2016-09-06 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 6, 2016 – 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 August 16, 2016 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of August 23, 2016 City Council Workshop Minutes
c. Acknowledge August 23, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes
d. Approve Right-of-Way License Agreement for Visitation Monastery
e. Approval of contract for Mendakota Park Basketball Court Improvements
f. Authorization to Seek Professional Services Contract for the 2017 Rehabilitation Project –
Kensington Neighborhood & Mendota Heights Road
g. Authorization to Seek Professional Services Contract for the Ridge Place Sewer
Reconstruction
h. Approval to Purchase Pagers for Fire Department
i. Authorize the Hire of Tamara Schutta as Temporary Human Resources Manager
j. City Administrator Out of State Travel Request
k. Acknowledgement of Building Activity Report
l. Acknowledgement of July 2016 Fire Synopsis
m. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations
a. Minnesota Vikings Development Update
b. Presentation regarding ISD 197 Operating Levy Referendum
c. Mendota Plaza Development Update
8. Public Hearing -- None
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2016-66, Conditional Use Permit at 2300 Pilot Knob Road, Planning Case
2016-31
b. Resolution 2016-67, Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2500 Lexington Avenue South,
Planning Case 2016-33
c. Ordinance 505, Concerning Alternative Energy Systems, Planning Case 2016-34
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
page 2
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, August 16, 2016
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 following members were present:
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 Povolny moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and
approval. Councilmember Norton moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and
authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items a.) Approve
August 2, 2016 Council Minutes and j.) Resolution 2016-59 Accept Gifts for 5k Race/Parks Celebration.
a. Approve August 2, 2016 City Council Minutes
b. Approve Renewal of Dakota County CDA Programs
c. Approve Hiring of Accounting Clerk
d. Approve Hiring of Police Officer
e. Approve Modifications to Seasonal Employee Hiring Process
f. Approve First Amendment to Developer’s Agreement for Mendota Technology Center PUD
Amendment with United Properties
g. Approve Parks Buildings Roof Replacement
h. Resolution 2016-64, Accepting Grant Funds from Metropolitan Council for Sewer Lining
i. Authorize Purchase of Personal Protective Equipment
page 3
j. Resolution 2016-59, Accept Gifts for 5k Race and Parks Celebration
k. Resolution 2016-65, Accept a Gift of Caribou Coffee
l. Authorize a Continual Fire for Wacipi – Pow Wow at St. Peter’s Church
m. Amendment of Contract with Craig L. Ebeling, Consultant
n. Approve Claims List
o. Approve June Treasurer’s Report
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
A) APPROVE AUGUST 2, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilmember Duggan stated that he recalled the topic of the Mendota Heights City Hall being
designated as the ‘absentee voting’ location included ‘early voting’. City Clerk Lorri Smith replied that
technically it is called ‘absentee voting’. Councilmember Duggan noted that he just wanted to clarify
that ‘absentee voting’ also included ‘early voting’ and that no changes were necessary to that portion of
the minutes.
Referring to Planning Case 2016-16 in the minutes, Councilmember Duggan asked, in the table of
Questions and Responses, if the response for question five was correct. Public Works Director John
Mazzitello replied that what the applicant needed to do, in revision of their Wetland Conservation Act
Permit, was a new delineation. The permit did remain active but they had to update the actual wetland
boundaries as those change over time. The response noted in the minutes is correct.
Referencing Council Comments in the minutes, Councilmember Duggan stated that he believed
Olympian Tom Malchow received a gold medal. The response was that he received a silver and a gold
medal, as noted in the minutes.
Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the August 2, 2016 City Council Minutes as presented.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
J) RESOLUTION 2016-59, ACCEPT GIFTS FOR 5K RACE AND PARKS CELEBRATION
Councilmember Duggan noted that for the past 11 years, the City has had a 5k Walk/Run and it has been
organized by Neil Garlock. He felt it was appropriate to acknowledge the fact that a lot of work goes
into bringing in contributions to make the event successful, and it includes contributors from West St.
Paul, South St. Paul, St. Paul proper, and Eagan. It is important that Mendota Heights acknowledge that
they have the support of the surrounding communities in this effort.
page 4
He also commented that Mr. Garlock’s efforts should be acknowledged in continuing to do this for the
City of Mendota Heights and for Special Olympics. It is an exemplary job that he does and
Councilmember Duggan wished to express his appreciation.
Councilmember Norton noted that this year businesses and residents donated items valued at $14,716.00
and that this year’s total donation to Special Olympics Minnesota will be $10,154.38.
Councilmember Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2016-59, ACCEPT GIFTS FOR 5K RACE
AND PARKS CELEBRATION.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
A) SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICER WESTON RABERGE
Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener introduced newly hired Police Officer Weston Raberge.
Mayor Krebsbach swore in Police Officer Raberge.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) SET SEPTEMBER BUDGET WORKSHOP DATE
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that budget workshops have been set for August 23rd and
August 25th. Because of the recent changes in staff, staff is proposing to keep the Tuesday meeting as
scheduled to specifically discuss the budget and the meeting on Thursday to talk about Engineering and
a department reorganization. Staff is also proposing a third workshop meeting on September 8.
Councilmember Duggan moved to set a budget workshop meeting for September 8 at 5:00 p.m.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 5
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill made the following announcements:
• An open house is scheduled for August 18 at Market Square Park from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. to
provide information about the Trunk Highway 110 improvements, scheduled for 2017.
• Concert series continues on August 17 and for the next two weeks
o Wednesday, August 17 – Kids Dance, face painting, and a petting zoo
o Wednesday, August 24 – The Latin Billies, playing a variety of music
o Wednesday, August 31 – The Percolators, playing a variety of acoustic, rock, and jazz
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petschel noted that residents might hear that there is going to be a change in arrival
operations at the airport. She wanted it made clear that this does not affect Mendota Heights residents.
She also noted that the FAA was to adopt precision navigation on the arrivals at the airport, called
“Flying the Stars.” They are not flying visual any more; they are flying by GPS and radar points. Each
one of the radar points is called a ‘star.’ They line up with a series of dots and set the planes into a
regular pattern surrounding the airport. At a distance, that lines up with the runway. The planes are
going into neutral and they are throttling in; so there is no more step down, which was very noisy and
used a lot of fuel. They are simply gliding in. It’s quieter and burns less fuel. The noise office is going to
try to quantify the fuel savings and the noise mitigation.
Councilmember Petschel noted that she picked up two new brochures; one comes from the MSP Airport
and the other comes from Metropolitan Airports Commission. Anyone who files a noise complaint is
going to receive one of these brochures. Anyone who has general questions about how the airport
operates can refer to these brochures as well. An electronic version is available and staff is going to
work to get that available on the City’s website. Paper copies can be found in the lobby kiosk.
Councilmember Petschel referenced an article in the Pipeline Magazine regarding how pipelines may
not necessarily follow a straight path. In particular the article referred to how trails can be a potential
risk when placing them in the area of a pipeline. She referenced the desire of some to place the Lebanon
Hills Trail through the Friendly Hills Marsh and how this potential trail could be a cause of concern for
the pipeline in that area. This is an ongoing concern of hers.
Councilmember Duggan offered congratulations to John Mazzitello and expressed appreciation for the
work he did in Mendota Heights.
Councilmember Norton wished Councilmember Duggan a Happy Birthday.
Mayor Krebsbach noted the excellent meeting on August 11 with the business owners in the Plaza and
The Village regarding the 2017 Highway 110 project. City Engineer Mazzitello noted that there were
approximately 18 businesses represented. MnDOT and the Dakota Area Chamber of Commerce talked
with them about what to expect when construction on Highway 110 kicks off in June of 2017.
page 6
Mayor Krebsbach also noted that she just returned from a meeting in Louisville and Southern Indiana. It
brings to mind how beautiful our area and City are.
She also expressed well wishes to John Mazzitello and appreciation for his work and significant
accomplishments in Mendota Heights.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Povolny moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
____________________________________
Sandra Krebsbach
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Mayor Povolny called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The following members were present:
Councilmembers Duggan and Petschel. Mayor Krebsbach joined the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Councilmember Norton joined the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
2017 BUDGET DISCUSSION
City Administrator Mark McNeill gave an overview of the base budget projections. The current base
budget includes an increase of $411,586 over 2016 which is due to personnel costs, insurance costs, and
engineering transition costs.
Councilmember Petschel stated the importance of incorporating suggestions from the Financial Summit
into the budget.
Fire Department – Tom Mattaini and John Boland presented a request from the Fire Relief Association
to increase the city contribution to the Relief Association Pension Fund by $500 per firefighter per year
of service. The increase would help with the retention of the firefighters.
Fire Chief John Maczko and Assistant Chief Dave Dreelan discussed with the Council replacement of
the pagers for the firefighters, which have become outdated due to upgrades made by Dakota County
Communications. The request is to replace the pagers in 2016. Staff was directed to bring this request
to a regular Council meeting for approval.
Fire Chief Maczko and Assistant Chief Dreelan asked for direction on improvements to the Fire Station
building. They were directed to bring forward costs to complete the immediate needs of the building,
including fixing the roof and replacing the air exchanger.
Planning – Planner Nolan Wall presented costs associated to complete an update to the Comprehensive
Plan. It is proposed to spread the costs over a three year period, completing phase one this year. Costs
for 2017 were estimated to be $38,000.
Planner Wall presented costs for contracting with a garbage hauler to handle items that are brought to
Clean Up Day. It was suggested that city volunteers could still be available to help out on this day by
controlling traffic, receiving payments, etc.
page 8
Police – Chief of Police Mike Aschenbrener proposed replacement of all handheld police radio units.
The department has been escrowing $15,000 annually in anticipation of this purchase estimated to be
$111,018.75.
Chief Aschenbrener proposed purchasing an investigations squad car at an estimated cost of $41,500.
Also a vehicle for the Captain position was proposed at an estimated cost of $44,500. Police vehicle
#2252 was also proposed to be replaced at an estimated cost of $44,500.
Chief Aschenbrener discussed the purchase of police body cameras at an estimated cost of $45,000.
Staff would look for grant money that may become available in 2017.
Public Works – Administrator McNeill presented a proposal from the Streets Division for the purchase
of a Bobcat Skid-Steer Loader at an estimate cost of $44,000. The current Bobcat is used frequently and
requires constant repairs due to its condition.
Also proposed for the Streets Division is replacement of the 2003 John Deere tractor/backhoe with a
new John Deere tractor with grapple bucket at an estimated cost of $92,000.
For the Parks Maintenance Division, staff recommended the purchase of a John Deere 1585 Terrain Cut
with cab, mower deck, mulching kit with broom. This would replace the 2007 XMark mower and a
2010 Kubota.
It was noted that the Rogers Lake weed control budget is proposed to be increased from $1,500 to
$3,000, to match the homeowners’ contribution.
Fireworks – Administrator McNeill informed the Council that a request was made by Mendakota
Country Club for the city to increase the contribution for the annual fireworks display from $4,000 to
$10,000. This would allow for a longer show. Staff is recommending the contribution be increased to
$7,000. Councilor Norton said that he would contact Mendakota to find out how their share of the costs
are provided.
Information Technology – Administrator McNeill presented requests for improvements for a backup
solution hosted by LOGIS and also LOGIS server hosting. These requests cannot be fulfilled until the
City addresses the bandwidth issue, which would involve extending the Dakota County fiber from the
ISD 197 bus garage to the Public Works building. That could be done with funds from existing 2016
funds.
Human Resources – Administrator McNeill stated that the pay equity report will need to be submitted in
2018, as part of a three year cycle. It is recommended that a job evaluation system redesign be
completed, along with updating of the City’s compensation plan. The cost is estimated to be $15,000.
A request was also made to provide funding for a shared volunteer coordinator position, in conjunction
with the cities of South St. Paul, West St. Paul, and Inver Grove Heights. The cost is estimated to be
$12,000 annually.
City Hall – a proposal was made to replace the generator at City Hall at an estimated cost of $35,000. It
was recommended that the city research a dual fuel generator.
page 9
Administrator McNeill presented a request to replace lighting fixtures within City Hall with an LED
retrofit. It was noted that the current can lighting is no longer being made. The fixtures could also be a
hazard. The cost is estimated to be $15,000.
Par 3 – Councilmembers expressed concern about the appearance of the exterior siding on the Par 3
building. Staff was directed to look into the cause of the discoloration and to clean the siding.
Councilmember Petschel expressed concern over the future funding for the Parks fund. The members
discussed the years remaining on the Par 3 bonds.
Mayor Krebsbach suggested an award named in honor of Jerry Murphy, which would go to an
outstanding volunteer. The consensus of the City Council was that candidates could be from the
community at large, but could also include representatives of the police department. Chief
Aschenbrener would look into it. Councilor Petschel also requested that something be done to recognize
the contributions of the Master Gardeners in Mendota Heights.
OTHER BUSINESS – CONFERENCE REQUEST
Administrator McNeill requested approval for attending the International City/County Management
Association annual conference in Kansas City, Missouri from September 25-28, 2016. He was directed
to bring the request forward to the Council for approval.
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
____________________________________
Sandra Krebsbach
ATTEST: Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2
3
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 4
August 23, 2016 5
6
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 7
23, 2016 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 8
9
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard 10
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. 11
Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Assistant City Engineer 12
Ryan Ruzek. 13
14
Approval of Agenda 15
16
The agenda was approved as submitted. 17
18
Chair Field noted that Planning Case 2016-30 and Planning Case 2016-32, which had been noticed, 19
had been withdrawn and there would be no public hearing. 20
21
Approval of July 26, 2016 Minutes 22
23
Commissioner Magnuson noted a couple of errors in the minutes: 24
• Page 3, Line 100 that reads “. . . staff is then proposing two ordinance for continued 25
discussion.” should read “. . . staff is then proposing two ordinance amendments for 26
continued discussion.” 27
• Page 9, Line 369 that reads “Commissioner Roston replied that he did not feel that the 28
language he suggested would not . . .” should read “Commissioner Roston replied that he 29
did not feel that the language he suggested would not . . .” 30
31
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO TO 32
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2016, AS CORRECTED. 33
34
AYES: 7 35
NAYS: 0 36
37
Hearings 38
39
A) PLANNING CASE #2016-31 40
Jaeger Construction, LLC 41
Conditional Use Permit at 2300 Pilot Knob Road 42
43
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to 44
erect a fence at 2300 Pilot Knob Road. He then shared an image of the subject parcel in relation to 45
surrounding property uses and streets. The subject property is 6.24 acres and is bordered by right-46
page 11
of-way on three sides. There is 126,000 square foot office/warehouse building that was originally 47
constructed in 1989 and was recently purchased by Johnson Brothers Liquor Company. The Code 48
requires a conditional use permit for fences over six feet with a security arm for barbed wire in the 49
Business and Industrial Districts. In addition, external loading areas must be completely screened 50
from the ground level view from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, but does exempt 51
access points from that particular code requirement. The Code also requires that screening or 52
buffering must provide a minimal opacity of 90% during all seasons. The existing loading dock 53
area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, as are numerous 54
properties in the Industrial District that were developed prior to the current standards. 55
56
Planner Wall then shared a diagram showing the proposed fence and noted that the proposed seven-57
foot tall chain-linked fence would have privacy slats of an undetermined color. The fencing along 58
Pilot Knob Road would have winged-slats, which according to the manufacturer’s specifications 59
achieve 90% opacity. The fencing along Highway 13 would have normal privacy slats with an 60
unknown opacity, but according to the applicant it is anticipated to be approximately 75% opacity. 61
62
Photos provided by the applicant were shared with the Commissioners. 63
64
As a result of the existing vegetation there is no way to ensure that it would remain as is nor could 65
it be verified that it will achieve 90% opacity during all seasons when combined with the proposal, 66
which is 75% opacity fence with a regular privacy slats. 67
68
Planner Wall then provided some other areas where the City had approved fencing in the recent 69
past in the Industrial District that influenced staff’s recommendation in this case. Since a number 70
of properties in the Industrial District have wood privacy fencing, which is of a higher quality and 71
more expensive than the proposal, in order to be consistent with those previous approvals for 72
surrounding properties, staff is recommending 100% opaque wood fencing along Pilot Knob Road 73
that would provide a complete screened loading dock area from the street. Staff also recommended 74
that the 90% opacity fencing [chain link with winged slats] be installed along Highway 13. 75
76
Staff believes either proposal, the applicants or staff’s recommendation, would meet the standards 77
for granting of a Conditional Use Permit. However, staff’s recommendation that in order to be 78
consistent with past approvals in the Industrial District, that their recommendation be the one up 79
for consideration by the Planning Commission. 80
81
Staff did recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit request with conditions. 82
83
Commissioner Noonan asked if the real standard to judge fencing is the opacity rate. Planner Wall 84
replied in the affirmative. However, the Code reads that the opacity requirement is 90%, which 85
can be a combination of landscaping, berming, and fencing. In this case, while staff acknowledges 86
that there is existing vegetation in that area, due to the fact that it is difficult to quantify what that 87
screen is over the seasons – because it is deciduous – and the fact that the majority of that 88
vegetation is actually located on public property, which is right-of-way, the extent that it exists 89
long-term is questionable. In order to ensure that it is fully compliant with the 90% opacity 90
requirement, staff is recommending that the 90% opacity fence be installed along the property 91
boundary line. 92
page 12
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were any specificity to barbed wire. Planner Wall replied that 93
the Code simply states that if a fence is over six feet and it has the security arm for barbed wire in 94
the Industrial District that a conditional use permit is required. Commissioner Hennes then asked 95
if the fence were less than six feet with barbed wire the conditional use permit would not be 96
required. Planner Wall stated that the Code simply reads, “fences over six feet in height and with 97
the security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.” In this case it is a six-foot 98
high fence and with the additional extension for the barbed wire, it would be approximately seven 99
feet tall. 100
101
It was noted during this discussion that the subject parcel does not have a fence currently in 102
existence. 103
104
Chair Field stated that it would be his understanding that the purpose of the chain link would the 105
absolute security as opposed to a wooden fence. The applicant could put a chain link fence behind 106
the wooden fence and still comply with staff’s recommendation. Planner Wall confirmed that this 107
is true. 108
109
Commissioner Petschel asked, in the examples provided, if the fences were primarily for privacy 110
or for security. Planner Wall replied that the fencing was for screening/privacy and security and 111
they all have gates. He then asked if barbed wire was pretty consistent throughout the Industrial 112
area. Planner Wall was unable to provide an answer; however, the three samples provided did not 113
have barbed wire. 114
115
Mr. Barry Jaeger, representing Jaeger Construction and the property owner, came forward to 116
answer questions from the Commission. He noted that Jaeger Construction has reviewed the 117
recommendations made by staff and are willing to accept them. The barbed wire is a security issue 118
with the products that they will be providing. He also noted that the gate would be a standard chain 119
link fence gate and not wood because of the weight. 120
121
Commissioner Petschel asked if the chain link fence would have slats. Mr. Jaeger replied in the 122
affirmative. 123
124
Commissioner Hennes asked if there had been any issues with vandalism. Mr. Jason Phillips, Vice 125
President of Operations for Johnson Brothers Liquor, replied that their main operation is in St. 126
Pau. They do have barbed wire security fencing around that facility, but they have not had any 127
security issues to speak of. 128
129
Commissioner Roston noted that he would need to recuse himself from this matter. 130
131
Mr. Phillips expressed his appreciation for the consideration and felt that staff has done a nice job 132
of understanding and interpreting the Code and making recommendations. They are perfectly 133
satisfied with it. They are excited to be opening this operation in Mendota Heights. They are 134
currently under construction with an anticipated move-in date of October 1, 2016. 135
136
Commissioner Noonan explained that the barbed wire troubles him in the sense that it is sort of 137
out-of-place and is different than what is there now. He asked if that was an absolute. Mr. Phillips 138
page 13
replied that it is a strong interest on their part and they believe that it provides a deterrent value 139
that is important to them just in consideration of both the work they do, the product they have and 140
they are interested in not having problems. If this deterrent helps to prevent that, then everyone is 141
better off. 142
143
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the barbed wire is the rolled type of barbed wire. Mr. Phillips 144
replied that it is the straight barbed wire; it is not like a prison. 145
146
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 147
148
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 149
hearing. 150
151
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 152
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 153
154
AYES: 7 155
NAYS: 0 156
157
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 158
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-31, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 159
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 160
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening 161
the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the 162
property owner. 163
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit 164
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 165
3. The existing vegetation bordering the surrounding right-of-way increases the 166
screening/buffering of the subject property from the adjacent roadways. 167
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 168
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction. 169
2. Wood fencing achieving 100% opacity shall be erected along Pilot Knob Road. 170
3. Chain-link fencing with dark-colored privacy slats achieving 90% opacity shall be erected 171
along Highway 13 and the portion perpendicular to Pilot Knob Road in front of the 172
building. 173
4. The fence shall be located entirely on private property. 174
5. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed 175
to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public 176
or private. 177
6. The gate coming off of Pilot Knob Road be consistent with the privacy slat fencing that 178
surrounds the remainder of the property. 179
180
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 181
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO THE 182
ADDITION OF CONDITION SIX. 183
184
page 14
AYES: 7 185
NAYS: 0 186
187
Mr. Phillips replied that they would be in agreement with the addition of Condition Six. 188
189
Mr. Jaeger asked if gates were required to have the same opacity as fencing. Planner Wall replied 190
that driveway access points or access points to loading dock area do not have to attain the full 191
screening; however, the applicant has indicated that they are willing to do that and that is why it 192
has been incorporated in the motion. 193
194
Mr. Phillips noted that they would prefer to have a see-through gate for safety reasons; however, 195
they are not going to make that a requirement. 196
197
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 198
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 199
200
AYES: 7 201
NAYS: 0 202
203
Chair Field called the standing motion. 204
205
AYES: 6 206
NAYS: 0 207
ABSTAIN: 1 (ROSTON) 208
209
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016 210
meeting. 211
212
B) PLANNING CASE #2016-33 213
City of Mendota Heights 214
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2500 Lexington Avenue South 215
216
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering an amendment 217
to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the future land use designation 218
for the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business to I-Industrial. 219
220
Planner Wall shared an image of the subject parcel in relation to other surrounding uses and streets. 221
The property contains a vacant 13,000 square foot office/warehouse building and is surrounded by 222
high density residential, office, and industrial uses. 223
224
The Council passed Ordinance 502 as part of Planning Case 2016-28, which did conditionally 225
approve rezoning the subject property from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at their August 2, 226
2016 meeting. The approval also included a condition that the City and the Metropolitan Council 227
approve a subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 228
229
page 15
Planner Wall then shared an image of the current Land Use Map in relation to the subject parcel, 230
which is zoned Business but is surrounded by Industrial and Residential uses. The land use plan is 231
intended to depict the general desired locations of future land uses. As part of any proposed 232
amendment request, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with 233
surrounding existing and future land uses. In addition, adjacent governmental units and affected 234
school districts are typically required to be notified and given the opportunity to comment. In this 235
case, the proposed amendment does meet the adjacent review waiver criteria due to its size, its 236
non-impact on future growth forecasts, and its location within the City. 237
238
Planner Wall shared an image of the proposed land use map noting that the only change being this 239
property, which as a result of the Conditional Rezoning to Industrial, would also then be re-guided 240
Industrial within the future land use map. 241
242
As was discussed as part of previous planning case before the Commission, the Industrial District 243
does offer a wider variety of use options than the B-1 District that better fit the existing building’s 244
layout. Depending on the future use of the property and the subsequent code amendment that was 245
also approved by the City Council, which created additional standards for potential warehousing 246
uses that are located adjacent to residential structures, staff feels that the adequate standards are in 247
place to regulate potential negative impacts that would result in a change of use on this property 248
from other surrounding uses. 249
250
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with conditions. 251
252
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 253
254
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 255
hearing. 256
257
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 258
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 259
260
AYES: 7 261
NAYS: 0 262
263
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 264
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-33, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND 265
APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 266
FINDINGS OF FACT: 267
1. The conditionally-approved zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the 268
current future land use designation. 269
2. The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the conditionally-approved 270
zoning and surrounding existing/planned land uses. 271
3. The City Code contains performance standards and other regulations to address potential 272
negative impacts a new use of the subject property may have on surrounding uses. 273
274
275
page 16
AYES: 7 276
NAYS: 0 277
278
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016 279
meeting. 280
281
C) PLANNING CASE #2016-34 282
City of Mendota Heights 283
Proposed City Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems 284
285
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering an amendment 286
to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems encompassed 287
in Draft Ordinance 505 included in the Commission Packet. 288
289
The City Council adopted Ordinance 485 that created standards for alternative energy systems as 290
part of Planning Case 2015-34. The intent was to ensure the same standards are applied to each 291
solar energy systems in an effort to encourage sustainable standards that do not adversely impact 292
the community. Since that time, the City Council has approved four conditional use permits for 293
roof-mounted systems; three of them for residential properties and one was for a residential zoned 294
property, but was actually the Friendly Hills Middle School Campus. 295
296
Since adoption of the ordinance, City Council received feedback from applicants that have gone 297
through the process that the ordinance provisions themselves are workable; however, the required 298
review process takes too long. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to propose amendments 299
that streamline the review process for certain systems. 300
301
In addition and upon review of recent applications, staff is proposing some additional minor 302
amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color. 303
304
Planner Wall briefly reviewed the proposed amendments: 305
1. Roof-mounted solar energy systems reclassified as a permitted accessory use (Section 5) 306
2. Ground-mounted solar energy systems remain as a conditional use and separate maximum 307
area standards for residential and business/industrial districts are included (Sections 2 & 4) 308
3. Color standard revised (Section 3) 309
4. Reference to requiring a conditional use permit in all districts removed (Section 1) 310
311
Staff recommended approval of DRAFT Ordinance 505. 312
313
Commissioner Noonan asked where it says in the ordinance that a ground-mounted needs a 314
conditional use permit where a roof-mounted just needs a building permit. Planner Wall replied 315
that right now the Code reads “solar energy systems are a conditional use in all zoning districts.” 316
The bulk of the proposed changes are in each individual district, which has a list of what are 317
permitted uses and what are conditional uses. The only changes to the standards themselves relate 318
to the maximum area and the color provisions. 319
320
page 17
Commissioner Roston asked if staff is seeing a lot of applications coming in for these systems. 321
Planner Wall replied that staff has seen four since it was adopted and they have come in at least 322
three consecutive months. 323
324
Commissioner Roston then asked if staff believes that enough requests have come through that 325
they are confident no additional issues could come up or should this percolate for a few more 326
months to a year. Planner Wall replied that potentially this could be a policy consideration for the 327
Council; however, the direction is coming directly from them to consider how to streamline the 328
process. The ordinance provisions in place have seemed to be workable, at least for the roof-329
mounted systems that have come forward, and that is what staff is pursuing at this point. No 330
ground-mounted system requests have come through and are not part of this recommendation. 331
332
Commissioner Petschel asked why the limit is 80% of the roof area. Planner Wall replied that it 333
would be to allow for access to the system. Commissioner Petschel noted that he could already 334
think of two cases where this is going to be revised. When he visits customers in California it is 335
not uncommon to see parking lots entirely covered with solar panels where they basically have 336
structures over the parking lots that are shading the cars and are power installations. Planner Wall 337
commented that those would be ground-mounted systems. 338
339
Commissioner Petschel noted that he has seen entire parking lots covered with structures 340
containing solar panels, which, if proposed in the future, would not comply with the amended 341
maximum area standards. He also noted that there are major solar installers indicating that their 342
future business models do 100% of the roof or essentially the entire roof. Instead of getting a new 343
roof and then putting a solar panel system on top of it, they will simply integrate the solar panels 344
into the actual roofing systems. Planner Wall noted that building integrated solar energy systems 345
are currently exempted. 346
347
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 348
349
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 350
hearing. 351
352
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 353
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 354
355
AYES: 7 356
NAYS: 0 357
358
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 359
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-34, DRAFT ORDINANCE 505, AS 360
PRESENTED. 361
362
AYES: 7 363
NAYS: 0 364
365
page 18
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016 366
meeting. 367
368
Verbal Review 369
370
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 371
372
PLANNING CASE #2016-24 373
All Energy Solar, 1295 Kendon Lane 374
Conditional Use Permit for Solar Energy System 375
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 376
377
PLANNING CASE #2016-28 and #2016-29 378
Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South 379
Rezoning and Code Amendments 380
• Approved by the City Council, which triggered the application before the Commission 381
tonight 382
383
PLANNING CASE #2016-25 384
City of Mendota Heights 385
Code Amendment to Opt-out of the Temporary Family Healthcare Dwelling Unit Law 386
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 387
388
PLANNING CASE #2016-26 389
City of Mendota Heights 390
Code Amendment concerning the hotel definition and first floor elevations standards 391
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 392
393
Staff and Commission Announcements 394
395
Chair Field expressed his appreciation to Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek for attending and 396
to staff for all of their hard work. 397
398
Adjournment 399
400
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 401
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. 402
403
AYES: 7 404
NAYS: 0 405
page 19
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, Engineering
SUBJECT: Right-of-Way License Agreement for Visitation Monastery
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
Visitation Monastery desired to obtain a Right-of-Way License Agreement from the City to
construct a pedestrian trail within City Right-of-Way.
BACKGROUND
Visitation Drive is a public Right-of-Way connecting the Convent of the Visitation School and
Visitation Monastery to Mendota Heights Road. There is a pedestrian trail on the north side of
Mendota Heights Road. Visitation Monastery wishes to construct a trail connection from this
trail, north to their athletic field parking lot. The trail would be located within the Visitation
Drive Right-of-Way.
DISCUSSION
A License Agreement is the City’s permission for a private entity to install a feature within City
Right-of-Way. The attached License Agreement would allow Visitation Monastery to construct
a pedestrian trail in the Visitation Drive Right-of-Way along the west side of the developed street
(see attached drawing). Maintenance of the trail connection would be the responsibility of
Visitation, as would all liability for the trail segment.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the attached License Agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, pass a motion to approve the attached
License Agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Visitation Monastery. This action
requires a simple majority vote.
page 20
LICENSE AGREEMENT
This License Agreement (the “LICENSE”) is made this ______ day of September, 2016, between
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “CITY”) and Visitation
Monastery (the “LICENSEE”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, LICENSEE owns real property in the CITY located at 2455 Visitation Drive – Consisting
of 6 parcels located within Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota (LICENSEE’S
PROPERTY); and
WHEREAS, LICENSEE’S PROPERTY is contiguous to a right of way owned by the CITY; and
WHEREAS, LICENSEE wishes to provide for safer pedestrian access to their property on the west
side of the developed street (the “LICENSED PREMISES”) within the adjacent right of way; and
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to allow LICENSEE to utilize the adjacent right of way for a private
pedestrian trail until such time as the right of way is improved.
LICENSE
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, and $1.00 and other
good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. Grant of License. The CITY does hereby grant LICENSEE a non-exclusive revocable license to
maintain a pedestrian trail within the Visitation Drive right of way, north of Mendota Heights
Road at 2455 Visitation Drive. Such license shall extend to LICENSEE only.
2. No Interest Created. LICENSEE certifies, represents and acknowledges that it has no title in or to
the LICENSED PREMISES, nor to any portion thereof, and has not, does not and will not claim any
such title nor any easement over said land of the CITY. LICENSEE acknowledges that is not
acquiring any easement by necessity or otherwise over the LICENSED PREMISES.
3. Improvements. Licensee shall not make any additions or improvements in or to the LICENSED
PREMISES without the CITY’s prior written consent.
4. Indemnification. LICENSEE shall hold the CITY harmless from and indemnify and defend the CITY
against any claim or liability arising in any manner from LICENSEE’s use of the LICENSED
PREMISES, or relating to the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any personal
property present on or located in or upon the LICENSED PREMISES, including the person and
personal property of LICENSEE or LICENSEE’s employees, invitees and guests. LICENSEE agrees
to pay all sums of money in respect of any labor, service, materials, supplies or equipment
furnished or alleged to have been furnished to LICENSEE in or about the LICENSED PREMISES,
and not furnished on order of the CITY. LICENSEE may contest any lien for such services,
materials, supplies or equipment, on the condition that LICENSEE first provides to the CITY cash,
bond, or other security against such lie which the CITY reasonably determines to be sufficient.
page 21
5. Assignment or Sublicensing. LICENSEE shall not sublicense any portion of the LICENSED
PREMISES or transfer or assign this LICENSE without obtaining the prior written consent of the
CITY, which consent the CITY may grant or deny at the CITY’s sole discretion. The CITY’s consent
to any sublicensing or assignment of this LICENSE shall not be a waiver of the CITY’s right under
this Section as to any sublicensing or assignment. LICENSEE’s assignment of this LICENSE or
sublicensing of the LICENSED PREMISES shall not relieve LICENSEE from any of LICENSEE’s
obligations under this LICENSE.
6. Maintenance. LICENSEE will be solely responsible for the maintenance of the LICENSED
PREMESIS and any improvement installed within by prior written approval by the CITY.
7. Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind that either party may be
required or desires to give to or serve on the other party shall be made in writing and personally
delivered or certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested to the following addresses:
To the City:
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Attention: City Administrator
With a copy to:
Eckberg Lammers, Attorneys at Law
1809 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater, MN 55082
Attention: Mendota Heights City Attorney
To Licensee:
Visitation Monastery
Attn: Greg Engel
2455 Visitation Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
8. No Reliance on CITY’s Representations. Neither the CITY nor any agent or representative of the
CITY has made any warranty or other representation with respect to the LICENSED PREMISES.
9. Termination and Surrender. The CITY reserves the right to terminate this LICENSE at will and
upon termination of this LICENSE by the CITY LICENSEE shall peaceably surrender the LICENSED
PREMISES.
10. Miscellaneous.
a. Choice of Law. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern the validity,
performance and enforcement of this LICENSE.
page 22
11. Counterparts. This LICENSE may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when
taken together will be deemed to be an original.
a. Amendment or Modifications. This LICENSEE may not be changed or modified orally,
but only upon written agreement signed by the party against whom enforcement of any
waiver, change, modification or discharge is sought.
b. Severability. If any term or provision in this LICENSE is deemed to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of the LICENSE shall remain in effect and be enforceable
to the fullest extent permitted by law.
c. Time is of the Essences. Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations
under this LICENSE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and LICENSEE have caused these presents to be executed in
form and manner sufficient to bind them at law, as of the day and year first above written.
CITY: LICENSEE:
_______________________________________
Visitation Monastery
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
A Minnesota municipal corporation
By: ____________________________________
Its: ____________________________________
page 23
%10%'262.#0
1(
&CVG4GXKUKQPU
6/.
6/.&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
8+5+6#6+105%*11.
8+5+6#6+10&4+8'
/'0&16#*'+)*65/+00'516#
8+5+6#6+1064#+.%100'%6+10'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
Ä
/'0&16#*'+)*65/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
%+8+.'0)+0''45 .#0&2.#00'45 .#0&5748';145 .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65
%10%'262.#00COG
4GI0Q&CVG
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP
E 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI
YYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO(CZ Ä
page 24
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Mendakota Basketball Court
Introduction
The Council is asked to take two actions which would allow for the basketball court at Mendakota Park
to be replaced this fall.
Background
At its meeting of August 2nd, the City Council directed staff to obtain quotes to improve the basketball
court at Mendakota Park.
The basketball court at Mendakota Park was built in the early 1990’s. The useful life expectancy of an
asphalt basketball court is roughly 15-20 years. The basketball court at Mendakota has exceeded that
useful life. The current condition of the basketball court now requires replacing the asphalt playing
surface, and install new basketball hoops.
Staff has obtained two quotes to replace the asphalts court with a concrete surface. The quotes also
included installing new basketball hoops and striping the surface for a basketball court. The city will
purchase and supply the basketball hoops, separate from these quotes.
Bulach Custom Rock- $30,621.00
Kirschner Contracting Inc. $27,300.00
Budget Impact
This project would be funded by the Special Parks Fund, which currently has a balance of $196,000.
This project should be completed for less than the original cost estimate of $35,000.
Recommendation
Staff recommends entering into a contract with Kirschner Contracting Inc. to make improvements to the
basketball court at Mendakota Park.
page 25
Required Action
If Council agrees with the recommendation, they should pass a motion authorizing staff to:
1.) Enter into a contract with Kirschner Contracting Inc. to install a new concrete playing surface, and
install basketball hoops to be provided by the City at the basketball court at Mendakota Park in 2016;
and
2.) Authorize staff to purchase two basketball hoops for Mendakota Park at a price not to exceed
$6,000.00.
This requires a simple majority vote.
page 26
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Authorization to Seek Professional Services for the 2017 Street
Rehabilitation Project
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize staff to seek quotes for a professional service contract from the
pre-approved consultant pool for the 2017 Street Rehabilitation Project.
BACKGROUND
The Mendota Heights Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies two rehabilitation projects for
2017, Kensington Neighborhood Rehabilitation and Mendota Heights Road Rehabilitation.
The Kensington Neighborhood Improvement includes rehabilitation of Concord Way,
Lockwood, Drive, Claremont Drive, Bedford Court, Stock Bridge Road and Whitfield Drive.
The Mendota Heights Road project includes rehabilitation between I-35E and Dodd Road. The
Mendota Heights Road project may also include a sanitary sewer extension to serve the Condon
Court properties (developer cost). Staff is also interested in including the rehabilitation of the
City’s public works facility parking lot as an alternate to this project.
DISCUSSION
Staff is seeking authorization to request quotes for the design and inspection for this
improvement project. Staff would send a scope of work to two companies on the recently
approved engineering consultant pool. The quotes will be evaluated and presented to Council at
a future meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2016 budget included a 5 year CIP which identified an estimated cost of $740,000 for the
Kensington Neighborhood Rehabilitation, and $610,000 for the Mendota Heights Road
Rehabilitation. This improvement is proposed to be funded through special assessments, city
bonds, municipal state aid and utility funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the request to seek professional services.
ACTION REQUIRED
page 27
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion to authorize staff to
seek quotes for a professional service contract from the pre-approved consultant pool for the
2017 Street Rehabilitation Project. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 28
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Authorization to Seek Professional Services for the Ridge Place
Sewer Line Reconstruction
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to seek quotes for a professional service contract from the pre-approved
consultant pool for the Ridge Place Sewer Line Reconstruction Project.
BACKGROUND
Then Mendota Heights sanitary sewer system is aging and in need of maintenance. The City
operates and maintains over 73 miles of sanitary sewer mains. The largest of the mains is a
sanitary sewer interceptor which was installed in 1966 and carries a majority of the city sewage
to the Met Council pump house. The 2010 Sewer Televising Project identified a sunken
manhole and major joint separation of the existing main in Valley Park near Ridge Place. Repair
of the pipe and manhole will require replacement.
DISCUSSION
Staff is seeking authorization to request quotes for the design and inspection for this
improvement project. Staff would send a scope of work to two companies on the recently
approved engineering consultant pool. The quotes will be evaluated and presented to Council at
a future meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2017 budget identified $315,000 for this improvement, $250,000 for a construction contract
and $65,000 for the design and construction management. This improvement is paid for out of
the sanitary sewer utility fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the request to seek professional services.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion to authorize staff to
seek quotes for a professional service contract from the pre-approved consultant pool for the
Ridge Place Sewer Line Reconstruction Project. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 29
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: John P. Maczko, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Pager Purchase
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve the purchase of new pagers for Fire Department.
Discussion
Changes made in June of this year by the DCC regarding how the fire department is paged out
has resulted in our firefighters’ inability to get emergency updates. This problem can be resolved
with the purchase of buying new two frequency pagers.
The cost needed to replace the necessary pagers is $12,800. The Fire Department has been able
to look within their existing budget to partially offset this cost. The department has identified
$6,500 in the 2016 budget for this purpose, leaving a shortfall of $6,300 needed to make the
purchase.
Budget Impact
After taking with City Administrator Mark McNeill, and Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, it
is my recommendation that the identified $6,500 be used from the 2016 Fire Budget, with the
other $6,300 be used from the General Fund Reserves in the 2016 Budget.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve $12,800 for the purchase of
new, upgraded pagers for the firefighters.
Action Required
If the City Council agrees with the recommendation, it should approve a motion to spend up to
$12,800 be spent to buy new pagers for the firefighters.
page 30
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Temporary Human Resources Assistance
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to hire Tamara Schutta as a temporary employee to provide interim Human
Resources services.
BACKGROUND
Tammy Schutta left her position as the Assistant to the City Administrator/Human Resources
Coordinator on July 6th. She took the job of Human Resources Manager for the City of
Lakeville. An advertisement to replace that position as it stood was made, but the City has been
unable to fill it. A restructured position is being considered, which would have to be advertised.
That process will take an additional 60-90 days.
Since her resignation, many HR functions have been performed by the Finance Director and City
Administrator. However, assistance is necessary for several issues, including the need to rewrite
several job descriptions, make salary recommendations, and advertise for vacancies. In addition,
much will need to be done to prepare for “open enrollment” for employee benefits, which will
take place in November or December.
The most logical source of HR assistance for this interim period would be Ms. Schutta, as she
obviously has first-hand knowledge of the City’s operations. She has been helpful to City staff
on many occasions since she left, but the types of assistance needed now will require more in-
depth work. Because of the delay caused by the need to re-advertise the full time position, a
compensated arrangement with Ms. Schutta is recommended.
A couple of options were explored, including hiring her as a contract employee. However, in
looking at insurance needs, the recommendation is to hire her as a temporary Human Resources
Manager, with hours to be “as needed”.
page 31
BUDGET IMPACT
We have negotiated a rate of $60 per hour as compensation for her work. There would be no
employee benefits. The duration of the arrangement would cap at 6 months, although we expect
to have the replacement position filled before that time. The employment is likely going to
amount to only a few hours per week, and would be at such times as when she is available.
Funding for this will come from the unexpended salary line item in Administration, which results
from the position’s vacant status.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Council approve the arrangement with Ms. Schutta.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Tamara Schutta as temporary
Human Resources Services Manager.
________________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 32
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Out of State Conference Request
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve the City Administrator’s attendance at the 102nd Annual
Conference of the International City/County Management Association. This will be held
September 25-28th in Kansas City, Missouri.
BACKGROUND
By policy, the City Council must approve all out of state travel at an open meeting.
The ICMA Conference is recognized as the premier annual conference for the city management
profession. I propose to attend three of the four days of the conference, and will require two
nights’ hotel lodging. I would travel by car on September 24th, and return the evening of
September 27th.
BUDGET IMPACT
The estimated costs for attending are:
Travel (airfare equivalent) $226.40
Registration 720.00
Lodging 475.00
Meals 150.00
Total $1571.40
Funds are available in the Administration budget.
RECOMMENDATION
The Mayor has recommended the approval of the City Administrator’s request to attend the
conference.
page 33
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize attendance of City Administrator Mark
McNeill at the ICMA Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, September 25th -27th, 2016
________________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 34
8/16/2016 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
July 1, 2016 thru July 31, 2016 January 1, 2016 thru July 31, 2016 January 1, 2015 thru July 31, 2015 January 1, 2014 thru July 31, 2014
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 4 1,822,850.00$ $20,971.81 SFD 8 4,064,744.00$ $44,424.62 SFD 11 4,780,000.00$ 47,818.26$
APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ $0.00 APT 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 2 450,000.00$ $4,516.88 Townhouse 14 3,255,000.00$ $34,159.81 Townhouse 2 500,000.00$ $6,457.28 Townhouse 0 -$ -$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 45 636,735.15$ 9,574.94$ Misc 356 4,645,152.03$ 66,525.88$ Misc 345 5,363,057.12$ 82,043.10$ Misc 306 3,359,322.90$ 58,009.80$
Commercial 2 500,459.00$ $3,790.75 Commercial 14 1,896,714.00$ $18,829.34 Commercial 25 2,511,301.00$ $36,904.08 Commercial 29 9,470,573.50$ 81,117.38$
Sub Total 49 1,587,194.15$ 17,882.57$ Sub Total 388 11,619,716.03$ 140,486.84$ Sub Total 380 12,439,102.12$ 169,829.08$ Sub Total 346 17,609,896.40$ 186,945.44$
Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
Plumbing 21 $1,608.80 Plumbing 140 $12,254.53 Plumbing 133 $11,589.72 Plumbing 83 7,422.15$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 2 $20.00 Water 5 $50.00 Water 3 30.00$
Sewer 1 $75.00 Sewer 20 $1,500.00 Sewer 10 $600.00 Sewer 11 275.00$
Mechanical 40 $6,436.35 Mechanical 219 $22,639.46 Mechanical 203 $17,636.17 Mechanical 145 14,841.79$
Sub Total 62 8,120.15$ Sub Total 381 36,413.99$ Sub Total 351 $29,875.89 Sub Total 242 22,568.94$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 28 $1,400.00 Contractor 259 $12,950.00 Contractor 261 $13,050.00 Contractor 258 12,900.00$
Total 139 1,587,194.15$ 27,402.72$ Total 1028 11,619,716.03$ 189,850.83$ Total 992 12,439,102.12$ 212,754.97$ Total 846 17,609,896.40$ 222,414.38$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 35
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: July 2016 Fire Synopsis
COMMENT:
Fire Calls
The department responded to 24 calls for the month. The majority of calls were classified as
false alarms or as good intent calls. Nine calls were residential in nature and two were
commercial responses. Of the remaining calls, there were five utility calls, four EMS calls, two
car fires, one car accident with injuries and one mutual aid call.
Monthly Department and Squad Training
The monthly department and squad trainings were held at the Bourne Lane home. All of the
trainings focused on Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) operations. A RIT team is a group of
firefighters that are prepared to assist a firefighter who becomes lost or trapped in a structure fire.
The training also incorporated basic fire ground skills such as interior fire attack, ventilation, and
search and rescue.
page 36
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
JULY 2016 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE CALLS NO. 16119 -16142 NUMBER OF CALLS:24
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential $10,000
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Vehicle - MH $0
Vehicle - Contract Areas 1 $0 $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
MEDICAL
Assist 4 $0 $0 $0
Extrication 1
HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Spills/Leaks 1
Arcing/Shorting 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 $10,000
Chemical
Power Line Down 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $8,000
FALSE ALARM
Residential Malfunction MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $2,000
Commercial Malfunction
Unintentional - Commercial 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $10,000
Unintentional - Residential 5
Criminal BILLING FOR SERVICES
GOOD INTENT
Smoke Scare AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE
Steam Mistaken for Smoke
Other 8 MN/DOT $0
MUTUAL AID 1 MILW. RR $0
CNR RR $0
TOTAL CALLS 24 OTHERS:
$0
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR
TOTALS:$0 $0
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 19 104 120
MENDOTA 3 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
SUNFISH LAKE 1 14 7
LILYDALE 3 11 7 INSPECTIONS 28.5
OTHER 1 10 7
INVESTIGATIONS 0
TOTAL 24 142 143
RE-INSPECTION 4
WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR
MEETINGS 0
FIRE CALLS 341 2153.5 2337.5
MEETINGS 24 239 192.5 ADMINISTRATION 13
DRILLS 144.5 1188.5 1069.5
WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 32 266.5 246 SPECIAL PROJECTS 7
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 215 1400.5 1523.5
ADMINISTATIVE 0 0 TOTAL 52.5
FIRE MARSHAL 52.5 307.5 359
TOTALS 809 5555.5 5728 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Vikings Eagan Development Update
COMMENT:
At its meeting of September 6th, the City Council will hear an update by a representative of the
Minnesota Vikings on their development, which is underway in northern Eagan, across I-494
from Mendota Heights.
Lester Bagley, the Vikings’ Executive Vice President for Public Affairs, will make the
presentation.
_______________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 54
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: ISD 197 Levy Presentation
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
At the September 6th meeting of the City Council, an informational presentation will be made by
representatives of ISD 197. This regards the renewal of an Operating Levy which is to be
considered by school district voters on November 8th.
BACKGROUND
This is one of several presentations which is being made to stakeholders of District 197 at several
venues over the next few weeks.
ACTION REQUIRED
No action is required by the City Council. This item is informational only.
________________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 56
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Mendota Plaza Development Update
COMMENT:
Introduction
Paster Properties will be providing an update on the proposed development and is not requesting any formal
action by the City Council at this time. It is anticipated that the MnDOT Right-of-Way Permit will be
obtained for consideration of the entire application request at the September 20 Council meeting.
Background
N/A
Discussion
N/A
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
Staff does not recommend any formal action by the City Council pertaining to this case.
Action Required
N/A
page 57
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit at 2300 Pilot Knob Road
COMMENT:
Introduction
The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking a conditional use permit to erect a seven-foot-
tall barbed-wire-topped fence on a portion of the subject property for security and screening purposes. The
City Code requires a CUP for fences over six (6) feet with a security arm for barbed-wire in the Business
and Industrial Districts.
Background
The applicant is proposing to erect fencing around the loading dock area along the south side of the building,
facing Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13. The loading dock area is not completely screened from
contiguous properties or adjacent streets, but is buffered by existing vegetation from Pilot Knob Road and
Highway 13. The maps included in the staff report depict the applicant’s proposal and staff’s
recommendation for consideration by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the August 23 meeting; there were no public
comments.
Discussion
The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests
and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required.
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, with conditions, as described in Planning
Case 2016-31. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting
RESOLUTION 2016-66 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 2300 PILOT KNOB
ROAD.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 58
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016-66
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AT 2300 PILOT KNOB ROAD
WHEREAS, Jaeger Construction, LLC, on behalf of both property owner, has applied
for a conditional use permit as proposed in Planning Case 2016-31 and described in Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on August 23, 2016.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2016-31 is hereby approved
with the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening
the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the
property owner.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use
permit and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The existing vegetation bordering the surrounding right-of-way increases the
screening/buffering of the subject property from the adjacent roadways.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2016-31 is hereby approved with
the following conditions:
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
2. Wood fencing achieving 100% opacity shall be erected along Pilot Knob Road.
3. Chain-link fencing with dark-colored privacy slats achieving 90% opacity shall be
erected along Highway 13 and the portion perpendicular to Pilot Knob Road in front of
the building.
4. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
5. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed
to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance,
public or private.
6. The Pilot Knob Road driveway access gate shall be consistent with the chain-link privacy
slat fencing that surrounds the remainder of the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixth day of September, 2016.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
ATTEST: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 59
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 23, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-31
Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Jaeger Construction, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2300 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial
ACTION DEADLINE: September 23, 2016
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking a conditional use permit to erect a seven-foot-
tall barbed-wire-topped fence on a portion of the subject property. Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code
requires a conditional use permit for fences over six (6) feet with a security arm for barbed-wire in the
Business and Industrial Districts.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is 6.24 acres and is bordered by right-of-way on three sides; Pilot Knob Road to the
west, State Highway 13 to the south, and State Highway 55 to the east. The approximately 126,000-square
foot office/warehouse building was originally constructed in 1989 and was recently purchased by Johnson
Brothers Liquor Company. The applicant is proposing to erect a seven-foot-tall barbed-wire-topped fence
around the loading dock area along the south side of the building, facing Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13,
for security purposes.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed fence is
permitted as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district and the use of the property is compliant with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Conditional Use Permit
Fencing Standards
According to Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code, regarding fences in Business and Industrial Districts:
Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and with
a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.
page 60
The proposed fence would be six feet tall and topped with barbed-wire, which increases the overall height
to approximately seven feet. A security gate would be installed at the southernmost driveway entrance on
Pilot Knob Road.
According to Title 12-1D-13-2-E-1-D and 12-1D-13-2-E-2 of the City Code, regarding screening and
buffering in the Business and Industrial Districts:
External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from
contiguous properties and adjacent streets, except at access points.
Types Of Screening Or Buffering; Opacity: Required screening or buffering may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. The screen shall provide a
minimum opacity of ninety percent (90%) during all seasons.
The existing loading dock area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets,
as is the case with numerous properties in the Industrial District developed prior to the above-referenced
standards being adopted. As shown in the attached photos, the loading dock area is screened by existing
vegetation from Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13. While not “completely screened,” it certainly provides
significant screening/buffering from the adjacent roadways.
Applicant Proposal
The applicant is proposing a chain-link fence with privacy slats, but has not yet determined the color. The
fencing along Pilot Knob Road would have winged-slats that, according to the manufacturer specifications,
achieve 90% opacity. The fencing along Highway 13 would have normal privacy slats with an unknown
opacity, but is anticipated by the applicant to be approximately 75%. See the attached map for a visual
representation.
Staff Recommendation
While the existing vegetation along Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13 is significant, but much of it is
deciduous and portions are located within MnDOT and City ROW (see attached photos supplied by the
applicant). As a result, there is no way to ensure that it will remain as-is; nor can it be verified that it will
achieve 90% opacity during all seasons when combined with the 75% opaque chain-link-slatted option
being proposed by the applicant.
Several properties within the Industrial District have wood privacy fencing, which is a higher-quality and
more expensive material. In an effort to be consistent with previous approvals for surrounding properties,
staff recommends the Planning Commission and City Council consider requiring 100% opaque wood
fencing along the Pilot Knob Road frontage to completely screen the loading dock area from the street. In
order to ensure compliance with the screening standard, staff further recommends that the 90% opaque
chain-link-slatted option is constructed for the portion of the proposed fence along Highway 13 and between
the building and driveway. See the attached map for a visual representation.
CUP Standards
According to Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code, the following are to be taken into consideration upon
review of a conditional use permit request:
• The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands;
• existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
• the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, the following standards must be met:
• The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
• will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
page 61
• will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
• the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
In staff’s opinion, both the applicant’s proposal and staff’s recommendation meet the applicable standards
for granting a conditional use permit and would improve the overall appearance of the industrial property
while providing the desired security and screening.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approval of the conditional use permit request, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions.
OR
2. Denial of the conditional use permit request, based on the finding of fact that the request is not
compliant with the applicable City Code standards.
OR
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in
compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed barb-wire-topped security fence,
based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
2. Wood fencing achieving 100% opacity shall be erected along Pilot Knob Road.
3. Chain-link fencing with dark-colored privacy slats achieving 90% opacity shall be erected along
Highway 13 and the portion perpendicular to Pilot Knob Road in front of the building.
4. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
5. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become
and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Applicant proposal/staff recommendation maps (2)
2. Industrial District fencing example photos/map
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 62
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit
2300 Pilot Knob Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the conditional use permit request in this
case:
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening the
loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the property
owner.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The existing vegetation bordering the surrounding right-of-way increases the screening/buffering
of the subject property from the adjacent roadways.
page 63
2300
2250
1395
1400
2311
HWY 1
3 HWY 55PILOT KNOB RDHWY 1
3 HWY 55Planning Case 2016-312300 Pilot Knob Road City of
Mendota
Heights0140
SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/18/2016
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
APPLICANT PROPOSAL
Chain-link fencing w/ normal slats (approx. 75% opacity)
Chain-link fencing w/ winged slats (90% opacity min.)
page 64
2300
2250
1395
1400
2311
HWY 1
3 HWY 55PILOT KNOB RDHWY 1
3 HWY 55Planning Case 2016-312300 Pilot Knob Road City of
Mendota
Heights0140
SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/18/2016
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Chain-link fencing w/ slats (90% opacity min.)
Wood fencing (100% opacity)
page 65
HWY 1
3
PILOT KNOB RDHWY 55SIBLEY MEMORIALLEMAY AVE
COMMERCE DRWATERS DRHWY 1
3 HWY 55
Planning Case 2016-312300 Pilot Knob Road City of
Mendota
Heights0380
SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/18/2016
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 66
Johnson Brothers Request for Conditional Use Permit for barbed wire fence 2300 Pilot Knob Rd. We are making application for a conditional use permit to install a 6’ high fence with barbed wire on top for a total of approximately 7’ tall. This fence is required for our loading dock area for the security of our trucks and trailers. The fence would have a power operated gate. The fence will be made of galvanized chain link fencing with a barbed wire top (See enclosed Photo). The fence would have Winged slats on the Pilot Knob side of the fence. The fence on the Hwy 13 side would have normal slats in it. I have enclosed a plan to show the location of the proposed fence. I am enclosing photos of the 2 sides. As the photo show, much of the area is blocked by trees and shrubs. Many of these are evergreens. I also am showing photos from the inside of the loading dock area out.
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
When you need
increased privacy,
our Winged Slat®
is the answer.
With the proven quality and durability of
our standard slats plus unique “wings”
for extra screening and security, these
slats are self-locking – no channels are
needed!
Winged Slat®
* Exact representation of slat colors in printing is difficult. Please refer to actual color samples for final matching.
Covered by one or more of the following patents: US Patent 5,184,801 / 5,687,957 / 5,584,468, RE35, 208
Canadian patents 2,208,822 / 2,161,852 / 2,186,986
white green brown black beige gray redwood royal blue light blue
Colors*
Design
Our unique patented design includes a
rigid, flat-tubular body, with “legs” inside
for extra support. Flexible and resilient
wing portions are positioned on each
side of the slat body. Serrations are
added to the wings for easier installation
and locking power.
Standard Heights
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 feet. For heights
exceeding 7 feet, (2) two half sizes
(i.e. for 10 ft. fence use two 5 ft. slats)
are recommended. This will help during
installation and will not lessen privacy.
Wind Load and Privacy Factor
Approximately 90%. (Based on wire/
mesh used – stretch tension).
Slat Length
2" shorter than overall height of fence.
PDS ® is a registered trademark of Pexco.
®
Installation Instructions
Insert vertical slats with angle cut end
downward. Winged portion interlocks with
chain link knuckles.
Materials
The Winged Slat is extruded from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), color
pigments and ultra violet (UV) inhibitors, specifically designed to retard the harmful
effects of the sun and lengthen the life of the product.
• Winged Slats include Ethyl Vinyl Acetate (EVA), a softer plastic to keep the wings
flexible and resilient.
Durability
Pexco PDS® HDPE Fence Products are resistant to: severe weather conditions,
salt water, sand, road dirt, most acids, alcohol, alkaline, ammonia, petroleum
distillates, and common environmental pollutants.
Maintenance
Pressure cleaning of surface contaminants is quickly accomplished with plain water.
Wind Load Disclaimer
Pexco will not be responsible for fence damage resulting from wind load
conditions due to insufficient structural support.
Limited Warranty
Winged Slat carries a 25-year, pro-rata warranty against breakage under normal
conditions. Write Pexco for full warranty information.
Note
Additional time should be allowed for installation.
HDPE Technical Properties
Property Value
Melt Index (.6) A low melt index indicates improved stress and crack resistance.
Density (.957) Polyethylene ranges anywhere from .914 to .960 in density.
A higher density yields maximum stiffness without becoming overly brittle.
Minimum Temp. (-76° F) Polyethylene stays flexible even at this temperature extreme.
Maximum Temp. (250° F) Polyethylene does not distort until reaching this temperature.
Tensile Strength (3,700 psi) Material will not suffer distortion at lesser loads or impacts.
Winged Slat Product Specifications
Slat
Type
Slat
Width
Mesh
Size
Wire
Gauge
Slats
Per Bag
Approx.
Coverage
Per Box
Winged Slat 1¼"2"9" only 82 10 linear feet
Contact your local fence professional for more information about our complete line of enhancement products.
Profile of Winged Slat
Pexco Tacoma Pexco Athol
Tacoma, WA Athol, MA
800.822.7528 800.755.7528
www.pdsfence.com
www.pexco.com
®
page 71
Photo 1: From Pilot Knob Road
Photo 2: From Pilot Knob Road
page 72
Photo 3: From Highway 13
Photo 4: From Highway 13
page 73
2297 & 2301 Waters Drive LLC
18962 Bass Lake Rd
Maple Grove Mn 55311
2297 & 2301 Waters Drive LLC
18962 Bass Lake Rd
Maple Grove Mn 55311
2317 Waters Drive One & Two LLC
18962 Bass Lake Rd
Maple Grove Mn 55311
Bloomberg & Podpeskar Properties LLC
2255 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Bloomberg & Podpeskar Properties LLC
2255 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Burns Properties LLC
2275 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Burns Properties LLC
2275 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Burns Properties LLC
2275 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Ch Property LLC
2305 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Ch Property LLC
2305 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Ciresi Real Estate Holdings LLC
3745 Drumcliffe Ct
Rosemount Mn 55068
Ciresi Real Estate Holdings LLC
3745 Drumcliffe Ct
Rosemount Mn 55068
Cottrell Law Building LLC
2287 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Cottrell Law Building LLC
2287 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Duane & Jane Tvenge
2271 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Hub Properties Trust
% Cbre Attn Equity Commonwealth
4400 West 78th St Ste 200
Minneapolis Mn 55435
Johnson Brothers Liquor Company
1999 Sheppard Rd
Saint Paul Mn 55116
K & S Investments LLC
2295 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55118
K & S Investments LLC
2295 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55118
Local 65 Inc
2261 Waters Dr
Saint Paul Mn 55120
Local 65 Inc
2261 Waters Dr
Saint Paul Mn 55120
Lox Properties LLC
331 Seven Isles Dr
Fort Lauderdale Fl 33301
Natoli Properties LLC
2307 Waters Dr Unit 111
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Natoli Properties LLC
2307 Waters Dr Unit 111
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Pratt Kutzke Properties LLC
2315 Waters Drive
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
page 74
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
State of Mn - F Tax
% Treasurer Auditor 1590 Highway 55
Hastings Mn 55033
Tlr Enterprises LLC
2273 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55118
Tlr Enterprises LLC
2273 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55118
United Properties Inv Co
% Cushman & Wakefield Northmarq
3500 American Blvd W Ste 200
Bloomington Mn 55431
Vip Real Estate Ventures LLC
2303 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Vip Real Estate Ventures LLC
2303 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Wdbp Property LLC
2283 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Wdbp Property LLC
2283 Waters Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
page 75
page 76
page 77
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2500 Lexington
Avenue South
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City is considering an amendment to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide
the future land use designation of the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business
to I-Industrial.
Background
The City Council passed Ordinance 502 conditionally-approving rezoning of the subject property from
B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at the August 2nd meeting. The approval included the condition that a
subsequent comprehensive plan amendment was approved by the Metropolitan Council. The Land Use
Plan is intended to depict the general desired locations of future land uses. As part of the proposed
amendment request, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding existing and future land uses.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the August 23 meeting; there were no public
comments.
Discussion
The City is using its legislative authority when considering action on a comprehensive plan amendment
request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and
in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, with conditions, as described in Planning
Case 2016-33. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting
RESOLUTION 2016-67 APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
B-BUSINESS (B) TO I-INDUSTRIAL (I) AT 2500 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH.
Action Required
This matter requires an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the City Council.
page 78
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016-67
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
B-BUSINESS (B) TO I-INDUSTRIAL (I) AT 2500 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has applied for a comprehensive plan
amendment to reclassify the future land use designation contained in the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South as proposed in
Planning Case 2016-33 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on August 23, 2016.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the comprehensive plan amendment request as proposed in Planning Case 2016-33 is hereby
approved with the following findings of fact:
1. The conditionally-approved zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the
current future land use designation.
2. The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the conditionally-approved
zoning and surrounding existing/planned land uses.
3. The City Code contains performance standards and other regulations to address potential
negative impacts a new use of the subject property may have on surrounding uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2016-33 is hereby approved, subject
to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixth day of September, 2016.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
ATTEST: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 79
Planning Staff Report
DATE: August 23, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-33
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2500 Lexington Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial (conditionally)/B-Business
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering an amendment to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the
future land use designation of the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business to
I-Industrial.
BACKGROUND
The subject property contains a vacant 13,940-square foot office/warehouse building and is surrounded by high-
density residential, office, and industrial uses. The City Council passed Ordinance 502, as part of Planning Case
2016-28, conditionally-approving rezoning of the subject property from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at
the August 2, 2016 meeting. The approval included the condition that a subsequent comprehensive plan
amendment was approved by the Metropolitan Council.
ANALYSIS
The Land Use Plan, as included in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is intended to depict the general desired
locations of future land uses. As part of the proposed amendment request, a determination should be made that
the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses. According to Title 12-1L-
9(B) of the City Code, an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the City Council is required to adopt amendments
to the comprehensive plan.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment also requires approval from the Metropolitan Council. In
addition, adjacent governmental units and affected school districts are typically required to be notified and given
the opportunity to comment. In this case, the proposed amendment meets the adjacent review waiver criteria due
to its size, non-impact on growth forecasts, and location.
Current Future Land Use Designation
The subject property is currently guided as B-Business. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (p. 44):
page 80
Commercial land uses are typically divided into two general categories; (1) office and (2) retail. The
office category includes land uses generally considered to be of a limited business nature, typically a
daytime office use. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as “LB-Limited Business” or “LB-
PUD”. The corresponding zoning district classifications are B-1 (Limited Business), B-1A (Business
Park) and B-2 (Neighborhood Business).
The second category of commercial uses is for retail and includes neighborhood type convenience
stores and shopping centers. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as “B - Business”.
The surrounding properties are currently guided as follows (see attached maps):
• HR-High Density Residential (north)
• B-Business (south)
• I-Industrial (west, across Lexington Avenue)
Proposed Future Land Use Designation
The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan to designate the future land use for the subject parcels
as I-Industrial. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (p. 45):
Mendota Heights has been able to attract high quality industrial users with aesthetically pleasing
development by requiring planned, aesthetically pleasing industrial design and landscape standards.
The City will continue to promote the development of this type of industry. Although some limited
retail support uses may be appropriate to serve this area, the City believes that restaurant and
hospitality uses should be considered to serve the large employment base. Convenience food and/or
gasoline are not favored in this area.
As noted in Planning Case 2016-28, the Industrial District includes a wider variety of use options than the B-1
Limited Business District that better fit the building’s existing build-out. Depending on the future use of the
property, adequate standards are in-place to regulate any potential negative impacts to surrounding uses.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request, based on the attached findings of
fact, with conditions, and direct staff to submit to the application to the Metropolitan Council.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment request, based on the finding of fact that the
request is inconsistent with the future land use designation in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
with surrounding existing and planned land uses.
OR
3. Table the request(s), pending additional information from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, subject to review and approval by the
Metropolitan Council, based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1).
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial site map
2. Current/proposed planned land use maps (2)
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 81
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2500 Lexington Avenue South
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the comprehensive plan amendment
request in this case:
1. The conditionally-approved zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the current
future land use designation.
2. The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the conditionally-approved zoning
and surrounding existing/planned land uses.
3. The City Code contains performance standards and other regulations to address potential negative
impacts a new use of the subject property may have on surrounding uses.
page 82
299240235
194180 537529146163141270
577
150224
10563
53
463531147
17
832500
2465
2510
2431
2520 I-35E494 RAMPLEXINGTON AVEMEDALLION DR
Planning Case 2016-332500 Lexington Avenue South City of
Mendota
Heights080
SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/16/2016
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 83
I-35EI-494HWY
5
5 494 RAMPLEXINGTON AVEI-35
E
R
A
M
P
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
NORTHLAND
DR
MEDALLION DR
BOURN
L
N
494 LOOP
I-494
HW
Y
5
5 I-35EI-35E RAMPO
2030 LAND USE PLAN
D A K O TA C O U N T YD A K O TA C O U N T Y
Subject Parcel
Current Future Land Use
B-Business
CC-City Hall/Public Works
CEM-Cemetery
HR-High Density Residential
I-Industrial
LB-Limited Business
LB-PUD-Limited Business PUD
LR-Low Density Residential
Sources: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Last Revised: 8/16/2016
City of
Mendota
Heights
LR CEM HR
CC
LB
LB-PUD
BI
0 500 1,000250Feet
page 84
I-35EI-494HWY
5
5 494 RAMPLEXINGTON AVEI-35
E
R
A
M
P
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
NORTHLAND
DR
MEDALLION DR
BOURN
L
N
494 LOOP
I-494
HW
Y
5
5 I-35EI-35E RAMPO
2030 LAND USE PLAN
D A K O TA C O U N T YD A K O TA C O U N T Y
Subject Parcel
Proposed Future Land Use
B-Business
CC-City Hall/Public Works
CEM-Cemetery
HR-High Density Residential
I-Industrial
LB-Limited Business
LB-PUD-Limited Business PUD
LR-Low Density Residential
Sources: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Last Revised: 8/16/2016
City of
Mendota
Heights
LR CEM HR
CC
LB
LB-PUD
BI
0 500 1,000250Feet
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
Albert J Lauer Co
16700 Chippendale Ave
Rosemount Mn 55068-1726
Arcadia Partners LLC
665 Arcadia Dr
Mendota Heights Mn 55118
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4167
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curv
Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167
H & M Holdings of Mendota LLC
2520 Lexington Ave S Ste 500
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
Mendota Heights Family Housing
%Dakota County Cda 1228 Town Centre
Dr
Eagan Mn 55123
Mn Mining & Manufacturing Co
% 3m Company Tax Division Bldg
224-5n-40
Saint Paul Mn 55144
Old Mill Commercial Properties LLC
2510 Lexington Ave S
Mendota Heights Mn 55120
State of Mn - Dot
% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John
Ireland Blvd
Saint Paul Mn 55155
page 89
page 90
page 91
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 505 Concerning Alternative Energy Systems
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerning alternative energy
systems.
Background
In September 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 485 which created standards for alternative energy
systems. After approving several applications for roof-mounted systems, the City Council directed staff to propose
amendments to streamline the review process. Upon review of recent applications, staff is also proposing additional
minor amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color. The proposed amendments
include the following, which are further described in the attached staff report:
1. Reclassify roof-mounted solar energy systems as permitted accessory uses.
2. Retain ground-mounted systems as conditional uses.
3. Differentiate the maximum size standards between residential and business/industrial-zoned properties.
4. Revised color standards.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the August 23 meeting; there were no public comments.
Discussion
The City is using its legislative authority when considering action on a code amendment request and has broad
discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to
protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Budget Impact
If the proposed code amendment is adopted, roof-mounted solar energy systems will no longer require a
conditional use permit. The current fee for a CUP is $350 for residential and $500 for commercial/industrial. The
loss of potential application fees is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the planning department budget.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of DRAFT Ordinance 505, as described in Planning Case
2016-34. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting ORDINANCE
505 CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 92
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2
ORDINANCE NO. 505 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES D, E, F, AND G OF 4
THE CITY CODE CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS 5
6
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 7
8
Section 1. 9
10
Title 12-1D-18-A is hereby amended as follows: 11
12
A. Solar Energy Systems: Solar energy systems are allowed with an appropriate permit a 13
conditional use in all zoning districts subject to the following regulations: 14
15
Section 2. 16
17
Title 12-1D-18-A-4-D is hereby amended as follows: 18
19
4. Ground Mounted Systems: 20
d. Maximum Area: 21
(1) Residential Districts: The system shall be limited in size to the maximum 22
requirement allowed for accessory structures. in the applicable zoning district or 23
(2) Business and Industrial Districts: The system shall be limited in size to no 24
more than twenty five percent (25%) of the rear or side yard in which the system 25
is located, whichever is less. 26
27
Section 3. 28
29
Title 12-1D-18-A-6 is hereby amended as follows: 30
31
6. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that are not visually incompatible blend with the 32
color of the roof material on which the system is mounted or other structures. 33
34
Section 4. 35
36
Titles 12-1E-3-B, 12-1F-1-B, 12-1F-2-B, 12-1F-3-B, 12-1F-4-B, 12-1F-5-F, and 12-1G-2 are 37
hereby amended as follows: 38
39
Ground mounted Ssolar energy systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are 40
designed to supply energy to on site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter. 41
42
Section 5. 43
44
Titles 12-1E-3-C, 12-1F-1-C, 12-1F-2-C, 12-1F-3-C, 12-1F-4-C, 12-1F-5-G, and 12-1G-3 are 45
hereby amended as follows: 46
47
page 93
Roof mounted Ssolar energy systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are 48
designed to supply energy to on site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter. 49
50
Section 6. 51
52
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 53
54
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this sixth day of September, 2016. 55
56
CITY COUNCIL 57
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 58
59
60
61
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 62
ATTEST 63
64
65
___________________________ 66
Lorri Smith, City Clerk 67
page 94
Planning Staff Report
DATE: August 23, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-34
Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerning alternative
energy systems.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted Ordinance 485 creating standards for alternative energy systems, as part of
Planning Case 2015-34. The intent was to ensure the same standards are applied to each solar energy
system in an effort to encourage sustainable practices that do not adversely impact the community.
Since adoption of the ordinance, the City Council has approved four conditional use permit applications for
roof-mounted systems. Based on feedback from applicants that the ordinance provisions are workable, but
the required review process takes too long, the City Council directed staff to propose amendments that
streamline the review process for certain systems. Upon review of recent applications, staff is also proposing
additional minor amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color.
ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance includes the following amendments:
1. Roof-mounted solar energy systems reclassified as a permitted accessory use (Section 5):
The intent is to streamline review of these particular systems by no longer requiring a CUP. If the
building permit application is deemed compliant with the existing standards, then it can be issued
without a public hearing or City Council action.
2. Ground-mounted solar energy systems remain as a conditional use and separate maximum area
standards for residential and business/industrial districts are included (Sections 2 and 4):
page 95
The City has not yet considered any CUP’s for ground-mounted solar energy systems, therefore it is
recommended that they remain a conditional use in all districts. Once the City has processed several
of these requests and is confident the existing standards are workable, they could also be considered
for reclassification as a permitted accessory use.
In addition, the maximum area for ground-mounted systems in business/industrial zones would be
expanded to 25% of the rear or side yard. The existing standard requiring the system not exceed the
maximum size for an accessory structure, which is 144 square feet for properties under four acres and
225 square feet for properties over four acres in residential zones, is not practical for most
business/industrial properties. There is no change proposed to the maximum size standards for ground-
mounted systems in residential zones.
3. Color standard revised (Section 3):
The existing language requires that the system’s color “blends” with the roof material. Due to the fact
that panels only come in a few colors, the proposed language frames the standard as to not be negative
by using the phrase “are not visually incompatible” with the roof material; this allows staff more
discretion to determine compliance with the intent of the standard.
4. Reference to requiring a conditional use permit in all districts removed (Section 1):
Based on the proposed amendment in #2 above and Section 4 of the DRAFT Ordinance, the reference
to a conditional use permit being required in all districts would be revised as necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 505, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 505.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. If acceptable to the
Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would propose to bring back any substantial
revisions for review and further discussion at a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the
City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. DRAFT Ordinance 505
2. City Code, Title 12-1D-18
3. Planning application, including supporting materials
page 96
12-1D-18: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS:
A. Solar Energy Systems: Solar energy systems are a conditional use in all zoning districts
subject to the following regulations:
1. Building Permit: No solar energy system shall be erected, altered, improved,
reconstructed, maintained, or moved without obtaining a building permit.
2. Exemptions: The following systems shall be exempt from the requirements of this
section and shall be regulated as any other building element requiring a building
permit:
a. Building integrated solar energy systems.
b. Passive solar energy systems.
3. Roof Mounted Systems:
a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed the structure height
requirements in the applicable zoning district.
b. Setbacks: The system shall comply with all building setback requirements in the
applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the
building on which the system is mounted.
c. Mounting: The system shall be flush mounted on pitched roofs or may be bracket
mounted on flat roofs. Bracket mounted collectors shall only be permitted when a
determination is provided by a licensed professional qualified to certify that the
underlying roof structure will support loading requirements and all applicable building
standards are satisfied.
d. Maximum Area: The system shall not cover more than eighty percent (80%) of the
roof section upon which the panels are mounted.
4. Ground Mounted Systems:
a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in
height from the average natural grade at the base of the system.
b. Setbacks: The system shall be set back a minimum of fifteen feet (15') from all
property boundary lines and thirty feet (30') from all dwellings located on adjacent
lots, including any appurtenant equipment.
c. Location: The systems shall be limited to rear yards in all zoning districts.
d. Maximum Area: The system shall be limited in size to the maximum requirement
allowed for accessory structures in the applicable zoning district or no more than
twenty five percent (25%) of the rear yard, whichever is less.
Page 1 of 3Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
2/23/2016http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php
page 97
5. Screening: Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible
without impacting their function. Systems located within the business and industrial
zoning districts may be required to comply with the standards in subsection 12-1D-13-
2C7 of this article where practical.
6. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that blend with the color of the roof
material on which the system is mounted or other structures.
7. Glare: Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from
neighboring windows and minimize glare toward vehicular traffic and adjacent
properties. Where necessary, the city may require additional screening to address
glare.
8. Utility Connection:
a. All utilities shall be installed underground.
b. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving
the property.
c. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in
conformance with the national electrical code.
d. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility
company until the company has provided the appropriate authorization to the city, in
compliance with the national electrical code.
9. Safety:
a. Standards: Solar energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the American Society Of Heating,
Refrigerating, And Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), ASTM International,
British Standards Institution (BSI), International Organization For Standardization
(ISO), Underwriter's Laboratory (UL), the Solar Rating And Certification Corporation
(SRCC) or other standards as determined by the city building official.
b. Certification: Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Solar Rating And
Certification Corporation or other body as determined by the community
development director. The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for
proposed solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification.
10. Easements: Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon any public drainage,
utility, roadway, or trail easements.
11. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which remains nonfunctional or inoperable
for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed to be abandoned and
shall be deemed a public nuisance. The owners shall remove the abandoned system,
including the entire structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after
obtaining a demolition permit.
Page 2 of 3Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
2/23/2016http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php
page 98
B. Variance: Any required standard in this section that cannot be met may be considered by
a variance request, in accordance with section 12-1L-5 of this chapter and considering
the following criteria unique to solar energy systems:
1. That the deviation is required to allow for the improved operation of the solar energy
system;
2. That the solar energy system has a net energy gain;
3. That the solar energy system does not adversely affect solar access to adjacent
properties;
4. That the solar energy system complies with all other engineering, building, safety, and
fire regulations; and
5. That the solar energy system is found to not have adverse impacts on the area,
including the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. (Ord. 485, 9-15-2015)
Page 3 of 3Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
2/23/2016http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php
page 99
page 100
page 101
page 102