour will happen after the meeting tonight.
c.Natural Resources 2024 Preliminary Budget Request
Natural Resources Coordinator Spreiter noted a few preliminary budget line items that were
removed and replaced for the 2024 preliminary budget, as well as an additional preliminary budget
line item that was added by the City Council. She also noted a few preliminary budget line items
that were not changed. For 2023, the Natural Resources total budget was $253,300. For 2024, the
Natural Resources total preliminary budget requested is $316,800.
Commissioner Stein commented that he likes to see the preliminary budget line item for
maintenance.
Commissioner Husbands appreciates the cohesiveness of the preliminary budget resources and
think this will allow the commission to be better stewards.
7.Old Business
a.Student Commissioner Recruitment
Assistant City Administrator Torkelson noted the City has opened the applications for the Student
Commissioner seat, as a non-voting member of the Commission. It’s been promoted with the
School District as well as social media.
Commissioner Stein suggested sharing this information with the school’s “Live Green” club.
b.Partners in Energy
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 14 of 186
Natural Resources Coordinator Spreiter provided an update on the status of the program. Staff
plans to apply by the October deadline, and she shared a copy of the application with the
Commission. Coordinator Spreiter is asking for any Commissioner’s feedback via email on some of
the application questions.
c.Committee Reports – Workplan
•Ordinance and Policy Development
Commissioner Fahnhorst reminded the group of an upcoming worksession to continue work
on the ordinance.
•Education and Outreach
Commissioner Tupper is excited to recommend the Oak Awards program to the City Council.
•Urban Forestry
Commissioner Husbands noted the plan of spraying, burning, spraying again, and seeding with
a Savannah mix, then planting overstory as well as understory trees, pollinator shrubs and
forbs for the savannah demonstration project in Marie Park.
•Green Steps
The committee is waiting on direction as to which activities to prioritize to get to Step 3.
•Sustainability
Commissioner Stein thanked Coordinator Spreiter for the work on the Partners in Energy
application.
8.Staff Announcements
Natural Resources Coordinator Spreiter noted a volunteer tree planting event on October 5 at Friendly
Hills Park.
9.Commission Comments
NA
10.Adjourn
Motion to adjourn the meeting by Husbands, second by Knosalla.
Motion passed 6-0.
Vice-Chair Tupper adjourned the meeting at 5:33pm.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 15 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 16 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayo r, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approve the Hiring of Community Development Manager
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Sarah Madden as Community Development
Manager.
BACKGROUND
The Community Development Director position became vacant in January of 2023. With a
challenging hiring market and the pending 2023 compensation study, the city engaged a planning
consultant to support community development needs while the position of community
development director was restructured. The city council authorized staff to advertise for a
community development manager and staff received many qualified candidates.
Staff are pleased to recommend Sarah Madden as the community development manager. Madden
currently works as a planner for the City of Burnsville. In addition, Madden also has experience
working on Economic Development with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Madden brings
a research background as well as strong community engagement skills and she will be a great
addition to the Mendota Heights city staff.
BUDGET IMPACT
This is a budgeted position. Staff are recommending the hiring of Sarah Madden at Step 2 of Pay
Grade 15 with an annual salary of $106,355 per the 2023 compensation plan. In addition, staff
are recommending to designate a 40-hour bank of vacation for Madden at the start of her
employment with the city.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that Council authorize the hiring of Sarah Madden as Community Development
Manager with an annual salary of $106,355.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, authorize the hiring of Sarah Madden as Community
Development Manager with an annual salary of $106,355.
5dCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 17 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 18 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approve the Hiring of Assistant City Engineer
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Lucas Ritchie as Assistant City Engineer.
BACKGROUND
The Assistant City Engineer position was added to the 2023 city budget to address staffing needs
in engineering and to provide additional department and administrative support to the public
works/engineering department. This is a new position to the department which will help to expand
staff capacity and support ongoing engineering and public works initiatives. Throughout the
budget discussions in which this position was added, there was specific interest by the City Council
to identify candidates that had experience working with surface water specifically.
Staff are pleased to recommend Lucas Ritchie as the city’s assistant city engineer. Ritchie currently
works at the City of Lakeville as a Civil Engineer where he has worked his way up in the
department through multiple roles. In addition to a passion for public service, Ritchie is a
Professional Engineer with experience working with surface water that includes reviewing
residential and commercial development stormwater requirements and storm sewer system design
for retention of public surface runoff.
BUDGET IMPACT
This is a budgeted position. Staff are recommending the hiring of Lucas Ritchie at Step 1 of Pay
Grade 15 with an annual salary of $102,758 per the 2023 compensation plan. In addition, staff
are recommending to designate a 40-hour bank of vacation for Ritchie at the start of his
employment with the city.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that Council authorize the hiring of Lucas Ritchie as Assistant City Engineer
with an annual salary of $102,758.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, authorize the hire of Lucas Ritchie as Assistant City
Engineer with an annual salary of $102,758.
5eCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 19 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 20 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayo r and City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Accept Resignation of City Clerk and Authorize Posting
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Christine Lusian as City Clerk and authorize the
internal posting for the city clerk position.
BACKGROUND
Christine Lusian has submitted her resignation as cit y clerk effective November 6. The city has internal
staff who are qualified for the city clerk position, therefore the council is asked to authorize an internal
posting for the position. In the case that an internal candidate is not selected, staff would move forward
with an external posting for the position.
BUDGET IMPACT
Staff are requesting to advertise the city clerk position with compensation between steps 1- 4, which
represents the midpoint of the compensation scale. The city clerk position, which is a pay grade 12 on
the city’s compensation matrix, would be advertised between $86,278-$95,658. This is a budgeted
position for the 2024 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council accept the resignation of Christine Lusian as city clerk effective
November 6 and authorize the internal posting for the city clerk position.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Christine Lusian as city clerk
effective November 6 and authorize the internal posting for the city clerk position.
5fCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 21 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 22 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of 2024 Fourth of July Fireworks
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the budget expenditure for the city’s Fourth of July fireworks
display and authorize the City Administrator to execute the necessary contract and agreements
with J & M Displays and Mendakota Country Club for the event.
BACKGROUND
As part of the City Council’s priority to Enhance City Governance and Services with a focused
strategy to Enhance Connections and Community Partners, Businesses and Residents, the Council
has supported city sponsored fireworks on Independence Day (July 4).
Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) with detailed expectations regarding scope of the
fireworks show, safety requirements, and preferred launch date/back up dates. The City received
two proposals, both from reputable fireworks companies and at the same price point. A fireworks
review committee, consisting of the Parks and Recreation Manager, Fire Captain, Fire Marshall,
and Police Chief reviewed the proposals.
The fireworks review committee determined that J & M Displays is the best fit to provide the
City’s fireworks display for 2024. J & M Displays has been in business for 40 years and has
provided fireworks displays for many jurisdictions within the Twin Cities and throughout the
United States including presenting the Dick Clark New Year’s Eve show in New Orleans.
J & M Displays proposal includes an 18-20 minute display that is electronically fired. Fireworks
will be delivered utilizing a Department of Transportation HazMat certified driver and vehicle. J
&M Displays is covered under a $10,000,000 insurance policy. J & M Displays contract includes
a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000, which is in line with what other cities plan to pay for a similar
show in 2024. The fireworks display is scheduled for July 4 with July 5, August 9 and August 10
as weather back up dates.
An agreement between the city, J & M Displays, and Mendakota Country Club is needed. An
agreement was drafted by the city attorney in 2022 between the city and the fireworks company
and between the city and Mendakota Country Club for accessing their property as the launch site.
Staff will update these agreements to be used in 2024.
5gCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 23 of 186
BUDGET IMPACT
The FY2024 budget includes $25,000 for an annual fireworks display. J & M Displays contract
for the fireworks display includes a not to exceed amount of $20,000 should the display go as
planned on July 4. Should the City postpone the fireworks show due to weather after the crew and
driver has left the shop with the fireworks in transit, a 15% increase in the total cost would be
incurred by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving the contract for the City’s Fourth of July fireworks display with J &
M Displays in the amount of $20,000. Additionally, staff recommends providing authorization for
the City Administrator to, once finalized, execute the necessary agreements between J & M
Displays and Mendakota Country Club for carryout of the event.
ACTION REQUESTED
If the City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the contract for the City’s Fourth of July
fireworks display with J & M Displays in the amount of $20,000, and authorize the City
Administrator to execute the necessary agreements between J & M Displays and Mendakota
Country Club for carryout of the event.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 24 of 186
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent
SUBJECT: Purchase of Standby Generator for Main Lift Station
INTRODUCTION:
Council is asked to approve the purchase of a new standby generator for the main lift station.
BACKGROUND
As part of the 2023 capital budget approved by the City Council, the Utility Department
requested a new standby generator at the city’s main lift station. This generator will replace a
1969 Cat generator that is already installed at the main lift station.
Staff has received two quotes for a new 125kW natural gas generator set:
Total Energy Systems $104,076
Cat (on the Sourcewell contract) $124,922
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for this generator comes from the Utility Fund that does have a balance to cover the cost
for the purchase of the generator set. The 2023 budget approved $60,000 for the replacement of
the generator.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve a purchase order to Total
Energy Systems for their low bid of $104,076, for the purchase of a new 125kW natural gas
generator set for the main lift station.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion to approve a
purchase order to Total Energy Systems for their low bid of $104,076, for the purchase of a new
125kW natural gas generator set for the main lift station. This action requires a simple majority
vote.
5hCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 25 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 26 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2023-84 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the
Marie Park Pond Improvements
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council approve the plans and specifications and
authorize an advertisement for bid for the Marie Park Pond Improvements.
BACKGROUND
Staff has received a number of calls regarding the pond in Marie Park having excessive algae
growth and invasive plants dominating the pond buffer. Staff assessed the pond and discovered
that the pond has an accumulation of sediment.
The City Council awarded a professional services contract to WSB Engineering at their
September 19, 2023 meeting.
The proposed project will remove 3,015 cubic yards of level 1 material and 1,407 cubic yards of
level 3 material from the Marie Park pond. The dredged pond will be designed to have five feet
of dead storage. Pond inlets will also be cleaned and armored with rip rap. A large 36 inch
concrete apron from the main inlet will be replaced. A large amount of invasive vegetation will
also be removed from the pond buffer area. This area will be reseeded with a native wetland mix
and new trees planted the following year.
The Level 1 material to be excavated is not regulated. The Level 3 material to be excavated is
regulated fill that will be required to be landfilled. The testing showed certain traces of metals
and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s). The PAH’s are likely due to a currently
prohibited driveway sealer and the various metals are likely from brake dust from vehicles.
A Sensitive Species review was also completed on the ponds and the results are attached to this
memo. All sensitive species were cleared with the exception of possible Blanding’s turtles which
may be present in the area. The contractor will be required to be diligent in their work and
information is included in the plan on methods to prevent impacts to this species. Impacts to this
species will not be an issue if the work is completed between November 16 thru March 4 as the
5iCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 27 of 186
existing ponds are approximately 1.6 feet deep and would completely freeze under winter
conditions in which these species would not be able to survive in. Public Works also began to
pump down the pond in late October to deter turtles from nesting.
BUDGET
WSB Engineering has provided an Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost and is estimating a contract
of $183,000 for the project. This estimate is within the budgeted range for the project. It is hopeful
that pricing will be below the estimate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the plans and specifications for the Marie Park Pond
Improvements, and authorize the advertisement for bids.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion adopting Resolution
2023-84, A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE MARIE PARK POND
IMPROVEMENTS.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 28 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-84
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE MARIE PARK POND
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and
construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported
on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the Public Works Director to
proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said
improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1.That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all
respects approved by the City.
2.That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director is hereby,
authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with
the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received under online bidding with
Quest CDN by 10:00 A.M., Tuesday, November 28, 2023, and at which time they will be
publicly opened virtually in Quest CDN, will then be tabulated, and will then be
considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this eighth day of November, 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 29 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 30 of 186
Request for Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-83 Participation in Dakota County South Metro
SWAT Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
BACKGROUND
Since 2003, the City of Mendota Heights has participated in the Dakota County Multi-Agency
Assistance Group (MAAG). In April of 2015, the City entered into a 10-year Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) with MAAG. In 2018, the MAAG Board voted to make changes to the JPA.
These changes included changing wording to allow for more flexibility with non-parties and
expenses, setting more routine review of the JPA, adding additional organizations to the group,
and changing the name of the group to South Metro SWAT.
The purpose of the group is to provide a joint response to critical incidents or high-risk entries
where there is a risk of criminal violence. Currently, the Mendota Heights Police Department
does not have an officer assigned to the group.
The expertise accessible through this JPA for critical incidents is instrumental to the safety and
security of the citizens of Mendota Heights. This JPA will supersede the 2019 JPA and will be
valid until December 31, 2028.
Attachments: Joint Powers Agreement (with all signature pages removed except Mendota
Heights)
BUDGET IMPACT
The City of Mendota Heights will pay $17,500.00 in 2024 to participate in South Metro SWAT.
These expenses are included in the 2024 Police Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
If Council desires to implement the recommendation, it should pass a motion approving
Resolution No. 2023-83 FORMALLY AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE “DAKOTA COUNTY SOUTH METRO SWAT” and
authorize the mayor to execute necessary agreements for participation.
5jCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 31 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-83
RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT FOR THE “DAKOTA COUNTY SOUTH METRO SWAT TEAM”
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 471.59 “Joint Exercise of
Powers”; and
WHEREAS, this requires the governing bodies of the agency enter into an agreement; and
WHEREAS, the agreement must address certain items including, but not limited to, liability, purpose of
the agreement, disbursement of funds, termination of the agreement, services provided by others, board
membership; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide the highest level of service to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City believes having access to all the skills, expertise, and specialty equipment possessed
by the joint powers entity will enhance the safety and security of the citizens of the City of Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish
to have access to the skills, expertise, and specialty equipment available to them and our neighbors for response
to critical incidents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council to authorize the City’s
continued participation in the Joint Powers Agreement which provides for the Dakota County South Metro SWAT
Team.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November, 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 32 of 186
DAKOTA COUNTY SOUTH METRO SWAT
2024 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are units of government responsible for critical incident
response in their respective jurisdictions. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority
conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat § 471.59. This Agreement amends and supersedes the
DAKOTA COUNTY SOUTH METRO SWAT, 2019 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, and shall
become effective only upon the approval and execution hereof by duly authorized officers of
all the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned governmental units, in the joint and mutual
exercise of their powers, agree as follows:
1.Name. South Metro SWAT.
2.General Purpose. The purpose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to establish an
organization to coordinate efforts to develop and provide joint response to critical
incidents or high-risk entries where there is a risk of criminal violence, occurring within
and outside of the parties’ jurisdictions.
3.Parties. The parties to this Agreement shall consist of the following units of
government:
City of Apple Valley City of Mendota Heights
City of Farmington City of Rosemount
City of Hastings City of South St. Paul
City of Inver Grove Heights City of West St. Paul
City of Lakeville County of Dakota
City of Faribault County of Rice
City of Northfield
4.Governance.
4.1. Governing Board. The governing board (“Board”) of the South Metro SWAT
shall consist of one member and one alternate member appointed by the chief
law enforcement officer of each party to this Agreement. Appointees shall be
full-time supervisory peace officers of the appointing party. Resolutions or other
documentation of the appointments shall be filed with the chair of the Board.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 33 of 186
Members of the Board shall not be deemed to be employees of South Metro
SWAT and shall not be compensated by the Board.
4.2. Terms. Appointees shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing party and may
be removed only by the appointing party.
4.3. Officers. During the first quarter of each year the Board shall elect from its
members a chair, vice chair and secretary/treasurer. The chair shall preside at all
meetings of the Board and shall perform other duties as determined by the
Board, including the authority to sign contracts authorized by the Board. The
vice chair shall preside during the absence of the chair. The secretary/treasurer
shall assist the chair in overseeing the Board’s budget and finances.
4.4. Meetings. The Board shall have regular quarterly meetings. Special meetings
may be held on reasonable notice by the chair or vice chair. The presence of a
simple majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. All meetings of the
board shall be subject to the Open Meeting Law.
4.5. Voting. Each party to this agreement shall have one vote at any meeting of the
Board. Proxy votes are not permitted. The Board shall function by a majority
vote of board members or alternate members present, provided that a quorum is
present.
5.Duties of the Board.
5.1. The Board will formulate a program to carry out its purpose.
5.2. The Board will coordinate information between the parties and the South Metro
SWAT.
5.3. The Board has the exclusive authority to and shall appoint and supervise the
Team Commander and Assistant Team Commanders of the South Metro SWAT,
including appointment to fill vacancies in these positions. Appointments
require the concurrence of the chief law enforcement officer of the Team
Commander’s or Assistant Team Commander’s employer.
5.4 The Board may relieve the Team Commander or an Assistant Team Commander
of their duties at any time upon simple majority vote of the Board.
5.5 The Board shall review annually the policies and procedures of the South Metro
SWAT Team.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 34 of 186
6.Powers of the Board.
6.1. The Board may enter into any contract necessary or proper for the exercise of its
powers or the fulfillment to its duties and enforce such contracts to the extent
available in equity or at law, except that the Board shall not enter into any
contract the term of which exceeds one year.
6.2. The Board may enter in written contracts with any party to provide budgeting
and accounting and administrative services necessary or convenient for the
Board. Such services may include but not be limited to: management of all
funds, payment for contracted services and other purchases, relevant
bookkeeping and record keeping, records management, training records, and
purchase of equipment.
6.3. The Board may disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with this
Agreement and with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds
by the party under contract to provide budgeting and accounting services.
6.4. The Board may apply for and accept gifts, grants or loans of money or other
property (excluding real property) or assistance from the United States
government, the State of Minnesota, or any person, association, or agency for
any of its purposes; enter into any agreement in connection therewith; and hold,
use and dispose of such money or other property and assistance in accordance
with the terms of the gift, grant or loan relating thereto.
6.5. The Board must obtain and maintain liability insurance in amounts not less than
the statutory liability limits established under Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and may
obtain other insurance it deems necessary to insure the parties, the Board, its
members and employees of the parties for actions arising out of this Agreement,
including, but not limited to extended reporting period coverage upon
termination. With respect to employees of parties who have responded to a
request for assistance pursuant to paragraph 9.5.1, they will be deemed to be
taking actions arising out of this Agreement from the time they receive a request
for assistance pursuant to this Agreement and commence traveling to the
location where assistance is to be provided until the Team Commander or
Assistant Team Commander has made the decision pursuant to paragraph 9.5.1
to recall the team.
6.6. All powers granted herein shall be exercised by the Board in a fiscally
responsible manner and in accordance with the requirements of law. The
purchasing and contracting requirements of the party providing budgeting and
accounting shall apply to the Board.
6.7. The Board may cooperate with other federal, state and local law enforcement
agencies to accomplish the purpose for which it is organized.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 35 of 186
6.8 South Metro SWAT does not have the authority to seize property for purposes of
Minn. Stat. §§ 609.531-.5318.
6.9. The Board may retain legal counsel to advise the Board and provide civil legal
services. The Dakota County Attorney’s Office is not the Board’s legal counsel.
6.10. All cash monies derived from South Metro SWAT operations shall remain the
property of south Metro SWAT and shall be used in furtherance of South Metro
SWAT efforts.
6.11 The Board is not responsible for investigating the conduct of the Team
Commander, an Assistant Team Commander or any team member assigned to
the South Metro SWAT. The Board will forward any complaints about any of the
conduct of any such individual to the individual’s employing agency.
7.Budget and Finance.
7.1. Budget. By April 30 of each year the Board shall prepare and adopt a budget for
the following calendar year and may amend the same from time to time.
7.2. Expenses. The parties intend to fund South Metro SWAT through annual
contribution paid by each party. The Board shall establish the contribution by
April 30 of the year prior to the year when the contribution is payable. The
parties agree to pay the contribution as determined by the Board on or before
January 31 of the year following the determination, provided that the respective
city council or county board for each party has included funds for this purpose
in its adopted budget. If a party elects to withdraw from this Agreement, there
will be no reimbursement of any part of the contribution made for the year of
withdrawal.
7.3. Accountability. If the Board elects to contract with a party to provide budgeting
and accounting services, the Board shall enter into a written fiscal agent
agreement with such party. The fiscal agent shall forward reports on South
Metro SWAT receipts and disbursements to the members on a monthly basis.
Fiscal agent responsibilities include but are not limited to management of all
funds, including party contributions and grant funds, payment for contracted
services, and bookkeeping and recordkeeping. All funds shall be accounted for
according to generally accepted accounting principles.
7.4 Invoices. The secretary/treasurer may authorize payment of invoices which are
consistent with the adopted budget and shall report to the Board all such
invoices at its next regular meeting.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 36 of 186
8.South Metro SWAT Team members.
8.1. The Team Commander and Assistant Team Commanders and team members
shall be licensed peace officers. The chief law enforcement officer of each party
shall assign licensed peace officers to serve as South Metro SWAT team
members, subject to approval of the Team Commander. Appointment as a Team
Commander, Assistant Team Commander or team member pursuant to this
Agreement shall not obligate any party to pay its employees so appointed any
premium pay.
8.2. Team Commander, Assistant Team Commanders and team members assigned
to the South Metro SWAT at all times will remain employees of the members’
respective jurisdictions and will not be employees of the Board.
9.Operations.
9.1. Team Structure. The Team Commander, with Board approval, will organize a
leadership structure for South Metro SWAT that ensures efficient operation and
deployment of resources.
9.2. Budget. The Team Commander will prepare and present to the Board annually
a requested operating and capital improvement budget for the following year.
9.3. Communication. The Team Commander will act as a liaison between the South
Metro SWAT and the Board, providing quarterly updates on team status,
deployment, and budget.
9.4. Training. The Team Commander shall be responsible for arranging monthly
and annual training events for team members, consistent with direction from the
Board. The Team Commander shall also be responsible for maintaining records
of the training received by team leaders and members as well as records of all
other activities undertaken by the Team Commander, Assistant Team
Commanders, team leaders and team members pursuant to this Agreement.
9.5. Deployment.
9.5.1. Requests for Assistance. Whenever a party, in its sole discretion,
determines that conditions within its jurisdiction cannot be adequately
addressed by that jurisdiction’s personnel and resources because of a
critical incident or need for high risk entry, the party may request, in
accordance with policies and procedures of the Board, that the South
Metro SWAT deploy a South Metro SWAT team to assist the party’s
jurisdiction. Upon a request for assistance, a South Metro SWAT team
may be dispatched to the requesting party, in accordance with policies
and procedures of the Board. A party may decline to make its personnel
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 37 of 186
available in response to any such request. Failure to provide assistance in
response to a request made pursuant to this Agreement will not result in
any liability to a party or South Metro SWAT. The Team Commander or
Assistant Team Commander shall notify the Board members representing
the employing agencies’ team members who are deployed anytime that
assistance is provided pursuant to this Agreement. The Team
Commander will report to the Board quarterly regarding any assistance
provided to a party pursuant to this Agreement. The Team Commander
or an Assistant Team Commander may at any time and in his/her sole
judgment recall the team. The decision to recall a team provided
pursuant to this Agreement will not result in liability to the South Metro
SWAT, any party, or to the Team Commander or Assistant Team
Commander who recalled the team.
9.5.2. Direction and Control. A party may at any time recall its personnel or
equipment if it is considered to be in the best interests of the party to do
so. South Metro SWAT team members will be under the tactical control
of the Team Commander or other person in command of the scene, until
a party withdraws its personnel or equipment.
9.5.3. Compensation. When the South Metro SWAT provides services to a
requesting party, the personnel of the South Metro SWAT shall be
compensated by their respective employers just as if they were
performing the duties within and for the jurisdiction of their employer.
No charges will be levied by the South Metro SWAT or by the parties for
specialized response operations provided to a requesting party pursuant
to this Agreement unless that assistance continues for a period exceeding
24 continuous hours. If assistance provided pursuant to this agreement
continues for more than 24 continuous hours, and the assistance is not
provided in connection with a police call for services, any party whose
officers provided assistance for South Metro SWAT may, at the direction
of the board, submit itemized bills for the actual cost of any assistance
provided, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies, to the
South Metro SWAT and the South Metro SWAT shall submit the invoices
to the requesting party. The requesting party shall reimburse the South
Metro SWAT for that amount, and the South Metro SWAT shall forward
the reimbursement to the responding party.
9.5.4. Workers’ Compensation. Each party to this Agreement shall be
responsible for injuries to or death of its own employees in connection
with services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Each party shall
maintain workers’ compensation coverage or self-insurance coverage,
covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance as a
member of the South Metro SWAT. Each party to this Agreement waives
the right to sue any other party for any workers’ compensation benefits
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 38 of 186
paid to its own employee or their dependents, even if the injuries were
caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its
officers, employees, or agents. The Team Commander, Assistant
Commander, and team members are not employees of the South Metro
SWAT.
9.5.5. Damage to Equipment. Each party shall be responsible for damage to or
loss of its own equipment occurring during deployment of the South
Metro SWAT. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any
damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were
caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its
officers, employees, or agents.
9.5.6. Liability and Indemnification. The South Metro SWAT is a separate and
distinct public entity to which the parties have transferred all
responsibility and control for actions taken pursuant to this Agreement.
The South Metro SWAT shall defend and indemnify the parties and their
officers, employees, volunteers, and agents from and against all claims,
damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees,
arising from the South Metro SWAT activities or operations, including
deployments of a South Metro SWAT team, decisions of the Board, and
South Metro SWAT training activities.
To the full extent permitted by law, this Agreement is intended to be and
shall be construed as a “cooperative activity” and it is the intent of the
parties that they shall be deemed a “single governmental unit” for the
purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59,
subd. 1a(a); provided further that for purposes of that statute, each party
to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or
omissions of the other parties.
Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the statutory
limits on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or a waiver
of any available immunities or defenses. Under no circumstances shall a
party be required to pay on behalf of itself and any other parties any
amounts in excess of the limits of liability established in Minnesota
Statutes Ch. 466 applicable to any third-party claim. The statutory limits
of liability for some or all of the parties may not be added together or
stacked to increase the maximum amount of liability for any third-party
claim.
Any excess or uninsured liability shall be borne equally by all the parties,
but this does not include the liability of any individual officer, employee,
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 39 of 186
or agent which arises from his or her own malfeasance, willful neglect of
duty, or bad faith.
Nothing herein shall be construed to provide insurance coverage or
indemnification to an officer, employee, or volunteer of any member for
any act or omission for which the officer, employee or volunteer is guilty
of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith.
9.6. Aid to Non-Parties.
9.6.1. Upon a request for assistance from a governmental unit that is not a party
to this Agreement, a South Metro SWAT team may be dispatched to such
governmental unit, in accordance with policies and procedures of the
Board, for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours, provided that the police
chief or Sheriff, as appropriate, has consented to such deployment of his or
her respective employees. Failure to provide assistance in response to any
such request shall not result in any liability to a party or South Metro
SWAT. The Team Commander or Assistant Team Commander shall notify
the chair of the Board any time such assistance is provided. The Team
Commander or Assistant Team Commander may at any time and in
his/her sole judgment recall the team. The decision to recall a team
hereunder shall not result in any South Metro SWAT liability.
9.6.2. Any party whose officers provided assistance pursuant to this paragraph
may, at the direction of the board, submit itemized bills for the actual cost
of any assistance provided, including salaries, overtime, materials and
supplies to the South Metro SWAT and the South Metro SWAT shall
submit the invoices to the requesting entity. The South Metro SWAT shall
forward any payments it receives in connection with such invoices to the
invoicing party.
10.Term. The term of this Agreement shall be effective only when all the parties have
signed this Agreement. The chair of the Board shall notify the parties in writing of the
effective date of this Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in effect until
terminated in accordance with paragraph 11.2 or December 31, 2028, whichever first
occurs.
11.Withdrawal and Termination.
11.1. Withdrawal. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement upon 90 days’
written notice to the other parties. Withdrawal by any party shall not terminate
this Agreement with respect to any parties who have not withdrawn.
Withdrawal shall not discharge any liability incurred by any party prior to
withdrawal. Such liability shall continue until discharged by law or agreement.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 40 of 186
A withdrawing party shall have no claim to any property or assets owned or
held by South Metro SWAT.
11.2. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of any one of
the following events: (a) when necessitated by operation of law or as a result of a
decision by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) when a majority of remaining
parties agrees to terminate the Agreement upon a date certain.
11.3. Effect of Termination. Termination shall not discharge any liability incurred by
the South Metro SWAT or by the parties during the term of this agreement.
Upon termination and after payment of all outstanding obligations, property or
surplus money held by the South Metro SWAT shall then be distributed to the
parties in proportion to their contributions.
12.Notice. Notice of withdrawal shall be provided by first class mail to the following:
Apple Valley Chief of Police
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Farmington Chief of Police
19500 Municipal Drive
Farmington, MN 55024
Hastings Chief of Police
150 3rd Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
Inver Grove Heights Chief of Police
8150 Barbara Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
Lakeville Chief of Police
9237 183rd Street West
Lakeville, MN 55044
Faribault Chief of Police
25 4th St NW
Faribault, MN 55021
Northfield Chief of Police
1615 Riverview Dr
Northfield, MN 55057
Mendota Heights Chief of Police
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 41 of 186
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Rosemount Chief of Police
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
South St. Paul Chief of Police
125 3rd Avenue North
South St. Paul, MN 55075
West St. Paul Chief of Police
1616 Humbolt Avenue
West St. Paul, MN 55118
Dakota County Sheriff
Law Enforcement Center
1580 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Rice County Sheriff
118 3rd St NW
Faribault, MN 55021
13.Miscellaneous.
13.1. Amendments. This agreement may be amended only in writing and upon the
consent of each of the parties’ governing body.
13.2. Records, accounts and reports. The books and records of the South Metro SWAT
shall be subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 13.
13.3. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one
and the same instrument. Counterparts shall be filed with the chair of the Board.
13.4. Additional Parties. Any other municipality within Dakota County or any
municipality or County adjacent to Dakota County may become a party to this
Agreement upon approval of the Board, adoption of a resolution by the entity’s
governing body, execution of this Agreement, and filing of the same with the
chair of the Board.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 42 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By:
Name:
Title:
Date of Signature:
Attest:
By:
Name:
Title: City Administrator
Date:
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 43 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 44 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: July 2023 Fire Synopsis
COMMENT:
For July 2023, the Fire Department was paged for service a total of 35 times.
Mendota Heights 26 calls
Lilydale 3 calls
Mendota 1 call(s)
Sunfish Lake 4 call
Other 1 call(s)
Total 35 calls
Types of calls:
Fires: 3 In July, the Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to a vehicle fire at the
Holiday gas station, a home fire that appeared to have been caused by a lightning strike, and a
grass fire at 35E and Highway 62.
Medical/Extrication: 3 Three calls were medical and/or involved extrication.
Hazardous Situations: 9 July had the department responding to three natural gas leaks.
We cleaned up a small vehicle oil spill. In addition, there were three powerline issues with arcing
and/or limbs of trees on the powerlines. There was also a call for a vehicle at a construction site
that had made contact with the overhead powerlines. There was also a carbon monoxide call.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 12 Mendota Heights Fire responded to 12 false alarms.
The calls were: four to system malfunctions, seven to unintentional alarms, and one call was
coded as other.
Good Intent: 4 For July, we had three calls that were coded as good intent and one was an
odor investigation with no hazardous material found.
Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 3 There were three calls that were cancelled before our
arrival in July.
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 1 We had one auto aid request to West Saint Paul that turned out to
be burnt food.
5kCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 45 of 186
July Trainings
July 11 07:00 Truck to Front Door (Option 1) Mandatory A
This drill was broken into three stations going over necessary skills encompassing fireground
operations from the time the first vehicle arrives: 1) the truck and crew assess the scene 2)
establishes a water supply, 3) the crew then deploys a hose line and prepares to make access at
the door.
July 12 18:30 Truck to Front Door (Option 2) Mandatory A
This drill was broken into three stations going over necessary skills encompassing fireground
operations from the time the first vehicle arrives: 1) the truck and crew assess the scene 2)
establishes a water supply, 3) the crew then deploys a hose line and prepares to make access at
the door.
July 24 18:30 Front Door to Fire (Option 1) Mandatory B
This drill was broken into four stations and was held at the fire station. One station was based on
assessing a scene and taking appropriate command steps over the radio. One station was a
refresher on BLS medical skills. Another station went over making entrance to a residential
structure with a hose line and progressing to the seat of the fire. The final station was advancing
into a multi-level building with a stand pipe, hooking into the stand pipe system, and advancing a
fire hose from that point.
July 27 07:00 Front Door to Fire (Option 2) Mandatory B
This drill was broken into four stations and was held at the fire station. One station was based on
assessing a scene and taking appropriate command steps over the radio. One station was a
refresher on BLS medical skills. Another station went over making entrance to a residential
structure with a hose line and progressing to the seat of the fire. The final station was advancing
into a multi-level building with a stand pipe, hooking into the stand pipe system, and advancing a
fire hose from that point.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 46 of 186
Number of Calls 35 Total Calls for Year 236
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential 1 $100,000 $50,000 $260,000
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined $0
Vehicle - MH $23,340
Vehicle - Contract Areas 1 $2,500 $2,500
Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $100,000 $52,500 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 1
Vehicle accident w/injuries
Extrication 2 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$152,500
Medical, other
HAZARDOUS SITUATION $260,000
Spills/Leaks 4
Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 $23,340
Power line down 3
Arcing, shorting $283,340
Hazardous, Other 1
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal $2,500
Assist Police or other agency
Service Call, other $569,180
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent
Dispatched & Cancelled 3 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 26 177 173
HazMat release investigation 1 3 13 17
Good Intent, Other 3 1 5 2
FALSE ALARMS 4 21 16
False Alarm 1 20 15
Malfunction 4
Unintentional 7 Total:35 236 223
False Alarm, other 1
MUTUAL AID 1 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 35 INSPECTIONS
INVESTIGATIONS
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
RE-INSPECTION
Fire Calls 422 2966.5 2829
Meetings 34 341 425 MEETINGS
Training 243 2132.5 1650.5
Special Activity 103 403 473.5 ADMINISTRATION
Fire Marshal 0 231.5
PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING
TOTALS 802 5843 5609.5 TOTAL:0
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
JULY 2023 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
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 47 of 186
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: August 2023 Fire Synopsis
COMMENT:
For August 2023, the Fire Department was paged for service a total of 33 times.
Mendota Heights 28 calls
Lilydale 2 calls
Mendota 0 call(s)
Sunfish Lake 1 call
Other 2 call(s)
Total 33 calls
Types of calls:
Fires: 2 During August, the Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to a fire/smoldering
call at a condominium complex and to a cooking fire that was contained to the oven.
Medical/Extrication: 7 Seven calls were medical in nature.
Hazardous Situations: 6 The Fire Department was called to three downed powerline
calls in August. The remaining calls were for a carbon dioxide leak, arcing powerlines, and a gas
leak.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 10 False alarms made up 10 of the departments calls in
August including five unintentional trips, three system malfunctions, and two false alarm other
calls.
Good Intent: 1 The MHFD had just one call that was categorized as a good intent call.
Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 6 There were a total of six calls that were cancelled
before our arrival in August.
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2 We had one auto aid request to West Saint Paul that was
cancelled before our arrival. The other call was a mutual aid request from Rosemount for a
tender truck, but that call was also cancelled, once it was determined to have been caused by
burnt food.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 48 of 186
August Trainings
August 8 07:00 Hose Movement & Master Streams (Option 1) Mandatory C
This drill concentrated on proper techniques for moving hose quickly and efficiently in a
structure. It also had stations dedicated to the use of master streams (such as the stream from the
tip of the ladder truck).
August 9 18:30 Hose Movement & Master Streams (Option 2) Mandatory C
This drill concentrated on proper techniques for moving hose quickly and efficiently in a
structure. It also had stations dedicated to the use of master streams (such as the stream from the
tip of the ladder truck).
August 16 18:30 Mandatory A/B/C
This drill was offered as a make-up for firefighters that were unable to make one of the A, B or C
mandatory drills.
August 21 07:00 Fire ground Scenarios (Option 1) Mandatory D
This drill had firefighters separated onto different apparatus and a scenario was presented to the
firefighter for an officer not being present. The firefighter then needed to step into command and
firefighting positions, as needed per the scenario at hand. This call required the use of proper
radio skills, management skills, and firefighting skills.
August 24 07:00 Fire ground Scenarios (Option 2) Mandatory D
This drill had firefighters separated onto different apparatus and a scenario was presented to the
firefighter for an officer not being present. The firefighter then needed to step into command and
firefighting positions, as needed per the scenario at hand. This call required the use of proper
radio skills, management skills, and firefighting skills.
August 28 06:00 EMS Part D (Option 1)
This drill was part four of a two-year cycle for medical refresher in order for firefighters to
maintain their EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) recertification.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 49 of 186
Number of Calls 33 Total Calls for Year 269
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential 1 $200 $200 $260,400
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined 1 $0
Vehicle - MH $23,340
Vehicle - Contract Areas $2,500
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $200 $200 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 7
Vehicle accident w/injuries
Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$400
Medical, other
HAZARDOUS SITUATION $260,400
Spills/Leaks 1
Carbon Monoxide Incident $23,340
Power line down 3
Arcing, shorting 1 $283,740
Hazardous, Other 1
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal $2,500
Assist Police or other agency
Service Call, other 1
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent
Dispatched & Cancelled 6 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 1 28 205 207
HazMat release investigation 2 15 18
Good Intent, Other 0 5 3
FALSE ALARMS 1 22 20
False Alarm 2 22 18
Malfunction 3
Unintentional 5 Total:33 269 266
False Alarm, other 2
MUTUAL AID FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 33 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 379 3345.5 3411.5
Meetings 12 353 439.5 Meetings
Training 338 2470.5 1997
Special Activity 172.5 575.5 602.25 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 292.5
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 901.5 6744.5 6742.75 TOTAL:0
Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date
Contract Areas Loss to Date
Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents
Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous
Mendota Heights
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 2023 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 50 of 186
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: September 2023 Fire Synopsis
COMMENT:
For September 2023, the Fire Department was paged for service a total of 28 times.
Mendota Heights 20 calls
Lilydale 4 calls
Mendota 1 call(s)
Sunfish Lake 1 call(s)
Other 2 call
Total 28 calls
Types of calls:
Fires: 4 During September, the Fire Department responded to four actual fires. One was in
Mendota adjacent to the bike trail and approximately five feet from a garage. The fire was called
in by bikers going past and the homeowner was using a garden hose upon our arrival. Fire
department personnel assisted with overhauling the area and with a wooden retaining wall that
was burning. The MHFD also responded to a fire on the deck of an apartment, a fire confined to
an oven, and to a burning porta potty in a parking lot. The first three fires were good saves but
the outcome for the porta potty was not as good.
Medical/Extrication: 5 Two calls were medical in nature, two calls were for persons trapped
in elevators due to power outages and requesting extrication, and one call was for medical aid at
a traffic accident.
Hazardous Situations: 2 The Fire Department responded to a call for a stove that would not
shut off. The department also responded to a carbon dioxide leak and shut down the carbon
dioxide system at the business.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 3 September had the department responding to three
calls that were categorized as good intent but no actual emergency.
Good Intent: 5 The fire department had two calls for a hazardous material investigation
with none found and three calls that were categorized as good intent calls.
Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 7 Seven calls were cancelled before our arrival in
September.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 51 of 186
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2 We had two auto aid calls for West Saint Paul. One call was
cancelled before our arrival and the second call was for a structure fire, but after our arrival
turned out to be burnt food.
September Trainings
September 6 18:30 Fire Ground Scenarios (Option 2) Mandatory D
This drill had firefighters separated onto different apparatus and a scenario was presented to the
firefighter for an officer not being present. The firefighter then needed to step into command and
firefighting positions, as needed per the scenario at hand. This call required the use of proper
radio skills, management skills, and firefighting skills.
September 7 07:00 EMS Part D (Option 2)
This drill was part four of a two-year cycle for medical refresher in order for firefighters to
maintain their EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) recertification.
September 12 18:00 Live Burn Training
This drill was a live burn held at the East Metro Public Safety Training Center. This drill allows
for fire attack scenarios to occur under real fire conditions in a burn tower. Command, radio, and
fire ground tactics are all utilized in this drill.
September 14 07:00 Live Burn Training
This drill was a live burn held at the East Metro Public Safety Training Center. This drill allows
for fire attack scenarios to occur under real fire conditions in a burn tower. Command, radio, and
fire ground tactics are all utilized in this drill.
September 25 07:00 Pub Ed/Community Risk Red/Car Fire Prop
This drill had one portion of the drill that was dedicated to going over and updating firefighters
in advance of Fire Prevention Week. The updates included the most recent fire statistics and best
practices for the public. The second portion of the drill had a propane fire vehicle prop allowing
for multiple fire “attacks” on the “vehicle” and also incorporated supporting the fire attack with
water from our fire tender (as opposed to using a hydrant).
September 28 18:30 Pub Ed/Community Risk Red/Car Fire Prop
This drill had one portion of the drill that was dedicated to going over and updating firefighters
in advance of Fire Prevention Week. The updates included the most recent fire statistics and best
practices for the public. The second portion of the drill had a propane fire vehicle prop allowing
for multiple fire “attacks” on the “vehicle” and also incorporated supporting the fire attack with
water from our fire tender (as opposed to using a hydrant).
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 52 of 186
Number of Calls 28 Total Calls for Year 297
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential 1 $100 $100 $260,600
Structure - Contract Areas 1 $0
Cooking Fire - confined 1 $0
Vehicle - MH $23,340
Vehicle - Contract Areas $2,500
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract 1 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire 1,000.00$
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $100 $100
Excessive heat, scorch burns
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 1
Vehicle accident w/injuries 1
Extrication 2 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)1,200.00$
Medical, other
HAZARDOUS SITUATION $260,600
Spills/Leaks
Carbon Monoxide Incident $23,340
Power line down
Arcing, shorting 1 $283,940
Hazardous, Other 1
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal $3,500
Assist Police or other agency
Service Call, other
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent 1
Dispatched & Cancelled 7 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 20 225 219
HazMat release investigation 2 4 19 21
Good Intent, Other 3 1 6 3
FALSE ALARMS 1 23 23
False Alarm 2 24 22
Malfunction
Unintentional 3 Total:28 297 288
False Alarm, other
MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 28 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 352.5 3698 3674
Meetings 35 388 473.5 Meetings
Training 372 2842.5 2386
Special Activity 151 726.5 673.25 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 292.5
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 910.5 7655 7499.25 TOTAL:0
Misc. Grass Contract -
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 2023 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
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 53 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 54 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Acknowledge the August 2023 Par 3 Financial Report
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial Report.
BACKGROUND
In the month of August, the course had a total of 3,052 rounds of golf played and a total of $45,921
in monthly revenue. The 2023 year-to-date revenue total including August is $252,379. The
course’s August expenditures totaled $29,425. The year-to-date expenditure total is $177,286. As
of now the course is showing a $75,093 operating surplus.
Included in the maintenance and repairs line item are the following major capital items/supplies
that were paid for:
•Patio Furniture: $8,195.03
•Carpet Replacement in Clubhouse: $4,483.41
•Maintenance Building Fence: $5,318.10
•Chemicals/Fertilizer: $16,482.80
Not included in this financial report are the following:
•Window Replacement at the Clubhouse: $10,651.91
•Furnace/AC at the Clubhouse: $10,416.87
•Top Dresser: $37,288.05
These items were funded from the Par 3 fund, but not included in the monthly operating financial
report.
Attachment: August 2023 Par 3 Financial Report
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial
Report.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion acknowledge the August Par 3 Financial Report.
5lCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 55 of 186
MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT
AUGUST 2023
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
AUGUST 2023 (66.67% OF YEAR)
August
REVENUES August YTD YTD YTD
BUDGET 2023 2023 %2022
GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $150,000 $36,421 $173,704 115.80%$143,520
RECREATION PROGRAMS $45,000 $2,341 $49,038 108.97%$51,358
CONCESSIONS $22,500 $7,145 $29,503 131.13%$27,949
SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $13 $134 100.00%$303
INTEREST $450 $0 $0 0.00%$0
INSURANCE CLAIM $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $217,950 $45,921 $252,379 115.80%$223,130
EXPENDITURES August YTD YTD YTD
BUDGET 2023 2023 %2022
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $42,300 $9,607 $32,244 76.23%$31,273
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $30,722 $2,370 $19,685 64.07%$16,554
FICA/PERA $12,952 $1,476 $6,654 51.37%$7,016
MEDICAL INSURANCE $7,187 $599 $4,792 66.67%$4,567
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $3,255 $238 $5,602 172.12%$3,103
RENTALS $6,000 $1,660 $4,617 76.95%$6,298
UTILITIES $14,495 $1,808 $8,732 60.24%$8,590
PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,990 $0 $3,304 110.50%$2,877
PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $1,100 $0 $61 0.00%$0
PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $7,250 $0 $0 0.00%$3,728
PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $25,000 $2,797 $13,998 55.99%$11,920
PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $1,500 $0 $2,779 185.25%$5,300
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,800 $0 $3,365 70.11%$3,885
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $8,850 $788 $8,763 99.02%$9,889
FUEL $2,600 $343 $1,409 54.20%$1,971
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $54,750 $5,918 $46,332 84.63%$31,574
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $12,750 $24 $6,999 54.89%$2,463
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $7,975 $1,797 $7,949 99.68%$6,495
PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $246,476 $29,425 $177,286 71.93%$157,503
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 56 of 186
5mCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 57 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 58 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 59 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 60 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 61 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 62 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 63 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 64 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 65 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 66 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 67 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 68 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 69 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 70 of 186
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Northern Dakota County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Recognition
INTRODUCTION
Neil Garlock, Chair of the Northern Dakota County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon will highlight
recent chapter recognition and present the Gene & Mary Kahnke Memorial Award to Sheila
Robertson.
BACKGROUND
Beyond the Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) is a nationally recognized organization whose purpose is to
provide support and advocacy for active duty service members and their dependents, and disabled
and retired veterans of the United States Armed Forces.
Under Resolution 2020-64, the city of Mendota Heights became a participating member in the
Northern Dakota County BTYR network which also includes the cities of Mendota, South St. Paul,
Lilydale and West St. Paul
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational only. No action requested.
7aCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 71 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 72 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2023-75 Public Hearing on Easement Vacation for the Audrey
Addition
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to hold proceedings for Resolution 2023-75, a public hearing on an
easement vacation commenced by petition for the Audrey Addition.
BACKGROUND
The city of Mendota Heights received a petition for vacating a drainage and utility easement on
Lot 2 & Lot 3, Block 1, Audrey Addition. A copy of the plat is attached which shows the
easement areas that were dedicated and the highlighted easement to be vacated.
Sean Doyle, SD Custom Homes, received approval from the Mendota Heights City Council on
September 5, 2023 to combine Lot 2 & Lot 3, Block 1, Audrey addition. Combining these lots
leaves a drainage and utility easement which center on the new lot. This drainage and utility
easement is not needed by the city for utility purposes and was platted as part of the city standard
subdivision requirements.
Notices were sent to all properties within the Audrey Addition plat and all properties within 350
feet of the property.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Mendota Heights fee schedule includes a required $500 application fee to cover mailing and
recording fees and staff time which was received from the petitioner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council open the hearing and hear any comments.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2023-75,
“RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION COMMENCED BY
PETITION”. This action requires a simple majority vote.
8aCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 73 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-75
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION
WHEREAS, The Audrey Addition plat, Dakota County, Minnesota was approved in 2022 and
identified dedicated drainage and utility easements; and
WHEREAS, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Audrey Addition, Dakota County Minnesota were
combined into one lot under Resolution 2023-56 on September 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the drainage and utility easements along the interior lot line and shown on Exhibit
A for Lot 2 & Lot 3, Block 1, Audrey Addition are no longer required for drainage and utility purposes.
Said vacation can be further described as being 12 feet on either side of the lot line between Lot 2 and Lot
3, Block 1, Audrey Addition, Dakota County Minnesota excluding the north 30 feet and the south 5 feet;
and
WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than
two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the
applicable statutes; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on November 8, 3 at the City Hall of
Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and
all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views for support or objections to the granting of
said vacation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1.That the vacation of the drainage and utility easements depicted on Exhibit A titled for Lot 2
& Lot 3, Block 1, Audrey Addition is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is
not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. That the above described drainage and utility easements be and the same are hereby vacated.
3.That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the
Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance
with the applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this eighth day of November, 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 74 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 75 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 76 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2023-76 Public Hearing on Right-of-Way Vacation for a portion of
Summerset Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to hold proceedings for Resolution 2023-76, a public hearing on a right-of-
way vacation commenced by petition for a portion of Summerset Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
The city of Mendota Heights received a petition for vacating a portion of Summerset Boulevard
right-of-way adjacent to 772 & 790 Ridge Place. A copy of the petition and plat are attached
which shows the areas of right-of-way that were dedicated for public use.
State Statute governs the procedure for vacating a public way. A petition for vacating a public
way requires signatures from a majority of the abutting land owners having an interest in the
land. In this case, staff identified four properties that abut this specific portion of the vacation
request. Three of the four properties signed the petition constituting a majority.
When considering a vacation, a city may vacate only if it is in the best interest of the public.
Specific to this petition request, the Council should consider if this right-of-way may serve a
purpose in the future which if the right-of-way is vacated, would no longer be feasible.
The property owner would look at a new plat if this vacation is approved which would allow for
two new homes to be constructed on Ridge Place. A map of the proposed plat is attached.
At the time of writing this memo, no responses were received.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Mendota Heights fee schedule includes a required $500 application fee to cover mailing and
recording fees and staff time which was received from the petitioner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council open the hearing and hear any comments.
8bCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 77 of 186
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2023-76,
“RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY
PETITION”.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 78 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-76
RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY
PETITION
WHEREAS, The Summerset Place Plat, Dakota County, Minnesota was approved in
1925 and identified dedicated right-of-way for Summerset Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, The Somerset Hills Plat, Dakota County, Minnesota was approved in 1947
which replatted property adjacent to Summerset Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, an area of Summerset Boulevard Right-of-Way described below is not
required for roadway purposes:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 25, Somerset Hills then northwesterly along the east line
of said Lot 25, Somerset Hills to the northeast corner of Lot 25, Somerset Hills, then easterly to
the northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 3, Summerset Place then southwesterly a distance of
285.88 feet along the eastern line of said Summerset Right-of Way to a point on Lot 22
Summerset Place then westerly to the beginning, all within the City of Mendota Heights, County
of Dakota, State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the western 30 feet of said described area is added to Lot 25, Somerset
Hills, Dakota County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the eastern 30 feet of said described area is added to Lots 17-22, Block 3,
Summerset Place, Dakota County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted
more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in
accordance with the applicable statutes; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on November 8, 2023, at the
City Hall of Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said
vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the
granting of said vacation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1.That the vacation of the described portion of Summerset Boulevard Right-of-Way, is
in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
2.That the above described right-of-way be and the same is hereby vacated.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 79 of 186
3.That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to
the proper Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation
proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this eighth day of November, 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 80 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 81 of 186
6666666666666666666666666666*
³³!
"
*
!!6666666666666!!2
!!2
790
772
800
765781789
RIDGE PL
DODD RDThis im agery is co p yrighted an d licen sed by Nearm ap U S In c, which retain so wn ership o f the im agery. It is bein g p ro vided by Dako ta Co un ty un der theterm s o f that licen se. U n der that licen se, Dako ta Co un ty is allo wed top ro vide access to the “Offlin e Co p y Add-On fo r Go vern m en t”, o n which thisim age services is based, at 6-in ch reso lutio n , six m o n ths after the cap turedate, p ro vided the user ackn o wledges that the im agery will be used in theirn o rm al co urse o f busin ess an d m ust n o t be reso ld o r distributed fo r the
Summerset BoulevardRight-of-Way Vacation
Date: 5/23/2023
City o fMen do taHeights060
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 82 of 186
DODD RDMARIE AVE
HIGHWAY 62
HILLT
O
P
R
D
LINDEN ST
OAK STMARKET
S
TVALLEY CURVINT ERST AT E 35E
WILLOW LN
RIDGE PL
WESLEY LN
WACHT LER AVE
NORT
H
P
L
A
Z
A
D
R
CARMEN LN T RAIL RDMAIN STHILLT
O
P
C
T
MAPLE ST
OAK ST
R
A
M
PARVIN DRMAGER CT
CROWN POINT DRWESLEY CTCROWN CIR INT ERST AT E 35E
RID
G
E
P
L
HIGHWAY 62
T h is im ag ery is copyrig h ted and licensed by Nearm ap US Inc, w h ich retainsow nersh ip of th e im ag ery. It is being provided by Dak ota County under th eterm s of th at license. Under th at license, Dak ota County is allow ed toprovide access to th e “Offline Copy Add-On for Governm ent”, on w h ich th isim ag e services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six m onth s after th e capturedate, provided th e user ack now ledg es th at th e im ag ery w ill be used in th eirnorm al course of business and m ust not be resold or distributed for th e
City Base Map
Date: 10/5/2023
City ofMendotaHeig h ts
0 520
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Legend
SUMMERSET
ROW to rem ain
Id
Sum m erset Place - 1925
Som erset Hills - 1947
ROW to be vacated
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 83 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 84 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 85 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 86 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, Interim Planning Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-77 Approving an After-the-Fact Wetland Permit at 2477
Bridgeview Court [Planning Case No. 2023-21]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving an After-the-Fact
Wetlands Permit for the completed installation of stairs and walkway to the pond on the property
located at 2477 Bridgeview Court. The Applicants have already installed the improvements
within the wetland buffer and setback area, but all work stopped as directed by City Staff so that
proper permits could be obtained.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is approximately 0.76 acres in size, and approximately 0.25 acres of the
property extends into the pond located on the rear of the lot. There is an existing single-family
structure on the lot which is oriented towards Bridgeview Court. The pond area is covered by a
drainage and utility easement that extends onto the rear yard of the subject property by
approximately 20-feet. The drainage and utility easement was established as part of the
Bridgeview Shores 1st Addition plat when the lots were originally created.
The property abuts the pond, which is identified as a Type III wetland within the Surface Water
Management Plan and is identified on the MNDNR public waters inventory (PWI) as PW 19-227
W. This pond is also identified on the City’s Official Wetlands System Map from 1977 that is
referenced within the City’s Wetland Ordinance.
The Applicants installed a walkway and concrete steps that lead to the pond. The purpose of the
steps is primarily to provide access to the pond for winter ice skating on the pond. Based on the
aerial it is presumed that some vegetative clearing was completed prior to the installation of the
stairs and walkway. The Applicant has indicated that no significant trees were removed, but
vegetative clearing did occur to install the steps. As described in the Applicant’s narrative, the
construction area was primarily filled with invasive species such as Buckthorn.
The Homeowners stopped all work and have been working with City Staff to stabilize the site
with proper erosion control. They are seeking a Wetlands Permit, as required, for the work
completed to date and to complete the final site restoration in the Spring.
9aCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 87 of 186
At the October 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly
noticed public hearing was held, and comments from property owners were received and
recorded into the public record. A copy of the 10/24/2023 planning report and attachments is
attached to this memo.
The City received three letters of support for the proposed Wetlands Permit, and no members of
the public provided public testimony during the Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request (7-0) as described in Planning
Case 2023-21, for the property at 2477 Bridgeview Court with findings-of-fact and certain
conditions, as memorialized in the attached [draft] resolution.
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-77, APPROVING AN AFTER-THE-FACT WETLAND
PERMIT AT 2477 BRIDGEVIEW COURT.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 88 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-77
RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT AT 2477 BRIDGEVIEW COURT
PLANNING CASE 2023-21
WHEREAS, Chrissy and Mike Ruiz, the Owners of 2477 Bridgeview Court, made an
Application for an After-the-Fact Wetland Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2023-21;
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan and situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and
WHEREAS, Title 12-2-6 of the City Code (Wetland Systems) allows certain activities to
be performed within a wetland or water related resource area, provided that a written permit is first
obtained; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants will provide additional and suitable wetland protective
vegetation and plantings along the edge of the pond, which will help to reduce any impacts caused
by stormwater run-off from the rear yard area and project, and will help reduce any soil and
contaminant runoff as a result of the new concrete steps; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the proposed After-the-Fact Wetland Permit, and whereupon closing the
hearing, recommended unanimously to approve the After-the-Fact Wetland Permit on the subject
property, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2023-21 is hereby
affirmed, and the After-the-Fact Wetland Permit requested for the property located at 2477
Bridgeview Court is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
1. The installation of the concrete steps and walkway to the pond required a Wetlands
Permit and it was not obtained prior to construction. Once a stop-work order was issued
the Applicants immediately ceased activities and worked to resolve the issues and obtain
the necessary Wetlands Permit.
2. The concrete steps and walkway provide direct access to the pond and will establish a
permanent route to the pond which will indirectly protect the surrounding vegetative
buffer. The restoration plan will include a mix of appropriate wetland buffer plant types
that are on the City’s approved Native Plant List.
3. The proposed project, including those activities completed without a permit and those
that have yet to be complete, are consistent with certain goals and policies as contained
within the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions are met.
4.All remaining work will have little, if any impacts to the pond, or the existing on-site
drainage or drainage from surrounding properties.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 89 of 186
5. Owner/Applicant will provide additional and suitable wetland protective vegetation and
plantings along the edge of the pond, which will help to reduce any impacts caused by
stormwater run-off from the rear yard areas affected by the project, and will help reduce
any soil and contaminant runoff as a result of the new concrete steps.
6.Adequate erosion control measures must remain in place as directed by the city staff and
until all areas of the property have been fully planted and restored, which will ensure
protection of the pond.
7. The project, through completion, must be done in accordance with the rules and standards
of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and will be closely monitored by
city staff to ensure compliance with all Building Codes and related City Codes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the After-
the-Fact Wetland Permit requested for the property located at 2477 Bridgeview Court is hereby
approved, with the following conditions:
1.The concrete steps and boulders as installed are permitted to remain, but no additional
construction or improvements are permitted under this Wetlands Permit.
2. The Applicants shall submit a detailed landscape plan including plant schedule in the
Spring of 2024 prior to installation. The plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural
Resource Coordinator to ensure that the plant schedule complies with the City’s approved
Native Plant list.
3. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity must be in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with
the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures
shall be reviewed by the city’s Public Works Director and shall be maintained per their
direction through project completion.
4. Prior to the release of any escrow payment, all disturbed areas in and around the project
site, including the buffer area, shall be restored and have an established, protected and
permanent ground cover and Native Plants installed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 90 of 186
EXHIBIT A
Address: 2477 Bridgeview Court
PIN: 271515002040
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 2, BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 1ST ADDITION
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 91 of 186
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-21
AFTER-THE-FACT WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT: Chrissy and Mike Ruiz
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2477 Bridgeview Court
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 23, 2023
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking an after-the-fact Wetlands Permit for the installation of stairs and walkway to the
pond on the property located at 2477 Bridgeview Court. The Applicants have already installed the
improvements within the wetland buffer and setback area, but all work has stopped once directed by City
Staff. The purpose of this report is to consider and determine next steps regarding the request.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were
mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received.
BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is approximately 0.76 acres in size, and approximately 0.25 acres of the property
extends into the pond located on the rear of the lot. There is an existing single-family structure on the lot
which is oriented towards Bridgeview Court. (See aerial). The pond area is covered by a drainage and utility
easement that extends onto the rear yard of the subject property by approximately 20-feet. The drainage
and utility easement was established as part of the Bridgeview Shores 1st Addition plat when the lots were
originally created.
The property abuts the pond, which is identified as a Type III wetland within the Surface Water
Management Plan and is
identified on the
MNDNR public waters
inventory (PWI) as PW
19-227 W. This pond is
also identified on the
City’s Official Wetlands
System Map from 1977
that is referenced within
the City’s Wetland
Ordinance.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 92 of 186
After-the-fact Review
The City Staff was alerted to the activities and improvements being constructed on the subject property and
conducted a site visit. Upon site inspection, the Public Works Director determined that the work completed
required an official Wetlands Permit and informed the applicants to stop work so that the proper permits
could be obtained. The Homeowners stopped all work and have been working with the City Staff to
stabilize the site with proper erosion control and to obtain the Wetlands Permit for the work completed to-
date and planned work for final site restoration in the Spring. The following review is based on the current
and/or existing improvements as well as the proposed final site restoration that has yet to be completed.
Summary of Work Completed to-Date.
The Applicant has installed a walkway and concrete steps that lead to the pond. The purpose of the steps is
to provide access to the pond for winter ice skating on the pond. Based on the aerial it is presumed that
some vegetative clearing, was completed prior to the installation of the stairs and walkway. No Significant
trees were removed. As described in the Applicant’s narrative, the construction area was primarily filled
with invasive species such as Buckthorn. (See site photos on the following pages).
Planned Restoration
There was exposed ground surrounding the construction area where the stairs and walkway were installed.
As described in the narrative, per the direction of the Public Works Director, the Applicant has installed a
fall cover crop of MNDOT 21-111 seed mix, which is covered with hay. A detailed restoration plan has
not been submitted, but the Applicant has provided a conceptual plan and describes their plan within the
LOI. The restoration plan includes reestablishing the wetland buffer with native plants. Given that the work
site was shut down so that this Wetlands Permit could be obtained, the Applicant plans to install the plants
in the Spring. The Applicants are working with the MNDNR to create a more detailed planting plan that is
suitable for the pond buffer area restoration.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water
resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of
wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. The
purpose of the Wetlands Systems chapter of City Code Section 12-2-1 is to:
• Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas;
• Maintain the natural drainage system;
• Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife
and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive
sedimentation;
• Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
• Ensure safety from floods.
City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter
a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city;
with the list of activities noted as follows:
1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards.
2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards.
3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water
bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system.
4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure.
5. The removal of vegetation.
6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 93 of 186
7. Permanently storing materials.
8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials).
9. Installation and maintenance of essential services.
The project including the walkway and concrete stairs generally meets activities 3, 4 and 5 as listed.
As part of any Wetlands Permit review, the city must consider and evaluate the following standards and
conditions as noted in the Wetland Ordinance Section 12-2-7:
• Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only
when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to
disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity.
• No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause
the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area.
• Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has
been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter.
• Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that
reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property.
Since most of the construction activity is complete, it is unknown what vegetation was cleared or if any
grading occurred to install the steps and walkway. However, based on the site inspection, it appears that
the activities completed to-date did not require extensive grading or earth work. There is a significant
amount of buckthorn in the area surrounding the pond and it is likely that many of the scrub brushy removed
were invasive species including buckthorn. However, since this an after-the-fact permit it cannot be
determined whether native species were removed as part of the project.
The city’s Surface Water Management Plan provides certain guidelines and suggested standards (not
requirements) for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water
features. The SWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the
wetland edge, in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any
fertilizer/chemical runoff from nearby residential lawn areas. As described in the Applicant’s LOI they
intend to reestablish vegetation within the disturbed area with native species including several trees,
perennials and ground cover as recommended by the Public Works Director. While the stairs and access
will cross this buffer area, the re-establishment of native plans will improve the buffer area once installed
in the Spring.
As shown in the site photos and on the aerial, there continues to be a natural vegetation buffer between the
bond edge and approximately the back 50-feet of the property. This vegetation is intended to be maintained,
and the proposed project will not further alter this buffered area.
Per the recommendation of city staff, the disturbed area has been planted with MNDOT seed mix #21-111
and has been covered with hay. This ground cover will help protect the area over the fall and winter until
the full planting plan is installed in the Spring of 2024.
The existing vegetated pond edge, along with the new trees and recommended buffer planting along this
pond area, will provide adequate and suitable protection (minimize) any run-off generated as a result of the
new steps and cleared walkway area.
The homeowners have demonstrated to city staff a desire to limit the scale and scope of this project and to
reestablish the buffer area, so any impacts to this pond will be minimal.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 94 of 186
The following Goals and Policy statements from the Natural Resource chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan provides additional support in granting approval of this after-the-fact Wetlands Permit, as follows:
GOAL 1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management Plan for
city-wide natural areas and natural resources.
Policy No. 10. Encourage and promote the use of conservation design principles.
GOAL 2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas, wildlife habitat, and other
natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species.
Policies:
1. Monitor new developments for restoration and invasive plant management.
4. Restore areas throughout the city with pollinator-friendly or native species to protect and enhance
habitat for native pollinators and birds.
7. Explore the development of ordinances and or policies that establish minimum soil standards for
development and redevelopment that can support turf, plantings, and/or healthy turf alternatives.
10. Prior to approval of landscape and development plans, work with applicants to encourage the
preservation and installation of high ecosystem value communities.
GOAL 3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources with
emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management.
Policies:
2. Work with partners to implement projects and develop and support programs that encourage
infiltration, to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution to water-bodies.
4. Identify areas within the city, including public and private land that are lacking adequate
stormwater treatment, and other stormwater BMPs. Implement projects to establish functioning
stormwater treatment in order to protect and improve the city’s water resources.
5. Implement the city’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) through the use of
ordinances, policies, and development standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Approve the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific
conditions of approval; or
2.Deny the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a
recommendation as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant
to MN State Statute 15.99.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 95 of 186
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit to Chrissy and Mike Ruiz for the property
located at 2477 Bridgeview Court, to allow the installed concrete steps, boulders and walkway to remain
and to re-establish a native plant buffer within the construction area in the Spring, based on the attached
findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions:
1.The concrete steps and boulders as installed are permitted to remain, but no additional construction or
improvements are permitted under this Wetlands Permit.
2.The Applicants shall submit a detailed landscape plan including plant schedule in the Spring of 2024
prior to installation. The plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resource Coordinator to ensure
that the plant schedule complies with the City’s approved Native Plant list.
3.Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be reviewed by the city’s Public
Works Director and shall be maintained per their direction through project completion.
4.Prior to the release of any escrow payment, all disturbed areas in and around the project site, including
the buffer area, shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover and
Native Plants installed.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 96 of 186
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
After-the-fact Wetlands Permit for Chrissy and Mike Ruiz
2477 Bridgeview Court
Planning Case No. 2023-21
1.The installation of the concrete steps and walkway to the pond required a Wetlands Permit and was
not obtained. Once a stop-work order was issued the Applicants immediately ceased activities and
worked to resolve the issues and obtain the necessary Wetlands Permit.
2.The concrete steps and walkway provide direct access to the pond and will establish a permanent
route to the pond which will indirectly protect the surrounding vegetative buffer. The restoration
plan will include a mix of appropriate wetland buffer plant types that are on the City’s approved
Native Plant List.
3.The proposed project, including those activities completed without a permit and those that have yet
to be complete, are consistent with certain goals and policies as contained within he City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions are met.
4.All remaining work will have little, if any impacts to the pond, or the existing on-site drainage or
drainage from surrounding properties.
5.Owner/Applicant will provide additional and suitable wetland protective vegetation and plantings
along the edge of the pond, which will help to reduce any impacts caused by stormwater run-off
from the rear yard areas, and will help reduce any soil and contaminant runoff as a result of the new
concrete steps.
6.Adequate erosion control measures must remain in place as directed by the city staff and until all
areas of the property have been fully planted and restored, which will ensure protection of the pond.
7.The project, through completion, must be done in accordance with the rules and standards of the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and will be closely monitored by city staff to ensure
compliance with all Building Codes and related City Codes.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 97 of 186
SITE PHOTOS – 2477 Bridgeview Court
LOOKING TOWARDS POND
STANDING UPSLOPE FROM STAIR AND WALKWAY
DISTURBED PROJECT AREA
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 98 of 186
Dear Mendota Heights Planning Committee,
As you know, we are in the middle of a project adding stairs that would give us access to the
pond in the winter. Our goals and plans are as follows:
1. Create a safe way for the kids to access the pond to skate in the winter.
2. No impact to the environment. We haven't removed any plants, dirt, or vegetation other
than invasive species like buckthorn. Please know that this is as important as #1 above to us. It
is important to note a couple of things here - we currently don't use any pesticides or chemicals
on our property both for our kids' sake but also to ensure run off doesn't go to the pond or into
the storm drains. Additionally, since we moved in, in May of 2021, we have added two
pollinator-friendly gardens to our home (one in front and one on the side).
3. Beautification – we hope to add native plants to enhance the area next season. As you are
probably aware it is currently full of buckthorn and other invasive plants. We have reached out
to Taylor Huinker with the DNR and she has given us information regarding vegetation for
screening & slope protection plants in addition to sending us information about Dakota
County's Landscaping for Clean Water Program. We have registered for the 2024 Design Course
in addition to signing up for the grant for native shoreline planting.
Meanwhile, to ensure we have minimized the potential for soil run off into the pond we have
planted a fall cover crop of MN DOT 21-111 oats (and covered with hay) to replace the
buckthorn we removed. We have also added 20 feet of erosion logs on both sides of the steps.
Finally, while we hope to get some great ideas in the spring through Dakota County's Design
Course, at minimum, next spring, we plan to plant the following: 1 silver maple, 1 white oak,
dogwood, Maidenhair ferns, big bluestem grasses, prairie dropseed, Boneset, Goldenrod, blue
vervain, coneflower and common milkweed. The goal is a transformation that is good for the
environment, our family, neighbors, and community.
We welcome any additional recommendations you have both before winter in addition to next
spring when planting season begins.
Sincerely,
Chrissy and Mike Ruiz
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 99 of 186
Silver maple,
dogwood,
Maidenhair ferns,
big bluestem grasses,
prairie dropseed,
Boneset, blue
vervain, coneflower
White oak, big bluestem
grasses, prairie dropseed,
Boneset, Goldenrod, blue
vervain, coneflower and
common milkweed.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 100 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 101 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 102 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayo r, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, Interim Planning Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-78 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment and a Conditional Use
Permit at 2237 Rogers Court [Planning Case No. 2023-22]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a lot line adjustment to
modify the boundary between the property at 2237 Rogers Court and the property to the
northeast at 2225 Rogers Court. The Applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to
construct a 1,000-square foot detached garage in the rear yard of his property.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties are located in the Eide Estates subdivision, which was platted in 1979.
Both are zoned R-1 and were developed in the late 1980s with single-family residential homes.
The properties are located on the northwest side of Rogers Court and are just south of the Rogers
Court cul-de-sac (see map for location). The property at 2237 Rogers Court is currently 31,154-
square feet (0.72 acres). The proposed lot line adjustment, if approved, will expand the subject
property by approximately 1,516-square feet (0.03 acres), bringing the entire property to a total
of 0.75 acres. Per City Code 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, subsection C.1.b(3), lots between
0.75 – 1.5 acres in size are permitted one (1) additional detached garage equaling 1,000-square
feet with a conditional use permit.
Subsequently, the Applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,000-
square foot detached garage in the rear yard. The existing shed will be removed, and the
proposed structure will be installed in accordance with all required setbacks. An overhead
electric transmission line runs along the western boundary of the parcel; however, per the
submitted survey and aerial photos, the proposed garage does not appear to encroach on the
transmission line easement.
At the October 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly
noticed public hearing was held, and comments from property owners were received and
recorded into the public record. A copy of the 10/24/2023 planning report and attachments is
attached to this memo.
The City received one inquiry regarding this application.
9bCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 103 of 186
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request (7-0) as described in Planning
Case 2023-22, for the property at 2237 Rogers Court with findings-of-fact and certain
conditions, as memorialized in the attached [draft] resolution.
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-78, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 2237 ROGERS COURT.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 104 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-78
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AT 2237 ROGERS COURT
PLANNING CASE 2023-22
WHEREAS, Thomas Jacobson, the Owner and Applicant of 2237 Rogers Court, made an
Application for a Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit as proposed under Planning
Case No. 2023-22, for property as legally described in Exhibit A: and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the
subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the
applicable zoning district and further stipulates any deviation from this ordinance requires a
variance; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1D-3, Subsection C.1.b(3) permits lots between 0.75-1.5 acres in
size to have one (1) additional detached garage equaling 1,000-square feet with a conditional use
permit.
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit, and whereupon
closing the hearing, recommended unanimously to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and
Conditional Use Permit, on the subject property, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to
support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2023-22 is hereby
affirmed, and the Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit, requested for the property
located at 2237 Rogers Court is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
1. The proposed detached garage will allow for the continued use of the property for single-
family and supporting accessory uses.
2. The proposed detached garage does not alter or change the existing single-family use of
the property.
3. The proposed garage expansion meets the definition of private garage per the City Code.
4. Provided the conditions of approval are met, the proposed detached garage will not
adversely impact or affect health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 105 of 186
5. The proposed detached garage will be compliant with all other standards and conditions
included in the City Code and State Building Codes.
6. The proposed detached garage represents an investment in a residential neighborhood
which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
7. The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
8. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Low Density Residential (R-1)
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing
conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line
Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 2237 Rogers Court
is hereby approved, with the following conditions:
1. Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment (minor subdivision) at Dakota County
indicating the newly revised property descriptions for the resulting lots.
2.All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line
adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
3.It is the Applicant’s responsibility to confirm with Northern States Power Company (Xcel
Energy) that the proposed detached garage does not encroach on a power line easement.
The Applicant must obtain any required permits or approval from Xcel prior to
construction.
4. The exterior of the proposed detached garage must be in harmony with the existing
primary structure.
5. The existing shed must be demolished within six months of approval of the conditional
use permit and lot line adjustment.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 106 of 186
EXHIBIT A
Address: 2237 Rogers Court
PID: 272336501200
Existing Legal Description: Lot 20, Block 1, EIDE ESTATES, Dakota County, Minnesota
Proposed Legal Description: Lot 20 and the southwesterly 6.75 feet of Lot 21, Block 1 in EIDE
ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Address: 2225 Rogers Court
PID: 272336501210
Existing Legal Description: Lot Twenty-one (21), Block (1), Eide Estates, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Proposed Legal Description: That part of Lot 21, Block 1, EIDE ESTATES, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota lying northeasterly of the
southwesterly 6.75 feet thereof.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 107 of 186
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-22
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Thomas Jacobson
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2237 Rogers Court
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 26, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicant Thomas Jacobsen is requesting a lot line adjustment to modify the boundary between his property
at 2237 Rogers Court and the property to the northeast at 2225 Rogers Court. The Applicant is also
requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 1,000-square foot detached garage in the rear yard of his
property.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press, and notice letters were mailed to
all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public comments or objections were
received.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are located in the Eide Estates
subdivision, which was platted in 1979. Both are zoned
R-1 and were developed in the late 1980s with single-
family residential homes. The properties are located on
the northwest side of Rogers Court and are just south of
the Rogers Court cul-de-sac (see map for location).
The property at 2237 Rogers Court is currently 31,154-
square feet (0.72 acres). The proposed lot line
adjustment, if approved, will expand the subject
property by approximately 1,516-square feet (0.03
acres), bringing the entire property to a total of 0.75
acres. Per City Code 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures,
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 108 of 186
subsection C.1.b(3), lots between 0.75 – 1.5 acres in size are permitted one (1) additional detached garage
equaling 1,000-square feet with a conditional use permit.
Subsequently, the Applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,000-square foot
detached garage in the rear yard. The existing shed will be removed, and the proposed structure will be
installed in accordance with all required setbacks. An overhead electric transmission line runs along the
western boundary of the parcel; however, per the submitted survey and aerial photos, the proposed garage
does not appear to encroach on the transmission line easement.
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
2225 Rogers 2237 Rogers
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area (Size) 26,693 SF
(0.61 Ac.)
25,177 SF
(0.58 Ac.)
31,154 SF
(0.72 Ac.)
32,670 SF
(0.75 Ac.)
Lot Width 147’ 140’ 116’ 123’
Lot Depth 248’ 241’ 263’ 263’
Frontage 229’ 223’ 116’ 123’
Side Yard setback
(shared) 5.0’ 5.0’ 5.0’ 5.0’
In summary, the applicant is proposing the following:
•To move the shared side-yard property line between 2225 Rogers and 2237 Rogers by 6.75-feet
(totaling 1,516-square feet) to the northeast.
•To construct a 1,000-square foot detached garage in the rear yard, in accordance with City Code
12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, subsection C.1.b(3).
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
Lot Line Adjustment:
City Code Section 11-1-5.C.1., states:
Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is
to permit the adding of a piece of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will
not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning
ordinance . . .”
If the rearrangement is approved, the resulting lots will comply with all R-1 Zoning standards, including
lot frontage/width and area. Staff determines that the proposed adjustment complies with all applicable
dimensional standards of the R-1 zoning district, including lot area, frontage and applicable setback
requirements.
Analysis regarding the proposed conditional use permit is provided below.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 109 of 186
Conditional Use Permit:
Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based
upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized
that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly
classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on
neighboring land or the public need for the particular location.
To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may
impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is
effectively carried out.
The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following:
a)Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
b)Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards,
c)Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and
d)Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.
A)The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding
property value.
Staff Response:
The proposed garage is intended to support the existing single-family use of the property and will
provide additional personal storage for the homeowner. As designed and shown on the Applicant’s
submission, the proposed addition will not be visible from the road, meets all required setbacks and
other dimensional standards of the R-1 zoning district, and will have no adverse impact to traffic
or surrounding property values.
e)The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and
comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in
conflict on an on-going basis.
Staff Response:
The subject property is guided Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s comprehensive plan and
zoned for R-1. Both establish that use of property should generally be for single-family residential
and supporting accessory uses.
The Applicant is proposing to use the expanded garage area for storage of personal items and
vehicles. Section 12-1D-3 defines a private garage as:
A detached accessory building or of the principal building, including a carport, which is used
primarily for storing passenger vehicles, trailers…
Furthermore, City Code 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, subsection C.1.b(3) states:
One detached private garage may be allowed on residential property as a second garage by
permitted use, or by conditional use permit, according to the following table:
Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit
>0.75 acre – 1.5 acres 750 SF 1,000 SF
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 110 of 186
Currently, the Applicant’s property is less than 0.75 acres. Therefore, a second detached garage is
not permitted. However, if the lot line adjustment is approved, the Applicant’s property will expand
by approximately 0.03 acres, totaling 0.75 acres. This will make it possible for the 1,000-square
foot detached garage to be constructed provided a conditional use permit is obtained.
Staff determines that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s zoning and comprehensive
plan, as well as the City Code as it relates to accessory structures and private garages.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1.Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and conditional use permit, based on the attached
findings-of-fact and based on certain conditions; or
2.Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and conditional use permit, based on revised findings-of-
fact that the proposed lot line adjustment and conditional use permit are not consistent with the City
Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or
properties; or
3.Table the request, and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented back
to the Planning Commission and the next regular meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and conditional use permit based on the attached
findings of fact supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows:
1.Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment (minor subdivision) at Dakota County indicating the
newly revised property descriptions for the resulting lots.
2.All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot
split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
3.It is the Applicant’s responsibility to confirm with Northern States Power Company (Xcel Energy) that
the proposed detached garage does not encroach on a power line easement. The Applicant must obtain
any required permits or approval from Xcel prior to construction.
4.The exterior of the proposed detached garage must be in harmony with the existing primary structure.
5.The existing shed must be demolished within six months of approval of the conditional use permit and
lot line adjustment.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 111 of 186
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit for
2237 Rogers Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The proposed detached garage will allow for the continued use of the property for single-family
and supporting accessory uses.
2.The proposed detached garage does not alter or change the existing single-family use of the
property.
3.The proposed garage expansion meets the definition of private garage per the City Code.
4.Provided the conditions of approval are met, the proposed detached garage will not adversely
impact or affect health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
5.The proposed detached garage will be compliant with all other standards and conditions included
in the City Code and State Building Codes.
6.The proposed detached garage represents an investment in a residential neighborhood which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
7.The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
8.The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Low Density Residential (R-1)
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing conditions.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 112 of 186
ROGERS COURT2237 ROGERS CT
EXISTING LOT AREA = 31,154 SF / 0.72 ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREA = 32,670 SF / 0.75 ACRES
2225 ROGERS CT
EXISTING LOT AREA = 26,693 SF/0.61 ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREA = 25,177 SF / 0.58
ACRES
EXCHANGE PARCEL AREA
= 1,516 SF / 0.03 ACRES
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROP
O
S
E
D
A
C
C
E
S
S
O
R
Y
STRU
C
T
U
R
E
FLOO
R
E
L
E
V
=
8
9
0.
5X 889.3890890
890
891
892889 889
REMOVE
EXISTING
SHEDX 889
.
9
AREA
=
1
0
0
0
S
F
2%2%2%38.026.5
890890891892
34.9ΔPID#27-23365-01-200
BENCHMARKS
ELEVATION BASED ON INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON THE MNDOT GEODETIC
WEBSITE. SURVEY DISK 1917C WITH AN ELEVATION OF 887.61 WAS USED FOR
THIS SURVEY (NAVD 88)
CONTACT:
Tom Jacobson
2237 Rogers Court
Mendota Heights, MN 5520
Phone: 651.270.5431
Email: tom@binderheating.com
LEGEND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY
INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE
THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE
AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT
WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT
LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS
ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS
NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE
CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) 232334374/91. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED,
WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL
UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST.
COUNTY/CITY:
REVISIONS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE REVISION
2237/2225
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ROGERS COURT
1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE DAKOTA COUNTY
SURVEYORS OFFICE.
2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND
AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT
SHOWN OR LOCATED.
4. THE FIELD SURVEY OF THIS PROPERTY WAS CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 22,
2023.
SURVEY NOTES:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA
COUNTY
2237 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-200
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 2237 ROGERS COURT IS PER OWNERS AND
ENCUMBRANCES REPORT BY EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP DATED AUG.
17, 2023.)
Lot Twenty (20), Block (1) in Eide Estates, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Torrens property Certificate
No. 177433.
2225 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-210
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 2225 ROGERS COURT IS PER AVAILABLE TAX
RECORDS)
Lot Twenty-one (21), Block (1), Eide Estates, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
PID#27-23365-01-210
09-29-2023 INITIAL ISSUE
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the state of Minnesota.
Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718
Date:__________________
NO TITLE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED FOR 2225 ROGERS COURT.
THE OWNERS AND ENCUMBRANCES REPORT PROVIDED FOR 2237
ROGERS COURT BY EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP DATED AUG. 17, 2023
DID NOT LIST ANY EASEMENTS.
ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE PER THE PLAT OF EIDE ESTATES AND
CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:
- DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER THE PLAT OF EIDE ESTATES.
- NSP EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 37993.
-50 FT. NSP ELECTRIC LINE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 102356.
- 30 FT. GAS LINE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 30288.
*ALL EASEMENTS LISTED ARE SHOWN GRAPHICALLY ON THE SURVEY.
ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST.
TITLE NOTES:
JACOBSON RESIDENCE
0
NORTH
20 40
ZZ23806
SURVZZ806
LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT
SURVEY
LAND SURVEYING, INC.
CORNERSTONE
Suite #200
1970 Northwestern Ave
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone 651.275.8969
Fax 651.275.8976
dan@
cssurvey
.net
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FENCE
CURB [TYPICAL]
CONTOURS
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL
PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING
FOUND MONUMENT
SET 1/2" IRON PIPE
MARKED RLS NO. 25718
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
AIR CONDITIONER
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
GUY WIRE
POWER POLE
GAS MANHOLE
GAS METER
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
SANITARY CLEANOUT
SANITARY MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
STORM DRAIN
FLARED END SECTION
STORM MANHOLE
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
HYDRANT
CURB STOP
WATER WELL
WATER MANHOLE
WATER METER
POST INDICATOR VALVE
WATER VALVE
BOLLARD
FLAG POLE
MAIL BOX
TRAFFIC SIGN
UNKNOWN MANHOLE
SOIL BORING
SPOT ELEVATION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
09-29-2023
EXISTING LOT AREAS:
2225 ROGERS CT EXISTING LOT AREA = 26,693 SF/0.61 ACRES
2237 ROGERS CT EXISTING LOT AREA = 31,154 SF / 0.72 ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREAS:
PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL AREA = 1,516 SF / 0.03 ACRES
2225 ROGERS CT. PROPOSED LOT AREA = 25,177 SF / 0.58 ACRES
2237 ROGERS CT. PROPOSED LOT AREA = 32,670 SF / 0.75 ACRES
PARCEL AREAS:
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PROPOSED 2237 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-200
Lot 20 and the southwesterly 6.75 feet of Lot 21, Block 1 in EIDE
ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
PROPOSED 2225 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-210
That part of Lot 21, Block 1, EIDE ESTATES, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota lying northeasterly of the
southwesterly 6.75 feet thereof.
PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL:
The southwesterly 6.75 feet of Lot 21, Block 1 in EIDE ESTATES,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
934.9 X
PROPOSED GRADING NOTES:
1) VERIFY CITY REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND
PROVIDE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY AS NECESSARY.
2) VERIFY RIGHTS WITHIN THE NSP ELECTRIC LINE EASEMENTS AND
COORDINATE WITH APPROPRIATE PARTIES.
3) CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES AND KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES OFF OF THE
GAS EASEMENT IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
890
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 113 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 114 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, Interim Planning Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-79 Approving a MRCCA Permit at 1661 Mayfield Heights
Road [Planning Case No. 2023-23]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a
new detached garage at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the west side of Mayfield Heights Road south of the Mayfield
Heights Ln cul-de-sac. The subject property is part of the Mayfield Addition subdivision, and the
existing home and detached garage (accessory building) were constructed in/around 1946.
The existing detached garage is accessed from a long driveway that crosses the property on the
north side of the house and connects to the detached garage that is in the rear yard (southwest
corner). The subject property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area
(MRCCA), and therefore the removal of the existing garage and the construction of a new
detached garage requires an MRCCA permit.
At the October 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly
noticed public hearing was held. A copy of the 10/24/2023 planning report and attachments is
attached to this memo.
The City received no inquiries regarding this application and the applicant was not present at the
public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request (7-0) as described in Planning
Case 2023-23, for the property at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road with findings-of-fact and certain
conditions, as memorialized in the attached [draft] resolution.
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-79, APPROVING A MRCCA PERMIT AT 1661 MAYFIELD
HEIGHTS ROAD.
9cCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 115 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-79
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MRCCA PERMIT AT 1661 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS
ROAD
PLANNING CASE 2023-23
WHEREAS, Thomas and Maureen Keeley (the “Applicant” and “Owners”) applied for a
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to demolish an existing detached
garage and construct a new detached garage as proposed under Planning Case No. 2023-23, at the
property located at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road, legally described in attached Exhibit A (the
“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical
Area Overlay District of the City of Mendota Heights, and the proposed project is subject to the
rules and regulations contained in Title 12 Chapter 3 Critical Area Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the proposed MRCCA Permit, and whereupon closing the hearing,
recommended unanimously to approve the MRCCA Permit, on the subject property, with certain
conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2023-23 is hereby
affirmed, and the MRCCA Permit, requested for the property located at 1661 Mayfield Heights
Road, is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
1.The proposed demolition of the existing garage and driveway, construction of a new
detached garage and driveway, and landscape project meets the general purpose and intent
of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay
District.
2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the detached garage and landscape
improvements are low-intensity, and the project includes restoration of the area once
developed with a detached garage and driveway with greenspace and native vegetation.
The proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River
Overlay District that provides for flexibility within the management purpose.
3.The proposed removal of the existing detached garage and driveway will reduce the amount
of impervious surface on the site, and provided proper restoration is completed, will
improve the Bluff Impact Zone thereby further supporting the MRCCA ordinance
objectives.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 116 of 186
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
5.The construction of the detached garage shown in the plan must comply with all standards
and regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and Zoning
Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential
neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land
uses; and is consistent with current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the MRCCA
Permit for property located at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road as proposed under Planning Case No.
2022-23, is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
2. A full restoration plan for the area where the demolition of the existing garage and
driveway must be submitted for review and approval by the Natural Resources
Coordination. Generally, the Applicant’s description to fill and seed the area with grass is
permitted, but the restoration plan must be updated to include the inclusion of native
plants.
3. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be properly protected over the
winter months until such time the planting and restoration plan can be installed in the
Spring of 2024.
4. A letter of credit (LOC), Bond or other acceptable financial guarantee as determined by
the City shall be submitted for the demolition of the existing garage and driveway, and
the restoration plan. Such guarantee shall be submitted with the application for a building
permit.
5. The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
6. All erosion control requirements as approved in the Erosion Control Plan must be put in
place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities. Such measures
must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site
restoration plans are completed.
7. All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations and codes.
8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM
Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 117 of 186
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 118 of 186
EXHIBIT A
Address: 1661 Mayfield Heights Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, 55118
PID: 27-46500-01-030
Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, MAYFIELD ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 119 of 186
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-23
MRCCA Permit for Detached Accessory Garage
APPLICANT: Thomas and Maureen Keely
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1661 Mayfield Heights Road
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: February 15, 2024 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Thomas and Maureen Keeley are the Applicants and Owners (“Applicants”) of the property located at 1661
Mayfield Heights Road, and they are requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA)
Permit to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new detached garage.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to
all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public comments or objections were
received.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located on the west side of
Mayfield Heights Road south of the Mayfield Heights
Ln cul-de-sac. The subject property is part of the
Mayfield Addition subdivision, and the existing home
and detached garage (accessory building) were
constructed in/around 1946.
As shown on the Map, the existing detached garage is
accessed from a long driveway that crosses the
property on the north side of the house and connects to
the detached garage that is in the rear yard (southwest
corner). The subject property is located in the
Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA),
and therefore the removal of the existing garage and the
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 120 of 186
construction of a new detached garage requires an MRCCA permit.
A summary of the request is as follows:
•Remove the existing detached garage.
•Remove the existing shed.
•Remove the driveway that loops the home connecting to the existing detached garage.
•Construct a new detached garage – 26’x28’ (728 SF).
•Replace/install a new driveway that connects to the new garage.
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
Proposed Improvements
The existing lot is developed with a single-family home, detached garage and shed. The existing garage is
located on the southwest corner of the lot and is located within, or near, the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ). The
garage is connected to Mayfield Heights Road via a long driveway that loops north of the home. The
proposed project is to remove the existing approximately 18’x22’ (329 SF) garage, the existing small shed
and the driveway. In its replacement, the Applicant proposes to construct a new 26’x28’ (728 SF) garage
on the southeast corner of the lot which will be connected to Mayfield Heights Road by a new driveway
and curb cut. The proposed garage and driveway are situated further away from existing vegetation and
the BIZ which are primarily located on the southwest corner of the lot. This will allow for the reduction of
impervious surface area and restoration of the area with landscaping and vegetation.
Both the existing home and the detached garage are shown in the images below. The new garage is proposed
to be constructed generally adjacent to the existing home and will essentially be placed approximately 50-
feet in front of the old garage location closer to the Mayfield Heights Rd right-of-way.
Photos of the existing home and lot are provided for reference (Google Maps).
ANALYSIS
MRCCA Critical Are Permit
Per Title 12, Chapter 3 Critical Area Overlay District a Critical Area Permit is required for the subject
project. The following summary of the site is provided as reference:
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 121 of 186
Standard Subject Property Conditions
MRCCA Sub District Separated from River
Bluff on Site? No
Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) Yes, the Bluff Impact Zone crosses the southwest
corner of the lot (See attached map). The
demolition of the existing accessory garage is
partially within the BIZ. Restoration of the area to
more natural conditions is required. The proposed
detached garage is setback 40-feet from the BIZ.
Significant Vegetative Stands or Primary
Conservation Area (PCA)
No. The proposed detached garage is located
more than 100-feet from any PCA or significant
vegetation.
Subject to Section 12-3-9 Vegetation
Management
No, does not meet criteria as structure and
impervious surface will be removed and
restoration to a more natural landscape is
proposed. No significant vegetative removal
required as part of the proposed improvements.
Subject to Section 12-3-11 Land Alteration
Standards and Stormwater Management
Yes. A new detached garage is permitted but
stormwater must be diverted from any BIZ area.
The demolition and new construction are both
subject to the Land Alteration and Stormwater
standards.
Subject to Section 12-3-12 Site Plan
Requirements
Yes. Must include Site Plan and Landscape Plan
As described in Section 12-3-4 C.3., the Separated from River (SR) sub-district describes the management
purpose as, “...provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources
and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and
minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities…” As indicated on
the attached GIS maps, the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) crosses and covers the far southwestern corner of the
site and it appears that a portion of the existing detached garage is located in the BIZ. As shown on the Site
Plan, the Applicant intends to remove/demolish the existing garage once the new garage is constructed. The
area will then be restored with landscaping described as soil, to fill as needed, and grass. The removal is
beneficial to the quality of the BIZ provided proper restoration of the area is completed. The location of the
new garage will also improve the conditions on the site as it will be located outside of the required BIZ
setback area and is located closer to the road right-of-way thereby reducing the necessary driveway length
substantially. As propose, the new garage will be setback approximately 45-feet from the BIZ boundary.
There are no other Primary Conservation Areas on the site, and the nearest significant vegetative stands are
located more than 100-feet from the proposed detached garage. All stormwater must be managed in
compliance with the City’s stormwater and land disturbance requirements which are requirements of the
Building Permit process.
Per Code Sect. 12-3-12, the Detailed Site Plan must be drawn to scale and the proposed project accurately
described through narrative and supporting maps and/or plans. The plan set for the new garage is attached
to this report, and the site plan is included. The proposed new garage location is sited on a relatively flat
area of the lot and there are no significant grades. As noted previously, the proposed location is better than
the existing garage location as it is setback appropriately from the BIZ. Restoration of the land once the
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 122 of 186
existing garage and driveway is removed is planned and described as soil and grass. The City’s Public Work
Director has reviewed the plans including soil types and has no additional comments regarding the current
plans. Restoration of the former garage site with vegetation including shade seed/blanket mix is proposed
post construction. The Applicant did not include a detailed planting plan, but instead simply describes
restoration within their Letter of Intent which is attached.
While staff agrees that removal of the existing garage and driveway will improve the site conditions, it is
recommended that a more detailed restoration plan be submitted for review by the City’s Natural Resources
Coordinator. The Restoration Plan should, at a minimum, include the installation of native plants as
identified on the Native Plant list to comply with the MRCCA standards. This plan should be submitted for
review and approval prior to a Building Permit being issued.
Additionally, the Applicant notes that they hope to construct the new garage this fall and that demolition of
the existing garage and driveway is not planned for Spring. While this timeline is logical, it does create a
situation where the lot will be non-conforming throughout the winter. Staff recommends the planning
commission consider requiring a letter of credit (LOC) or Bond, or other acceptable financial instrument as
approved by the City, for the demolition of the garage and driveway. This has been provided as a draft
condition within this report for your discussion.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
Under the MRCCA Ordinance, the city is required to submit the MRRCA permit request to the MNDNR
and the National Park Service (NPS). The plan set and project information was transmitted to both agencies
for their review and comment. At the time of this report the agencies have not provided written response,
and Staff will provide a verbal update of their correspondence at the Planning Commission meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Approve the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1661 Mayfield Heights Road, which would
allow for the demolition of the existing detached garage and driveway, construction of the new detached
garage and driveway, and landscape improvements based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed
project is compliant with the policies and standards of the MRCCA Overlay District and City Zoning
Code standards, with certain conditions; or
2.Deny the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1661 Mayfield Heights Road, based on the revised
or amended findings-of-fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of City
Code as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3.Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the site
plan for the property and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance
with Minnesota State Statute 15.99.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 123 of 186
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1661 Mayfield Heights Road,
with the following conditions:
1.A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
2.A full restoration plan for the area where the demolition of the existing garage and driveway must
be submitted for review and approval by the Natural Resources Coordination. Generally, the
Applicant’s description to fill and seed the area with grass is permitted, but the restoration plan
must be updated to include the inclusion of native plants.
3.All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be properly protected over the winter months
until such time the planting and restoration plan can be installed in the Spring of 2024.
4.A letter of credit (LOC), Bond or other acceptable financial guarantee as determined by the City
shall be submitted for the demolition of the existing garage and driveway. Such guarantee shall be
submitted with the application for a building permit.
5.The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director.
6.All erosion control requirements as approved in the Erosion Control Plan must be put in place prior
to the commencement of any grading and site work activities. Such measures must remain in place
for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed.
7.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes.
8.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 124 of 186
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
MRCAA -Critical Area Permit
for
1661 Mayfield Heights Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed demolition of the existing garage and driveway, construction of a new detached
garage and driveway, and landscape project meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi
River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay District.
2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the detached garage and landscape improvements
are low-intensity, and the project includes restoration of the area once developed with a detached
garage and driveway with greenspace and native vegetation. The proposed project is within the
spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay District that provides for flexibility
within the management purpose.
3.The proposed removal of the existing detached garage and driveway will reduce the amount of
impervious surface on the site, and provided proper restoration is completed, will improve the Bluff
Impact Zone thereby further supporting the MRCCA ordinance objectives.
4.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
5.The construction of the detached garage shown in the plan must comply with all standards and
regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and Zoning Ordinance
and other applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; and is consistent with
current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 125 of 186
Tom Keeley
1661 Mayfield Heights Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Thursday, October 19
Jennifer Haskamp
City Planner
SHC, LLC
Dear Jennifer:
I am submitting this letter with the intent to gain approval to build a new two-car garage. We are
requesting approval due to the current one-car garage does not fit our family needs.
The location of the new garage is in the submitted plans. Since the new location is different than
the current driveway and existing garage, once completed, we will remove the existing driveway
and garage per the terms of the permit. We have a separate contractor that will remove the
existing garage, due to cost savings on the project. With full removal of asphalt, brick, and
concrete slab, we will be replacing that with soil and planting grass.
Our expected timing once approved will be Spring of 2024.
Sincerely,
Tom Keeley
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 126 of 186
10/18/23, 10:47 AM Dakota County GIS
https://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis/1/1
1661 Mayfield Heights
Land Use/Land
Development
MRCCA Bluff Impact
Zones
Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area
(MRCCA) Districts
DISTRICT
CA-RN
CA-ROS
CA-RTC
CA-SR
CA-UC
CA-UM
Water
Property Information
Addresses
Parcel Lines
Tax Parcels
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or
for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 75 feet
10/18/2023
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 127 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 128 of 186
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, Interim Planning Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-80 Approving a Variance and Conditional Use Permit at 809
Hazel Court [Planning Case No. 2023-24]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a conditional use permit and
a variance to construct a covered entry on the front of the house located at 809 Hazel Court. The proposed
entry extends about 1-foot into the City’s permitted porch setback exception that allows encroachment
into the front yard setback by 5-feet. The proposed porch also exceeds the City’s 50-square foot
maximum area by approximately 4-square feet within the exception area between the 25-foot and 30-foot
setback.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in the Simek Rearrangement subdivision which was platted in 1972.
The property is zoned R-1 and was developed in 1975 with a single-family structure. The property
is located on the north-west side of the Hazel Court cul-de-sac.
City Code Section 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, subsection 2.a. stipulates that “covered
and/or enclosed entryways (porches, decks, stoops, or similar structures) that extend into the front
yard setback require the approval of a conditional use permit.” The proposed covered entryway
encroaches into the front yard setback by approximately 6-feet at its furthest point, which requires
both a 1) Conditional Use Permit for that portion of the porch between 30-feet and 25-feet setback
which is an allowed exception, and 2) a Variance to exceed the 5-foot exception into the yard
setback by one foot.
The area of the proposed enclosed porch between the 30-foot and 25-foot setback is
approximately 54 SF, which exceeds the permitted area by approximately 4-feet (see Section 12-
1D-4, subsection 2.a.(2)). This, along with the entryway’s encroachment into the front yard
setback, requires a variance from the City’s dimensional standards.
At the October 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. The
Applicants submitted written consent from all property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries
of the subject property. Therefore, the requirement for a public hearing notice was waived for the
variance request. However, a CUP was still required and therefore a public hearing notice was
placed in the Pioneer Press. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no additional testimony
9dCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 129 of 186
was provided. A copy of the 10/24/2023 planning report and attachments is attached to this
memo.
As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, but
recommended denial of the variance because staff felt that the practical difficulty criteria was not
met. However, after the Applicant provided testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the
request. The Planning Commission determined through discussion that a practical difficulty did
exist in complying with the ordinance due to the curvature of the front yard property line. As a
result, the Planning Commission determined that all criteria were met and subsequently adjusted
the findings-of-fact to reflect that the variance criteria were satisfied. The changes, as
recommended by the Planning Commission, are provided in the attached draft resolution.
The City received no inquiries regarding this application.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit
request (7-0) as described in Planning Case 2023-24, for the property at 809 Hazel Court with
revised findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as memorialized in the attached [draft] resolution.
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-80, APPROVING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 809 HAZEL COURT.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 130 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-80
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT
809 HAZEL COURT
PLANNING CASE 2023-24
WHEREAS, Daniel and Karen Bogg (the “Applicant” and “Owners”) applied for a
Variance and Conditional Use Permit to construct a covered entry on the front of their house as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2023-24, at the property located at 809 Hazel Court, legally
described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1D-4, Subsection 2.a. of the City Code (Yards and Open Spaces)
allows covered and/or enclosed entryways that extend into the front yard setback up to five feet,
provided that a Conditional Use Permit is first obtained; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to construct an approximately 72-square foot covered
entryway onto the existing residential structure which will encroach into the required front yard
setback by approximately one foot; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the proposed Variance and Conditional Use Permit, and whereupon closing
the hearing, recommended unanimously to approve the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on
the subject property, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2023-24 is hereby
affirmed, and the Variance and Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 809
Hazel Court is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
1.The placement of the existing house on the lot, and the arc of the setback line create a
practical difficulty in complying with the City’s front yard setback requirements as
identified in the R-1 zoning district.
2. The applicant has demonstrated the unique conditions exist on the property to justify a
granting of the variance.
3.The Applicant has demonstrated that practical difficulties with the zoning ordinance and
applicable R-1 dimensional standards exist on the property to justify a granting of the
variance.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 131 of 186
4.The Applicant has adequately described and explained why the size of the porch could not
be designed to comply with the applicable setback and area standards, thereby complying
with the maximum size standards.
5. The City finds that the criteria of the three-part test (practical difficulty, unique
characteristics of the land and neighborhood character) has been met by the Applicant.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance
and Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 809 Hazel Court is hereby
approved, with the following conditions:
1.A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
2. The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
3.All erosion control requirements as approved in the Erosion Control Plan must be put in
place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities. Such measures
must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site
restoration plans are completed.
4. All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes.
5.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM
Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 132 of 186
EXHIBIT A
ADDRESS: 809 Hazel Court
PID: 276830001050
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 1, SIMEK REARRANGEMENT, Dakota County,
Minnesota
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 133 of 186
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-24
VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Daniel and Karen Bogg
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 809 Hazel Court
ZONING: R1 – One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 19, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicants Daniel and Karen Bogg are requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to construct a
covered entry on the front of their house. The proposed entry extends about 1-foot into the City’s permitted
25-foot front porch setback. It also exceeds the City’s 50-square foot maximum for front porches by
approximately 4-square feet.
The Applicants submitted written consent from all
property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries
of the subject property. Therefore, the requirement
for a public hearing notice has been waived for the
variance request. However, a CUP is still required
and therefore a public hearing notice was placed in
the Pioneer Press. As of the date of this report, no
inquiries or written testimony has been received for
this application.
BACKGROUND/SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located in the Simek
Rearrangement subdivision which was platted in
1972. The property is zoned R-1 and was
developed in 1975 with a single-family structure. The property is located on the north-west side of the Hazel
Court cul-de-sac (see map for location).
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 134 of 186
City Code Section 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, subsection 2.a. stipulates that “covered and/or
enclosed entryways (porches, decks, stoops, or similar structures) that extend into the front yard setback
require the approval of a conditional use permit.” The proposed covered entryway encroaches into the front
yard setback by approximately 6-feet at its furthest point, which requires both a 1) Conditional Use Permit
for that portion of the porch between 30-feet and 25-feet setback which is an allowed exception, and 2) a
Variance to exceed the 5-foot exception into the yard setback by one foot.
The area of the proposed enclosed porch between the 30-foot and 25-foot setback is approximately 54 SF,
which exceeds the permitted area by approximately 4-feet (see Section 12-1D-4, subsection 2.a.(2)). This,
along with the entryway’s encroachment into the front yard setback, requires a variance from the City’s
dimensional standards.
Many of the houses in the neighborhood also have covered porches and entryways. Therefore, the proposed
entryway would not be out of character with the surrounding area.
A summary of the existing setbacks and requested variance is provided in the following table:
Requirement Standard Existing
Building
Proposed
Addition
Variance Request for
Addition
Side Yard
Setback
10’ 30’ (north)
~11’ (south)
No Change NA
Rear Yard
Setback
30’ 90’ at closest
point
No Change NA
Font Porch
Setback
(Hazel Court)
25’ ~30’ – 35’ 24’ at curved
property line
1’ at curved property line
Maximum area of
enclosed porch
within between
30’ and 25’
setback
50 SF None 54 SF + 4 SF
As illustrated by the table above, the property meets all the setback requirements for a R-1 lot in its current
configuration. The proposed variance would adjust the front yard setback requirement by 1-foot along the
curved portion of the property line. The rear and side yard setbacks would remain unchanged. The proposed
porch exceeds the maximum permitted area by approximately 4 SF.
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
City Code Section 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, subsection 2.a.(1-3) stipulate that a Conditional Use
Permit for an entryway or similar structure that extends into the front yard setback may be approved,
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 135 of 186
(1)Such structure may not extend into the front or side yard more than five feet (5’).
(2)Such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet.
(3)Such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal
building.
The proposed covered entryway extends more than five feet (5’) into the front yard, and therefore a variance
from this standard is required (See analysis in subsequent sections). The porch also exceeds the maximum
size as stipulated in subsection (2) by approximately 4-square feet.
Given that the porch extends further into the setback than permitted by CUP and exceeds the maximum
size for a porch a variance from both of these standards is required. Since these are two separate issues, the
variance analysis provided in the subsequent section and recommendations follow considering both
requests. With respect to the porch design and architecture it is consistent with the existing architecture of
the principal structure and the surrounding neighborhood. The addition of the porch is consistent with the
City’s goals and policies that support reinvestment in the existing housing stock.
Analysis:
Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based
upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized
that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly
classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on
neighboring land or the public need for the particular location.
To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may
impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is
effectively carried out.
The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following:
a)Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
b)Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards,
c)Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and
d)Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.
A)The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding
property value.
Staff Response:
The proposed covered porch is intended to improve the exterior appearance of the single-family
home, and provide a covered area when entering the front door. The proposed porch will not be
determinantal to the health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, will not
impact traffic congestion or hazards, and will have no adverse impact on surrounding property
values.
e)The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and
comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in
conflict on an on-going basis.
Staff Response:
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 136 of 186
The subject property is guided Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s comprehensive plan and
zoned for R-1. The proposed porch will not change or alter the existing use of the property as a
single-family residence. The porch, provided the Applicant complies with the conditions, will meet
all applicable performance standards and will enhance the subject property and surround
neighborhood.
Variance
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:
•Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
•Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
•Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
•Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
•Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
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:
Due to the construction of our residential home with a very limited city setback, our proposed
covered entry and landing extends slightly past the city allowed 25ft front porch setback. The
practical difficulties and unique circumstances of our property lines and build site support the
granting of this variance.
Staff’s Response:
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 137 of 186
The property’s location near the cul-de-sac terminus and the positioning of the house in relation to the
front property line create a unique front setback line. It is logical that any alterations to the front of the
house may be complicated by these conditions, however, the home is generally setback 30-feet which
complies with the City’s ordinances. Given the existing conditions, a front porch is permitted with a
Conditional Use Permit to extend into the front yard setback by 5-feet. The applicant does not describe
why the porch could not have been designed to comply with the standard since the majority of the
proposed porch does fit within the area between the 25’ and 50’ setback area.
A variance from the permitted size of the porch is also requested. The Applicant does not address this
within their narrative. Based on the submitted plan the porch exceeds the maximum permitted area by
approximately 4-feet. Staff does not believe that this criterion is met.
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response:
Due to the construction of our residential home with a very limited city setback, our proposed
covered entry and landing extends slightly past the city allowed 25ft front porch setback. The
practical difficulties and unique circumstances of our property lines and build site support the
granting of this variance.
Staff’s Response:
Staff confirms that the property’s location on a cul-de-sac and the orientation of the home on the lot
creates a difficult front property line setback. However, the majority of the porch does meet the required
yard setback, and there is no description as to why the porch must be the size proposed (that is, why
the porch could not be designed to have 6” to 1’ of less depth and thereby complying with the code). If
the depth of the porch was reduced by 6” to a foot, it would meet the setback requirement and the
maximum area requirement. Staff does not believe that this criterion is met.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response:
If our variance was granted, the proposed covered entry would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. There are currently a number of homes in the neighborhood with covered entries. The
addition of a covered entry would create depth and dimension to the front of our home and help to
update the 1975 design. All these items bring aesthetics and value to the neighborhood, our neighbors,
and us.
Staff’s Response:
Many houses in the neighborhood have covered entryways, so the proposed structure would not alter
the existing character of the surrounding area. The entryway would also align with goals included in
the City of Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan, such as:
•Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
•Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 138 of 186
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. City Staff believes that the request for a variance
from the front yard porch requirement is consistent with the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan
as referenced above.
Notably, the Applicant also obtained signatures of support regarding the variance from neighbors
within a 100-foot radius of the subject property. This illustrates that that the proposed change aligns
with the interests and desires of the local community. Staff believes that this criterion is met.
4.Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The purpose of the requested variance is to allow for the installation of a covered entryway in the
most logical location. The entryway cannot be placed elsewhere on the house without placing
significant burden on the Applicant or compromising the existing style and use of the front of the
house. While the entryway is intended to add value to the property and the neighborhood at large,
economic considerations alone are not the reason for the requested 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 requested variance from the front yard porch setback is consistent with surrounding
properties and land use. As proposed, the requested variance is also consistent and in harmony with
the existing R-1 zoning which designates this property for single-family residential uses.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and denial of the variance request for
809 Hazel Court, 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:
2.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and approval of the variance for 809
Hazel Court, based on revised findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance as
requested herein.
3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60
days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99, so that additional information may be provided.
a.If this action is taken, Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission as to the
changes/modifications to the plan that could be considered at the next available Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 139 of 186
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1 or No. 3, to
either approve the request for a conditional use permit and deny the requested variances or to Table the
request so that an alternative design solution can be presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of conditional use permit for a 50-square foot front porch, and denial of the
requested variances, with the following CUP permit conditions:
1.The depth of the proposed porch must be reduced to comply with the 25-foot front yard setback,
thereby reducing the square footage of the porch to 50 square feet between the 30-foot and 25-foot
setback area.
2.That the plans be updated and submitted for review and approval by the city staff prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed porch.
3.A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
4.The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director.
5.All erosion control requirements as approved in the Erosion Control Plan must be put in place prior
to the commencement of any grading and site work activities. Such measures must remain in place
for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed.
6.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes.
7.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 140 of 186
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DENIAL
OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED FRONT
PORCH for
809 Hazel Court Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit:
1.That a covered front porch that extends up to five (5) feet in the front yard setback is a permitted
exception within the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2.Once the porch is modified, the area of the porch between the 30’ and 25’ setback is 50 square feet
which complies with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
3.The proposed porch, as modified, is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
4.The proposed porch will improve an existing home which supports the City’s goals and policies as
adopted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed Variances:
1.The Applicant has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that unique conditions exist on the
property to justify the granting of a variance; and furthermore, the applicant failed to adequately
justify the need for granting this variance.
2.The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that practical difficulties exist in complying with the
zoning ordinance and applicable R-1 dimensional standards.
3.The Applicant did not describe or explain why the size of the porch could not be designed to comply
with the applicable setback, thereby complying with the maximum size standards.
4.Because the City finds that the first and second criteria of the three-part test (practical difficulty
and unique characteristics of the land) is not met by the Applicant the applicable criteria have not
been met.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 141 of 186
September 21, 2023
Leter of Intent:
We (Daniel and Karen Bogg) are reques�ng a variance from the City of Mendota Heights to construct a
covered entry on the front of our house. A por�on of the covered entry will be located outside of the
city’s allowed 25 foot front porch setback. Addi�onally, the proposed 72 square feet concrete pad of the
covered entry is more than the city’s allowed 60 square feet. These are the reasons why a variance is
requested. If a variance is granted, our intent is to pour the concrete founda�on this fall (weather
permi�ng) and have a contractor build the covered entry in the spring. The covered entry would help to
create dimension to the front of our house, add curb appeal, and enhance the neighborhood. Thank you
for your considera�on.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 142 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 143 of 186
1a renovation to the home ofCOPYRIGHT 2023 ACACIA ARCHITECTS, LLC
20 SEPTEMBER 2023
-
-
-
-Daniel & Karen Bogg809 Hazel CourtMendota Heights, MN 55120UP
UP
3'-6
"
6'-0
"
+/-12'-0"+/-6'-0"+/-14'-
0
"72.00 sq ftDO
W
N
150' SIDE PROPERTY LINE
76' FRONT PROPERTY LINE60' FRONT PROPERTY LINE30' SIDE
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
116' SIDE PROPERTY LINE115' REAR PROPERTY LINE10' SIDE SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK25' FRONT PORCH SETBACK25' FRONT
PORCH SETBACK
30' FRONT SETBACKCOVEREDENTRY DRIVE
HAZEL COURTNEW FRONT WALKPIN LOCATED
PIN LOCATED
SITE NOTES:
1.) SITE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SURVEY BY ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING, CO.
2.) ZONING: R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
3.) FRONT SETBACK: 30'
4.) FRONT & SIDE PORCH SETBACKS: 5' ALLOWANCE FOR PORCHES LESS THAN 50 SQ FT & MUST NOT EXCEED PRINCIPAL ROOF HEIGHT.
4.) SIDE SETBACK: 10'
5.) REAR SETBACK: 30'
6.) STRUCTURAL COVERAGE: 25% OF 17,954 SQ FT. = 4,488 SQ FT.
7.) IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: 25% = 4,488 SQ FT.
1,779.43 sq ft
EXISTING HOUSE
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING INDEX
1. SITE PLAN
2. ML PLANS BEFORE & AFTER & ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN "AFTER"
1
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN SET FOR COST ESTIMATING
ONLY. ALL STRUCTURAL NOTES ARE ASSUMPTIONS;
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING TO FOLLOW.
A MATERIALS LIST SHOULD ACCOMPANY THIS DRAWING SET.
ALL 11" X 17" COPIES ARE REDUCED 50% (HALF SCALE ).
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 144 of 186
2a renovation to the home ofCOPYRIGHT 2023 ACACIA ARCHITECTS, LLC
20 SEPTEMBER 2023
-
-
-
-Daniel & Karen Bogg809 Hazel CourtMendota Heights, MN 55120UP
8'-5 5/8" CLG.
7'-10 3/4" CLG.
8'-1 1/2" CLG.
RETAINING WALL
DRIVEGARAGE
LIVING ROOM
ENTRY
FAMILY ROOM
APPROXIMATEPREVIOUSLANDINGUP
6'-0"12'-0"1'-0"
NOTES:
1.) CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
GARAGE
LIVING ROOM
ENTRY NEW COVERED
CONCRETE
LANDING
NEW 3' DR.
W/ SIDELIGHTS
STEEL BEAM
6X6 WRAPPED
POSTS
NEW FRONT WALK
FAMILY ROOM
2X6
RAFTERS
WOOD BEAM 8'-0+/-11'-5 1/2"+/-9"4'-0" MIN.1'-0"7'-5 1/2"+/-2"EAST ELEVATION
NEW
DOOR
12
6
PENDANT
CONTINUOUS STEEL BEAM
WRAPPED W/ TRIM 2X6
NEW COVERED ENTRY
PIER FOOTINGS (ALT: FULL FOOTINGS)CONCRETE LANDING
FILED VERIFY
WINDOW
CLEARANCE
REMOVE RETAINING WALL & ADJUST GRADE
1X4
1X6
9"
1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE"
2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN "AFTER"
2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST ELEVATION
2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 SOUTH ELEVATION
2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
5 NORTH ELEVATION
2
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 145 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 146 of 186
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, Interim Planning Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-81 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 2511
Condon Court and 2507 Condon Court [Planning Case No. 2023-26]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a lot line adjustment and a
variance from the 100-foot lot width requirement for lots in R-2 districts. The Applicant is
proposing to move the existing lot line approximately six-feet (6’), which will further reduce the
frontage for the property located at 2511 Condon Court.
BACKGROUND
In May 2014, the previous property owner, Mr. Dick Bjorklund, requested two single-family
residential properties located at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court (previously existed on this site) to
be considered for a land use amendment and rezoning. The request was to revise the previous
land use designation from LB-Limited Business to MR-Medium Density Residential, and rezone
the two parcels from R-1 One Family Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. The
amendment and rezoning were approved by Ord. No. 470 (adopted 01/06/2015). The land use
designation and zoning on this site has remained as MR-Medium Density and R-2 Two Family
Residential since 2015.
In June 2015, Mr. Bjorklund requested to re-plat the two residential properties on the site into
five (5) new and separate parcels. The preliminary plat was approved by Resolution No. 2015-
48 (adopted 07/07/2015) and the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights was later approved
under Res. No. 2017-32 (adopted 05/02/2017).
In August 2022, Mr. Bjorklund submitted a lot split request to divide Lot 1 into two parcels
(Parcel A and B) of 12,154-square feet and 10,927-square feet, respectively. This division
created a lot width that is less than the required on the property now addressed as 2511 Condon
Ct. The lot split was approved by Resolution 2022-20 (adopted 12/01/2022).
Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers have since acquired the properties. The Applicant is
currently proposing to move the current boundary line south by approximately six- feet (6’).
While the alignment makes more sense for how the lots will be used, the rearrangement will
further reduce the frontage for the property at 2511 Condon Court.
9eCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 147 of 186
At the October 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly
noticed public hearing was held, and no members of the public were present to provide
testimony. A copy of the 10/24/2023 planning report and attachments is attached to this memo.
The City received no inquiries regarding this application.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request (7-0) as described in Planning
Case 2023-26, for the properties as 2507 Condon Court and 2511 Condon Court with findings-
of-fact and certain conditions, as memorialized in the attached [draft] resolution.
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-81, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2511 CONDON COURT AND
2507 CONDON COURT.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 148 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-81
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A VARIANCE AT 2511
CONDON COURT AND 2507 CONDON COURT
PLANNING CASE 2023-26
WHEREAS, Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers (the “Applicant” and “Owners”)
applied for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance to modify the boundary between 2507 Condon Court
and the property directly to the south at 2511 Condon Court, as proposed under Planning Case No.
2023-26, and as legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, situated in the R-2 Medium Density Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision
of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning
district and further stipulates any deviation from this ordinance requires a variance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose a lot line adjustment of the shared side-yard property line
between 2507 Condon and 2511 Condon, and the lots resulting after the adjustment are described and
illustrated on attachment Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the lot line adjustment will reduce the lot width (frontage) on 2511 Condon to
approximately 74-feet which requires a variance from the minimum lot width standards of the R-2
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance) establishes the standards for
consideration when evaluating a request for a variance from the zoning district; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Variance, and whereupon closing the hearing,
recommended unanimously to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance on the subject property,
with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2023-26 is hereby affirmed,
and the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requested for the properties located at 2511 Condon Court
and 2507 Condon Court is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
1.The proposed lot line adjustment will create a safer driveway and access for the new twin
home that is planned to be constructed on the site.
2. The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
3. The resulting lots meet all other dimensional standards except for the minimum required lot
frontage, and the eventual improvements must comply with all R-2 dimensional standards for
setbacks.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 149 of 186
4. The resulting lot frontage of 2511 is approximately 73.3-feet, and the existing configuration
is already non- conforming. The further reduction in lot frontage will not significantly alter or
change the existing configuration but will improve the safety of the lot.
5. The resulting lot frontage of 73.7-feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, and
other lots within the subdivision typically range from 50 to 80 feet of frontage.
6. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Medium Density Residential (R-2)
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are consistent with the R-2 minimum lot size
requirements.
7. While the Applicant did not demonstrate that there are practical difficulties, the city finds that
the lot line adjustment will assist with site usability, safety, navigability, and overall
practicality once the lot is developed.
8. Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the
character of the neighborhood.
9. That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots will comply with the
intent and purpose of the R-2 Zoning District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance requested for the properties located at 2511 Condon Court and 2507 Condon
Court is hereby approved, with the following conditions:
1. All prior conditions of approval related to landscaping and tree preservation of the oak trees
on the site as required by previous Planning Cases are forward and remain in effect.
2. Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment at Dakota County indicating the newly
revised property descriptions for the resulting lots.
3. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line
adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 150 of 186
EXHIBIT A
Parcel A:
ADDRESS: 2507 Condon Court
PID: 277539001011
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: That part of the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 1, The Oaks of Mendota Heights, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County,
Minnesota which lies north of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of said
Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 22 minutes 21 seconds East, along the
west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 52.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 51 seconds East, parallel to the south line of said
Lot 1, a distance of 170.58 feet to the northeast line of said Lot 1 and said described there
terminating.
Together with that part of the right of way of Mendota Heights Road, as dedicated on the
recorded plat The Oaks of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as beginning
at the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, said plat; thence northerly, along the northerly
extension of the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right 64
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 81.04 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly
extension of the northeast line of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly, along said northwesterly
extension, a distance of 84.19 feet to a northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence westerly, along the
north line of said Lot 1, a distance of 127.01 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with an easement for driveway purposes over and across the northeasterly 16.00 feet of
said Lot 1 which lies south of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot
1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 22 minutes 21 seconds East, along the west
line of said Lot 1, a distance of 52.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 51 seconds East, parallel to the south line of said Lot 1, a
distance of 170.58 feet to the northeast line of said Lot 1 and said described line there
terminating.
Parcel B:
ADDRESS: 2511 Condon Court
PID: 277539001012
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: That part of the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 1, The Oaks of Mendota Heights, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County,
Minnesota which lies south of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of said
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 151 of 186
Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 22 minutes 21 seconds East, along the
west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 52.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 51 seconds East, parallel to the south line of said
Lot 1, a distance of 170.58 feet to the northeast line of said Lot 1 and said described line there
terminating.
Subject to an easement for driveway purposes over and across the northeasterly 16.00 feet of said
Lot 1 which lies south of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1;
thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 22 minutes 21 seconds East, along the west
line of said Lot 1, a distance of 52.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 51 seconds East, parallel to the south line of Said Lot 1, a
distance of 170.58 feet to the northeast line of said Lot 1 and said described line there
terminating.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 152 of 186
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-26
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2511 Condon Court
2507 Condon Court
ZONING: R-2 Two Family Residential
LAND USE: Medium Density Residential - Townhouse
ACTION DEADLINE: February 8, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicant Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers is requesting a lot line adjustment to modify the
boundary between 2507 Condon Court and the property directly to the south at 2511 Condon Court. The
Applicant is also requesting a variance from the 100-foot width requirement for lots in R-2 districts. Dick
Bjorklund Properties, LLC owns both properties and intends to build a duplex with one unit on each parcel
address (0-lot line on shared property line).
A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within
350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this
application.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
In May 2014, Mr. Bjorklund requested two single-family residential properties located at 2511 and 2525
Condon Court (previously existed on this site) to be considered for a land use amendment and rezoning.
The request was to revise the previous land use designation from LB-Limited Business to MR-Medium
Density Residential, and rezone the two parcels from R-1 One Family Residential to R-2 Medium Density
Residential. The amendment and rezoning were approved by Ord. No. 470 (adopted 01/06/2015). The land
use designation and zoning on this site has remained as MR-Medium Density and R-2 Two Family
Residential since 2015.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 153 of 186
In June 2015, Mr. Bjorklund requested to re-plat the two residential properties on this site into five (5) new
and separate parcels (see plat image-below). The preliminary plat was approved by Resolution No. 2015-
48 (adopted 07/07/2015) and the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights was later approved under
Res. No. 2017-32 (adopted 05/02/2017).
Since 2015, Mr. Bjorklund has completed the construction of twin homes at 2515-2519 Condon Court
(Lots 4 and 5) and 2525-2529 Condon Court (Lots 2 and 3). Mr. Bjorklund elected to forgo building a
new single-family dwelling on Lot 1 and will instead offer the lot as a third twin home site.
In August 2022, Mr. Bjorklund submitted a lot split request to divide Lot 1 into two parcels (Parcel A and
B) of 12,154-square feet and 10,927-square feet, respectively. The lot split was approved by Resolution
2022-20 (adopted 12/01/2022).
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 154 of 186
At present, Mr. Bjorklund and his contractor, Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers, are requesting a lot
line adjustment and variance to move the current boundary line south by approximately six- feet (6’). While
the alignment makes more sense for how the lots will be used, the rearrangement will create a legally non-
conforming frontage for the property at 2511 Condon Court. As such, the Applicant is proposing the
following (see Survey Site Plan):
•To move the shared side-yard property line between 2507 and 2511 Condon Court by
approximately six-feet (6’) (totaling 794-square feet) to the south.
•A variance from the required minimum lot frontage, per City Code section 12-1E-3.D.3.a., to
further reduce the lot width from 79.7 feet to 73.6 feet. (Note that the existing lot at 2511 Condon
is non-conforming with respect to lot frontage.)
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
2507 Condon 2511 Condon
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area (Size) 12,197 SF
(0.28 Ac.)
12,991 SF
(0.30 Ac.)
10,890 SF
(0.25 Ac.)
10,090 SF
(0.23 Ac.)
Lot Depth 120’ 120’ 188’ 188’
Frontage 152’ 158’ 79.7’ 73.7’
Side Yard setback
(shared) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’
The two other twin home developments to the south were created with similar parcel divisions over each
unit. This lot or parcel separation provides for each unit to be separately owned and controlled, with its
own legally described land area underlying each unit. The proposed layout of these two-unit parcels is
consistent with what was approved by the City under the original Oaks of Mendota Heights plat of 2015.
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 11-1-5.C.1., states: “Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a
recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a piece of land to an abutting lot and the newly
created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title
or the zoning ordinance . . .”
As shown on Table 1, the resulting lots if the rearrangement is approved will comply with all R-2 Zoning
standards with the exception of the lot width/frontage on 2511 Condon. Section 11-1-9 Variances states
that any deviation from the subdivision code requires a variance to be requested, and such variance to be
processed consistent with City Code Section 12-1L-5.
The following analysis regarding the proposed variance is provided.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 155 of 186
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:
•Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
•Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
•Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
•Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
•Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
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:
There are no practical difficulties. The surveyor has demonstrated how the homes will get in and house
and have turn arounds areas for backing up and heading out to the street. The Variance to move the
centerline still allows for ample side lot space with the neighbor homes and is well within the allowed
setbacks.
Staff’s Response:
As the applicant notes, there are no apparent practical difficulties that necessitate the lot line adjustment
nor the variance from frontage requirements. However, adjusting the lot line may assist with egress into
the site. Staff would suggest that a practical difficulty can be created if access is not desirable and does
not facilitate easy use of the site for parking, backing up, etc. The change does support the usage, safety,
and overall practicality of the property.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 156 of 186
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response:
None.
Staff’s Response:
The lots are located at the corner of Mendota Heights Road and Condon Court. This positioning
generates unique lot shapes. Furthermore, 2507 Condon is not located on Condon Court itself, and is
instead only accessible via 2511 Condon Court. Thus, it is logical that driveway access and egress may
be complicated by these conditions. While the Applicant did not offer a reason or justification, staff
does believe that the adjustment will result in a safer and more accessible lot.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response:
This Variance does not alter the essential character but instead allows for the existing street-scape to
be preserved and the new homes to be built within the existing setbacks to the neighbors’ homes.
Staff’s Response:
The proposed variance will reduce the lot frontage of 2511 Condon by approximately 6-feet. As viewed
from the street or from the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no visible change. Additionally,
there are other lots within the subdivision with lot frontage/width between approximately 50-feet and
80-feet. The proposed resulting lot frontage is 73.3-feet, which is consistent with the character of
surrounding lots.
4.Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The purpose of this variance request is to align the property lines with the way the applicant intends
to develop the lots. Ultimately, alignment of the property lines will help to create a more accessible,
and safer, driveway for the eventual homeowner. Economic considerations are not the primary
reason for this request.
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 requested variance from the minimum lot frontage is consistent with surrounding
properties and land use. No additional lots are created as a result of this request. The property was
already non-conforming and exists in a subdivision largely composed of similarly non-conforming
lots. Thus, reducing the lot frontage by an additional 6-feet will not exacerbate the non-
conformance, nor will it produce adverse impacts to surrounding properties.
As proposed, the requested variance is consistent and in harmony with the existing R-2 zoning
which designates this property for townhome and attached housing development at suburban
densities.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 157 of 186
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1.Recommend approval of the variance and the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-
fact and based on certain conditions; or
2.Recommend denial of the variance and lot line adjustment, based on revised findings-of-fact that the
proposed lot line adjustment and variance are not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan
and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or
3.Table the request, and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented back
to the Planning Commission and the next regular meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance based on the attached findings of fact
supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows:
1.Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment at Dakota County indicating the newly revised
property descriptions for the resulting lots.
2.All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 158 of 186
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
2511 and 2507 Condon Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed lot line adjustment and
variance from the minimum frontage requirement:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment will create a safer driveway and access for the new twin home
that is planned to be constructed on the site.
2. The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
3. The resulting lots meet all other dimensional standards except for the minimum required lot
frontage, and the eventual improvements must comply with all R-2 dimensional standards for
setbacks.
4. The resulting lot frontage of 2511 is approximately 73.3-feet, and the existing configuration is
already non-conconforming. The further reduction in lot frontage will not significant alter or
change the existing configuration but will improve the safety of the lot.
5. The resulting lot frontage of 73.7-feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, and other lots
within the subdivision typically range from 50 to 80 feet of frontage.
6. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Medium Density Residential (R-2)
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are consistent with the R-2 minimum lot size requirements.
7. While the Applicant did not demonstrated that there are practical difficulties, the city finds that the
lot line adjustment will assist with site usability, safety, navigability, and overall practicality once
the lot is developed.
8. Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the character
of the neighborhood.
9. That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots will comply with the intent and
purpose of the R-2 Zoning District.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 159 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 160 of 186
Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of 3
VARIANCE APPLICATION – CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website
or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete
applications will not be put on the agenda.
Office Use Only:
Case #:_____________________
Applicant:____________________
Address:_____________________
The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City
Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there
are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical
difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please
consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the
current application submittal schedule.
Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights).
NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required to complete the project.
Completed Application Form(s).
Letter of Intent.
Required Plans.
APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL
Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary):
Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and
proposed structures.
Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request.
Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners
of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 161 of 186
Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of 3
variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in
question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such
consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet
(100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested.
If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic
contours shall be submitted.
If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the
applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction.
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council.
__________________________________________________________________
Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request.
(Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own)
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance?
(Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic
considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty).
YES NO
Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property
in a reasonable manner below:
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 162 of 186
Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 3
2.Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that
support the granting of this variance?
YES NO
Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below:
3.If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the
neighborhood?
YES NO
Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood.
The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order
to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all
of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 163 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 164 of 186
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, Interim Planning Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-82 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 641
and 645 Hampshire Drive [Planning Case No. 2023-20]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a lot line adjustment and a
variance from the 100-foot frontage requirement for lots in R-1 districts. The Applicant is
proposing to move the existing lot line approximately six-feet (6’) to the west, which will
produce legally non-conforming frontage for the property located at 645 Hampshire Drive.
BACKGROUND
The prior owner of the subject property installed landscaping and a shed on a permanent
foundation along what was believed to be the western boundary of the subject property. After
purchasing the subject property, the Applicant built a fence along the lot line that was believed to
be accurate. The Applicant later discovered that the fence, and portions of the landscaping, and
shed actually encroach on the neighboring lot owned by the Wilkins. The variance and lot line
adjustment applications are intended to align the legal boundaries of both lots with the physical
improvements. The Wilkins have agreed to sell 1,077 square feet to the Applicant so that the
property line can be shifted approximately six feet to the west to so that the respective
improvements are on the subject lot.
At the October 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. Prior
to the meeting, the Applicants submitted written consent from all property owners within 100
feet of the boundaries of the subject property. Therefore, the requirement for a public hearing
notice was waived for the variance request. A copy of the 10/24/2023 planning report and
attachments is attached to this memo.
The City received no inquiries regarding this application.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request (7-0) as described in Planning
Case 2023-20, for the properties at 645 Hampshire and 641 Hampshire with findings-of-fact and
certain conditions, as memorialized in the attached [draft] resolution.
9fCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 165 of 186
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-82, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 641 HAMPSHIRE AND 645
HAMPSHIRE DRIVE.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 166 of 186
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-82
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A VARIANCE AT 641
HAMPSHIRE AND 645 HAMPSHIRE DRIVE
PLANNING CASE 2023-20
WHEREAS, Heather Stefanski (the “Applicant” and “Owner”) applied for a Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance to modify the boundary between 641 Hampshire Drive and the property
directly to the west at 645 Hampshire Drive, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2023-20, and
as legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, situated in the R-1 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the
subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the
applicable zoning district and further stipulates any deviation from this ordinance requires a
variance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose a lot line adjustment of the shared side-yard property
line between 641 Hampshire Drive and 645 Hampshire Drive; and
WHEREAS, the lot line adjustment will reduce the lot width (frontage) on 645 Hampshire
Drive to approximately 89-feet which requires a variance from the minimum lot width standards
of the R-1 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance) establishes the standards
for consideration when evaluating a request for a variance from the zoning district; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission
recommended unanimously to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance on the subject
property, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2023-20 is hereby
affirmed, and the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requested for the properties located at 641
Hampshire Drive and 645 Hampshire Drive is approved based on the following findings-of-fact.
1.The proposed lot line adjustment will align the legal property boundaries with existing
landscaping and permanent improvements located on the respective lots.
2. The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 167 of 186
3. The property at 641 Hampshire Drive will be brought into full compliance with the R-1
zoning dimensional standards as a result of the lot line adjustment.
4. The existing lot frontage at 645 Hampshire Drive is non-conforming and further reducing
the lot frontage by 6-feet does not exacerbate or cause adverse impact to the lot or
surrounding properties.
5. Reducing the lot area of 645 Hampshire Drive results in a variance of approximately 120-
square feet from the minimum lot area, but this reduction will have minimal or no impact
on the surrounding lots or neighborhood.
6. The resulting lot frontage of approximately 89-feet is consistent with the neighborhood
character, and other lots within the subdivision typically range from 75 to 100 feet of
frontage.
7. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR)
density requirements and the resulting lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing
conditions.
8.The Applicant demonstrated that practical difficulties exist related to the existing
landscaping and shed, which were installed prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the
property.
9. Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the
character of the neighborhood.
10. All neighborhoods within 100-feet of the property indicated their support of the requested
variance and lot line adjustment demonstrating agreement that the request is consistent
with the neighborhood character.
11. That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots will comply with the
intent and purpose of the R-1 Zoning District and the LR land use designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance requested for the properties located at 641 Hampshire Drive and 645
Hampshire Drive is hereby approved, with the following conditions:
1. Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment at Dakota County indicating the newly
revised property descriptions for the resulting lots.
2. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line
adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 168 of 186
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 8th day of November 2023.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 169 of 186
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 645 Hampshire Drive
Parcel A
Existing Legal Description:
Lot 2, Block 1, HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, Dakota County, Minnesota
Proposed Legal Description:
Lot 2, Block 1, HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, Dakota County, Minnesota, except the easterly
6.00 feet thereof.
Property Address: 641 Hampshire Drive
Parcel B
Existing Legal Description:
Lot 3, Block 1, HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, Dakota County, Minnesota
Proposed Legal Description:
Lot 3, Block 1, HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, Dakota County, Minnesota, together with the
easterly 6.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, said HAMPSHIRE ESTATES
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 170 of 186
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-20
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Heather Stefanski
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 641 Hampshire Drive
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 23, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicant Heather Stefanski is requesting a variance and lot line adjustment to modify the boundary
between her property at 641 Hampshire Drive and the property directly to the west at 645 Hampshire Drive.
Tim and Eileen Wilkin own the neighboring property and are in support of both applications.
The prior owner of the subject property installed landscaping and a shed on a permanent foundation along
what was believed to be the western boundary of the subject property. After purchasing the subject property,
the Applicant built a fence along the lot line that was believed to be accurate. The Applicant later discovered
that the fence, landscaping, and shed actually reside on the neighboring lot owned by the Wilkins. The
variance and lot line adjustment applications are intended to align the legal boundaries of both lots with the
physical improvements. The Wilkins have agreed to sell 1,077 square feet to the Applicant so that the
property line can be shifted approximately six feet to the west to so that the respective improvements are
on the subject lot.
The Applicant submitted written consent from all property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries of the
subject property. Therefore, the requirement for a public hearing has been waived.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 171 of 186
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are located in the
Hampshire Estates subdivision, which was
platted in 1987. Both are zoned R-1 and were
developed in the late 1980s with single-family
structures. The properties are located on the
north side of Hampshire Drive and lie east of
Huber Drive (see map for location).
The property at 645 Hampshire Drive is
nonconforming for lot width and has
approximately 94.7 feet of frontage. The subject
property at 645 Hampshire Drive conforms to all
zoning standards, except that the existing
improvements such as the fence and shed do not
comply with applicable setback requirements. If
the lot line adjustment is approved, the frontage
and lot area of 645 Hampshire will be reduce and require a variance from the standards.
While the R-1 zoning district standards require 100-feet of frontage, the character of the surrounding
neighborhood includes lots that range in width between 70 and 110 feet.
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
645 Hampshire 641 Hampshire
Existing Proposed Variance Existing Proposed
Lot Area
(Size)
15,157 SF
(0.35 Ac.)
14,080 SF
(0.32 Ac.)
120 SF from
lot area
16,319 SF
(0.37 Ac.)
17,396 SF
(0.40 Ac.)
Lot Depth 170’ 170’ NA 177’ 177’
Frontage 94.7’ 88.69’ 6.07 ft
(reduction) 107’ 113’
Side Yard
setback
(shared)
12.9’ 6.9’
NA
0’ 5.0’
By allowing for the reconfiguration of this shared lot line, the side and rear yards will align with the existing
fencing and landscaping on both properties. However, while the alignment makes more sense for how the
lots are actually used, the lot line rearrangement will increase the non-conformity of the lot at 641
Hampshire Drive reducing the frontage by approximately 6-feet and the lot area to approximately 14,080
SF. The following is a summary of the proposed lot line adjustment and variance request (see Survey Site
Plan):
•To shift (rearrange) the shared side-yard property line west that lies between 651 and 645
Hampshire Drive by approximately six feet thereby reducing the property at 645 Hampshire by
approximately 1,077 square feet.
•A variance from the required minimum lot width and lot area, per City Code section 12-1E-3.D.3.a.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 172 of 186
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 11-1-5.C.1., states: “Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a
recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a piece of land to an abutting lot and the newly
created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title
or the zoning ordinance . . .”
As shown on Table 1, the resulting lots if the rearrangement is approved will comply with all R-1 Zoning
standards with the exception of the lot width/frontage on 641 Hampshire. Section 11-1-9 Variances states
that any deviation from the subdivision code requires a variance to be requested, and such variance to be
processed consistent with City Code Section 12-1L-5.
Furthermore, City Code Section 12-1D-2(A) states: “A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this
chapter in an R district, which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width, may be
utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes, provided the measurements of such area or width
are within seventy percent (70%) of the requirements of this chapter . . .”
The proposed lot line adjustment would result in the transfer of approximately 1,077 square feet from 641
Hampshire to 645 Hampshire; however, the total area of 645 Hampshire would still be comfortably within
seventy percent (70%) of the dictated requirements. Additionally, it should be noted that the existing
frontage on 645 is non-conforming, and the requested variance is to further reduce the frontage but the
resulting frontage will still exceed the 70% threshold as established by the requirements of a legal non-
conforming lot as described.
The following analysis regarding the proposed variance is provided.
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:
•Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
•Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
•Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
•Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
•Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
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 | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 173 of 186
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 practical difficulties include mature landscaping and a shed that were installed based on
understanding of where the lot line was. There is no easy way to remove them to conform with the
current lot lines. We believe our request is reasonable as it does not change the use of the property as
single family residence and both parties agree to this change. Moreover, all neighbors support this
variance application.
Staff’s Response:
The presence of mature landscaping, a shed, and a fence that were installed based on the assumption of
the location of the existing lot line based on how the properties were used by several owners. This
presents a valid practical difficulty since these improvements and landscaping have been installed and
maintained over several years. It can be time-consuming, cost prohibitive and disruptive to remove
these features, especially since the improvements have been present for several years. Furthermore,
removal of mature landscaping goes against the goals outlined in the City of Mendota Heights 2040
Comprehensive Plan, which seek to protect natural resources within the City. Conforming to the current
lot lines could impose a significant burden on the property owner and potentially cause a disturbance
in the neighborhood as a whole.
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response:
Neighborhood has varying lot width between 70ft – 110ft. 645 Hampshire was already non-conforming
and did not meet the code. This neighborhood is unique because it has a range of lot widths. We did
this in good faith, we believed the lot lines matched the improvements that were being put in place and
now want the legal boundary to fit with the physical improvements of the property. Both parties (645
and 641 Hampshire Drive) are in support of this change.
Staff’s Response:
The existing landscaping and shed were installed prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property.
Although the Applicant installed the fence, this was done on the assumption that the shed and
landscaping aligned with the legal property boundary. Therefore, the circumstance necessitating the
variance was not created by the property owner. Furthermore, the property was already non-conforming
and exists in a subdivision largely composed of similar lots, some of which are non-conforming for lot
width. Thus, reducing the lot frontage by an additional 6-feet will not significantly change the existing
lot configurations, nor will it produce a lot that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 174 of 186
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response:
No, it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is not an intensification of use as
these will remain single-family residences. This will not change the character of the neighborhood and
will appear the same from the right of way. IT is correcting the legal boundaries to match the physical
improvements. All neighbors within 100ft of both 645 and 641 Hampshire Drive and signed to support
this variance. There are also additional neighbors that we discussed this with that also signed to
support this application.
Staff’s Response: The proposed variance will reduce the lot frontage of 645 Hampshire by
approximately 6-feet and reduce the lot area by approximately 1,077 SF resulting in a variance of
approximately 120 square feet. As viewed from the street or from the surrounding neighborhood, there
will be no visible change. Additionally, there are other lots within the Hampshire Estates subdivision
with lot frontage/width between approximately 70-feet and 100-feet. The proposed resulting lot
frontage is approximately 89-feet, which is consistent with the character of surrounding lots.
Notably, the Applicant obtained signatures of support from neighbors within a 100-foot radius of the
subject properties. This illustrates that that the proposed change aligns with the interests and desires of
the local community.
4.Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The purpose of this variance request is to align the property lines with the way the existing property
owners use their lots and land. Ultimately alignment of the property lines to create a more useable
backyard may increase the value of the subject property is not the primary reason for this request.
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 requested variance from the minimum lot frontage and lot area is consistent with
surrounding properties and land use. No additional lots are created as a result of this request, and
the intent is to align existing use with the legal property lines. As proposed, the requested variance
is consistent and in harmony with the existing R-1 zoning which designates this property for single-
family residential uses.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2040 Plan. Certain
land use goals and policies are noted below:
•Natural Resources Goal #2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas,
wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant
and animal species.
•Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
•Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses.
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 175 of 186
Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. City Staff believes that the request for a variance
from the minimum lot width and lot area is consistent with the goals stated in the comprehensive
plan as referenced above.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1.Recommend approval of the variance and the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-
fact and based on certain conditions; or
2.Recommend denial of the variance and lot line adjustment, based on revised findings-of-fact that the
proposed lot line adjustment and variance are not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan
and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or
3.Table the request, and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented back
to the Planning Commission and the next regular meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance based on the attached findings of fact
supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows:
1.Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment (minor subdivision) at Dakota County indicating
the newly revised property descriptions for the resulting lots.
2.All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 176 of 186
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
641 and 645 Hampshire Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed lot line adjustment and
variance from the minimum frontage requirement:
1.The proposed lot line adjustment will align the legal property boundaries with existing landscaping
and permanent improvements located on the respective lots.
2.The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
3.The property at 641 Hampshire will be brought into full compliance with the R-1 zoning
dimensional standards as a result of the lot line adjustment.
4.The existing lot frontage at 645 Hampshire is non-conforming and further reducing the lot frontage
by 6-feet does not exacerbate or cause adverse impact to the lot or surrounding properties.
5.Reducing the lot area of 645 Hampshire results in a variance of approximately 120-square feet from
the minimum lot area, but this reduction will have minimal or no impact on the surrounding lots or
neighborhood.
6.The resulting lot frontage of 75.5-feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, and other lots
within the subdivision typically range from 75 to 100 feet of frontage.
7.The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR) density
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing conditions.
8.The Applicant demonstrated that practical difficulties exist related to the existing landscaping and
shed, which were installed prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property.
9.Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the character
of the neighborhood.
10.All neighborhoods within 100-feet of the property indicated their support of the requested variance
and lot line adjustment demonstrating agreement that the request is consistent with the
neighborhood character.
11.That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots will comply with the intent and
purpose of the R-1 Zoning District and the LR land use designation.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 177 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 178 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 179 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 180 of 186
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 181 of 186
SheetProperty Split for:1 of 3c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
The Eileen Wilkinliving Trust
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 122056000.dwg
Date:11-30-22
Folder #: 884
Drawn by:KSO
EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBITCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 182 of 186
SheetProperty Split for:2 of 3c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
The Eileen Wilkinliving Trust
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 122056000.dwg
Date:11-30-22
Folder #: 884
Drawn by:KSO
PROPOSED PARCEL EXHIBITCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 183 of 186
SheetProperty Split for:3 of 3c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
The Eileen Wilkinliving Trust
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 122056000.dwg
Date:11-30-22
Revised: 12-21-22
Folder #: 884
Drawn by:KSO
PROPOSED EASEMENT EXHIBITCity Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 184 of 186
Request for City Council Action
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent
SUBJECT: Plow Truck Purchase
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve a change of vendor for the plow truck that was approved
for purchase on September 23, 2021, and also approve a purchase order to purchase to a new
plow truck that is on the Capital Improvement Plan for 2024.
BACKGROUND
Council approved the purchase of a new Mack plow truck in 2021. The city has yet to receive
this truck, but has a tentative delivery of the cab and chassis in January of 2024 with an up fit
finalized after the snow season.
Staff has been researching other makes of trucks, and along with many other municipalities
would like to change to a Western Star Cab and chassis. Staff has had discussions with other
municipalities, drivers, and mechanics and they have given very good reviews of this truck.
Staff does have a new approximate build date on the Mack truck, but Mack has now been on
strike since October 8 with notice that each day on strike equates to a week delay in getting a
truck. Staff feels that this is the right time to make a change from a Mack truck to a Western Star
Cab truck.
As part of the 2024 budget process, $325,000 is preliminary budgeted in the street department
budget to purchase another plow truck.
A quote from the state contract was obtained from Boyer Ford of $143,595.62 for the cab and
chassis which would then be upfitted by Towmaster for an additional $173,932. The total
amount of the new truck is $317,527.62.
Boyer Ford has indicated that as soon as a PO is issued for the two trucks we will be put on a list
for delivery. They presently have openings in the first quarter of next year for orders with the
second quarter a more likely opportunity, if the first quarter fills up before approval. The city is
still on a list with Towmaster for the first truck, and would like to be placed on a list for the
second truck, after Council approval. There is good indication that we could see both trucks for
the 2024-2025 snow season.
9g
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 185 of 186
BUDGET IMPACT
There was $205,000 budgeted for the 2022 truck. This price has climbed to $317,527.62 with
inflation and time. We initially had a trade-in allowance of $40,000 for the truck being
replaced. The new trade-in allowance is $20,000 which could be adjusted lower at the time of
the delivery of the new truck.
Public Works is proposing to not purchase a gator utility vehicle which was budgeted at $24,000
in 2023 and there is approximately $7,000 in actual costs from the 2024 budgeted amount for the
2024 plow truck. These changes result in the 2022 plow truck being $62,000 over budget. The
general fund currently has a balance of $325,000 over the 75% minimum balance to maintain the
AAA bond rating. Funding the 2022 plow truck increase in costs would result in a balance of
$263,000 over the general fund minimum balance.
The 2024 truck was budgeted at $325,000 and we have an estimate of $317,527.62 for the
purchase of this truck.
Staff is requesting this authorization ahead of the final budget approval due to the current
schedule and for the delivery not being until later in 2024. We would like to get on a list for
delivery of both cab and chassis, and the upfit with Towmaster.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion authorizing staff to
issue purchase orders to Boyer Ford and Towmaster for PO’s to purchase a truck that was
budgeted in 2022 and to purchase a truck for 2024. This requires a simple majority vote.
City Council | Wednesday, November 8 |Page 186 of 186