Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2014-12-02 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 2, 2014 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of November 18, 2014 City Council Minutes b. Approval of November 18, 2014 City Council Workshop Minutes c. Approval of the November 25, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes d. Approval of Personnel Action Report e. Approval of Resolution 2014-73, Vacation of Partition Road Right-of-Way f. Approval of Resolution 2014-80, Accepting Gifts from Wayzata Lions Club and Dakota County MADD Impact Panel g. Approval of Massage Therapist License h. Approval of Purchase of Asset Management System i. Approval of Resolution 2014-81, Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Cellular Equipment, 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive j. Approval of Resolution 2014-82, Wetlands Permit for Construction of Fence at 2361 Field Stone Ct k. Approval of Claims List l. Approval of Contractors List 6. Public Comments 7. Public Hearings a. Wine and 3.2% On-Sale Liquor License, King and I Thai, LLC, 760 Highway 110 b. Resolution 2014-79, Approving 2015 Property Tax Levy and Budget 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2014-78, Sanitary Sewer Utility Fees b. Resolution 2014-83, Deny Request to Allow Chickens 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn page 2 5a. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 18, 2014 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 Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The other members present included: Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel, and Norton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items f) Acknowledgement of Traffic Safety Committee Report; h)Approval of Resolution 2014-77, 2015 Recycling Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County; and i)Approval of Resolution 2014-65, Electronic Crimes Taskforce Joint Powers Agreement. a.Approval of November 5, 2014 City Council Minutes b.Approval of November 7, 2014 Canvassing Board Minutes c.Approval of November 10, 2014 City Council Workshop Minutes d.Acknowledgment of November 10, 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes e.Acknowledgment of November 12, 2014 Airport Relations Commission Minutes f.Acknowledgement of Traffic Safety Committee Report November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 1 page 3 g.Approval of Personnel Action Report h.Approval of Resolution 2014-77, 2015 Recycling Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County i.Approval of Resolution 2014-65, Electronic Crimes Taskforce Joint Powers Agreement j.Receipt of October 2014 Building Activity Report k.Receipt of October 2014 Fire Synopsis Report l.Receipt of Par 3 update m.Approval of Claims List n.Approval of October 2014 Treasurer's Report o.Approval of Contractors List Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F)ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT City Engineer John Mazzitello explained that the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) met on November 5, 2014 and discussedthree issues: 1) speed complaint from residents on Ivy Falls Avenue/Maple Park Drive, 2) crosswalk/pedestrian safety at Friendly Hills School, and 3) Warrior Drive parking update. 1)The speed cart was utilized to ascertain the speeds on Ivy Falls Avenue/Maple Park Drive at various times of the day and it was determined that the speeds were not excessive. However, the police will continue to monitor the area. No Council action is necessary. 2)signs along Mendota Heights Road, near the crosswalk by the entrance to Friendly Hills School. The City Code does say that parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an signs at the crosswalk. The issue was cars parking too close or into the crosswalk which prohibited drivers from seeing pedestrians in the crosswalk. No further action from the Council is needed. 3)Last September residents voiced their concern over traffic safety issues related to parking on the east side of Warrior Drive. Council referred the matter to the Traffic Safety Committee to study itand make a recommendation by the end of the calendar year. Due to the construction of the River-to-River Greenway Trail,parking had been prohibited for the first two months of the school year, and parking has been restored in that area last week. The Traffic Safety Committee feels that they did not have sufficient time to observe traffic patterns and parking on Warrior the Council extend the deadline. The Committee will report back to the Council at a scheduled March Council Meeting. Councilmember Petschel expressed her appreciation to the Traffic Safety Committee for their recommendation regarding the crosswalk and pedestrian safety at Friendly Hills School. Mayor Krebsbach requested an update on two issues that did not come before the Traffic Safety stnd Committee; traffic speeds near Somerset School and along 1or 2Avenue. November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 page 4 City Administrator Justin Miller replied that there are currently school zone signs around Somerset and stnd along 1or 2Avenue but that he would work with Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener on a traffic speed study with the speed cart. Councilmember Duggan asked if the residents along Warrior Drive would receive a letter regarding the extension of the deadline. Engineer Mazzitello replied that the residents and the school district would receive an update if Council grants the extension. Councilmember Petschel moved that the COUNCIL GRANT THE COMMITTEE AN EXTENSION ON THE DEADLINE FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF WARRIOR DRIVE UNTIL A SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING IN MARCH AND TO ACCEPT THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 H) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2014-77, 2015 RECYCLING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA COUNTY Planner Nolan Wall explained the request to approve Resolution 2014-77, approval of the 2015 Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for the Waste Abatement Community Funding Program and the Community Funding Application. Staff requested the maximum allowable funding in 2015 ($15,000). Work plan goals for 2015 include the following: 1.Attendance at local solid waste group meetings 2.Monthly recycling tips for all City employees to promote waste reduction in all facilities 3.Newsletter articles in the Heights Highlights regarding recycling options 4.Spring Clean -Up event 5.Social media postings and information regarding recycling opportunities to residents 6.Youth Safety Camp presentation on household hazard wastes 7.Holiday lights recycling collection at City Hall (which kicked-off this week) The majority of the budget would be for administrative costs to carry out the work plan. Other expenditures would include the spring clean-up, printing, and postage. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2014-77, APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 2015 WASTE ABATEMENT COMMUNITY FUNDING. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 page 5 I) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2014-65, ELECTRONIC CRIMES TASK FORCE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener presented a joint powers agreement which would allow the police department to utilize Dakota would expand that capacity across the County by bringing in members of other agencies to work on the task force.The Task Force was defined to investigate illegal activities related to the use of electronic devices, the Internet, and materials transmitted or used in electronic format and the prosecution of those conducting such illegal activities. For 2015, Hastings, Farmington, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, South St. Paul, and West St. Paul will pay $15,000 to participate; Burnsville and Apple Valley will each contribute one full-timepolice officer; and Inver Grove Heights will contribute a half-time officer. In the future, as the Task Force comes to full staff, the goal is to place a part-time officer in the task force to learn these new skills. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2014-65, FORMALLY AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) "DAKOTA COUNTY ELECTRONIC CRIMES TASK FORCE." Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) RESOLUTION 2014-73, VACATING A PORTION OF PARTITION ROAD City Engineer John Mazzitello stated that a resident submitted an application requesting the vacation of a portion of City-owned right-of-way. That right-of-way, identified as Partition Road, is a 30-foot wide half-street right-of-way that runs between Spring Street and Dodd Road in a northwesterly/southeasterly fashion. The other half of the originally platted Partition Road has already been vacated. The applicant did submit a petition with the required amount of signatures consisting of a majority of the abutting property owners. Staff researched the right-of-way and found there to be no utilities located within it. The applicant, Mr. Jeff Hamiel, answered questions from the Council. Councilmembers asked about the location of the proposed parcel andhis plans for it. Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing. Mr. Brad Clary, 1179 Ivy Hill Drive, President of the Ivy Hills Townhouse Association and owns property along the requested vacated parcel, stated he has no objection to the vacation request; however, he requested that there be a 15-foot conservation easement. He believes this would be appropriate November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 page 6 because the property is currently being used for trees, shrubs, landscaping, etc. and it would prevent a developer coming in and building a very large development on the adjoining property. The association has spoken with Mr. Hamiel and he has no objection to the conservation easement as long as the association maintains the hedge that sits along the property line. Mr. Clary also noted that an association resident who lives in one of the most immediately affected units wrote a letter stating that she has no objections to the vacation as long as the parcel is used for its present purposes (i.e. trees, hedges, and shrubs), preferably in the form of a conservation easement. Ms. Gail Roberts, 1150 Ivy Hill Drive, expressed her support of the conservation easement. Councilmembers asked questions about which parcels are owned by the association, who is the owner of an empty lot in that area, and if there was any feedback from the other homeowners association in the area (it was noted that they were in agreement with the vacation request with the conservation easement). City Attorney Tom Lehmann stated that the vacation of a city street is governed by state statute and that is the only action that the Council can take to vacate or not to vacate. He noted that Council would exceed its authority if it started imposing conditions on a vacation. Mr. Clary returned and noted that if the conservation easement is not required with the vacation, then the association would oppose the vacation on the grounds that there would be no good reason for it. He requested that the vacation not be approved right now to allow the association and Mr. Hamiel to come to an agreement on a conservation easement. Councilmember Petschel moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to table Resolution 2014-73, VACATING A (PORTION OF) STREET UPON A PETITION OF A MAJORITY OF ABUTTING LANDOWNERS to allow residents time to come to an agreement on a conservation easement and thus eliminate any opposition. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Attorney Lehmann-day rule for this application would expire on December 16 unless it was agreed by all parties to extend the application. Upon the request for clarification by Councilmember Petschel, Planner Wall noted that any agreement made between the residents would be recorded at the County and would run with the land to any prospective buyer. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Duggan) November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 page 7 B) NPDES PHASE II STORM WATER PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained that the City is permitted through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for any storm water discharge that leaves the City. The City is required to ere is going to be a Phase II permit the City would be reporting on next year. He also noted that over the next few months there will be some storm water issues coming to the Currently, there are six required components including public education, public participation, illicit discharge detection, construction site runoff, post-construction runoff control, and pollution prevention. Assistant Engineer Ruzek outlined the action items the City completesto comply with the components. Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing. Councilmembers made comments and asked questions regarding a letter received from the Lake Augusta Homeowners Association regarding appropriate buffer care. They also suggested the addition of rain garden photographs in the next edition of the Heights Highlights. They discussed how draconian Phase II will be,and what is a MS4 owner. Councilmember Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) VICTORIA ROAD LISTENING SESSION Mayor Krebsbach noted that this is a listening session for the Council to hear any comments from residents for the record. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained that the ordering of the Victoria Road South improvements was done on November 19, 2013. Victoria Road is proposed to be reconstructed from Marie Avenue to Lexington Avenue. The project includes a 28-foot roadway with the addition of a parking lane along the north and south section, directly across from Eagle Ridge Drive. The 8-foot bituminous trail will be reconstructed, as well as curb and gutter installed on the entire project. The project is scheduled to start in June 2015 with completion in the fall of 2015. Assistant Ruzek shared a map showing the proposed street widths and parking lanes. The project is estimated at $1,591,093. Staff is proposing to specially assess approximately $335,850 of this project.The City would bond for its portion of the cost of $527,367.97. Staff is proposing to use $500,000 from the municipal state aid account for the heavier duty street sections, and utility funds would pay for the storm sewer improvements of $227,875. November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 page 8 The Ci The assessable costs were estimated to be $1,268,000; 50% would be $634,252. There are 23 single unit homes and 20 multi-unit homes. Based on the City policy, the estimated unit assessment would be $14,750; however this would exceed projects that have been done in the past for this type of work. Staff is proposing to cap the unit assessment for the single unit homes at $8,950 and the multi-unit homes at $6,500 equating to 26% of the entire project costs. Councilmembers asked questions regarding water main replacement andhow many people attended the informational meeting. Mayor Krebsbach opened the floor for comments from the residents affected by this reconstruction project. Mr. Peter Coyle, a lawyer from Bloomington, MN representing seventeen property owners within the Victoria Townhome Association and three property owners within the Eagle Ridge Townhome Association, expressed his appreciation for the information provided by staff.He and his clients wished to go on record as stating the proposed assessments are excessive based on the benefit they could identify at this point. Their concern is the approach the City is taking to treat all of the properties the same without regard to the unique circumstances of each of them. findings so they could better understand the approach that the City has taken in trying to assign benefits to each of the properties. No other persons wished to be heard. Councilmember Petschel commented on an issue she raised by saying this is alarge project and there will be times that people will be without power and water; the practice in the past has been for the construction company to put notices on the front doors explaining when the water and/or power would be turned off. She wondered if the City could post a notice also and/or power in the area(s) would be turned off. Mayor Krebsbach wondered if an email could be sent to the affected residents. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that all of the informational meetings have sign-in sheets so he could website is set up for someone to sign up toautomatically receive the updates. No action was taken on this item. B) ORDINANCES 463 AND 464, APPROVING ELECTRIC AND GAS FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH XCEL ENERGY City Administrator Justin Miller explained the draft ordinances which would establish gas and electric franchise agreements with Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy is the provider of gas and electric services within thecity. Franchise agreements are a common way to formalize the interactions between the City and the utility in regards to their operations, whether it be right-of-way management, replacement or abandonment of lines, how to deal with construction issues, etc. The City has had agreements with Xcel November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 page 9 Energy in the past but they have expired. These ordinances would spell out the current operations, the current mode of practice that the City has with Xcel Energy at the current time. These do not have a franchise fee but are simply a franchise agreement; section nine of both agreements does reserve the right for the City to implement a franchise fee in the future if the Council would so desire. When questioned, City Attorney Tom Lehmannexplained that the City is not out of compliance,but in order to enact this agreement it has to be through an ordinance. Also, the City could not impose a franchise fee without this agreement. Mr. Jake Sedlacek, representing Xcel Energy, was present to answer questions and gave a brief background on Xcel Energy and their presence in thecity of Mendota Heights. Councilmembers asked questions regarding any potential changes in operation once the ordinances are in place, what the form of energy is that goes through these rights-of-way, what the duration was of the previous agreement and when did it expire,what was in the dispute resolution that the Council should be made aware of, electric boundaries, discretion on the size of the gas lines, and various suggestions were made pertaining to the wording in the ordinances. Councilmember Petschel moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO 463, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE THE PUBLIC GROUNDS AND PUBLIC WAYS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES, with the minor changes as recommended; And,to adopt ORDINANCE NO 464, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO ERECT A GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING, REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, THE NECESSARY GAS PIPES, MAINS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS AND OTHERS AND TRANSMITTING GAS INTO AND THROUGH THE CITY AND TO USE THE PUBLIC GROUNDS AND PUBLIC WAYS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES, with the minor changes as recommended. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta made the following announcements: Residents were tokeep itclear of snow and ice for the winter season. November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 page 10 For garbage and recycling pickup, residents were asked to place their garbage cans on their driveways and behind the curb line so the snowplows do not hit them. A tree lighting ceremony will be held on Saturday, December 6 starting at 5:00 p.m. at The Village. Events start at 4:00 p.m. A tree lighting event will be held at Mendota Plaza on Thursday, December 4 starting at 6:00 p.m. with hot cocoa, music, raffle, etc. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Krebsbach, on behalf of the Council, announced that the City of West St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and ISD197 receivedthe Mighty Ducks $200,000 grant. Councilmember Duggan reminded residents to adopt a fire hydrant. He also congratulated the Visitation swimmers for winning the State Championship. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Petschel had the dance. The venue, food,and the band High & Mighty were fantastic. The camaraderie was outstanding. Mayor Krebsbach attended the Henry Sibley Gala Concert, which was outstanding. One-third of the students at Henry Sibley participate in music or choir. The Council wished all of the residents a Happy Thanksgiving. ADJOURN Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. ____________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk November 18, 2014 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 page 11 5b. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Workshop Held Monday, November 18, 2014 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Norton, Petschel, and Povolny. City staff in attendance included City Administrator Justin Miller and City Attorney Tom Lehmann CITY ADMINISTRATOR TRANSITION/SEARCH PROCESS Miller updated the council on the current status of the city administrator search. He noted that the position th had been posted with the League of Minnesota Cities with an application deadline of December 15. The council agreed to conduct initial interviews (with the personnel committee of Councilmembers Petschel and Norton along with yet to be determined staff) the week of January 5, 2015. Final interviews with the entire th city council will be held the week of January 26, with an expected start date of the selected candidate around the first of March. The council then discussed the appointment of an interim city administrator. After discussing several candidates, the council agreed to place on a future council agenda the appointment of Assistant to the City Administrator Tammy Schutta as interim city administrator. Miller stated he would work with Schutta and the council on final details. ADJOURN Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. ____________________________________ ATTEST: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 12 5c. $!4%Ȁ $¤¢ 2Ǿ 201Γ TO: - ¸®± and #¨³¸ #®´¢¨«Ǿ #¨³¸ !£¬¨¨²³± ³®± &2/-Ȁ ,®±±¨ 3¬¨³§Ǿ #¨³¸ #«¤±ª 35"*%#4Ȁ 0« ¨¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨® -¨´³¤² 4§¤ 0« ¨¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨® ¬¨´³¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¤¬ ¨«¤£ ³® ¸®´ ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨¦ȁ 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5 November 25, 2014 6 7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, 8 November 25, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10 The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard 11 Roston, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Michael Noonan. 12 Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John 13 Mazzitello. 14 15 Approval of Agenda 16 17 Chair Field noted a letter dated November 25, 2014 requesting a further layover of Planning Case 18 2014-31 to the December or January 2015 meeting. As there was no one in attendance to speak 19 regarding this case, the Commission accepted the layover request. 20 21 The agenda was approved as amended. 22 23 Approval of October 28, 2014 Minutes 24 25 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO 26 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2014, AS PRESENTED. 27 28 AYES: 5 29 NAYS: 0 30 ABSENT: 1 31 32 Hearings 33 34 PLANNING CASE #2014-34 35 Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Court and 580 Watersedge Terrace 36 Wetlands Permit for construction of a fence within the 100 -foot buffer area of a water resource - 37 related area 38 39 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a wetlands permit to construct a fence 40 at 2361 Field Stone Court. The subject parcel is 0.56 acres and contains an existing single-family 41 dwelling abutting a pond in the rear yard. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low-density 42 residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant intends to construct a 48 -inch 43 black vinyl chain-link fence along the rear property boundary lines, a portion of said fence would 44 connect into an existing fence on the neighboring property, which is at 580 Watersedge Terrace 45 and has been agreed upon by both parties. 46 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 47 The proposed fence is within 100 -feet of water resource related area and does not meet the 48 conditions for administrative approval. The wetlands chapter does require a permit for the 49 construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. The proposed connecting fence is located a 50 few inches onto the neighboring property and, therefore, staff had them be a party to this 51 application since the fence would be connecting onto their property. 52 53 A portion of the proposed fence would be near the ordinary high-water mark of the pond and within 54 the 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area which is recommended to maintain appropriate vegetative 55 buffers and limit soil disturbance. However, the proposed project would not remove any vegetation 56 or cause any soil disturbance beyond the post -digging activities. 57 58 Engineering staff did review the request and they have no issues with the proposed project due to 59 no changes to the existing vegetative buffer and limited soil disturbance. If approved, the fence 60 would be constructed immediately after obtaining a building permit. Additional standards for 61 residential fences would be reviewed as part of the building permit process. 62 63 Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions and based on the Findings of Fact 64 included in the Planning Commission packet. 65 66 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 67 68 Mr. Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Court and Mr. Dan Larsen of Midwest Fence came forward 69 to answer any questions from the Commissioners. 70 71 Ms. Katie Donovan, 590 Watersedge Terrace had more questions than comments. She asked how 72 far back into the pond would this fence go relative to the fence that is already there and why the 73 proposed fence could not be the same sort of fence that it would be connecting to. 74 75 Planner Wall replied that he looked at the case file from 2011 for the request at 580 Watersedge 76 Terrace as they also had to receive a wetlands permit. The fence on this property is constructed 77 approximately 40 -feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the pond. He referred the 78 Commissioner's to the aerial photograph and explained that there is a different vegetative pattern 79 on the neighboring property than there is on the applicant's property. Both fences follow the 80 contour of the vegetation around the pond. 81 82 Ms. Donovan commented that the neighbor immediately next to the Watersedge property is out of 83 town and is unable to respond to this application. She also stated that she would like to see the 84 properties keep to the open and rural appearance of the neighborhood. Chair Field replied that the 85 Commission is only concerned with the wetlands permit, which is how the soils are treated and 86 handled around the wetland. The Commission has very limited jurisdiction in considering the fence 87 itself. 88 89 Mr. Petersen returned to address Ms. Donovan's comments and stated that as far as the type of 90 fence the neighbor has compared to his, there is quite a bit of price difference and that is why he 91 opted for a black chain-link fence rather than a wrought iron fence. He went with the black chain - 92 link to try and keep to the aesthetics and appeal. The reason for putting up the fence is because his November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 93 wife and he just recently had a child and they also have a dog. They would like to keep both 94 contained and not get to the pond. 95 96 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 97 98 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 99 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 100 101 AYES: 5 102 NAYS:0 103 ABSENT: 1 104 105 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 106 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-34, WETLANDS PERMIT FOR 107 CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE 100 -FOOT BUFFER AREA OF A WATER 108 RESOURCE -RELATED AREA APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS 109 OF FACT: 110 1. The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City 111 Code. 112 2. No existing vegetation within the wetland/water resource -related buffer area will be 113 removed. 114 3. Soil disturbance in the buffer area will be limited to post -digging and no part of the 115 wetland/water resource -related area will be disturbed. 116 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 117 1. A building permit is obtained prior to construction of the proposed fence. 118 2. Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain 119 naturally vegetated. 120 3. Construction shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance 121 Document. 122 123 AYES: 5 124 NAYS:0 125 ABSENT: 1 126 127 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2014 128 meeting. 129 130 PLANNING CASE #2014-33 131 T -Mobile, on behalf of the Ridge South Condo Association, 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive 132 Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility 133 134 Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless 135 antenna facility upgrades. The purpose of this upgrade would be to increase the data and call 136 capacity in the existing service area. The code does require CUP approval for wireless antennas. 137 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 138 The subject parcel is approximately 2.7 acres and contains a multi -family residential condominium 139 building, zoned R-3, and guided for high density residential development. The existing antenna 140 structure and the accessory structure were both approved by a Conditional Use Permit in 2006. 141 The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades were shown in the submitted plans and include 142 three new antennas, three new RRU's, and a new modular at the base station which would be 143 within the existing fenced in accessory structure area. No exterior modifications were proposed to 144 the existing accessory structure and the improvements would not increase the height of the existing 145 antenna structure itself. 146 147 The code does contain specific evaluation criteria to evaluate a conditional use permit and the 148 applicant has agreed to comply with all of those applicable provisions. Staff recommended 149 approval of this Conditional Use Permit application with conditions. 150 151 Mr. Chuck Beisner, 4974 Interlachen Drive NE, Alexandria, MN on behalf of T -Mobile came 152 forward to answer questions. 153 154 Commissioners asked questions regarding the coverage map that was included in the packet. 155 156 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 157 158 Mr. Marvin Jacobson, member of the association and owner one of the condominiums, asked if 159 there would be an inspection of the work after it has been completed. Planner Wall replied that if 160 this application was approved, another piece of it would be the potential building permit 161 application and the building official would review it and determine if a building permit is necessary 162 and if/when an inspection would be needed. 163 164 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 165 166 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 167 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 168 169 AYES:5 170 NAYS:0 171 ABSENT: 1 172 173 Commissioner Roston disclosed that his wife's parents live in the condominium building but he 174 has not heard from them nor has he spoken with them about this application. 175 176 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 177 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-33 CONDITIONAL USE 178 PERMIT FOR UPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE 179 FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 180 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing 181 such facilities. 182 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare 183 of the community. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 184 3. Upgrading the wireless antenna facility's antennas and equipment will help increase the 185 data and call capacity in the service area. 186 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 187 1. The applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code. 188 189 AYES: 5 190 NAYS:0 191 ABSENT: 1 192 193 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2014 194 meeting. 195 196 PLANNING CASE #2014-35 197 Matthew and Mary Paquette 198 Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts 199 200 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a code amendment that would allow 201 the keeping of chickens in residential zoning districts. Staff was made aware of chickens on the 202 applicant's property, which is currently in violation of the city code. After being notified by the 203 City, the applicants then requested an appeal on the City's interpretation of the code, they requested 204 a variance to allow the chickens and coop to remain on the property. Staff advised the applicants 205 that use variances should not be considered in this case and that applying for a code amendment 206 was an option for presenting this for further discussion. 207 208 A similar request regarding pigeons was considered by the City Council in 2012 and that was 209 ultimately denied. Staff does receive regular inquiries about keeping chickens and other non - 210 domestic animals in residential areas, so this request does present the opportunity to consider 211 addressing that current prohibition. 212 213 The codes does contain two definitions of animals; the first being a domestic animal definition and 214 then a food animal definition. Based on staff's interpretation, chickens are not considered a 215 domestic animal and, therefore not permitted as accessory uses in the residential zoning districts. 216 217 Past determinations have been made that chickens are more appropriately defined as a food animal 218 since they are not a common household pet in most urban residential areas and are typically raised 219 for purposes of food consumption. According to the applicants, the proposed code amendment is 220 intended to permit chickens on residential properties subject to the following conditions: 221 1. Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) may be allowed on residential properties. 222 2. Only hens (no roosters) are allowed. 223 3. A maximum of four hens per lot are allowed. 224 4. The chicken coop and run shall be setback at least 10 feet from the rear lot line and at least 225 5 feet from the side lot lines. They must be at least 25 feet from the nearest habitable 226 structure. 227 5. If the chickens are not contained at all times to the coop and run and allowed to freely roam 228 within the yard, the property shall be enclosed by a fence. 229 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 230 Also included in the Commission packet was an extensive survey completed by the City of Cottage 231 Grove in 2012. Staff included a list of additional issues for consideration that were not addressed 232 in the proposed code amendment submitted by the applicants. 233 234 Staff noted that this code amendment request raises two questions: 235 236 1. Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning 237 districts? 238 2. If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed? 239 240 Whether or not chickens should be allowed in residential zoning districts is a policy decision that 241 should be considered by the City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning 242 Commission. Staff does not have a recommendation on this issue, but, if necessary, is willing to 243 work with the applicants and/or other stakeholders to provide any additional information to the 244 Planning Commission or City Council on the issue for discussion. 245 246 Regardless of the Planning Commission's recommendation on the use being requested, staff 247 recommends denial of the proposed code amendment language itself that pertains specifically to 248 this application regarding the proposed code language based on the Findings of Fact; which are 249 largely based on other issues raised that should be considered if the City did want to move down 250 the road of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. Therefore, a second motion could be 251 considered regarding further discussion and direction to the City Council in consideration of the 252 proposed use. 253 254 Commissioners asked questions regarding how this keeping of chickens came to staff's attention, 255 the survey completed by the City of Cottage Grove, what the process would be if the Commission 256 felt the keeping of chickens might be something worth exploring, past history of this type of 257 application, and the existence of legal non -conforming chicken coops in the City. 258 259 Chair Field noted that the Commission had two tasks: 260 261 1. Deal with the immediate code amendment request, which staff recommended denial based 262 on a variety of technical reasons. 263 2. Decide if they want to pursue the chicken ordinance that would address these other issues. 264 265 Ms. Mary Paquette, 1119 Dodd Road, stated that the actual complaint about the code violation 266 came from an elderly neighbor who loves the chickens and was concerned about the chicken that 267 had gotten out. 268 269 She also stated that they had the chickens for two years and did not know that they were not in the 270 code. They feel the code is very vague in listing that birds are an acceptable pet. She gave reasons 271 why chickens make good pets. 272 273 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 274 275 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 276 Ms. Beth Geis, 1116 Dodd Road, lives across the street from the applicant's property and she did 277 not know that the chickens were there because they are obviously very quiet. She commented that 278 the recommendation for denial was based on additional issues not be addressed; however, they 279 addressed all the issues that she had. She asked how staff would propose to re -write the code 280 amendment. Chair Field noted that the amendment needs to fit within the context of the entire 281 code. 282 283 Ms. Christine Solberg, 1062 Chippewa Avenue, has lived in her home since 1955 and her backyard 284 is almost kitty-corner to the applicant's home. She noted that when she moved into the area there 285 were two farms that were two blocks away. They had every animal imaginable on a farm; however, 286 at that time the non -domesticated animals also had their own habitat to live in. Now that everyone 287 has encroached so much on the wild habitat there have been a lot of coyote sightings in the 288 neighborhood. Her main concern with chickens in residential areas is that they would attract more 289 wild animals. 290 291 Ms. Mary Paquette returned and asked if the commission decided to not move forward at this time 292 with the code amendment, if there would be a way for them to obtain a variance until the time that 293 the City Council would have a chance to hear this so they would not have to dispose of their pets. 294 Planner Wall replied that there were two separate issues under consideration; one being the code 295 enforcement issue that the Commission is not charged with dealing with or deciding at this time. 296 However, if the ultimate decision by the Council were to maintain the code as it currently stands, 297 staff would work with the applicant on a reasonable timeline to accommodate the removal. 298 299 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 300 301 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 302 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 303 304 AYES: 5 305 NAYS: 0 306 ABSENT: 1 307 308 Commissioners had discussion and comments regarding their desire to see this policy issue come 309 before the Council, especially in light of the fact that the larger urban cities that surround Mendota 310 Heights do allow the keeping of chickens as pets. 311 312 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 313 RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 314 CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 315 FINDINGS OF FACT: 316 1. Keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City. 317 2. The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent 318 nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. 319 320 Commissioner Roston asked if the Commission was going to send their recommendation to the 321 Council with the first Finding of Fact as listed above. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 322 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS AMENDED HIS MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER 323 ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO 324 ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON THE 325 FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT: 326 1. The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent 327 nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. 328 329 AYES: 5 330 NAYS: 0 331 ABSENT: 1 332 333 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, 334 THAT IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE 335 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AND EXPLORE THE IDEA OF ALLOWING A CODE 336 AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND 337 ADVISE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THEIR DECISION. 338 339 Commissioner Viksnins wanted it to be known to the City Council that there is a division of 340 opinions by the Planning Commission on allowing chickens to be kept as pets in the City of 341 Mendota Heights. 342 343 Chair Fields recommended the motion be amended to include, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE 344 COMMISSION IS DIVIDED ON THEIR OPINION OF WHETHER CHICKENS SHOULD BE 345 ALLOWED TO BE KEPT AS PETS. 346 347 Planner Wall suggested, in simplifying the original motion, SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER 348 AMENDING THE CODE TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 349 350 Commissioner Viksnins reiterated that he wanted it to be clear to the City Council that he would 351 not be in support of amending the code to allow the keeping of chickens as pets, just as he was not 352 in favor of allowing the raising of pigeons. However, he does feel that it would be appropriate for 353 the City Council to consider the issue. 354 355 Commissioner Magnuson recommended that the motion be phrased as a statement rather than a 356 question. 357 358 Chair Field recommended the following: 359 360 THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONFLICTED ON THE ISSUE OF KEEPING 361 CHICKENS AS PETS WITHIN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND WOULD LIKE 362 THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE INDICATION OF WHETHER THEY BELIEVE 363 CHICKENS SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AS PETS. 364 365 Commissioner Magnuson withdrew her motion from the table. 366 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 367 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, AS 368 THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONFLICTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION 369 RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE A POLICY DETERMINATION ON 370 WHETHER OR NOT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE 371 TO PERMIT CHICKENS AS A DOMESTIC ANIMAL IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 372 373 AYES: 5 374 NAYS: 0 375 ABSENT: 1 376 377 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this motion at its December 2, 2014 meeting. 378 379 Verbal Review 380 381 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 382 383 PLANNING CASE #2014-30 384 GreenWood Design Build, LLC, 750 Hilltop Road 385 Front Yard Setback Variance 386 • The Planning Commission made a recommendation to table this application. The 387 application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. Staff did receive a building 388 permit to construct the single family dwelling within the setbacks, as displayed during the 389 discussion on case. 390 391 PLANNING CASE #2014-22 392 City of Mendota Heights, Proposed Code Amendments 393 • Approved by City Council and adopted as ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN ORDINANCE 394 AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-1L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE OF 395 THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, 396 CONCERNING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS with some minor wording changes to one 397 of the proposed code amendments. 398 399 Discussion occurred concerning the reasons for the withdrawal of PLANNING CASE 2014-31. 400 401 Staff Announcements 402 403 • Tentative schedule for filling the vacant seat on the Planning Commission; 404 o December 29 - Letter of Interest and a Resume must be submitted to the Assistant 405 City Administrator, Tamara Schutta. She can be reached with questions at 651-452- 406 1850 407 o Council to review the applications and have interviews on January 20 408 o The first meeting of the new Planning Commission member would be February 24 409 • City Administrator Justin Miller has accepted a position as the City Administrator in the 410 City of Lakeville: 411 o Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta will serve as the Interim City 412 Administrator until a new City Administrator is hired November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 413 o The job has been posted 414 o A personnel committee has been put together to review applications 415 416 Adjournment 417 418 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 419 ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. 420 421 AYES:5 422 NAYS: 0 423 ABSENT: 1 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 page 13 5d. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of Police Tamara Schutta, Assistant to the City Administrator/HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Personnel Action Items Item 1: Sergeant Promotion The promotion process started with the review and approval of the job description. Then in March, the City Council authorized staff to create list for promotion for sergeants. Interested Police Officers were asked to submit a letter of interest, resume and answer four essay questions. Martin-McAllister Consulting Psychologist, Inc. conductedan in-basket test, a role play exercise and a leadership assessment for the six Sergeant candidates. The process also included two interview panels.The first interview panel consisted of three police supervisors from outside agencies. The second interview panel consisted a council member and two community members. A final interview was conducted by Police Chief Aschenbrener and City Administrator Justin Miller. All phases of the process were scored on weighted basis. Each candidate has some great things to offer the city. However, there are only two positions available at present and one position available next year. Six officers that applied for the Sergeant promotion were Peyton Fleming, Bobby Lambert, Steve Meyer,Tanner Spicer, Jeffory Von Feldt and Chad Willson. Based on the promotional process the top three in order are Tanner Spicer, Peyton Fleming, and Bobby Lambert. The complete promotional list, which is on file with Human Resources, will remain active for 18 months. Staff is recommending the Mayor and City Council approve the Sergeant Promotional list effective December 2, 2014 through May 2, 2016.Officer Tanner Spicer and Officer Peyton Flemingwill be presented for promotion to the position of Sergeant for swearing ceremony at the December 16, 2014 Council meeting. Wages will be set in accordance with the 2014 – 2015 MNPEA Labor Agreement. BUDGET IMPACT As noted above. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approves the action requested above for item 1. page 14 5e. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Vacation of Part of Partition Road Right-of-Way BACKGROUND A Mendota Heights residentthat lives on Spring Street has requested the vacation of a portion of Partition Road, an undeveloped City right-of-way, in the Kirchner Addition plat. He has submitted his petition with the required amount of signatures consisting of a majority of the abutting property owners. The Kirchner Addition plat was signed and recorded in 1944. Staff has researched the undeveloped, platted,half-street right-of-way that exists east of Ivy Hill Drive, southeast of Spring Street and northwest of Dodd Road. This half-street right-of-way runs between Butler Avenue and Dodd Road. The portion proposed to be vacated is 30-feet wide and is currently utilized by tworesidents as part of their respective yards. The part proposed for vacation is the northeasterly 30 feet of right-of-way identified as Partition Road, part of the Kirchner Addition Plat, between Spring Street and Dodd Road. The City has no utilities located within the right-of-way proposed for vacation. In order for theCity to vacate a right-of-way, a public hearing must be conducted. At the st October 21 City Council meeting, Council passed Resolution 2014-70 calling for a Public Hearing on the right-of-way vacation for November 18, 2014. The Public Hearing was held and closed on that date. Council tabled the agenda item to provide the applicant with an opportunity to work out issues of concern with the neighboring townhome association. The applicant and the ndrd neighbor met over the weekend on November 22& 23, and it is apparent they cannot arrive at a solution that is acceptable to the applicant. The applicant has requested the petition to vacate the right-of-way in question be decided upon at tonight’s meeting. The adjoining townhome association is part of a different plat (Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hill), which was platted in 1965. When a right-of-way is vacated, the property reverts to the adjacent property owners of the plat that originally dedicated the right-of-way. The 30-foot half-street right-of-way known as Partition Road was platted in its entirety by the Kirchner Addition plat; therefore, no part of the right-of-way proposed for vacation would revert to owners within the Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hill plat. All property owners directly abutting the right-of-way in question, as well as all property owners that are part of the Kirchner Addition platwere notified of the public hearing by mailed notice, page 15 and notice of the Public Hearing was published for the required period of time in accordance with State rules. BUDGET IMPACT Other than the staff time to process the vacation, there is no impact to the city budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council vacate the portion of the Partition Road Right-of- Resolution No. 2014-73RESOLUTION VACATNG A Way by passinga motion adopting , (PORTION OF) STREET UPON A PETITION OF A MAJORITY OF ABUTTING LANDOWNERS. This action would require a simple majority vote. page 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-73 RESOLUTION VACATNG A (PORTION OF) STREET UPON A PETITION OF A MAJORITY OF ABUTTING LANDOWNERS WHEREAS , a petition signed by the majority of property owners abutting Partition th Road (a portion thereof) in Mendota Heights was received by the City clerk on the 16day of October 2014; and WHEREAS , the petition requested by the City Council pursuant to Minnesota Statute §412.851 to vacate Partition Road (a portion thereof) between Spring Street and Dodd Road legally described as: The northeasterly 30 feet of right-of-way identified as Partition Road, part of the Kirchner Addition plat, between Spring Street and Dodd Road. WHEREAS , the City Clerk has reviewed and examined the signatures on said petition and determined that such signatures constituted a majority of the landowners abutting upon the portion of street to be vacated; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the right-of-way for current and future potential uses by the City and determined that there are no current uses and no apparent future uses of the right-of-way by the City; and th WHEREAS , a public hearing to consider the vacation of such street was held on the 18 day of November, 2014, before the City Council in the City Hall located at 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 pm after due published and posted notice had been given, as well as personal mailed th notice to all affected property owners by the City Clerk on the 18 day of November, 2014 and all interested and affected persons were given proper notice and an opportunity to voice their concerns and be heard; and WHEREAS, any person, corporation or public body owning or controlling easements contained upon the property vacated, reserves the right to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace or otherwise attend thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council in its discretion has determined that the vacation will benefit the public interest because it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, that such petition for vacation is hereby granted and the (portion of) street described as follows is hereby vacated: page 17 The northeasterly 30 feet of right-of-way identified as Partition Road, part of the Kirchner Addition plat, between Spring Street and Dodd Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign all documents necessary to effectuate the intent of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this18th day of November, 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS BY ________________________________ ATTEST Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor BY _________________________ orri Smith, City Clerk L page 18 5f. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: Resolution 2014-:Formally AcknowledgingReceipt of Gift of$1,000 fromWayzata Lions Club and $3,450 from Dakota County Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MAAD) Impact Panel BACKGROUND The city auditor has advised that Minnesota State Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities” requires all donations be acknowledged by resolution. This memo meets Minnesota State Statutory requirements. The Wayzata Lions Club sent a check for $1,000 to the City of Mendota Heights to be used as the department deems appropriate in the name of Officer Scott Patrick. I will ensure the as the memorial committee starts to work toward a more permanent police officer memorial this money is included in that process. Last week I received a phone call from Sue Kirk the head of the Dakota County MADD Impact Panel program. Sue is a MADD volunteer and donates all money received from the panel is donated back to the law enforcement agencies in Dakota County. This year we received $3,450 which was used to replace all the Preliminary Breath Testing units in the marked squad cars. Thank you letters will be sent to the Wayzata Lions and the MADD Impact Panelafter the resolution has been passed. RECOMMENDATION ResolutionNo. IfCouncildesiresto implement therecommendation, pass amotion adopting 2014-: “FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OFGIFTOF$1,000FROM WAYZATA LIONS CLUB AND $3,450FROM DAKOTA COUNTYMOTHERS AGAINST DRUNKDRIVING (MAAD) IMPACT PANEL.” page 19 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2014-80 FORMAL LY ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF GIFT OF $1,000 FROM WAYZATA LIONS CLUB AND $3,450 FROM DAKOTA COUNTY MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MAAD) IMPACT PANEL WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW TH EREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED thatthe City Councilof the City of Mendota Heights accepts the donation $1,000 from the Wayzata Lions Club and $3,450 from the Dakota County MADD Impact Panel Adopted by the City Council of theCity of Mendota Heights this 2ndday of December 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk 5g. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: MayorandCity Council, City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Massage Therapist License for Renae Weatherson INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code 3-6-2: No person shall provide massage services without first obtaining a license issued by the city. Each individual who provides massage must obtain an individual license. DISCUSSION Renae Weatherson, 1047 Hummingbird Lane, Eagan, MN, and working at Bellacu Health Center, has submitted the required application, license fee and investigation feefor a massage therapist license required per City Code. The Mendota Heights Police Department has successfully completed the background investigation and approves of the issuance of the license. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends the approval of a Massage Therapist license for Renae Weatherson, 1047 Hummingbird Lane, Eagan, MN, to be working at Bellacu Health Center for the period of December 3, 2014 through June 30, 2015. page 21 5h. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek P.E., Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Asset Management System BACKGROUND Mendota Heights currently maintains approximately 72 centerline miles of streets, 75 miles of sanitary sewer, 40miles of storm sewer as well as a fleet of vehicles and man power. Currently these assets are managed through different databases or have been lacking proper data tracking. An Asset Management System would allow the cityto manage its assets in a sustainable manner while delivering the community’s required level of service. Mendota Heights Engineering Department budgeted $50,000 in 2014 and $10,000 in 2015 for the purchase and implementation of an Asset Management System. Staff has met with several vendors over the past couple years and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in September of 2014. The RFP was sent to six vendors with three submitting quotes for the work. VendorSoftwareRenewalPavement Sign Cost Cost AssessmentInventory GoodPointe - St Paul, MN $37,995 $10,000 $14,000 $28,000 BeeHive – Lincoln, NE $15,138 $15,138 Not Provided Not Provided Cartegraph –Dubuque, IA $52,300 $16,000 $22,518 $22,110 Staff is recommending purchasingthe software program from Goodpointe Technology and is also recommending GoodPointe to renew the pavement assessment of all city streets. BUDGET IMPACT The budgeted amount of $60,000 for the implementation of the Asset Management System would allow the city to purchase in implement the program, acquire mobile work systems for field staff and reassess the street pavement condition city-wide. This would be funded through the Engineering Fund, not the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue a purchase order to Goodpointe Technology for $51,995 to acquire and implement the Asset Management System and assess pavement condition of city streets, by a simple majority vote. page 22 5i. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit at 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive BACKGROUND The applicantis seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to the existing facility at 1850 Eagle Ridge Drivein order to increase the data and call capacity in the service area. The existing T-Mobile wireless antenna and accessory structures were approved by conditional use permit in 2006, as part of Planning Case 2006-33. The proposed improvements will not increase the height of the existing antenna structure and no exterior modifications will be made to the existing fenced-in accessory structure. The applicant will comply with all applicable provisions for such a request, in compliance with Title 12-1D-4 of the Code. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 25meeting.Aproperty owner in the condo building had questions regarding the building permit and inspection procedures. Staff informed them of the building permit process and directed them to the Building Official for more information. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommendedapprovalof the conditional use permit,with conditions, as describedin Planning Case 2014-33.If the City Council desires to implement therecommendation, pass a motion adoptingRESOLUTION 2014-81 APPROVINGA CONDITONAL USE PERMIT AT1850 EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE. Thismatterrequires a simple majority vote. page 23 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014-81 RESOLUTION APPROVINGA CONDITONAL USE PERMIT AT1850 EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE WHEREAS , T-Mobile, on behalf of the Ridge South Condominium Association has applied for a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades at 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive (EAGLE RIDGE PLAT 2, LOT 1, BLOCK 1) as proposed in Planning Case 2014-33; and WHEREAS , the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on November 25, 2014. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota HeightsCity Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2014-33 ishereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2014-33 is hereby approved with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this secondday of December, 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _____________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 24 DATE: November 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-33 Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades APPLICANT: T-Mobile/Ridge South Condominium Association PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive ZONED/GUIDED: R-3 Multiple Family Residential/HR High Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 5, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to the existing facility at 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive.Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 2.7acresand contains a multi-family residential condominium building (see aerial map). The parcel is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and guided for high density residential development.The existing T-Mobile wireless antenna and accessory structure were approved by conditional use permit in 2006, as part of Planning Case 2006-33. An additional building-mounted wireless antenna facility on the west side of theroof was approved in June, as part of Planning Case 2014-16. ANALYSIS Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code sectionis to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. page 25 3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. 5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades include the following: Three (3) new antennas (1 per sector) Three (3) new RRU’s (1 per sector) One (1) new FBBC Module to existing LTE FSMF Module at the base station The Code section also contains the followingspecific evaluation criteria for a conditional use permit application. Wireless Antenna Facility Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: C. Building Mounted Antennas: 1.Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools, businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or townhome dwellings. The existing location is on top of a three-story multi-family residential dwelling structure. 2.Flush Mounting; Color: a.Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness. Not applicable, the existing building-mounted wireless antenna structure was approved in 2006. According to the application materials, the subject site contains several tall trees near theantenna location that prohibit the antennas from being flush-mounted. b.In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude more than fifteen feet (15') above the roofline of the building. The upgraded equipment will be compliant with the 15-foot height limit. 3.Agreement To Mount OnCity Property: If both the applicant and the city consent to mounting the antennas on the city's water tower or other municipal building, a developer's agreement may be necessary at the discretion of the city in addition to a conditional use permit. Not applicable. page 26 E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Not applicable. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. The existing wireless antenna structure is painted brown to match the condominium building’s exterior brick. The upgraded equipment will be the same color. b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. Not applicable. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. The existing accessory equipment is located within a fenced area. No changes to the existing screening or fence are included as part of the proposed project. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. No advertising currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by theFCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. No lighting currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. F. Safety: 1. Report Of Compliance: For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. page 27 The applicant has submitted a structural analysis report that may be reviewed by a City-contracted structural engineer, at the applicant’s cost, to verify compliancewith the applicable standards if determined necessary by the Building Official. 2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Fencing: The applicant may be required by the council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. The existing accessory equipment is located within a fenced area. No changes to the fence are included as part of the proposed project. G. Accessory Structures For Antennas: 1.Location And General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Not applicable, no changes to the existing footprint of the accessory structure or fence are included as part of the proposed project. H. Additional Requirements: (responses summarized from the applicant’s letter) 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half 1 (1/) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as 2 estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. The applicant is required to comply with these provisions. 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. page 28 3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. The attached map, submitted as part of the 2006 conditional use permit application,illustrates the available coverage in the area. The proposed project will not expand the coverage area, but will enhance coverageand capacitywithin the current area. 5. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. The applicant is licensed through the FCC to operate within the Minneapolis Major Trading Area (MTA), which includes Mendota Heights, and is required to comply with all safety and non-interference requirements. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the eventthat the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Not applicable. 7.Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. See the attached map submitted as part of the 2006 conditional use permit application. 9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. page 29 The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Not applicable. 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3- 2010) The applicant is required to comply with this provision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the existing structures. The visual changes will relate primarily to the addition of thenew antennas and will be painted to match the existing equipment. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the Staff report. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the finding of fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Code and Comprehensive Plan. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial Site Map 2.Planning Application, including supporting materials. page 30 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Request for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades to an Existing Facility 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. page 31 Planning Case 2014-33 City of 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive Mendota 075 Heights Date: 11/17/2014 SCALE IN FEET 1857 1849 1859 1851 1855 1853 1870 1870 1870 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 Aerometrics GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 City of Mendota Heights Eligible Facilities Request Submitted: 11/03/2014 Local Government Permit Application #: TBD Site Address: 1850 Eagle Ridge, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Additional Requirements (12-1D-14) H. Additional Requirements: 1.Abandoned Structures: a.Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b.Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half (11/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. A bond was submitted with the original CUP in 2006 and will not be required for this application request for modification. 2.Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. 3.Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. 4.Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, page 39 frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. Maps have been provided with the original 2006 CUP application that illustrates the available coverage in the area. 5.Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. Per the 2006 Application and approved CUP submittal, the applicant is licensed through the FCC to operate within the Minneapolis Major Trading Area (MTA), which includes the City of Mendota Heights. As such, the applicant is required to comply with all safety and non-interference requirements by the FCC on all antenna facilities. 6.Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. An EIS is not required as part of this application. 7.Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. page 40 8.Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. As per the original CUP application and submittal package, the two mile radius map has been submitted for this location. 9.Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. All costs associated with this application shall be the responsibility of T-Mobile. T-Mobile has indicated that they will comply with this requirement. 10.Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. This was not a requirement of the original site build. Antennas will be painted to match current antennas. 11.Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010). T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 5j. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Wetlands Permit at 2361 Field Stone Court & 580 Watersedge Terrace BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit toconstruct a fence at 2361 Field Stone Court. The proposed structureis within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource-related area and does not meet the conditionsfor an administrative approval. The applicant intends to construct a 48-inch, black vinyl chain-link fence along the property boundary lines of therear yard. A portion of the proposed fence would connect into an existing fence located on the neighboring property at 580 WatersedgeTerrace, which has been agreed-upon by both parties and received a wetlands permit for construction in 2011, as part of Planning Case 2011-16. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 25 meeting. A neighboring property owner had questions regarding the need for,design,and locationof theproposed fence.The Commission clarified the purpose of a wetlands permitand advised them that need and design were not considered as part of the request. The applicant responded that the purpose of thefence was to contain a dog and child within the rear yard. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetlands permit,with conditions, as describedin Planning Case 2014-34.If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2014-82 APPROVINGA WETLANDS PERMIT AT2361 FIELD STONE COURT AND 580WATERSEDGE TERRACE. Thismatterrequires a simple majority vote. page 58 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014-82 RESOLUTION APPROVINGA WETLANDS PERMIT AT 2361 FIELD STONE COURT AND 580WATERSEDGE TERRACE WHEREAS ,Glenn Petersenhasapplied for a wetlands permit to install a fence at 2361 Field Stone Court and 580 Watersedge Terracewithin a wetlands or water resource-related area (PID# 27-18302-04-050 and 27-18302-04-040) as proposed in Planning Case 2014-34; and WHEREAS , the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on November 25, 2014. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the wetlands permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2014-34 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1.The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2.No existing vegetation within the wetland/water resource-related buffer area will be removed. 3.Soil disturbance in the buffer area will be limited to post-digging, and no part of the wetland/ water resource-related area will be disturbed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the wetlands permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2014-34 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1.A building permit is obtained prior to construction of the proposed fence. 2.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain naturally vegetated. 3.Construction shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this secondday of December, 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _____________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 59 DATE: November 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-34 Wetlands Permit Application APPLICANT: Glenn Petersen PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2361 Field Stone Court/580 WatersedgeTerrace ZONED/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 11, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct a fence in the rear yard of the subject parcel.The proposed structureis within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area and does not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. Title 12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure within the 100-foot wetland or water resource-related buffer area. BACKGROUND The subject parcel at 2361 Field Stone Court is 0.56 acres(24,578 square feet) and contains an existing single-familydwellingabutting a pondin the rear yard. In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. The applicant intends to construct a 48-inch, black vinyl chain-link fence along the property boundary lines of therear yard. A portion of the proposed fence would connect into an existing fence located on the neighboring property at 580 WatersedgeTerrace, which has been agreed-upon by both parties and received a wetlands permitfor constructionin 2011,as part of Planning Case 2011-16. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to construct a fence on the property is consistent with the continued use as a single-family residential dwelling. Wetlands Permit The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1): Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; page 60 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. The proposed fence will follow the rear yard property boundary lines and be near a portion of the normal high water mark of the adjacent pondwithin the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area. The proposed project would not remove any existing vegetationor cause soil disturbance within the buffer area, besides digging for the fence posts. The City typically recommends the non-disturb bufferareafrom the normal high water mark of wetlands/waterresource-related areas to ensure appropriatevegetativebuffers areas are maintained. In this case, there is little to no existing vegetative buffer to be disturbed. The Engineering Department has reviewed the request and determined the proposed fence is acceptable due to no change in the existing vegetative cover and limited soil disturbance withinthe 25-foot non-disturb area. If approved, and dependent on the weather conditions, the fence wouldbe installed immediately after obtaining a building permit. Additional requirements regarding residential fences, contained in Title 12- 1D-6 of the Code, will be reviewed as part of the building permit application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit with the following conditions: 1.A building permit is obtained prior to construction of the proposed fence. 2.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain naturally vegetated. 3.Construction shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the Wetlands Permit for construction of a fencewithin the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the Wetlands Permit for construction of a fence within the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on a findingthat the proposed projectwill have negative impacts on the water resource-related area and is therefore inconsistent with the Wetland Systems Chapter of the City Code. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Site Map 2.Planning Applications page 61 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Wetlands Permit for Fence 2361 Field Stone Court/580 Watersedge Terrace The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2.No existing vegetation within the wetland/water resource-related bufferarea will be removed. 3.Soil disturbancein the buffer area will be limited to post-digging, and no part of the wetland/ water resource-related area will be disturbed. page 62 Planning Case 2014-34 City of 2361 Field Stone Court Mendota 580 Watersedge Terrace 040 Heights Date: 11/13/2014 SCALE IN FEET 2355 2362 LEGEND 100' Wetland Buffer 25' Non-disturb Buffer 2366 580 Connection to existing fence 2361 584 2363 Proposed Fence 590 580 584 2361 590 2363 Aerometrics GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 63 page 64 page 65 From:Dan Larsen To:Nolan Wall;Dan Larsen Subject:Wetlands Permit Request Glen Petersen Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:21:34 AM Hello Nolan, Please consider approval for a wetlands permit to install a new 48 inch high black chain link fence at 2361 Fieldstone Court. The proposed fence is a maintenance-free, heavymill vinyl clad chain link system to be installed in the rear yard only. It will follow property boundaries, connect to one neighbor's existing fence at 580 Watersedge Terrace, and the homeowner (purchaser) has verbal and written permission from both adjacent neighbors to proceed with this project. The proposed layout will not require removal of bushes, trees or any other vegetation. The homeowner (purchaser) wishes to have this project completed as soon as possible. If the permit is approved, the project can be started immediately pending weather conditions. I am available to discuss this project and also attend a Planning Commission meeting and/or Council meeting. -- Thanks for your consideration, Dan Larsen Midwest Fence Residential Sales Supervisor (please include your name if texting) 651-214-7022 cell 651-451-2222 office page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 5k. page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75 page 76 page 77 page 78 page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 5l. Madetzke & Gust Plumbing, Inc United Operations, Inc Aerotek Heating, Cooling & Duct Cleaning Ridler Heating & Cooling, Inc dba Uptown Heating & Cool Monday, November 24, 2014Page 1 of 1 page 83 7a. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Wine &3.2% Malt Liquor Licenses for King & I Thai LLC BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for this evening to receive public comment regarding the issuance of aWine and On Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor license. TheCity has received an application from Leonard DeMuth,owner of King & I Thai LLC.This is a new restaurant locating at 760Highway 110, in Mendota Plaza. The applicant has submitted a complete license application packet and paid the required license and investigation fees. The Mendota Heights Police Department has completed a thorough investigation of the applicant and has found no issues or concerns. The applicant has provided a Certificate of Liquor Liability Insurance. The liquor bond required by the City Code in the amount of $5,000 is still pending. Per City Code, all new liquor license applications shall not be approved before the next regular City th Council meeting following the public hearing. If approvedat the December 16Council meeting, the 3.2% Malt Liquor license would be effective December 17, 2014 and would be good through June 30, 2015. The Wine License would be forwarded to the Stateof MN Liquor Control for their final approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council hold the public hearing, consider comments from the public, and close the public hearing. Official action on the license would then take place at the next City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 16, 2014. page 84 7b. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2015Final Budget and Tax Levy BACKGROUND On September 16, 2014 council adopted resolution 2014-56 approving the preliminary tax levy for the year 2015. The preliminary levy of $6,999,974was certified toDakota County in September 2014.There have been no changes to the amount to be levied.The budget and revenue summary, tax levy summary and general fund revenue and expenditure sheets have been included in your packet. The entire budget document is available for review on the city’s website. The city will accept public comments regarding the final budget and levy for 2015 at tonight’s meeting.Attached are the slides that I will be presenting. The 2015tax rate, levy and budgetwill be reviewed at that time. At this hearing, residents are free to address the council regarding their questions or concerns with the 2015levyor budget. I have received one phone call inquiring about the increase in the budget/levy for 2015. There have been a couple of phone calls from residents with concerns on valuation. They were directed to the assessor’s office at Dakota County. Here is a comparison of the levies from 2014 and 2015. Levy Comparison 2014 Levy 2015 Proposed 2015 Final General Fund $5,454,959 $5,711,992 $5,711,992 Emergency Preparedness 25,000 25,000 25,000 Fire Relief 68,000 90,000 90,000 Infrastructure/Facility Reserve 20,000 20,000 20,000 Equipment Reserve 20,000 20,000 20,000 Legal & Contingency 40,000 40,000 40,000 Improvement Bonds 621,689 737,029 737,029 Equipment Certificates 56,364 55,066 55,066 Market Value Referendum 264,737 267,887 267,887 Street Light District 33,000 33,000 33,000 Total Levy $6,603,749 $6,999,974 $6,999,974 page 85 BUDGET IMPACT The final levy proposed is $396,225 greater than 2014. This represents a 6.00% increase from last year. The 2015 final budget for all funds is $12,301,156. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council accept public comments on the 2015 levy and budget. After the hearing has been conducted, adopt the attached resolution approving the final 2015 levy and budget. page 86 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2014-79 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2014 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2015AND ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2015 WHEREAS , the city has previously adopted a preliminary tax levy in resolution 2014-56; and WHEREAS , the citywill accept public comments on December 2, 2014 on the proposed budget and tax levy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the city council adopts the following levy for tax against all taxable property in the City of Mendota Heights for collection in the year 2015. 2015Final General Fund $ 5,711,992 Emergency Preparedness $ 25,000 Fire Relief $ 90,000 Infrastructure/Facility Reserve $ 20,000 Equipment Reserve $ 20,000 Legal & Contingency $ 40,000 General Levy$ 5,906,992 Special Debt Levies Improvement Bonds $ 737,029 Equipment Certificates $ 55,066 Total Special Levy$ 792,095 Market Value Referendum Levy $ 267,887 Street Light District Levy $ 33,000 Net Certified Levy $ 6,999,974 page 87 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the budget as proposed is deemed to be practical and reasonable to maintain the city operations and is hereby approved. The 2015 budget reflects $12,301,156 of expenses for all funds. The 5 year capital improvement plan is presented as part of the 2015 final budget document. The clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of December, 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 88 2015 levy is $6,999,974 which represents a 6.00% increase over last year’s levy of $6,603,749 2015 budget for all funds totals $12,301,156 The taxable market value for 2015 is $1,739,147,028 -this is an increase of 5.00% from 2014 2015 proposed city tax rate is 34.948 compared to the 2014 tax rate of 34.737 page 89 Average residential home value increased approximately 5.15% from 2014 $475,500 home value in 2014 paid $1,726 in city taxes That same home in 2015 would have a value of $500,000 and pay approximately $1,823 in city taxes This example shows an increase of approximately 5.62% in the city’s portion of their property taxes $318,300 -median home value in Mendota Heights in 2015 page 90 page 91 Department2014 Final2015 ProposedPercent Police$3,136,670$3,345,1836.65% Admin/Elections$946,459$997,7145.42% Parks/Recreation$755,822$808,0956.92% Streets$944,644$981,2323.87% Fire$442,048$474,6157.37% Code Enforcement$168,250$133,050-20.92% IT$154,165$138,437-10.20% Planning/Recycling/$168,527$180,3977.04% Council/Other TOTALS:$6,716,585$7,058,7235.09% page 92 page 93 2014 Final2015 ProposedPercent Tax Levy $5,454,959$5,711,9924.71% License & Permits $213,600$269,85026.33% Fines $74,500$72,500-2.68% Charges for Srvcs. $451,956$483,8117.05% Intergovernmental $372,070$381,0702.42% Misc. & Other $149,500$139,500-6.69% TOTALS: $6,716,585$7,058,7235.09% page 94 page 95 2014 Final2015 ProposedPercent General Fund$5,454,959$5,711,9924.71% Legal & Cont.$40,000$40,0000.00% Emergency Prep$25,000$25,0000.00% Fire Relief$68,000$90,00032.35% Infrastructure $20,000$20,0000.00% Equip Reserve$20,000$20,0000.00% Special Levies$678,053$792,09516.82% Referendum$264,737$267,8871.19% Street Light Dist$33,000$33,0000.00% Gross Levy$6,603,749$6,999,9746.00% page 96 $65,212 contribution to West St. Paul for ice arena improvements Increase of $500 per firefighter for annual city contribution to pension Mid year increase to 4 police sergeants Mid year hiring of additional patrol officer page 97 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2015 BUDGET BUDGET AND REVENUE SUMMARY BUDGET2013 ACTUAL2014 BUDGET2015 BUDGET GENERAL FUND$6,811,232$6,716,585$7,058,7235.09% GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY$65,872$40,000$40,0000.00% ENGINEERING FUND$576,725$666,830$666,067-0.11% UTILITY FUND$1,524,143$1,717,564$1,869,5368.85% STORM WATER UTILITY FUND$156,861$501,527$483,700-3.55% PAR THREE FUND$159,820$166,634$159,691-4.17% BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND$4,487$10,725$10,075-6.06% CITY HALL FUND$218,172$304,708$323,5576.19% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND$10,465$34,884$38,0509.08% FACILITY/INFRASTUCTURERESERVE FUND$47,013$0$00.00% FIRE RELIEF FUND$157,082$140,000$178,00027.14% SPECIAL PARK FUND$86,904$3,125$55,1251664.00% WATER REVENUE FUND$263,830$305,600$305,6500.02% DEBT FUND$942,790$942,790$1,059,98212.43% EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND$20,000$20,000$20,0000.00% STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE FUND$24,542$33,000$33,0000.00% TOTAL BUDGET$11,069,936$11,603,972$12,301,1566.01% REVENUE GENERAL FUND$6,696,604$6,716,585$7,058,7235.09% GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY$40,000$40,000$40,0000.00% ENGINEERING FUND$610,228$679,800$646,300-4.93% UTILITY FUND$1,445,823$1,725,481$1,810,0284.90% STORM WATER UTILITY FUND$557,665$390,481$390,4810.00% PAR THREE FUND$156,148$161,350$161,250-0.06% BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND$868$260$140-46.15% CITY HALL FUND$202,892$205,925$206,6500.35% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND$24,695$25,485$25,5000.06% FACILITY/INFRASTUCTURERESERVE FUND$17,751$21,300$21,3000.00% FIRE RELIEF FUND$157,310$136,000$175,00028.68% SPECIAL PARK FUND-$3,018$1,470$1,5002.04% WATER REVENUE FUND$246,812$254,500$253,750-0.29% DEBT FUND$942,790$942,790$1,059,98212.43% EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND/RESERVES$18,172$20,000$20,0000.00% STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE FUND$42,697$33,000$33,0000.00% TOTAL REVENUE$11,157,436$11,354,427$11,903,6044.84% page 98 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2015 BUDGET TAX LEVY SUMMARY 20142015% CHANGE GENERAL FUND$5,454,959$5,711,9924.71% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS$25,000$25,0000.00% FIRE RELIEF$68,000$90,00032.35% INFRASTRUCTURE/FACILITY RESERVE$20,000$20,0000.00% EQUIPMENT RESERVE$20,000$20,0000.00% LEGAL AND CONTINGENCY$40,000$40,0000.00% GENERAL FUND LEVY$5,627,959$5,906,9924.96% IMPROVEMENT BONDS$621,689$737,02918.55% EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES$56,364$55,066-2.30% TOTAL SPECIAL LEVY$678,053$792,09516.82% MARKET VALUE REFERENDUM LEVY$264,737$267,8871.19% STREETLIGHT TAXING DISTRICT$33,000$33,0000.00% TOTAL TAX LEVY$6,603,749$6,999,9746.00% page 99 GENERAL FUNDFUND 01 DEPARTMENT2013 ACTUAL2014 BUDGET2015 BUDGET% CHANGE CITY COUNCIL$33,275$34,096$33,796-0.88% ADMINISTRATION$808,656$890,452$956,6267.43% ELECTIONS$28,692$56,007$41,088-26.64% IT$131,216$154,165$138,437-10.20% POLICE$2,973,890$3,128,910$3,337,1836.66% FIRE$399,204$442,048$474,6157.37% BUILDING OFFICIAL$158,532$168,250$133,050-20.92% PUBLIC WORKS-STREETS$1,118,419$944,644$981,2323.87% PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS$682,910$711,122$761,3957.07% RECREATION$45,656$44,700$46,7004.47% PLANNING$96,321$111,115$122,23110.00% RECYCLING$25,028$23,316$24,3704.52% ANIMAL CONTROL$5,914$7,760$8,0003.09% TOTAL GENERAL FUND$6,507,712$6,716,585$7,058,7235.09% GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY$65,872$40,000$40,0000.00% page 100 GENERAL FUNDFUND 01 REVENUE SOURCE2013 ACTUAL2014 BUDGET2015 BUDGET% CHANGE TAXES CURRENT TAX LEVY$5,338,124$5,454,959$5,711,9924.71% LICENSES AND PERMITS CIGARETTE LICENSES$1,200$600$6000.00% RUBBISH LICENSES$1,455$1,400$1,4000.00% DOG LICENSES$960$750$8006.67% CONTRACTOR LICENSES$17,450$17,000$17,0000.00% LIQUOR LICENSES$33,850$21,000$21,0000.00% BUILDING PERMITS$270,716$135,000$180,00033.33% HEATING PERMITS$38,313$25,000$30,00020.00% PLUMBING PERMITS$9,048$5,000$7,00040.00% WATER PERMITS$30$50$500.00% RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS$9,341$5,000$6,50030.00% MASSAGE PERMITS$2,238$1,800$2,00011.11% RENTAL LICENSES$4,283$1,000$3,500250.00% TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS$388,885$213,600$269,85026.33% FINES AND FORFEITS COURT FINES$62,250$70,000$68,000-2.86% FALSE ALARMS FINES$2,600$3,500$3,5000.00% DOG IMPOUNDING$402$1,000$1,0000.00% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITS$65,252$74,500$72,500-2.68% CHARGES FOR SERVICES ACCIDENT REPORTS$0$0$00.00% RECREATION PROGRAMS$36,263$29,000$32,00010.34% PARK USE FEES$6,078$7,000$7,0000.00% SOFTBALL LEAGUES$10,758$11,000$11,0000.00% MAPS AND ORDINANCES$0$0$00.00% SURCHARGES($10)$0$00.00% PLANNING FEES$4,805$6,500$6,5000.00% FIRE CONTRACTS$86,040$83,877$101,06720.49% FIRE PERMITS$0$0$00.00% LILYDALE POLICING$212,856$226,545$229,8831.47% MENDOTA POLICING$61,536$65,514$73,86112.74% POLICE SECURITY (OFF DUTY OT)$16,628$18,000$18,0000.00% FIRE CALLS$0$0$00.00% STREET MAINT. CHARGES$1,000$1,000$1,0000.00% ASSESSMENT SEARCHES/SPLITS$15$0$00.00% STREET CHARGES$0$0$00.00% FILING FEES$0$20$0-100.00% LEASE MAINTENANCE CHARGES$3,051$3,500$3,5000.00% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES$439,020$451,956$483,8117.05% page 101 INTERFUND TRANSFERS PROJECT INTEREST TRANSFER$0$0$00.00% PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT$0$0$00.00% TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFER$0$0$00.00% INTERGOVERNMENTAL MSA MAINTENANCE$132,131$128,000$130,0001.56% POLICE STATE AID$123,053$110,000$115,0004.55% SCHOOL RESOURCES OFFICER$99,414$95,000$97,0002.11% FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS$22,614$6,000$6,0000.00% DAKOTA COUNTY GRANT$459$10,000$10,0000.00% PERA AID$9,073$9,070$9,0700.00% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL$386,744$358,070$367,0702.51% MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE SUNDRY REVENUE$49,022$5,000$5,0000.00% GRAVEL TAX$0$0$00.00% DONATIONS$17,220$0$00.00% INTEREST-$70,713$35,000$35,0000.00% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS -$4,470$40,000$40,0000.00% DAKOTA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT$13,800$14,000$14,0000.00% TOTAL DAKOTA COUNTY$13,800$14,000$14,0000.00% OTHER REVENUE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND TRANSFER$109,250$109,500$99,500-9.13% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE$109,250$109,500$99,500-9.13% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE$6,736,604$6,716,585$7,058,7235.09% page 102 20152016201720182019202020212022Not In Plan Streets Victoria Reconstruct$ 1,212,675.00 Kensington Neighborhood Rehabilitation$ 750,000.00 Warrior Drive Rehabilitation$ 350,000.00 Marie Avenue Rehabilitiation 2$ 911,000.00 CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation$ 1,232,000.00 Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation 2$ 620,000.00 Mendota Road Reconstruct$ 1,360,000.00 Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation$ 517,000.00 Friendly Hills Water Main$ 2,170,000.00 Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation$ 1,066,000.00 Brompton/Winston Water Main$ 775,000.00 South Plaza Drive Rehabilitation$ 244,000.00 $ 1,212,675.00$ 970,000.00$ 1,360,000.00$ 911,000.00$ 750,000.00 $ 1,232,000.00$ 761,000.00 $ 1,066,000.00$ 2,945,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Mendota Heights Road Force Main Repair Mendota Heights Road/Northland Lift Station Rehabilitation$ 35,000.00 Ridge Place Sewer Main Reconstruction$ 315,000.00 $ -$ 35,000.00$ - $ 315,000.00$ - Storm Sewer Victoria Reconstruct$ 286,063.00 Highway 13 Storm Drainage Improvements - MnDOT$ 40,000.00 IVC Stream Bank Repair at 110/Dodd$ 80,000.00 Mendota Road Reconstruct$ 208,000.00 $ 326,063.00$ 80,000.00$ 208,000.00$ -$ - Parks/Trails Wentworth Trail Rehabilitation Pilot Knob Trail Rehabilitation Hockey Board Replacement - Marie Park Hockey Board Replacement - Wentworth Park$ 17,000.00 Hockey Board Replacement - Friendly Hills Park$ 17,000.00 Warming House Replacement - Marie Park$ 35,000.00 Warming House Replacement - Friendly Hills Park$ 35,000.00 Warming House Replacement - Wentworth Park$ 35,000.00 Marie Avenue 2 Trail Rehabilitation$ 70,000.00 Mendota Heights 2 Road Trail Rehabilitation$ 73,000.00 Dodd Road Trail - Market Street to Marie Avenue$ 292,000.00 Tennis Court Replacement - Ivy Falls Park $ 70,000.00 Tennis Court Rehabilitation - Marie Park$ 15,000.00 Basketball Court Rehabilitation - Mendakota Park$ 15,000.00 Dodd Road Trail - Mendota Heights Road to I-494$ 200,000.00 $ 414,000.00$ 160,000.00$ 35,000.00$ -$ 235,000.00 Water Victoria Reconstruct$ 294,975.00 Mendota Road Reconstruct$ 38,000.00 Friendly Hills Water Main$ 2,050,000.00 page 103 Brompton/Winston Water Main$ 525,000.00 $ 294,975.00$ -$ 38,000.00$ -$ - City Hall/Facilities Generator Replacement (city hall)$ 60,000.00 Roof Heat Tape Installation (city hall)$ 37,000.00 Alarm System Upgrade (city hall)$ 11,000.00 Replace Boiler & Pumps (city hall)$ 70,000.00 Sidewalk/Concrete Replacement (city hall)$ 60,000.00 Air Handler Replacement (1) (city hall) - per unit (5)$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 Direct Digital Control Upgrade (city hall)$ 30,000.00 Parking Lot Upgrade/Expansion (city hall/police dept)$ 75,000.00 Telephone Network Upgrade (cityhall/police dept)$ 40,000.00 Electrical/Lighting Upgrade (cityhall/police)$ 15,000.00 HVAC System - Vehicle Bay (public works)$ 15,000.00 Salt Storage Facility (Public Works)$ 120,000.00 Fence (Public Works)$ 27,000.00 Training Room HVAC (fire)$ 16,000.00 Carpet/Furniture (fire)$ 10,000.00 Apparatus Room HVAC (fire)$ 20,000.00 Wash Machine (fire)$ 10,000.00 Emergency Generator (fire)$ 45,000.00 $ 67,000.00$ 176,000.00$ 111,000.00$ 180,000.00$ 167,000.00 Equipment Replace Snow Plow (streets)$ 200,000.00 Sewer Camera & Software$ 15,000.00 Network Switch (IT) Drug Task Force Car (police) Track Hoe (streets)$ 120,000.00 Snow Blower (parks)$ 29,000.00 Xmark Mower (parks)$ 15,000.00 Four Wheel Drive Vehicle (engineering)$ 35,000.00 Asset Management System (engineering)$ 10,000.00 Full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (streets)$ 60,000.00 full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (parks)$ 60,000.00 LOGIS Public Safety Assessment (police) Copier (police)$ 9,000.00 Chief's Vehicle (police)$ 34,000.00 Investigator's Vehicle (police)$ 33,000.00 Handguns (police)$ 20,000.00 Radio Replacements (police)$ 50,000.00 Investigator's Vehicle (police)$ 35,500.00 SRO Vehicle (police)$ 36,750.00 Unmarked Squad Replacement (police)$ 35,000.00 Reserve Squad (police)$ 12,000.00 Drug Task Force Car (police)$ 10,000.00 Replace Chief 1 Tahoe (fire)$ 30,000.00 Replace Rescue 10 (fire)$ 350,000.00 page 104 700 GPM Fire Pump (fire)$ 7,000.00 21 Portable Radios (fire)$ 80,000.00 11 Mobile Radios (fire)$ 49,500.00 Ladder 10 Aerial Ladder Repair (fire)$ 10,000.00 Community Sign (fire)$ 25,000.00 Replace Fire Marshall Van (fire)$ 29,000.00 $ 160,000.00$ 116,000.00$ 437,500.00$ 626,250.00$ 60,000.00 $ 2,474,713.00$ 1,537,000.00$ 2,189,500.00$ 2,032,250.00$ 1,212,000.00 page 105 General LevyBond SalesMSAAssessmentsSanitary SewerStorm SewerWaterSpecial ParkCity HallOtherTotals 2015 Victoria Reconstruct$ 621,525.00$ 287,500.00$ 303,650.00$ 286,063.00$ 294,975.00$ 1,793,713.00 Dodd Road Trail - Market Street to Marie Avenue$ 292,000.00$ 292,000.00 Sewer Camera and software (sewer)$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00 Hockey Board Replacement - Wentworth Park (parks)$ 17,000.00$ 17,000.00 Highway 13 Storm Drainage Improvements - MnDOT (stm sewer)$ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 Warming House Replacement - Marie Park (parks)$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00 Tennis Court Replacement - Ivy Falls Park$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00 Snow Blower (parks)$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00 Asset Management System (engineering)$ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Four Wheel Drive Vehicle (engineering)$ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 Copier (police)$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00 Investigator's Vehicle (police)$ 33,000.00$ 33,000.00 Fire Marshall Van Replacement$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00 Roof Heat Tape Installation (city hall)$ 37,000.00$ 37,000.00 Direct Digital HVAC Control (city hall)$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00 $ 100,000.00$ 621,525.00$ 287,500.00$ 303,650.00$ 15,000.00$ 326,063.00$ 294,975.00$ 122,000.00$ 67,000.00$ 337,000.00$ 2,474,713.00$ 2,474,713.00 2016 Warrior Drive Rehabilitation$ 182,000.00$ 168,000.00$ 350,000.00 Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation 2$ 248,000.00$ 148,000.00$ 224,000.00$ 620,000.00 Mendota Heights Road Trail Rehabilitation 2$ 73,000.00$ 73,000.00 Mendota Heights Road/Northland Lift Station Rehabilitation (sewer)$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00 IVC Stream Bank Repair at 110/Dodd$ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Hockey Board Replacement - Friendly Hills Park$ 17,000.00$ 17,000.00 Xmark Mower (parks)$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00 Handguns (police)$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 Chief's Vehicle (police)$ 34,000.00$ 34,000.00 Telephone Network Switch (police)$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00 Training Room HVAC (fire)$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00 Apparatus Room HVAC (fire)$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 Wash Machine (fire)$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00 Replace Chief 1 Tahoe (fire)$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00 Carpet/Furniture (fire)$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00 700 GPM Fire Pump (fire)$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00 Ladder 10 Aerial Ladder Repair (fire)$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00 Air Handler Replacement (city hall) - 1 of 5$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 Generator Replacement (city hall)$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00 $ 212,000.00$ 503,000.00$ 148,000.00$ 392,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 80,000.00$ - $ 17,000.00$ 80,000.00$ - $ 1,467,000.00$ 1,467,000.00 2017 Mendota Road Reconstruct$ 512,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 152,000.00$ 208,000.00$ 38,000.00 $ 1,360,000.00 Warming House Replacement Marie Park$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00 Replace Snow Plow (streets)$ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 Full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (streets)$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00 Reserve Squad (police)$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00 Radio Replacements (police)$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00 Investigator Vehicle (police)$ 35,500.00$ 35,500.00 21 Portable Radios (fire)$ 80,000.00$ 80,000.00 Replace Boiler and Pumps (city hall)$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00 Electrical/Lighting Upgrade (cityhall/police)$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00 Alarm System Upgrade (city hall)$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00 page 106 HVAC System - Vehicle Bay (public works)$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00 $ 452,500.00$ 512,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 152,000.00$ -$ 208,000.00$ 38,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 96,000.00$ - $ 1,943,500.00$ 4,877,500.00 2018 Marie Avenue Rehabilitiation 2$ 490,000.00$ 330,000.00$ 91,000.00$ 911,000.00 Marie Avenue Trail Rehabilitiation 2$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00 Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction$ 315,000.00$ 315,000.00 Track Hoe (streets)$ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 Full-Ton Pickup Truck with Dump Box and Plow (parks)$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00 Drug Task Force Vehicle (police)$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00 SRO Vehicle (police)$ 36,750.00$ 36,750.00 Replace Rescue 10 (fire)$ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 Emergency Generator (fire)$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00 11 Mobile Radios (fire)$ 49,500.00$ 49,500.00 Sidewalk/Concrete Replacement (city hall)$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00 Parking Lot Upgrade/Expansion (City Hall/Police)$ 75,000.00$ 75,000.00 $ 671,250.00$ 560,000.00$ 330,000.00$ 91,000.00$ 315,000.00$ -$ - $ -$ 135,000.00$ - $ 2,102,250.00$ 5,989,250.00 2019 Kensington Estates Neighborhood Rehabilitation$ 375,000.00$ 375,000.00$ 750,000.00 Dodd Road Trail - Mendota Heights Road to I-494$ 200,000.00$ 200,000.00 Warming House Replacement - Friendly Hills Park$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00 Replace Air Handler (city hall) - 2 of 5$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 Salt Storage Facility (Public Works)$ 80,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 120,000.00 Fence (Public Works)$ 18,000.00$ 9,000.00 $ 27,000.00 Unmarked Squad Replacement (police)$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00 Community Sign (fire)$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00 $ 158,000.00$ 375,000.00$ - $ 375,000.00$ 49,000.00$ -$ - $ 35,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 1,212,000.00 2020 CenterPoint/Commerce Rehabiltation$ 670,600.00$ 561,400.00$ 1,232,000.00 $ -$ 670,600.00$ - $ 561,400.00$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 1,232,000.00 2021 Wesley Neighborhood Rehabilitation$ 267,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 517,000.00 South Plaza Drive Rehabilitation$ 131,200.00$ 112,800.00$ 244,000.00 $ -$ 398,200.00$ - $ 362,800.00$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 761,000.00 2022 Sylvandale Neighborhood Rehabilitation$ 593,000.00$ 473,000.00$ 1,066,000.00 $ -$ 593,000.00$ - $ 473,000.00$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 1,066,000.00 Future Year (funding year/source unidentified) streets Friendly Hills Water Main$ 2,170,000.00 Brompton/Winston Water Main$ 775,000.00 parks/trails Tennis Court Rehabiltation - Marie Park$ 15,000.00 Basketball Court Rehabilitation - Mendakota Park$ 15,000.00 water Friendly Hills Water Main$ 2,050,000.00 Brompton/Winston Water Main$ 525,000.00 facilities Air Handler Replacement (city hall) - 3, 4, 5 of 5$ 20,000.00each page 107 8a. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Increases BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights had not raised Sanitary Sewer usage rates since 1994, until the rates were adjusted for the 2010 calendar year. At that time it was presented that the sanitary sewer rates would be looked at on an annual basis and adjusted periodically to account for increases in costs, specifically the charges billed to the City from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) division, for the maintenance and operations of the sewage treatment plants. In addition, the annual costs of maintaining our sanitary sewer system would be reviewed and the annual budget adjusted accordingly. Since 2012, City Staff has developed a five-year Sanitary Sewer Improvement and Maintenance Plan (SSIMP) which projects future costs for the ongoing maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure.Part of this projects incremental rate adjustments (presumed to be increases) to compensate for increases on costs and fees to the utility. st The City’s single family residential bill rate for sanitary sewer is based upon the non-summer (1 quarter) water usage quantity. The current base rate is $60.75 for the first 15,000 gallons of water consumed per quarter. For every 750 gallons used above the 15,000, single family residences are billed an additional $2.15. The commercial rate ranges from $101.45 to $1,248.00 per quarter based on the size of the water meterand are summarized in the tables in this memo. MCES invoices the City based on flow volumes contributed to the metro-wide wastewater treatment system. MCES has given indications that rate increases of 3%-5% per year should be anticipated for several years to come. The following table shows MCES fee rates per 1,000,000 gallons of sanitary sewer flowalong with the annual totals: MCES Sanitary Sewer Rates 2006-2015 (* 12.3% Increase in Charge) MCES RATEMCES TOTALMCES RATEMCES TOTAL YEAR(per million gallons)(per year)YEAR(per million gallons)(per year) 2006$1544.33$782,570.002011$2025.75$921,414.00 2007$1526.60$892,078.002012$1853.62$1,000,920.00 2008$1696.81$864,303.002013$2029.00$991,207.00 2009$1754.30$936,092.002014$2141.55$1,034,516.88 2010$1980.74$895,986.002015$2087.67$1,161,541.00* page 108 MCES flow quantities the City contributes to the system vary greatly from year to year. In the past, Mendota Heights has had a high rate of inflow and infiltration into our sanitary sewer system. This is stormwater runoff that finds its way into the sanitary sewer system through cracks in the sewer pipe, unsealed manholes, roots penetrating the sewer pipe, and basement sump pumps connected to the sanitary sewer, just to name a few. Although inflow and infiltration can never be eliminated, ongoing annual projects to televise, clean, and line the sanitary sewer pipe greatly reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration into the system, thus helping to create a more predictable sanitary sewer flow rate from year to year. Because the City of Mendota Heights does not have a sewage treatment plant, MCES controls approximately 63% of the City’s sewer utility expenses through their sewer rate charge. As a result of the MCES fees increasing, an increase to our sanitary sewer billing rate is necessary. The MCES rate for 2015, although decreased from 2014, represents an increase of 15% in sanitary sewer flow over the 2014 quantity (483M gallons to 557M gallons). This is being attributed to the extremely wet spring we experienced fromMarch – July of 2014. The slightly 12.3% increase to the overall MCES lower rate coupled with the flow increase results in a charge for 2015 .The City has had the benefit of a sanitary sewer utility fund cash balance for the past several years. The annual utility budget had been running in deficit until the rate increase for the year 2010. The proposed rate increase will keep the annual budget out of deficit, and maintain the integrity of the positiveyet reasonablefund balance. City Staff is proposing an increase to the City sanitary sewer utility rate. Staff estimates that the new base rate will need to be raised 5% to $63.80 per quarter. This represents a base rate increase of $3.05 per quarter, ~$1.00 per month, or $12.20 per year.The second tier usage rate, currently set at $2.15 is proposed to increase by the same 5% rate to $2.25. The proposed rate for commercial usage would also increase by 5%. The proposed commercial rates would range from $106.52 to $1310.40 per quarter based on the size of the water meter. Commercial properties utilizing wells for their water source have a separate billing rate schedule. Commercial Sewer Rate With 5% Increases (per Quarter) Minimum Per Meter SizeExisting RateProposed Rate ¾ Inch$101.45$106.52 1 Inch$116.85$122.70 1 ¼ Inch$157.65$165.53 1 ½ Inch$312.00$327.60 2 Inch$624.00$655.20 3 Inch$1248.00$1,310.40 Commercial Well Sewer Rate With 5% Increases (per Quarter) Minimum Per Meter SizeExisting RateProposed Rate 5/8 Inch$209.50$220.00 ¾ Inch$209.50$220.00 1 Inch$284.45$298.67 1 ¼ Inch$357.20$375.06 1 ½ Inch$485.10$509.36 2 Inch$987.85$1,037.24 3 Inch$1975.70$2,074.49 4 Inch$4184.00$4,393.20 6 Inch$9097.85$9,552.75 page 109 In addition to the sanitary sewer bills paid by Mendota Heights’ residents and businesses, there is also a flat-rate storm sewer utility fee applied to all the sewer bills sent out by the City. The storm sewer utility fee is $7.25 per quarter, or $29.00 per year. This fee creates the Storm Sewer Utility Fund, which is utilized for maintenance and upkeep of our storm sewer pipes, catch basins, and pond inlets and outlets. Additionally, this fund has been utilized to provide funding for street reconstruction projects that include the installation of new storm sewers, and has been used occasionally for stream bank erosion projects. Accounting for anticipated revenue into the fund at the current $7.25 per quarter rate, the fund will be able to fund upcoming capital improvement projects. Staff does not anticipate a need for changing the Storm Sewer Utility Fee for 2015, although this fund and fee level is analyzed annually. st Staff is proposing the rate increase be implemented for the 1quarter (January - March) billing th cycle of 2015. Residents and businesses could then be notified with their 4 quarter 2014 bills that will be sent in January 2015. The new rate would then be collected in April of 2015 with the st 1 quarter 2015 billing cycle. The City of Mendota Heights has been monitoring the financial health of the sanitary sewer utility account since the last rate increase. The increase in charges from MCES is driving the necessity for a City-wide rate increase. By increasing the billed rate 5%, and by adjusting the schedule of capital improvement projects within the forecast, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund remains viable and out of deficit. Even after the proposed 5%sanitary sewer rate increase, the City of Mendota Heights will remain as one of the lowest base sanitary sewer rate in northern Dakota County. A five-year outlook for the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund is provided below: 201420152016201720182019 Beginning Balance 12/31/2013$76,649 Revenue$1,627,306$1,708,671$1,794,105$1,883,810$1,978,001$2,076,901 Depreciation Deposit$145,309$145,309$145,309$145,309$145,309$145,309 Total Revenue$1,772,615$1,853,980$1,939,414$2,029,119$2,123,310$2,222,210 Annual M&O$483,664$493,337 $503,204 $513,268 $523,533 $534,004 MCES Fees$1,034,517 $1,161,514$1,196,359$1,232,250$1,269,218$1,307,294 I/I Surcharge*$0$0$0$0$0$0 Annual Sewer Cleaning$62,000$62,000$62,000$62,000$62,000$62,000 Annual Sewer Lining$110,000$110,000$110,000$110,000$110,000$110,000 Lift Station Rehabilitation$35,000 Trunk Main Rehabilitation$315,000 Sewer Camera & Software$15,000 Salt Storage Facility$40,000 Fence (PW)$9,000 Total Expenses$1,690,181$1,841,851$1,906,563$1,917,518$2,279,751$2,062,298 Fund Balance$159,083$171,212$204,063$315,664$159,223$319,135 * On June 19, 2014, Mendota Heights exceeded ourallowable flow due to the storm that occurred on that day, resulting in a $99,400/year penalty surcharge being assigned. A large part of this exceedance was due to accepting excess flow from West Saint Paulon the day of the storm.Through negotiation with MCES, and due in part to our cleaning, televising, and lining program, MCES has agreed to eliminate our surcharge. BUDGET IMPACT Without additional revenues, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund will eventually deplete itsreserve balances and the City will lose capability and flexibility in maintaining and improving its sanitary sewer infrastructure. page 110 Approximately 600 property owners are on an automatic withdrawal program for their sanitary sewer bill payment. These customers must be notified in writing, and the City will incur a one- time $0.50 per account charge for changing the automatic withdrawal amount. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed sanitary sewer rate increase as outlined above. The proposed increase is required to maintain the revenue stream required in order to fund a self- sustaining utility and to defray water, sewer, and storm sewer related costs. If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES 2014-78, “ st BEGINNING IN THE 1QUARTER OF 2015, ” by a simple majority vote. page 111 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014 - 78 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES st BEGINNING IN THE 1QUARTER OF 2015 WHEREAS , the City of Mendota Heights aspires to have a self-funded sanitary sewer utility for the residents and businesses of the City; and WHEREAS , annual expenditures (including fees paid to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)) have increased over the past several years; and WHEREAS , Sanitary Sewer Utility expenditures (including rates charged by MCES) are anticipated to continue rising over the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS , the City of Mendota Heights has identified the need to raise sanitary sewer rates and storm sewer utility fees for 2015. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HERBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the rate of charge for the use of the Sanitary Sewer Utility shall be set as st follows effective the 1 quarter of 2015(to be billed in April 2015): Residential Base Rate $63.80 Residential Additional Rate per 750 gallons $ 2.25 Commercial Sewer Rate (per Quarter) Minimum Per Meter SizeProposed Rate ¾ Inch$106.52 1 Inch$122.70 1 ¼ Inch$165.53 1 ½ Inch$327.60 2 Inch$655.20 3 Inch$1,310.40 Commercial Well Sewer Rate(per Quarter) Minimum Per Meter SizeProposed Rate 5/8 Inch$220.00 ¾ Inch$220.00 1 Inch$298.67 1 ¼ Inch$375.06 1 ½ Inch$509.36 2 Inch$1,037.24 3 Inch$2,074.49 4 Inch$4,393.20 6 Inch$9,552.75 nd Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2 day of December 2014. page 112 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By:______________________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 113 8b. DATE: December 2, 2014 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Denying a City Code Amendment to Allow Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts BACKGROUND The applicants arerequesting an amendment to the City Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts. The application submittalincludes the rationale for their request and proposed code language. The requestwas initiated as aresult of a code enforcement case on the applicants’ property; additional background is included in the staff report.Staff receives regular inquiries regarding the keeping of chickens, and other non-domestic animals, in residential areas. This request presentsan opportunity for the City Council to consider addressing the current prohibition. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the proposed code amendment, but without the specific finding that keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City. The amended findings of fact are included in the attached resolution for consideration. Regarding the proposed use, the Planning Commission passed a motion in favorof the City Council making a policy determination on whether or not toconsideran amendment to the Code to permit chickens in residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the November 25 meeting. The applicant commented on the nature of the complaint regarding the chickens and the benefit they can have as pets. Neighboring property owners expressed theiropinions that the proposed code amendment was adequate and that chickens may attractadditional predators into the area. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commissionrecommendeddenial of the proposed code amendment,as describedin Planning Case 2014-35.If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2014-83 DENYING A PROPOSED CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. If the City Council desires to further consider allowing chickens in residential zoning districts, it is recommended that staff be directed to bring forward a code amendment application. These matters requirea simple majority vote. page 114 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014-83 RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS ,Matthew and Mary Paquettehave applied for an amendment to the City Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts as proposed in Planning Case 2014-35; and WHEREAS , the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on November 25, 2014. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the code amendment request as proposed in Planning Case 2014-35 ishereby denied based on the finding of factthat the proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this secondday of December, 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _____________________________ Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 115 DATE: November 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-35 Code Amendment Application APPLICANT: Matthew and Mary Paquette PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONED/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: January 11, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants arerequesting an amendment to Title 12, Chapter 1 of the City Code(Zoning) to allow chickens in residential zoning districts. BACKGROUND Staff was made aware of the presence of chickens,including a chicken coop/run,at the applicants’ residence located at 1119 Dodd Road and informed them of the applicable regulations. The applicants responded by appealing the City’s interpretation of the Code and requesteda varianceto allow the chickens and the associated structures to remain in their present location on the property. Staff responded by providing additional information onthe City’s policies and informed them of the inability to grant a variance for such a request. Furthermore, it was suggested that a code amendment could be pursued and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. As part of Planning Case 2012-34, the City Council ultimately denied a similar request to allow pigeons in residential zoning districts.Staff receives regular inquiries regarding the keeping of chickens, and other non-domestic animals, in residential areas. This request presentsan opportunity for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider addressing the current prohibition. ANALYSIS Existing Code Regulations The Code contains the following definitions of animals: 12-1B-2: DEFINITIONS: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets. page 116 ANIMALS, FOOD: Fish, fowl, cattle, swine, sheep and others typically raised for purposes of food consumption, with the exception of bees where specifically allowed by the zoning districts. In addition, domestic animals are permitted in all residential zoning districts as follows: 12-1E-3: R-1 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: C. Permitted Accessory Uses: Within the R-1 one-family residential district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Domestic animals, as defined herein, keeping for noncommercial purposes, including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises; provided, that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than one hundred feet (100') from the nearest residence. Based on staff’s interpretation of the existing regulations, chickens are not considered a “domestic animal” and are therefore not permitted as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. While the “domestic” animal definitiondoes include “birds,” it has been interpreted that chickens are more appropriatelydefined as a “food” animal since they are not a common household petin urban residential areasand are typically raised for purposes of food consumption. Proposed Code Amendment According to the applicants,the proposed code amendment is intended to permit chickens on residential properties and would be subject to the following standards, similar to thosefound in example ordinances (as includedin the attached application materials): 1.Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus)may be allowed on residential properties. 2.Only hens (noroosters)are allowed. 3.A maximumoffourhensperlotareallowed. 4.Thechickencoopandrunshallbesetbackat least10 feetfromtherearlotlineand atleast 5 feetfromthesidelotlines.Theymustbeatleast25feetfromthenearesthabitablestructure. 5.Ifthechickensarenotcontainedatalltimestothecoopandrunand allowedtofreelyroam withintheyard,thepropertyshallbeenclosedby a fence. Poultry and FowlOrdinance Survey As part of a code amendment process in consideration of poultry and fowl regulations, the City of Cottage Grove conducted an extensive survey of ordinances in Minnesota. The survey was completed in 2012 and is attached for your review.In summary: 52 communities surveyed 17 communities (33%) allowedpoultry/fowl on urban residential lots 35 communities (67%) prohibited poultry/fowl on urban residential lots Numerous communities are still in the process of evaluating ordinances on the issue. Of those, staff is aware that the cities of Farmington, Shakopee, and Savage now allow chickens on residential lots. page 117 Additional Issues for Consideration The application materials include the applicants’ rationale and potential benefits of keeping chickens on residential properties in the City. As shown in the ordinance survey, regulations regarding chickens vary for each city. Prior to consideration of the request, staff raises the following issues for additional discussion: 1.Use Category and Definition As part of Planning Case 2012-34, the Planning Commission considered amendments creating an interim use permit and to the domestic animal definition to allow pigeons; neither of which were approved. As in Title 12-1E-3(C) of the Code, bees areallowed as an accessory use in residential zoning districts, subject to conditions. The proposed amendment does not contain a definition nor any reference to a specific Code section regarding the use category. 2.Licensingand Inspection Requirements Manycities that allow chickens in residential zones require a license to ensure the applicable standards are met and maintained, subject to inspection. Licenses areeitherissued administratively or through a conditional/interim use permit following a formal public hearing. In some cases, licenses approved administratively require notice and approval from the contiguous property owners. A formal conditional/interim use permit requires notice of a much larger area, but would most likely be difficult to deny if the conditions were met and the surrounding properties were in opposition to the request. It is assumed that cities without licensingrequirements deal with any issues on a complaint basis. Either option requires additional staff time to review,process, and enforce. The proposed code amendment does not contain any licensing or inspection requirements. 3.Chicken Coop and Run Requirements Most cities require an accessory chicken coop and run (see attached images) and do not allow any chickens tobe located in any part of the dwelling and/or garagenor in the front yard. Inaddition, the structures aresubject tosize, setback, and screening standards. The table below compares the existing accessory structure standards and those in the proposed code amendment: StandardExistingProposed 144 sq. ft. (4 acres or less) SizeNone 425 sq. ft. (more than 4 acres) 5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.) Side Yard Setback5 ft. 10 ft. (over 144 sq. ft.) 5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.) Rear Yard Setback10 ft. 10 ft. (over 144sq. ft.) Nearest Residence Setback100 ft. (housing domestic animals)25 ft. Screening NoneNone The proposed code amendment does not contain size or screening standards for chicken coops/runs. 4.Minimum Lot Size Based on the ordinance survey, 13 out of 52 cities hadminimum lot size standards for the keeping of chickens. However, none of those cities allowed chickens on urban residential lots, similar to the R-1 page 118 Zoning District. The existing regulations regarding beekeeping include a 50-acre minimum lot size, in addition to other conditions. The proposed code amendment does not contain a minimum lot size requirement. 5.Other Issues Maximum number of chickens –is the proposed limit (4 hens) adequate? Other animals(goats, ducks, geese, pot-belly pigs, pigeons) –pet vs. means of food production? Waste management/disposal – are additional standards necessary? Disease/Pests –are avian influenza and salmonellosis a concern? Noise – are additional standards beyond prohibiting roosters necessary? Odor – are the proposed setbacks and best management practices adequate? Predators – are hawks, eagles, owls, raccoons, coyotes, fox, dogs, etc. an increased threat? Slaughtering and sale of eggs –should they be expressly prohibited? Neighborhood involvement – should approval from the neighbors be required? Maintenance/design of chicken coops – are additional standards necessary? Feed storage –are additional standards necessary? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed code amendment application raises two questions for consideration: 1.Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts? 2.If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed? Whether or not chickens should be allowed in residential zoning districts is a policy decisionthat should be considered by the City Council, based on a recommendationfrom the Planning Commission. Staff does not have a recommendation on this issue, but, if necessary, is willing to work with the applicants and/or other stakeholders to provide any additional information to the Planning Commission or City Councilon the issue for discussion. Regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the use being requested, staff recommends denial of the proposed code amendment provided by the applicants. As noted, there are many issues that are not addressedin the proposed language that should be researched and discussed further if the City wants to consider allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. If the City Council decides the use should be considered, with specific conditions,then staff could be directed to draft potential code amendments for further review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. page 119 ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends action be taken on the application before the Planning Commission, which is the specific code amendment language included in the request. A separate motion could be madeand discussed regarding further direction to the City Council in consideration of the proposed use. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommend denial of the proposed code amendment, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2.Recommend approval of the proposed code amendment, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Poultry and Fowl Ordinance Survey – completed by the City of Cottage Grove (2012) 2.Chicken Coop/Run images 3.Newspaper articles (01.14.14 Pioneer Press, 07.12.14 and 03.23.13 Star Tribune) 4.Planning Application, including supporting materials page 120 FINDINGS OF FACT FORDENIAL Proposed City Code Amendment Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1.Keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City. 2.The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. page 121 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Proposed City Code Amendment Chickens in Residential ZoningDistricts The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.Keeping of chickens on residential properties provides environmental, economic, and cultural benefits to residents of the City. 2.The proposed conditions allow the use and enable the safe and successful pursuit ofthe benefits of keeping chickens without negatively impacting surrounding properties. page 122 page 123 page 124 page 125 page 126 page 127 page 128 Figure 1: Applicants’ Coop Figure 2: ExampleCoop/Run Source: Google images Source: MHPD (10.13.14) Figure 3: Example Coop/Run Figure 4: Example Coop/Run Source: Google images Source: Google images Figure 5: Example Coop/Run Figure 6: Example Coop/Run Source: Google images Source: Google images page 129 page 130 page 131 StarTribune -Print PagePage 1of 1 page 132 Back yard chicken proposal doesn't fly in Lakeville Article by: Susan Feyder Star Tribune July 12, 2014 - 8:56 PM Lakeville wonÓt be joining the flock. For the second time in three years, the city has rejected a proposed ordinance that would have allowed it to join the growing number of Twin Cities communities permitting back yard chickens. At a City Council meeting last week, Mayor Matt Little appeared to A growing number of Twin Cities communities Ï including be the only supporter of allowing chickens in residential areas. His Minneapolis Ï allow chickens on residential property. Lakeville is not one of them. motion proposing the rule change didnÓt draw a second. KYNDELL HARKNESS ¤ Star Tribune file, The council followed the lead of the planning commission, which last month unanimously recommended the council deny a request for an ordinance change. In 2011 the commission had reviewed and rejected the need for a similar ordinance. The proposal would have allowed no more than two hens, unlike most communities, which typically set the limit at four or five. The rules also would have required coops far larger than those in most communities and required people with chickens to pay $100 a year for a permit. The commission and council members against the idea cited concerns over noise and odors and said chickens should be kept on land zoned for agricultural use. They reasoned that there is no need to allow chickens in residential areas because about 12 percent of the city is still zoned for agriculture. ÐI donÓt think the time is right,Ñ said Council Member Kerrin Swecker. She and others said the need may change in the future as more agricultural land is taken up for development. Planning Director Daryl Morey told the council that city staff also opposed allowing chickens. Calls and e-mails from residents also were against the measure by a narrow margin, Morey added. Little said his feedback Ï including an online poll on his Facebook page Ï suggests widespread support. He also said that the ordinance would simply provide a mechanism for the city to enforce standards for an activity that already is taking place throughout Lakeville. ÐPeople are going to have them anyway,Ñ he said. ÐThere are people not too far from me Ï IÓm not going to say who they are Ï who have them in their front yard. ÐThereÓs a guy with a goose! HeÓs legendary,Ñ Little added. It wasnÓt clear whether the mayor was referring to the owner or the animal. No residents spoke at the council meeting. But several people who were at last monthÓs commission meeting voiced support of the ordinance. In addition to having a source of fresh eggs, some supporters said they wanted to keep chickens so they could teach their children about agriculture. LakevilleÓs rejection of back-yard chickens comes on the heels of ShakopeeÓs recent adoption of an ordinance permitting residents to have up to five hens in their back yards. Like most communities that allow chickens, ShakopeeÓs new ordinance outlines several conditions, including rules on fencing and the size and location of coops and chicken runs. The ordinance prohibits roosters, and chicken owners are not allowed to sell eggs commercially. A growing number of Twin Cities communities Ï including Minneapolis, St. Paul and numerous suburbs Ï allow chickens on residential property. Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Rosemount and West St. Paul are among the communities in Dakota County that permit them. ShakopeeÓs neighbor, Savage, doesnÓt allow back-yard chickens. But its City Council recently discussed the topic, according to City Administrator Barry Stock. He said itÓs likely the council will approve an ordinance in August. Susan Feyder ¤ 952-746-3282 © 2014 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=266897951117201 //4 StarTribune -Print PagePage 1of 1 page 133 Farmington relents, will finally allow backyard chickens Article by: Erin Adler Star Tribune March 23, 2013 - 1:54 PM Thanks to a group of plucky teens, the city of Farmington has decided to put a little bit of the ÐfarmÑ back in its name by allowing residents to raise chickens Ï but the city is still proceeding cautiously. Among the changes to the proposal was a review after a year. All four City Council members who were present voted in favor of joel koyama ¤ jkoyama@startribune.com , the ordinance last week, bringing the cityÓs two-year battle over backyard chickens to a close. Still, there was some disappointment. The original ordinance was amended at the meeting, reducing the number of chickens allowed from six to three and calling for a check-in on how things are going in about a year. ÐWe were hoping for six, because itÓs easier to go with an even number,Ñ said Annabelle Randow, 15, one of the youth involved in 4-H who gave a presentation about backyard chickens to the council in February. The changes were suggested by Council Member Christy Jo Fogarty, who said she had received many negative e-mails from residents who were concerned about allowing chickens in Farmington. ÐThe comment I got a lot was that chickens belong on a farm, not in a neighborÓs back yard,Ñ Fogarty said. In response, Randow said she was Ða little disappointed that so many people called about them being farm animals, because they can be pets, too.Ñ Council Member Douglas Bonar was a part of the Planning Commission that originally considered the chickens in 2011 and has been in favor of it ever since. Though the commission gave a positive recommendation in 2011, the City Council voted against it that summer. Bonar said the concept has been Ðpretty safely vetted over the past two years.Ñ Farmington will join more than a dozen Twin Cities suburbs that already allow chickens on residential property, including Burnsville, Eagan and Rosemount in Dakota County. Tony Wippler, assistant city planner, wrote the updated ordinance, which included several changes from the 2011 version. Most notable was a zoning change that limits chickens to lots larger than 10,000 square feet, in lots zoned Ðlow density residential,Ñ he said. The change was Mayor Todd LarsonÓs suggestion, Wippler said, because he Ðwanted to take baby stepsÑ with the idea. The zoning specifications mean that about 62 percent of FarmingtonÓs residential properties qualify. Most of the smaller lots that donÓt are near downtown, he said. In addition, the ordinance specifies that a public hearing will take place after any resident applies for a permit to keep chickens. Wippler said that the teensÓ presentation to the council in January was really Ðthe only reasonÑ the council was considering the chickens proposal again. Their presentation took an educational approach, touting chickens as part of a move toward a sustainable lifestyle. The students also addressed what they called common myths about keeping chickens. Lerew Kaas, 14, said that these myths include chickens attracting rodents and predators or smelling bad. ÐBut if you clean their cages, they wonÓt be \[smelly\],Ñ Kaas said. Fogarty said that though she wasnÓt generally in favor of the idea, she recognized that Farmington has a large number of agricultural classes at the high school and that Farmington is on the edge of a rural area. She acknowledged residentsÓ persistence with the chickens ordinance after the vote. ÐI know itÓs been a long road and weÓve not made it easy,Ñ she said. Kaas said that although he was pleased the ordinance passed, having three animals isnÓt really conducive to showing chickens at the Dakota County or State Fair, where they must be shown in lots of two. ÐSo now IÓll only be able to show one lot of chickens and one will be left out,Ñ he said. His mother, Nell Kaas, who grew up on a chicken farm, noted that three chickens will produce only about three eggs a day, Ðwhich isnÓt really worth it.Ñ But, ÐWeÓll be patient. WeÓll hope theyÓll up \[the number of chickens allowed\] next year,Ñ she said. Though it remains to be seen how many Farmington residents will actually be interested in raising chickens and apply for permits Ï the city of Eagan approved backyard chickens last October but has issued only one permit so far Ï the handful of teens at the meeting all said they canÓt wait to get started. ÐIÓm going to start building my coop tonight!Ñ said Lerew Kaas. Erin Adler ¤ 952-746-3283 © 2014 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=199693291117201 //4 page 134 page 135 page 136 page 137 page 138 page 139 page 140 page 141 page 142 page 143 page 144 page 145 page 146 page 147 page 148 page 149 page 150