Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2017-03-07 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 7, 2017 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Swearing in of Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief 6. Consent Agenda a. Approval of February 21, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge February 28, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes c. Approval to Begin Police Officer Recruitment Process d. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Org for Lake Augusta Alum Treatment e. Approve Donation of City Property f. Approval of Claims List 7. Public Comments 8. Presentations a. Rogers Lake Water Quality Report Presentation by Saint Thomas Academy 9. Public Hearing - none 10. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2017-21 Approving a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit to Gerald Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway b. Resolution 2017-22 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Holy Family Maronite Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue c. Ordinance No. 508 Amending Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 - Zoning Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Chickens d. Award Contract for 2017 Municipal Clean Up Day 11. Community Announcements 12. Council Comments 13. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 21, 2017 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 Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers Miller, Petschel, and Paper were also present. Councilmember Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that the applicant requested that item 9a be deferred. Councilmember Paper moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items a. Approval of February 7, 2017 City Council Minutes and c. Approval of February 13, 2017 Closed Session Minutes. a. Approval of February 7, 2017 City Council Minutes b. Approval of February 9, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approval of February 13, 2017 Closed Session Minutes d. Acknowledgement of January 2017 Fire Synopsis e. Acknowledgement of January 2017 Building Activity Report page 3 f. Acknowledgement of January 2017 Treasurer's Report g. Authorize 2016 Auditing Services with Bergan KDV h. Authorize Purchase Order for Removal of Invasive Species Management i. Authorize Participation — Open to Business j. Negotiate Contract for 2017 Clean Up Day k. Appoint Scott Goldenstein as Assistant Fire Chief l. Approval of Claims List Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A) APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilmember Petschel noted the minor edits to the February 7, 2017 City Council Minutes. Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the February 7, 2017 City Council Minutes as amended. Councilmember Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) C) APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 13, 2017 CLOSED SESSION MINUTES Mayor Garlock stated that a closed session of the City Council was held on February 13, 2017. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a litigation issue. He reported that no action was taken by the City Council during the closed session. Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the February 13, 2017 Closed Session Minutes. Councilmember Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Michelle Patrick, 890 Mendakota Court, expressed her appreciation to the City Council for approving the name change of the Mendota Heights 5K to “Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K to Benefit Special Olympics”. She thanked the Council for making sure that this great man was not forgotten. page 4 PRESENTATIONS A) FUTURES CITIES PRESENTATION Mr. John Mazzitello explained that a team of students from Friendly Hills Middle School participated in the Futures Cities competition. This is the 25th year that Future Cities has been in existence and the 9th year that Friendly Hills has participated. Mr. Mazzitello explained this year’s theme was “The Power of Public Spaces” where the teams had to focus on the utilization and placement of public spaces. Ms. Crystal Mielke, the teacher from Friendly Hills Middle School involved in the program, introduced sixth graders Stella, Vivian, Emily, and Katie who presented their competition entry titled “Willow Grove”. Mr. Mazzitello noted that the “Willow Grove” team won the “Best City Model” award. The team members answered questions from the councilmembers. B) COMMUNITIES FOR A LIFETIME City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that Communities for a Lifetime Initiative (CLF) is a program that is sponsored by the Dakota County Public Health Department. This is a timely presentation as communities in the metropolitan area are looking at their comprehensive plan updates. Mr. Jess Luce explained that Mendota Heights was part of a pilot project for the City Profiles completed by CLF. CFL works to help make communities better places to grow old. The basic premise behind this is that having healthy, active, and successful residents benefit the whole of the community. Some of the things incorporated into Community for a Lifetime include transportation options, walkability of the community, a full range of affordable housing or housing options, services that support older adults and caregivers, flexible and supportive employment and volunteer opportunities, effective technology, and affordable healthcare and caregiver support. Mr. Luce noted that it is hoped that this presentation will raise awareness of demographic changes and their implications to spur communities to take action. Each community has its own strengths and gaps; and his desire is to get communities and cities to start thinking more about this. Mr. Luce continued by explaining that the City Profiles were completed in December 2016 and highlights how age-friendly the City is in comparison to neighboring communities. The profile covers population, livability, housing, mobility, land use, community life, and age-friendly policies. Councilmember Paper noted that Mr. Luce had mentioned that populations were remaining in the counties they were raised in or lived in most of their lives and asked if that was a national trend or just a Minnesota trend. Mr. Luce replied that this is being seen nationally; most residents will stay put where they are as they age. Councilmember Petschel stated that the City is currently struggling with the development of the final lots in The Village. One point made was that in the heart of the City, there should not be any fear of density. page 5 Mayor Garlock asked if Mr. Luce had any recommendation for density in The Village area. Mr. Luce replied that he does not know the density codes but said that mirroring the density of the apartment building would be nice. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2017-21 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT 697 WESLEY LANE This item was deferred at the request of the applicant. B) AUTHORIZE SOLAR ENERGY GRANT APPLICATIONS City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that staff was wanting to gauge the Council’s interest in applying for two grants, which would allow the City to reap some benefits from solar energy. The first is the Made in Minnesota (MiM) Program that is administered through the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The intent was to help the solar energy manufacturing industry in Minnesota. This particular program is open from January 1 through February 28. If successful, the benefit to the City would be that the grant would fund the solar panels and their installation. The City would receive a 25% reduction in its retail electrical charges. After twelve years, the City would receive 100% of that. Winners of this program are determined by lottery. The other program is the Solar Rewards Rebate Program, which is through Xcel Energy. It is not as attractive in terms of the payback; nevertheless, it is a good program. Applications are considered on a first-come, first-served basis. The City has five buildings that could have solar energy panels installed on them; City Hall, Public Works, Fire Station, and two buildings at Par 3. The recommendation staff has received is that the City applies for each of the buildings individually as a separate grant application. Staff was looking for direction from the Council on if they would be interested in applying for these grants and if so, which buildings would they like to see solar energy installed on. Councilmember Paper asked who would be tasked with maintaining the solar equipment. Administrator McNeill replied that he would recommend contracting that out. Councilmember Miller asked how many years the pay down would be. Administrator McNeill replied that under the MiM grant program, the program would pay for the cost of installation and the maintenance for the initial 12-year period. After 12 years, the City would become the owner of the system. As mentioned earlier, the City would receive a 25% savings in its electrical bills for the first 12 page 6 years; after that time, 100% of the electrical benefit would go to the City. The Xcel program has similar payback times. Councilmember Petschel asked if there would be any point in time where the City could capture the energy and use it as a backup. Mr. Rich Ragatz from Ideal Energies replied that currently that is cost prohibitive to have the backup power. All of the power that is generated would be used on site. If there is any excess it would go back to the grid and the City would receive a credit on their bill. Councilmember Paper asked if there were other businesses or school districts in the community currently using solar energy. Mr. Ragatz replied that they did this with Minnesota Knitting Mills who are using two ground-mounted solar panels. Councilmember Miller asked how the panels work in the winter during snowstorms. Mr. Ragatz replied that in their production numbers, they take into account a 50% reduction in January and December, and then 25% reduction in November and February, because of the shorter days and the angle of the sun. The panels are self-cleaning and there are no moving parts. The expected useful life is 40 years and there is a 25-year warranty on the equipment. Councilmember Miller asked if there would be any issues with relocating a system that has already been installed on a building onto another building. Mr. Ragatz replied that with this program they would have to keep the solar system on the building that it is approved for. Councilmember Petschel asked about risk to the asphalt roof with the roof-mounted systems. Mr. Ragatz replied that there is not a whole lot of risk, it is just a matter of aesthetics. He stated that if there is a flat roof, they have a system that would sit on top of the roof membrane. They have a structural engineer that would do a structural report making sure the additional four pounds per square foot would be able to be handled based on the structure. They would put concrete blocks on aluminum trays on the corners and edges to hold it down, based on a specific wind and snow loads. It would also be possible to service the roof membrane if a leak were to be discovered. In regards to maintenance, for the twelve years there is a production-based incentive that is available for both programs. Ideal Energies would take care of the system for all twelve years. They will handle any maintenance that comes up. Councilmember Paper asked what parts or pieces could go bad. Mr. Ragatz replied that they have done 150 of these installations and they have found that typically in the first six months there may be some start up issues or tweaks necessary; however, once those are fixed it is pretty much smooth sailing. There are no moving parts, the panels are made of tempered glass and engineered for 50 mph hour wind and an inch of hail; they have heavy-duty aluminum backing. They are built to last and built to be out in the elements. Councilmember Petschel asked if there would be any issues with lightening. Mr. Ragatz replied that they have grounding that is part of the installation and they have not had any issues with lightening. Of the 10,000 panels they have out there, only three have cracked because of hail. Councilmember Paper asked how many panels they would need to install on a building like City Hall. Mr. Ragatz answered that it would depend on which program the City goes with. The 20-kilowatt would page 7 be approximately 50 panels and double that for the 40-kilowatt. There is also the option of doing a ground mount. For the 20-kilowatt they would need approximately 1,800 square feet of space and for the 40-kilowatt they would need approximately 3,600 square feet. However, they can size the kilowatts to fit the building and it would all be proportional. Councilmember Miller asked how much space would be needed inside the building. Mr. Ragatz replied that they go into the electrical room and into the existing panel and put a bi-directional meter on there, which is pretty small. That would take the energy created from the solar array first and then supplement from the grid. Councilmember Paper asked if there were a lot of residential solar arrays in town. Councilmember Petschel noted that, just within the past year, the City streamlined the application process for solar panels. She estimated at least a half-dozen applications have been received. Discussions took place regarding the five building options and where it would be best to install the systems at each location; most beneficial would be south-facing. Councilmember Paper asked how specific the applications needed to be in regards to buildings, sizes, locations, etc. Administrator McNeill noted that each of the five buildings under consideration qualify for a 20-kilowatt and a 40-kilowatt system. Estimated cost savings annually would be several thousand dollars. Councilmember Miller moved to authorize the submission of grant applications for both the Made in Minnesota, and the Xcel Energy Solar Rewards Rebate Programs for all five buildings under consideration. Councilmember Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) C) SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM UPDATE Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that staff is in the early stages of the Sump Pump Inspection Program. The City has exceeded its allowable flows to the Metropolitan Council treatment plant and is subject to a $97,000 per year surcharge from the Metropolitan Council. The City has chosen to put that $97,000 into infrastructure rather than just continuing to pay the surcharge. The City has to put in approximately $500,000 by the year 2018 and will reach that goal without any problems. One of the ideas was to look at where all of this excess water was coming from. It is known and understood that the City has an aging sewer system that can let some ground water infiltrate into; but another source could be sump pumps that are connected to the sanitary sewer system (floor drain, laundry tub, or direct connection). It is anticipated that approximately half of the homes in the City would be inspected to see if they have a sump pump and where it discharges to. page 8 Notices have gone out to some residents. The inspectors from the consultant (Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC) have city badges and are authorized to do the inspections. The consultant is also informing the Police Department what areas they are working in. Of the 2,000 homes to be inspected in this first phase, a number of properties are located on the north end of town (north of Wentworth and east of Wachler); between Lexington and Victoria (between Highway 110 and Highway 13); and the Copperfield area. Properties that are in compliance will receive a Certificate of Compliance; properties that are not in compliance will be required to make repairs. Councilmember Paper asked for those homes not in compliance, how much time will they be given to update their property. Mr. Ruzek replied they would be given either 60 or 90 days. Staff would be willing to work with the resident if that time frame is insufficient. Mr. Ruzek also noted that there are several locations that are experiencing severe icing due to sump pumps that have been running in the winter. Staff will most likely propose adding about five to ten catch basins in some select locations. The homeowners then could connect into those storm sewer systems underground so their sump pump water is never flowing over the surface. Staff is still in the process of assessing those areas and putting that plan together. Councilmember Petschel asked for confirmation that this program is modeled somewhat after the one in Eagan. Mr. Ruzek confirmed. Mr. Ruzek also noted that it has been illegal to discharge sump pump water since the late 1960’s. Councilmember Petschel asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann to explain what could be done if someone refuses access to the property. Attorney Lehmann stated that other municipalities have looked at either a service fee or a penalty. Or a home owner could hire a licensed plumber to do the inspection and the plumber could certify that they are either in compliance or not in compliance. Ultimately, the City could obtain an administrative search warrant if they wanted to go to that extend to inspect the property. Councilmember Paper asked if there is a cut-off date for the homes being inspected– say a home was built after 2001 – that they could be exempt from inspection. Mr. Ruzek replied that this is an illegal connection no matter the age of the home or property. Councilmember Paper asked if there are grants available or other means of obtaining help if this were to be an expensive fix. Mr. Ruzek replied that there are no regional programs that he is aware of. The City could consider funding if they so choose. Since this was for information purposes only, no motions or decisions were necessary. D) RESOLUTION 2017-19 – 2017 SANITARY SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Metropolitan Council controls approximately 64% of the City’s sewer utility expenses through their sewer rate charge. In 2017, the Metropolitan Council has raised their sewer treatment rate 5.8% over the 2016 rate. In turn, staff is proposing to raise page 9 the base rate to their residents by 5%, to $68.35 per quarter, an increase of approximately $3.27 per quarter, $1.09 per month, or $13.08 per year. By increasing the billed rate 5%, and by adjusting the schedule of capital improvement projects, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund remains sustainable. Even after the proposed 5% sanitary sewer rate increase, the City will remain as having one of the lowest base sanitary sewer rates in northern Dakota County. Councilmember Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-19 AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER USAGE RATES BEGINNING IN THE FIRST QUARTER 2017. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) E) RESOLUTION 2017-20 – 2017 STORM WATER UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the storm sewer utility fee funds the City’s storm sewer pipes, catch basins, pond maintenance, education activities, MS4 permitting, as well as other projects. The storm sewer utility bill was approximately $3.50 per quarter around 2004, raised to $5.00 per quarter in 2006, and raised to $7.25 per quarter in 2010. Staff is proposing to increase the rate this year to $10.00 per quarter. Commercial, Golf Course/Cemetery, and Institution rates would remain flat. It is anticipated this rate increase would generate $40,000 annually in revenue. There are a number of expenses occurring in 2017 and it will take a couple of years after that to build the balance back up. Councilmember Miller asked that Mr. Ruzek speak to the pond maintenance projects potentially scheduled for 2019 and 2020. Mr. Ruzek replied that he knows that the City is in need of doing pond maintenance; however, they have not made it into any Capital Improvement Plans at this time. The need is there so the numbers have been added to the report as a placeholder. He also noted that it would cost approximately $50,000 per pond for maintenance, and the City has over 100 ponds. Currently, a consultant is updating the surface water management plan. A draft plan will be available for presentation to the Council later this year. Councilmember Petschel asked for confirmation that the City was waiting to hear what the state mandate is going to be in terms of pond maintenance. Mr. Ruzek stated that the City has completed a pond inventory. All communities are going to need to prove that the ponds are actually treating storm water to a certain level. Staff is including that model in their current surface water management plan. Councilmember Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-20 AUTHORIZING STORM WATER UTILITY RATES BEGINNING IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2017. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) page 10 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that staff has been working with a master gardener group, and will be holding a workshop titled Landscaping for Pollinators Workshop. It will teach residents how to create a sustainable landscape using native plants that will attract pollinators. The first free session is on February 23, 2017. An advanced class will be held on February 27, 2017 where staff will provide maps and sit down and do one-on-one work to help people design gardens within their property. City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced Mr. Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. He will be handling planning, economic development, and other issues for the city. He has a great deal of experience and everyone is very happy to have him in Mendota Heights. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Paper congratulated the Friendly Hills students on the Willow Grove team. He expressed his appreciation to John Mazzitello for continuing to support those teams at Friendly Hills. Councilmember Miller wished the best of luck to the Visitation Girls Hockey Team; they partnered up with St. Paul Academy to play varsity hockey under the title St. Paul United. They are participating for the third year in a row in the State Hockey Tournament on February 22. Councilmember Petschel expressed her appreciation to the Willow Grove team for coming to the meeting with their model city and to Mr. John Mazzitello. She stated that this is an example of the synergy that can be found between the schools and the city, the same with the water testing done on Rogers Lake by St. Thomas Academy students. There are many instances of efforts that can be done like this that would benefit the city, create synergy between the city and the schools. She encouraged residents who have ideas like these to please contact her. ADJOURN Councilmember Petschel moved to adjourn. Councilmember Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock ATTEST: Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Mary Magnuson. The following city staff were present: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Phil Carlson, Consultant Planner (Stantec); and Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. Approval of Agenda Chair Field proposed that the agenda be revised by moving Public Hearing Case No. 2017-03 from being heard third to being heard first. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of January 24, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Administrative Items This was not listed on the agenda; however, every February the Commission welcomes new members. Chair Field was pleased to note that the commission this year is made up of the same members as last year. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO NOMINATE LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO NOMINATE DOUG HENNES AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) page 12 Hearings C) PLANNING CASE #2017-03 HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH, 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that Holy Family Maronite Church at 1960 Lexington Avenue wishes to make two small additions to their existing church facility. The commission is being asked to consider the impact on the neighborhood that this conditional use, as opposed to a permitted use, might have on the neighborhood. The existing church occupies the western part of the lot, which is a relatively large lot considering it is a single-family neighborhood. The parking lot occupies most of the lot. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the site plan with the proposed additions. The two proposed additions would be relatively small and one story. There would be no change to the sanctuary or the main assembly space. Therefore, there would be no change to the required parking spaces. Looking at the existing church and what is being proposed, Mr. Carlson stated that the additions are relatively minor and small. It is of the opinion that they would not have a significant impact on the site or on the surroundings. Staff recommended approval of this application. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Craig Rafferty of RRTL Architects located at 253 E. 7th Street, St. Paul came forward to address any questions from the Commission. He noted that the church is, and wants to continue to be, a very good neighbor. They have enjoyed their relationship with all of their neighbors in the area. The summary provided by Mr. Carlson was spot-on in the sense that this is a relatively innocent addition but it means an awful lot to the church. This would provide them the opportunity to expand their counseling areas, their dining area, and coordinate their administrative space. Mr. Bob Klepperich, 1092 Vale Drive, is the closest neighbor to the church, his property being directly north of the church. He stated that the church has been a great neighbor; has been fortunate to meet members of their congregation; and has had frequent visits with Father Emmanuel, the pastor and on occasion, participated in the church’s liturgy. He has no problem endorsing the project, which has become before the commission. Father Emmanuel reviewed the project with him and he sees a definite need for this type of expansion. For the record, he has only one concern, which he does not believe will be a problem. There is a definite water table problem in the area. The plan does not call for any basement work or excavation work, as the Father has explained it to him, so he does not feel that this would be a problem. He is hopeful that this project would not negatively affect the water table. Mr. Rafferty returned and noted that they were aware of, through the discussions with the planning office, and modest provisions have been made within the reach of this project to adapt the drainage page 13 swell and to create a more absorbent series of surfaces as it contributes to a nearby catch basin. Otherwise, the ponding areas within the parking area are all being directed to a more distant area from the neighbor’s property within the limits of the project. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use is existing and has been a good neighbor in this location in this zoning district for many years. 2. The existing church use is on a busy corner and not in the middle of a quiet residential area. 3. The proposed additions are modest is size and will have minimal impact on activity, traffic, noise, or other issues that might affect the neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will meet all zoning code standards for setbacks, building height and number of parking stalls. 5. The proposed grading and drainage plan poses no concerns to the City Engineer. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant will submit grading plans, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. The applicant will submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. 3. All new exterior lighting will be downcast cutoff type fixtures to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 7, 2017 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE #2016-41 JERRY TROOIEN, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that the application was for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The critical area is that portion of the City that is on or near the bluff of the Mississippi River Valley. The property at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway is a page 14 fairly large rectangular single-family residential parcel of approximately five acres. The property, as noted in the packet and as some of the commissioners may remember, received an approval for a lot split in 2014; so there is a second single-family lot that will be permitted to be built upon, which will show up on the plans later. Any significant development or disturbance of the critical area requires a critical area permit. Mr. Trooien originally proposed last fall to clear buckthorn and some other trees that were diseased and dying on the property. When staff went to look at that piece of property, they discovered that there had been some work done on the property in the previous year. Mr. Carlson then shared an image of the property with the proposed building site, the area in this request to be cleared, and the area graded without a permit highlighted. In that fall, that application was continued until a more sophisticated and complete plan could be prepared. Mr. Trooien retained the services of a landscape architect, Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc., who was present at this meeting, and who worked with the applicant and city staff to develop that plan. Because this was unfolding last fall, Mr. Mastey approached city staff and requested permission to at least secure the site for the winter so that the spring thaw would not contribute to erosion down the hill. He was given that permission and the erosion control measures were installed. Therefore, the site was secured over the winter. As part of this application, Mr. Trooien is asking for to do some work in grading, tree removal, and reseeding and replanting of the property, mostly in the area of this new home lot. Most of the Commissioners and city staff went out last Saturday morning (February 25th) and walked the site with Mr. Trooien and Mr. Mastey so they could explain the kind of work that is being proposed and the nature of the area. The critical area has a special code on it because it is a unique environment with a unique feature that needs to be preserved, protected, and enhanced. Mr. Mastey’s analysis revealed that there is a lot of scrub material, buckthorn, invasive species of trees, and dead and dying trees located on the property. Therefore, some kind of work on the property is appropriate and reasonable. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the previously disturbed area and explained that it is to be re- graded with the native seed mix so that when it comes up it would be native and appropriate for this area, as well as adding in native species of trees. In tandem with this plan they are looking forward to when this second lot could be built on. Again, it is an approved lot split, a home will go there; however, disturbance in the critical area requires review and city approval. Mr. Carlson then explained the intended location of the driveway and building pad and, in the process of that, create a depression that would be a drainage area, filtration pond, which would overflow into another depression and infiltration area inside the driveway turnaround, that would in turn flow to a lower part of the site. It is a plan that would enhance and protect the drainage on the site and at the same time create this new home site. Also included in this plan is a proposal to move the proposed building pad for a new house well away from the neighboring property to the east. In the original approval, in 2014 for the lot split, this building pad was approved within 20 feet of the lot line. It is now being placed about 60 feet page 15 away from that lot line. This is a significant improvement to the overall site planning and relationships to the area and will improve the drainage on the site. A key component of this is to try to preserve the character of the area and the river valley. Right now, most of that area is comprised of invasive species and so the plan is to remove buckthorn and to selectively remove some of the dead and dying elm and other trees that are non-native to the area and replacing them with native trees. Staff recommended approval of this application. To that tend, Mr. Carlson read the first condition of approval as, “Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application.” He then continued by stating that there would be new drawings prepared because there is recommendation for an added area to be able to remove buckthorn. Therefore, Mr. Carlson would be adding a phrase here that would be ‘drawings prepared by whom and on specific dates’ so everyone knows exactly what drawings are being referred to. It is the intent of all involved to have these preparers and dates included by the time this application would reach the City Council, if approval were recommended by the commission. As further definition, Mr. Carlson explained that the applicant was proposing is that they be allowed to remove buckthorn on the entire property, not just on the confined area around the new building pad; and remove invasive non-native trees that are smaller than 3” in diameter. The larger trees would not be removed, except for those that are in the building pad area. The next five conditions would remain the same; however, based on this additional work, staff would add two new conditions seven and eight: 6. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of three years from the date of installation. Chair Field noted that this is a public hearing that was held open from a prior meeting and is a continuation. He also noted that under the extension that was authorized by the applicant, the City has until June to act on this request. Commissioner Roston asked for clarification that the lot split has already been approved and completed. Mr. Carlson replied that this is correct. The only item under consideration is the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Petschel requested Mr. Carlson to review the constraints with respect to the removal of vegetation. Mr. Carlson replied that the Landscape Plan is only in the previously disturbed area. The removal of trees would be in the other area that was originally defined; to remove buckthorn and the large trees because the grading and such for the new home pad would remove those and many those, as noted, are invasive species. page 16 They are now asking to try to take a larger view of the whole property and remove buckthorn on the entire property and if there are invasive trees that are no larger than 3” in diameter, to remove those too. Invasive trees larger than 3” in diameter would remain so there would be no removal of the high canopy. Commissioner Noonan noted that in the added phrase to Condition #1, those plans that are being prepared would define what is being removed. He then asked if it would also define what is being replaced. Mr. Carlson replied that what is being replaced are already outlined in the plans. The plans will also define the extent of the removal. The plans would be agreed upon between the City Engineer, the City Planner, and the applicant. The plans also would not come before the City Council until approved by all. Chair Field noted for the record that staff did properly advertise a site visit last Saturday (February 25, 2017) and all but one commissioner was present. It was merely a fact-finding visit to the property since it is somewhat restricted access so they could get a complete appreciation of the site. Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc. came forward and reiterated that the summary provided by Mr. Carlson clearly stated the intent. The additional fact- finding exercise was held so the commission could actually get to the site, see what is there, and understand the highly degraded woodland that is there. The intent of trying to flip that over and work toward something 50 to 100 years from now more closely resembles a pre-European settlement with native forest, whether that is thick woods or oak savannahs. He provided a couple of clarifications by sharing an image and pointing out on that image the grading limits. There are three parts to this request; re-vegetation, request to remove and re-grade to start to set the stage, and to look at the entire property that is overrun with buckthorn. They are not only requesting permission to address the invasive that are in the area that has been disturbed and where the new house pad is proposed to be, but to work out from that point and remove any buckthorn and other invasive that are less than 3” in diameter. They desire is to create more healthy woodland. Chair Field asked for Mr. Mastey’s professional opinion on whether or not Mr. Trooien would need to make special precautions during the removal of the buckthorn and other invasive species so as to not degradate the slope and create some potential erosion problems. Mr. Mastey replied that they would be taking a two-phase approach; cut the trees down at grade leaving the entire root system intact and using Minnesota Department of Agriculture approved chemicals that would kill the buckthorn. They do not wish to disturb the soil at all. Then as these plants start to die back, the vegetation that is still there would take up the extra air and sunlight and fill in. Hopefully, they will start to see some of those species, even some of those things as simple as Ash trees start to reseed now that there is some light. This is a cautious approach by not disturbing the understory and leaving the root system in place. Commissioner Petschel noted that the final grading as demonstrated in the staff report does not seem to be reflected in the landscape plan. Mr. Mastey replied that there were three ways they page 17 could entertain what they are requesting. Firstly, look at what needs to be done to restore the area that has been disturbed. He wanted to clearly delineate, at the very least, that this needed to be addressed. So it was left as is. Secondly, moving into the larger area, they are assuming that as this is developed and they put final construction documents together there will need to be native seeding that is similar in character to what was being suggested in the disturbed area except to move more towards woodland species that do a better job in lower sunlight situations. There may also be some additional trees that are planted but right now they just wanted to get over this hump and then they could work with the City and what their requirements might be for single-family lots for landscape requirements, etc. Ms. Maxine Bergh, 996 Caren Court, explained that her property backs onto Mr. Trooien’s property. At the present time, there are two stakes visible from her kitchen: one on her lot line and the second where the building pad was originally intended to be. She asked if the movement of the building pad farther away from the lot line has been carved in stone. According to the drawing she saw, it appears that the impervious driveway surface will be very close to her property. She wanted to ensure that the Commission is cognizant of this because they have lived in this neighborhood for more than 40 years and love it. She understands that nothing is guaranteed but is understandably concerned about what happens behind them. Mr. Carlson returned and stated that the original building pad during the lot split was shown to be about 20 feet from the lot line. That is what is staked on the site. All of the split lot is below Ms. Bergh’s property. With this approval and plan then the new home would be placed about 60 feet from her lot instead of 20 feet. Then what is next to her lot would be partly a driveway but it would be below her view, down the slope, and flat to the ground at that point. Commissioner Noonan stated that once a formal proposal is made for a home, it would be brought before the Commission for consideration and a second critical area application. Commissioner Roston stated that it appears that most of the homes in her neighborhood are roughly the same distance apart from each other as she would be from the new lot. This proposal does not appear to be changing that. Ms. Bergh agreed; however, they are used to woods and love it. When she looks at this proposal and sees the location of the proposed driveway she sees quite a change in her view. She just wants everyone to know that she is paying attention. Mr. George Bergh, 996 Caren Court, said that he appreciates the effort that the 60-foot setback from their lot line and it appears that it is documented. Obviously there is some flexibility in development; however, he was unclear on just how close to his lot line the driveway would be. He understands that it would be below their profile because of the berm. Mr. Carlson replied that the driveway would be approximately 20 feet from the lot line. Just about the same place as the previous location of the building pad. Mr. Bergh asked for clarification, as it appears that, on the plans in the staff report, the dotted line extends over onto his property. The response was that the line Mr. Bergh was referring to were contour lines of the existing grading and was not boundary lines in any of the plans. page 18 Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, stated that he liked the changes that were proposed both in terms of moving of the building pad but also the vegetation plans. He asked about the grading limits and how far does that have to be from the property line. The response was that there are not setback requirements for a grading permit. He then noted that this property has had somewhat of a checkered past and part of the resolution was to have a complete plan before moving forward on approving the permit. It does appear to be very good and complete, except for this Prepared By X on Date X. Given the history of this property this leaves him very uncomfortable. He believes this should be completed before any approval is provided, as a ‘complete plan’ was what was agreed upon. Chair Field noted that one of the clarifications received from Mr. Carlson was that this would be completed before it goes before the City Council for final review and possible approval. In effect, the commission is granting staff some latitude to come up with a plan to go to the City Council and still move this along. Commissioner Noonan replied that the commission is only making a recommendation; the City Council ultimately makes the decision and they have to be satisfied that all of the I’s are dotted and all of the T’s are crossed. Ms. Alice Chapman, 1011 James Court, noted that her concern was the plan to clean out the total property of buckthorn and trees that may be like 20 feet or less in height. She just purchased her property a year ago and one of the selling points was the privacy behind her property. If they remove all of those trees there will be no privacy. Commissioner Noonan requested clarification from staff that any of the work that is being proposed is not on the Trooien lot – the existing Trooien lot where the house is – but rather on the lot on the north side of the Trooien house and therefore would not affect Ms. Chapman’s view. Before staff could answer Ms. Chapman noted that she just heard was that they wanted to have permission to do the entire property. Chair Field replied that the request if not to remove every tree 20 feet or less in height; it is only certain invasive species that are not natural that have evolved there over time. Commissioner Petschel further clarified that the trees would be 3” or less in diameter, not less than 20 feet in height. Mr. Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, came forward and asked for a quick education on the added condition #7; “A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.” Mr. Carlson replied that this condition was added since there is a significant amount of work to be done on this property and there is going to be material removed and then material replaced, including the native seed mix and including a number of new trees. Worst-case scenario, he gets halfway through the project and disappears. The City needs to know, and the neighbors need to page 19 know, that work will be completed. It is like any other project where there is a guarantee and assurance necessary. Mr. Trooien stated that no one is required to provide letters of credit to get their work done – that is between them and their contractor. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the applicant is requesting to disturb up to five acres for invasive species removal. In development situation, the City typically requires a Letter of Credit for the landscaping portion of that project, which is usually 125% to 150% of the value of the landscaping work. Mr. Trooien asked if an infrastructure being built is asked to provide a Letter of Credit for their landscaping work. Chair Field replied that five acres is typically for more than one home; although in this case it is for one home; it is a five-acre site in the critical area and that was staff’s recommendation. The commission saw this for the first time this evening and they will have a discussion about it now that Mr. Trooien has voiced his concern. Mr. Trooien stated that he feels like this is singling him out and is onerous and unusual. Mr. Carlson indicated that it is an unusual situation; however, this is in an unusual location. Mr. Trooien is probably right that a homeowner in another part of Mendota Heights no one would care because if someone were to take down a tree and not replant it – that is just part of being in a suburban environment. Here in the critical area the commission, City Council, and the neighbors want to know that this work will be completed and when it is completed then that Letter of Credit or bond is relinquished. Mr. Trooien then asked is everyone who lives between the river and Highway 110 going to be asked to submit a Letter of Credit if they are doing work in their yard. Chair Field replied that it in part due to the size of the lot. However, it can be debated all evening. The commission will make the decision and they appreciated his comments. Commissioner Noonan noted that he believes that it also has to bear the fact that it is an after-the- fact approval that is being asked. They are looking to restore something that was removed without the necessary approvals. He recalled a similar situation in the critical area where the commission came forward and it was done without the necessary approvals and a letter of credit was also asked at that time as well. Mr. Mastey returned and noted that they are aware that it is five acres they are requesting to remove buckthorn from. This gives Mr. Trooien the ability to sit in his backyard and think about at what point do you pull it out or not; that is why they did not specify it in the plan because part of it is standing on the site and making sense of it. To that point, one of the overlying things to be thought about is if they do not remove the buckthorn then all they will have is buckthorn at some point in time in the future. They are trying to come in and have a balance where they start to set the stage where they have some larger trees starting to regenerate so that 50 or 100 years from now they actually have something on this property other than buckthorn. His second point was that in developing Parcel B, where would the best spot be for the house. They looked at the lot real close and thought about a couple of layouts; and thought about the details of the house. Commissioner Roston pointed out that this is not the venue for discussing the page 20 house detail, as the commission is not making a decision today on that issue. The point was that he and Mr. Trooien made a thoughtful analysis of where the best place for the house would be. This is why they pushed the house further away from the lot line because 20 feet away did not make sense. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Because staff made some changes in terms of the recommendations and the commission did not have that in their packet, Chair Field requested Mr. Carlson to put the revised recommendation on the overhead. Mr. Carlson complied. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application. These [specific] drawings were prepared by [whom] on [specific date(s)]. 2. Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place during grading and construction activities. 3. Grading and landscape work will be performed by a qualified professional. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit. 6. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, utility plans will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 7. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of three years from the date of installation. page 21 In his motion, Commissioner Noonan also requested an amendment of Condition #6 that reads, “If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit.” He requested that “all grading, stormwater management, and utility plans” be added as this would add an additional level of detail to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Petschel asked about the bond requirement. The only way it made sense to him is if the grading would somehow undermine the integrity of the hill and staff would want to ensure that it was secured to prevent any sort of catastrophic erosion if it wasn’t completed. Chair Field did not agree completely with this observation. Staff would want to have it completed as a condition of the plan. A lot of times with landscaping, particularly in the critical area, it does not take and there needs to be some way to remedy it not taking and have the ability to enforce someone coming in to complete it. That is not to say that Mr. Trooien wouldn’t; it is just a common practice to address the concern by, in this case the City, to make sure there is a remedy there. Commissioner Roston noted that there is a process in place that Mr. Mastey has outlined very well. They are removing old material, grading the site, reseeding with a native mix, planting new trees and it is a process that will happen over the course of some time. Staff and the city want to ensure all of that is done. If there is an interruption for whatever reason in the middle of that no wants to be left with a hillside that is half done and the city needs to make sure that it can be completed. This is why a bond or letter of credit is required on many kinds of projects. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application after the work has been done with staff to prepare the necessary documentations. B) PLANNING CASE #2016-43 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE Chair Litton Field explained that the item under consideration is a revised draft ordinance for domestic chickens. He asked for confirmation that the commission closed the public hearing at the last meeting and directed staff to work towards a proposed ordinance for the commission to review. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP replied that he recalled the direction from staff but did not recollect the closing of the public hearing. There were people in attendance interested in this topic if the commission wished to hear from them. Chair Field read the minutes of the last meeting and confirmed that the public hearing was closed. At this time, Mr. Carlson quickly reviewed the edits made to the draft ordinance per the requests made by the commission at their last meeting. Those changes being: page 22 • Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar to the zoning enforcement officer • Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed • Section 12-1D-3C o The run – the run should have a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven feet o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the rear o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents [substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents] o Remove the reference to screening o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue” o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit Commissioner Hennes asked if the Council had discussed this at all since the commissions last meeting. Mr. Carlson replied in the negative and noted that Council had discussed this at their January 3, 2017 meeting and directed the commission to prepare an ordinance for them to review. COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-43, DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE AYES: 4 (Hennes, Costello, Petschel, Field) NAYS: 2 (Roston, Noonan) ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Verbal Review Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2017-01 DBG, LLC, 1919 HUNTER LANE LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2017-02 MARK GERGEN, 697 WESLEY LANE LOT SPLIT • Twice requested to be continued by the applicant Staff and Commission Announcements Chair Field noted that he was remiss at the start of the meeting to welcome Mr. Timothy Benetti as the new Community Development Director. page 23 Mr. Benetti noted that it has been a steep learning curve this last week. He was born and raised in a small farming community in north-central Iowa, went to school there and went to grad school in Nebraska. His wife is from the New Brighton area; they are currently living in Woodbury and have four kids. He just came from the City of Brooklyn Center as their City Planner for approximately six years, prior to that he worked in other communities in Iowa and in the metro. He also had the pleasure to work with City Administrator Mark McNeill approximately 20 years ago. He has worked with Mr. Carlson, who was his mentor in 2002 when he took over for the City Director position in the City of Vadnais Heights. He is looking forward to working with everyone on the Comprehensive Plan coming up. Chair Field also expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Planning Commission to Mr. Carlson for pitch hitting since October 2016 and being the city’s contract planner. He has done a fine job of stepping in. Chair Field asked if a work plan has been created in or is taking form for the work coming up on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carlson replied that his organization, Stantec, did put together a proposal that Mr. Nolan Wall, previous City Planner, brought to the commission and got approved in the weeks before he left. A background report has been created and they will be picking that back up and the commission will hear about it soon. Chair Field noted that this is an important initiative and he encouraged residents to be engaged and participate in this process, as it will set a pattern for many issues in the coming decade. Adjournment COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:22 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) page 24 Request for City Council Action DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Approval to Begin Police Officer Recruitment Process Introduction Staff is requesting council approval to begin the recruitment process for a Police Officer position. Background Due to a recent resignation, staff is requesting authorization to begin the recruitment process to fill a vacant Police Officer position. The recruitment process will begin with a position posting/advertisement. It is anticipated that the application period will run from March 8 to March 31. Interested applicants must submit a cover letter, resume, city application and police officer addendum. Applications will be evaluated and ranked and the first round of interviews and testing conducted. The initial process is anticipated to take four to six weeks. Budget Impact Funding for the position is provided for in the 2017 budget. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill a Police Officer vacancy within the department. Requested Action If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize staff to begin the Police Officer recruitment process. page 25 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lake Augusta Alum Treatment – Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Org. COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) for an Alum treatment of Lake Augusta. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights is a member community of the LMRWMO. The WMO initiates studies that relate to water quality and protection of natural resources. Recently the WMO authorized a Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy (WRAPS) plan for a number of lakes within the organization. Lake Augusta was chosen at it is listed as an impaired water in the State of Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) conducted the study and determined that the cause of impairment is due to an excessive phosphorus loading from the sediment in the lake bed. DISCUSSION The LMRWMO applied for a clean water funding grant and was selected to receive $88,000 towards an alum treatment application. The grant requires the city to provide matching funds of approximately 25% of the total project cost. The city has budgeted $35,000 towards this project. In addition to the matching funds from the city, the Augusta Shores Home Owners Association has provided a commitment of $2500 towards this project. BUDGET IMPACT Mendota Heights has budgeted $35,000 towards this project in the Storm Water Utility Fund. Preliminary estimates projected that the city share would not exceed this amount. The attached JPA would require the city to provide these funds to the LMRWMO for use on this project. If any additional funds remain after the project is complete they would be applied to the annual dues paid by the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the attached JPA and issue funds to the LMRWMO for the alum treatment of Lake Augusta. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs, it should pass a motion approving the JPA with the LMRWMO. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 26 Results of a Water Quality Study on Lake Augusta in Mendota Heights Lake Augusta In 2012 and 2013, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) studied five lakes, including Lake Augusta, to gain a better understanding of their water quality, sources of pollution, and the pollution reductions needed to improve the water quality and meet State standards. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency funded the project through the Clean Water Land and Legacy Act. The project, called a “Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS)” resulted in restoration plans for lakes with poor water quality, like Augusta, and protection plans for lakes with good water quality. Lake Augusta is located in the western side of Mendota Heights just southeast of the intersection of highways 55 and 110. Most of the drainage area (i.e. the watershed) of the lake lies to the east and northeast of the lake. Land use within the lake’s watershed includes a large cemetery as well as commercial and low and high density residential areas. The lake is landlocked, meaning no water leaves the lake through a stream or outlet structure. Sub-watershed Area: 400 acres Lake surface area: 44 acres Maximum lake depth: 33 feet Lake condition: Poor water quality due to excessive nutrients (phosphorus) that spur algae growth Sources of nutrients: Releases of phosphorus from the lake bottom and runoff from streets and yards in the watershed page 27 Lake Augusta has a maximum depth of 33 feet and therefore must meet Minnesota water quality standards for deep lakes: the average total phosphorus (TP) concentrations during the summer must be less than 40 micrograms per liter (µg/l); chlorophyll-a concentrations must be less than 14 µg/l; and Secchi depth transparency must be greater than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet). The lake was monitored through the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization between 2007 and 2009. Secchi depth transparency measurements have been recorded between 1998 and 2009. The long- term average levels of all three criteria do not meet State water quality standards. Lake Augusta receives nutrients, like phosphorus, from a variety of sources. Monitoring and modeling results indicate the majority (87%) of the phosphorus in Augusta comes from the sediments at the bottom of the lake or “internal loading.” Internal phosphorus loading is a problem in many lakes because historic inputs of phosphorus get concentrated in the sediments. This phosphorus is recycled from the lake sediments into the overlying waters, primarily during summer periods, when it contributes to the growth of nuisance algal blooms. Another 11% of the phosphorus comes from the surrounding watershed. Storm water and snowmelt running off residential and commercial areas carry grass clippings, fertilizers, and leaves into the lake through storm drains and pipes. Fertilizer in runoff feeds algae blooms directly. Leaves and grass breakdown in the water, also releasing nutrients to the water column and feeding algae. Lake Augusta Summer Average (June –September) Water Quality Data Phosphorus is the plant nutrient that most often stimulates the growth of algae. A lake that is rich in phosphorus has the potential for abundant algal growth, which can reduce water clarity. Chlorophyll-a is the main photosynthetic pigment in algae. Too much chlorophyll - a indicates an abundance of algae in the lake. Water clarity, or transparency, is often measured with a Secchi disk - a black and white disk that is lowered into the water until it disappears from view. The depth at which it is no longer visible is measured numerous times to get an average for the summer. Watershed Direct Atmosphere Internal 7.5 lbs 2%41 lbs 11% 315 lbs 87% page 28 The WRAPS report and restoration plan for Lake Augusta indicates that a 78% reduction of phosphorus from internal sources is needed to improve water quality, reduce algae growth and meet State standards. This will in turn allow sunlight to reach more of the lake bottom, improving rooted aquatic plant growth, habitat, and lake oxygen levels. In order to reduce internal sources that significantly, an in-lake alum treatment of the lake sediments is recommended. Watershed residents can further improve water quality by reducing the amount of nutrients reaching the lake in storm water (see below). We all live in a watershed. Sometimes it’s obvious our property drains to a particular body of water; sometimes it’s not. Those in the Lake Augusta watershed may not be aware their property eventually drains through storm sewers and into the lake (see map on front). Even if you live several blocks or miles from the lake, runoff from your property drains to the lake through stormsewer pipes under your street – essentially turning every curb into a shoreline. Stormsewer systems are different from the sanitary sewer systems in which water used inside your home is treated at a wastewater treatment plant before being discharged to a waterbody. Outside your home, stormsewers collect rainwater and snowmelt leaving your property and convey them to the lake without treatment. Pollutants carried in runoff include lawn fertilizers, nutrients from decaying grass clippings and leaves, pesticides, toxins from coal-tar driveway sealants, oil from leaking cars, pet waste, and salt, sand and other deicers. In the lake, these pollutants result in poor water quality – effecting aesthetics and recreational enjoyment of the lake as well as fish, bugs, birds, and their habitats. You can be part of the solution by using some easy practices at home. Sweep up grass clippings, fertilizer, leaves, and extra sand and salt before they get into the storm drain (compost grass and leaves; save fertilizer, sand and salt for reuse) Install a raingarden to capture runoff from your roof or driveway and let it soak into the ground (visit www.dakotaswcd.org for information on Blue Thumb classes) Clean up after your pet (put waste in trash) Install a rain barrel to collect rainwater for use in gardens Keep your car in good repair to avoid leaks Use asphalt-based driveway sealants (or if using a service, ask the company to use them) Wash your car at a carwash rather than on the driveway A storm drain funnels rain and snowmelt into stormwater pipes to prevent flooding. But, they also carry pollutants (like oil, deicers, and fertilizers) along with leaves and grass clippings into nearby lakes, streams, or wetlands. page 29 JOINT POWER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this ______ day of ______________, 2017, by and between the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (“LMRWMO”) and the City of Mendota Heights (“City”), a Minnesota Municipal Corporation. RECITALS A. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. Sections 471.59; and B. The LMRWMO has received a grant from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources of One Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand Dollars ($196,000.00) (“Grant”) for WRAPS Internal Phosphorus Loading Control: Lake Augusta and Sunfish Lake (“Project”); and C. The Grant requires a cash match from local funds towards implementation of the project and the City is willing to provide the matching funds because the Project will benefit the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City will pay the LMRWMO Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) which the LMRWMO will use as matching funds for the Project. 2. Upon completion of the Projects and payment of all Project costs, unspent matchings funds, if any, shall be remitted to the City. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officials. Dated: ___________________, 2017. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY: __________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor AND _________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Dated: ____________________, 2017. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION BY: __________________________________ Current Chair AND _________________________________ Secretary/Treasurer page 30 DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Authorization to Donate City Property INTRODUCTION: We are asking the City Council approve the donation of city property (two couches and 13 jackets). BACKGROUND: In an effort to increase privacy, safety, and professionalism, the police department is removing the two couches in the front lobby of the police department. The couches will be replaced with some partitions and a table and chairs. We would like to donate the couches to Bridging. Bridging, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization serving the greater Twin Cities, is the largest furniture bank in North America. Providing furniture and household goods to families and individuals transitioning out of homelessness and poverty. We have also located 12 old uniform jackets that were originally donated to the police department Reserve program. The patches have been removed and we would like to donate them to Goodwill Industries. Goodwill Industries is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides job training, employment placement services, and other community based programs. ATTACHED: Photos of items to be donated. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve donation of 2 couches and 12 jackets. ACTION REQUIRED: Pass a motion authorizing staff to donate of City property. page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Water Quality Report Presentation by Saint Thomas Academy COMMENT: Introduction At its meeting of March 7th, the Council will hear a presentation from students at St. Thomas Academy about the water quality of Rogers Lake. Background Since 2001, Saint Thomas Academy Environmental Science Classes have been monitoring several aspects of the water quality present in Rogers Lake. The City Council hears an annual update from the students. The attached historical data on the lakes’ water quality shows a trend of the water quality of Rogers Lake improving over the past several recent years. The overall rating improved in 2016 over the preceding year. Discussion Mr. Tony Kinzley is the Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences Instructor. He has a group of students who have conducted the research and prepared a presentation for Council. Attached is a summary sheet the students which will be presented at the Council meeting. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Staff recommends Council receive the Rogers Lake Water Quality Report presentation from Saint Thomas Academy. Action Required No Council action is required. For information only. page 44 Which chemical tests were performed? What does each test for? What factors affect the readings? What is an acceptable reading? What were the Fall 2016 readings? Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) The amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. Plant life increases D.O., organic waste inputs (pet waste, grass clippings, leaves) lowers D.O. 5-12 ppm 9.5 ppm (7.1 in 2015) Better / acceptable Fecal Coliform Levels of bacteria associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the water Goose and pet waste. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines. 0 colonies/100ml is safe to drink. 200 colonies/100ml or less is safe for swimming 0.0 col/100ml (5.0 in 2015) Better / acceptable pH The acidity or basicity of the water Acid rain is the typical cause of acidification of lakes 6.5-8.5 pH units (slightly basic) 7.7 units (7.7 in 2015) Same Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) How much oxygen is being used by bacteria in the lake that decompose organic waste put into the water. Organic waste inputs (leaves, grass clippings, or animal waste) and algal blooms from fertilizer runoff 0-5 ppm 1.3 ppm (2.9 in 2015) Better / acceptable ∆ Temperature (Change In Temp.) The difference in temperature between 2 testing sites on the lake Sun/shade differences, industrial thermal pollution, removal of trees/shade 0-1 °C 1.2 °C (1.0 in 2014) Worse / Unacceptable* Nitrate Measure of the amount of Nitrates in the water Animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, fertilizers. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines 0.1-3 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.4 ppm (0.6 in 2015) Better / acceptable Total Phosphates Measure of the amount of various phosphates in the water Soil runoff, animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, some fertilizers. Faulty sewer lines and septic systems. 0.1-1 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.9 ppm (1.0 in 2015) Better / acceptable Turbidity Amount of suspended solids in the water. A measure of water clarity Soil erosion, organic waste input 1-40 JTU 7.4 JTU (15.5 in 2015) Better / acceptable Total Solids Amount of suspended and dissolved solids in water Road salt, soil erosion, organic waste input. 1-300 mg/L 254.1 mg/L (276.7 in 2015) Better / acceptable Overall Rating A composite score of all 9 chemical tests. The 9 chemical tests Excellent: 90-100 Good: 70-89.9 Medium: 50-69.9 85.1 (80.2 in 2015) Better / acceptable page 45 Fall 2016 Chemical Assessment of Rogers Lake Performed by Saint Thomas Academy A. P. Environmental Science Program page 46 Thank you for allowing us the time to share our findings with the Mendota Heights City Council. Forty students participated in the program this year and were required to prepare a formal group presentation for the City Council. The winning group will present on Tuesday, March 7. This is a genuine learning opportunity for all forty students, especially the winning group. This document reviews the chemical water quality monitoring program used by the A.P. Environmental Science students at Saint Thomas Academy for the Mayor, Council Members, and Staff. Based on the data taken last fall, Rogers Lake continues to be a very healthy lake. The actual data, analysis of the data, areas in need of improvement, and possible solutions will be further discussed at the council meeting. Please direct any questions to Mr. Tony Kinzley, A.P. Environmental Science Teacher, at tkinzley@cadets.com. page 47 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Phil Carlson, AICP – Consultant Planner (Stantec) SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Planning Case No. 2016-41 (J. Trooien, Applicant)) COMMENT: Introduction The applicant is seeking permits to remove dead and diseased (invasive) trees and buckthorn/underbrush on a single family property located within the Mississippi River Critical Area. Background The property in question was subdivided into two lots in 2014 by Mr. Gerald (Jerry) Trooien. The larger lot has an existing home and garage. The smaller lot is not yet built on and is the location of the proposed tree removal. The Critical Area Overlay District requires permits for removals of trees and vegetation. Mr. Trooien initially applied in October 2016 for the original permit, which was presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing on October 25, 2016. There were a number of public comments from neighbors adjacent to the property describing previous work on the property involving grading and removal of vegetation late in the evening, and in areas different to the area involved with the original request. The Planning Commission elected to recommend approval and forwarded this item to the City Council for final consideration. At the November 1, 2016 Council Meeting, the application was considered for the first time, and due to the concerns by councilmembers of the previous work done by the owner and comments from the public, the item was tabled to allow city staff additional time to work with Mr. Trooien and develop a new landscape and restoration plan for this area. Since that date, city staff has been working with Mr. Trooien and his landscape architect to understand what work was done previously and identify the additional work to be done in 2017. The current application is both an after-the-fact permit to address previous work and a new permit for work to be completed. On Saturday morning, February 25th, six planning commissioners and two city staff members visited the site to inspect and visualize the new grading, landscaping and restoration work proposed by the homeowner, and reviewed the updated landscape plans for the area. No formal decisions were made that day of the site visit. page 48 On February 28, 2017, the Planning Commission gave formal reconsideration of this item under a new public hearing process, whereby four neighboring residents did express some concerns of the proposed work, but did provide general support of the clean-up work to be done on this site. Upon close of the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the conditional use permit and Critical Area Permit be approved, subject to certain conditions. Budget Impact There are no budget impacts to the city. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, with certain (modified) conditions, as described in the updated Planning Report Case No. 2016-41 and memorialized in the attached draft resolution. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting said RESOLUTION 2017-21 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 49 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-21 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AND PID# 27-03700-08-010 WHEREAS, Gerald (Jerry) Trooien has applied for a critical area permit and a conditional use permit as proposed in Planning Case 2016-41 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on February 28, 2017. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the request as proposed in Planning Case 2016-41 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical area permit and conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2016-41 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Such removal is limited to buckthorn and other identifiable invasive or non-native plantings up to three inches (3”) in diameter, and confined to the area and the vegetation defined on the Topography Survey plan map and photos accompanying this application, prepared by Landscape Architecture Inc., dated March 2, 2017. 2) Restoration, replanting and removal of vegetation and trees larger than three inches (3”) in diameter and site grading is confined to the areas defined on drawings L1.1 and L2.1 accompanying this application, prepared by Landscape Architecture Inc., dated January 29, 2017. 3) Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place during grading and construction activities. 4) Grading and landscape work will be performed by a qualified professional. 5) All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 6) If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit. 7) If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading, storm-water and utility plans will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. page 50 8) A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on the site, to endure that grading, planting and landscaping is completed as approved, in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 9) All plant materials will be warranted for a minimum of two (2) years from date of installation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of March, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 51 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID# 27-03700-08-010 Lot 8, Auditors Subdivision No. 2 Mendota page 52 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: February 28, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-41 After-the-Fact Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit Jerry Trooien, 101 Sibley Memorial Highway COMMENT: Introduction The applicant is seeking permits to restore vegetation, remove additional vegetation, and do grading and landscape work on a single family property in the Critical Area. Background The property in question was subdivided into two lots in 2014. The larger lot has an existing home and garage. The smaller lot is not yet built on and is the location of most of the proposed work. The Critical Area Overlay District requires permits for any development, grading and removals of trees. The applicant did site work in 2015, removing some vegetation and doing grading work without a permit. He applied for a permit in the fall of 2016 to remove more vegetation. The current permit addresses both previous and new work proposed on the property, to restore what was disturbed, add new landscaping, and make the new lot ready for development. Discussion The applicant provided a new report and drawings, which include new work on the second lot, as well as restoration of areas previously disturbed. The new plans specify native vegetation. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 53 Item No. 2016-41 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 2017 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Interim Planner RE: Planning Case 2016-41: 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit Action Deadline: June 15, 2017 (applicant agreed in writing to additional 120-day extension) INTRODUCTION The applicant, Jerry Trooien, wishes to perform additional grading and landscape work on his property at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, which is in the Mississippi River Critical Area. He had applied in October 2016 for the original permit, at which time it was discovered that work had been done on the property previously without a permit. City staff has been working with Mr. Trooien and his landscape architect through the fall and winter to understand what work was done previously in 2015 and additional work to be done in 2017. The current application is both an after-the-fact permit to address previous work and a new permit for work to be done. BACKGROUND The property is 5.04 acres in area. The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan. The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential. There is an existing house and garage on the property. The lot was split in 2014 and a new lot created, resulting in two single family lots – the existing house and garage on 3.41 acres; the new lot on 1.63 acres. ANALYSIS 1) The property in question involves two single family lots on the south side of Sibley Memorial Highway in the Critical Area. 2) The Critical Area Overlay District, Section 12-3-4, has the following definitions, which include the kinds of work previously done and proposed on site: a. “Clear Cutting: The felling of substantially all trees and/or vegetation in an area at one time.” This requires a Conditional Use Permit, even for a small area. page 54 February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 Re: 2016-41 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway b. Development: “. . . the extraction, clearing, or other alteration of terrestrial or aquatic vegetation. . . “. Zoning approval and a Critical Area Permit are required for “development” within the Critical Area. 3) Given the size of the property and the amount of trees on it, the previous work and some of the current request might fall into the kind of reasonable maintenance that most homeowners would do without any kind of approval, but because the property is in the Critical Area, review by the Planning Commission and City Council are required for the permit. 4) The attached January 30, 2017 report from landscape architect Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. summarizes the previous and proposed work: a. 12 coniferous trees removed in 2015 – mostly non-native blue spruce. b. 70-80 deciduous trees/shrubs removed in 2015 – buckthorn, black locust, honeysuckle, boxelder and Siberian elm - all invasive species, except boxelder, which is fragile and susceptible to disease. c. 23 blue spruce and one maple replaced in 2015. d. 3 white pine, 3 bur oak, 1 swamp white oak, and 6 tamarack proposed for 2017 – all native species e. Minnesota native prairie mix for all areas disturbed in 2015 to be added in 2017 – diverse, pollinator-friendly, native species. 5) The above report also summarizes the stormwater management proposed for the site, almost all on the new lot, Parcel B, created in the 2014 lot split. This proposed work provides further detail than previously proposed at the time of the lot split or in the previous application as to the intent on the future home lot. The proposed work envisions a driveway turnaround that doubles as a stormwater treatment area, plus a rain garden on the east side of the new lot. The plan moves the new house pad to a 60’ setback from the neighboring property, compared with 20’ in the original lot split survey. 6) The proposed plan for this new permit is illustrated clearly on the Landscape Plan, sheet L1.1 and the Grading Plan, sheet L2.1, both attached. The new plans use the same driveway access point and easement location as approved in the lot split. 7) The report and plans prepared by Stephen Mastey provide a level of analysis and insight into the Critical Area that we have not often seen in Mendota Heights applications, and are a welcome reminder of the complexity of this environment. The report offers background on the ecology of the area, and the plans offer concrete steps toward restoring the environment while allowing the property owner to do reasonable work. page 55 February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 Re: 2016-41 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway 8) The previous permit application last fall was to involve a smaller portion of the lot, as illustrated in the map to the right, where tree removal was requested (green area). The disturbed area that was graded without a permit most recently is shown in brown. 9) Earlier this winter when Mr. Mastey was first retained to assist on this project, he requested permission from the City to place erosion control measures on site so as to prevent degradation of the site over the winter and spring. Cold weather was moving in quickly and there was no time to process a permit. I authorized that work, detailed in an email on December 9 from Stephen Mastey: “Per the photo attached I directed the installation of erosion control measures at the disturbed areas shown. The erosion control wood chip waddles (black tubes about 9 inches in diameter) were installed at the downhill or potential discharge zone of the space. In addition to the waddles I directed the installation of a biodegradable product comprised of shredded straw mulch with tackifier. In general this entire space drains into itself. If a large rain fall event or snow melt event occurred the erosion control wood chip waddles would do a very good job at reducing any free flow of sediment or suspended solids past the point of that barrier. Also, the disturbance that has occurred has not changed the natural flow of stormwater.” View SE from disturbed area toward Trooien residence This initiative on Mr. Mastery’s part showed an understanding of the situation and responsibility to the Critical Area environment, and I applaud him for it. page 56 February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 Re: 2016-41 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway 10) The attached materials from Mr. Mastey include a Landscape Reference Plan to orient the reader to the other plans (at right). The Landscape Plan (left below) and Grading Plan (right below) provide the details in this area. 11) There are other materials attached, including previous lot split drawings, specs on the prairie mix and proposed trees, plus architectural drawings of concepts for the new lot. The architectural drawings may be interesting to the Commission but have no bearing on the Critical Area Permit. A new owner would not be bound to build a home as illustrated. page 57 February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 Re: 2016-41 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised after-the-fact Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit for 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway with the following conditions: 1) Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application. 2) Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place during grading and construction activities. 3) Grading and landscape work will be performed by a qualified professional. 4) All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5) If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit. 6) If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, utility plans will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit based on findings of fact. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. page 58 February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 Re: 2016-41 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit for 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway 1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. page 59 page 60 41392333297 270262256237 228 211203100197 196 195 72 1 2 1 9 178170169163152 150144 1379712993117111 112 821 6 1 81110210 75 10767897655 115145 5237 5 185 49 4743 39 3832183 4817 1 4 8130 105 3 210 100210 100178551010 1015 1020 992 995 996 1631 1034 1639 1028 1032 1645 991 16511030 1646 1650 1040 1657 1648 1011 16521015 1640 982 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYJAMES RDC A R E N C T Dakota County GIS Planning Case 2016-411010 Sibley Memorial Highway Date: October 25, 2016 City ofMendotaHeights0120 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entityfrom which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, 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 61 page 62 page 63 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM JANUARY 30, 2017 Property Address: 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: After-the-fact Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit Report Summary Analysis: Flora & Fauna on-site is comprised of highly degraded woodland comprised of mostly non-native early successional ruderals - A ruderal species refers to any plant that is the first to colonize land after a disturbance removing competition. The site has been disturbed and there is no old growth forest or indications of remnant plant community present where activities have taken place or are being proposed to take place as part of this project scope. Majority of the plant species that existed in disturbance area and around that area are listed as MN DNR Invasive Species and an Ecological Threat. After extensive investigation of the site, Landscape Architecture, Inc. (LAI) recognizes that if no further intervention takes place in the area that currently exists as a woodland today, it will remain as nothing more than a highly degraded woodland monoculture consisting of mostly shorter Non-native Invasive Species with little or no ecological value. In thinking about what we can do now to positively affect the future of the site looking 50 to 100 years into the future we recommend the proposed interventions detailed within this report to take place in 2017. The goal is to use this project as example for the City to promote and be more proactive with landowners within the Critical Area Overlay to work to replace the non-native invasive plants with ecologically appropriate plantings for generations in the future to appreciate. Restoration: In 2015 a number of trees were planted after the understood disturbance. LAI is now proposing to plant an additional 30 Native Plants Species per the attached planting plan. LAI also recommends and requests as part of the restoration of the disturbance, the removal of the DNR Invasive Species listed as Ecological Threats throughout the greater site as cataloged within the report. This will set up the opportunity to create a native plant community that more closely resembles a pre-European settlement while also being more ecologically appropriate with the landscape we are proposing. page 64 – 2 – January 30, 2017 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM Proposed Building Pad: As part of this exercise, LAI is also recommending and seeking approval for the relocation of the 2014 proposed building pad on Parcel B to the interior of the site giving an additional 40 feet of separation to existing residential homes to the East. In 2014 as part of the lot split process the proposed pad was only 20 feet off of the property line – LAI now suggests locating the pad about 60 feet per our revised plans attached. Plants found in area surrounding the disturbance present day and also similar to what has been removed to date as is summarized below. Summary of Trees/Shrubs removed in 2015 Data was derived from analysis of 3/6/2014 & 1/10/2017 Surveys, Aerial Photography over a time span of 2014, 2015 & 2016 & Site Observations. Coniferous Trees (12 removed) 11 Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens) @ average height of 30-35 feet NON-Native Short Lived Tree that is prone to Cytospora Canker – Trees removed exhibited symptoms that they were infected (Cytospora Canker) 1 Pine (Pinus sp.) @ height of 25 feet Deciduous Trees / Shrubs (estimated about 70-80 removed) Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) Listed as a MN DNR Invasive Species and an Ecological Threat: Aggressively invades oak forests, savannas, prairies and riparian woods, completely eliminating native plant diversity in the understory over time. It thrives particularly on well-drained soils. Plants leaf out early and retain leaves late into the fall creating dense shade. Seeds have laxative effect on birds that disperse them. Introduced to North America as ornamental shrubs. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Listed as a MN DNR Invasive Species and an Ecological Threat: Invades primarily disturbed habitats, degraded wood, thickets and old fields crowding out native vegetation of prairies, oak savannas and upland forests, forming single species stands. It reproduces vigorously by root suckering and stump sprouting forming a common connecting root system. It is native to the U.S. and occurs naturally on the lower Appalachian mountain slopes. It has been extensively planted for its nitrogen-fixing qualities and its hard wood. Exotic Honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, L. morrowii, L. x bella) Listed as a MN DNR Invasive Species and an Ecological Threat: page 65 – 3 – January 30, 2017 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM Exotic honeysuckles replace native forest shrubs and herbaceous plants by their invasive nature and early leaf-out. They shade out herbaceous ground cover and deplete soil moisture. Seeds are readily dispersed by birds. Some research suggests that the plant inhibits the growth of other plants in its vicinity. Boxelder (Acer negundo) Native early successional ruderal. A ruderal species is a plant species that is first to colonize disturbed lands. Form/Height: 30' to 50' on favorable soils with a diameter of up to 36"; rather bushy on unfavorable soils; limbs and branches fragile; tree somewhat subject to fungus disease and attack by insects. Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) Listed as a MN DNR Invasive Species and an Ecological Threat: The tree can invade and dominate disturbed prairies in just a few years. Seed germination rate is high and seedlings establish quickly in sparsely vegetated areas. It grows readily in disturbed areas with poor soils and low moisture. A native of eastern Asia, Siberian elm was introduced to the U.S. in the 1860s for its hardiness, fast growth, and ability to grow in various moisture conditions. Summary of Trees Replaced in 2015 23 Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens) @ average height of 12 to14 feet 1 Autumn Blaze Maple (Acer × freemanii 'Jeffersred') @ 4 inch Caliper Summary of Native Vegetation & Restoration Work proposed for 2017 3 White Pine (Pinus strobus) 3 Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) 1 Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor) 6 Tamarack (Larix laricina) Minnesota Native Landscapes Pollinator Friendly Mesic Prairie Mix for all remaining disturbed areas due to the 2015 work on-site to receive a very diverse and ecologically appropriate pollinator friendly mix from MN Native Landscapes with locally sourced seed suited perfectly to soils, moisture and light conditions present for this area on-site consisting of 26 species. page 66 – 4 – January 30, 2017 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM Minnesota Native Landscapes Pollinator Friendly Mesic Prairie Mix (Early Summer) Minnesota Native Landscapes Pollinator Friendly Mesic Prairie Mix (Late Summer) page 67 – 5 – January 30, 2017 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM Photo of Site looking East near Proposed Building Pad on Parcel B For reference see existing foundation in center of photo to be removed, large tree shown on left is a Black Locust with Buckthorn in understory throughout - both non-native invasive species and ecological threats. Photo of Site looking East at 20 feet from Property Line on Parcel B For reference see existing home to the East of Parcel B. It is higher in elevation (Pink stake is property line). The tree in foreground is a leaning / partially windblown Boxelder, dead limbs are littering the understory with interspersed Buckthorn. After further review of the originally proposed parcel B lot split proposed house pad location which would of put the proposed house corner at this exact location we have revised proposed house pad location. This will allow page 68 – 6 – January 30, 2017 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM for adequate separation for both the proposed home and existing houses as well room to provide the opportunity for new ecologically appropriate plantings/screening that will benefit all properties. Soils Analysis: Soils are defined as Loam / Silt Loam – per site visit with Paul Brandt of Soil Investigations & Designs Consulting, Inc. on 1/11/2017. Loam – A soil texture with moderate amounts of sand, silt, and clay, sometimes in nearly equal proportions. Good texture for farming and gardening. Silt – Soil particles in between sand and clay in size. Silt feels like flour (smooth and velvety). Also refers to a soil texture that consists of at least 80% silt particles. Summary of Trees Requested for Removal in 2017 Parcel B site preparation request for Proposed Site Circulation & Building Pad Removals within grading limits per attached plans and also removing the surrounding MN DNR Invasive Species listed as Ecological Threats once outside the proposed grading limits onsite: Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) - over 100 @ average caliper of 3-6” Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) – about 40 caliper inches Exotic Honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, L. morrowii, L. x bella) – about 20 @ 6-8 ft. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) – about 100 caliper inches Boxelder (Acer negundo) - about 380 caliper inches (many are partially dead) Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) - about 18 caliper inches Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) - about 30 caliper inches Mulberrry (Morus rubra)- about 24 caliper inches American Elm (Ulmus americana) - about 12 caliper inches Summary of Stormwater Management For the restoration of the 2015 disturbance we are proposing to return the grade within the remaining disturbed area in the center of the site back to original elevation based off of our analysis of the 2014 and 2017 survey exercises. This area appears to be a stormwater recharge area and once original grade is reset we are proposing to plant with native vegetation per this report and attached landscape plans therefore creating a situation that is unchanged from a stormwater standpoint in that catchment. The other area that has been impacted from a grading standpoint on the west side of the entry drive just west of the existing home turnaround has been altered as part of the 2015 work. Upon review of the 2014 & 2017 survey exercises and on-site observations it has been concluded that the 2015 work has actually decreased the direct flow of stormwater to the property directly west which has a home in very close proximity to the property line. Prior to the 2015 work, there was a slope directing the runoff from driveway turnaround and front yard directly toward the adjacent home to the west. After the installation of a small berm with plantings and a small stone wall in 2015, that stormwater is now being more responsibly managed on- site as it has been redirected back into the interior of the site for further sediment removal and on-site infiltration. page 69 – 7 – January 30, 2017 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM For the proposed grading limits and area we are requesting for approval to prepare at this time for Parcel B, we are creating a series of rainwater gardens with the addition of a subsurface stormwater recharge system utilizing 100% recycled & locally produced aggregate substitute for the stormwater storage & infiltration system. The rainwater gardens are designed to clean the water and remove suspended solids from the flow prior to these basins overflowing into the below grade water recharge system. It should be noted that this proposed system will be collecting and treating a significant amount of stormwater currently being generated off site from the residential homes uphill to the east of this Parcel B. The system is designed to operate in a manner that allows for the post construction discharge to be less than what is currently being created today with the site in its current state. Therefore, we are requesting to build this circulation on-site with a temporary gravel surface and stormwater system prior home construction prior to construction activities to eliminate the opportunity for excessive stormwater runoff or erosion control issues during the home construction process. Once home construction is complete, a final City approved surface will be installed on this driveway. The net effect of these improvements will greatly reduce the amount of stormwater flow with reduced nutrient loads overland across the property boundaries and ultimately contribute to healthier water quality within the Mississippi River Drainage Basin. SINCERELY, STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, LEED AP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. Attachments: 2014 03 06 - 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Minor Sub Combined.pdf 2014 03 06 - 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Slope Exhibit.pdf 2017 01 10 - 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway - Topography Survey.pdf 2017 01 28 Modern House Concept Design for Parcel B.pdf 2017 01 28 Barn House Concept Design for Parcel B.pdf 2017 01 29 Landscape Reference Plan for 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway L1.0.pdf 2017 01 29 Landscape Plan for 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway L1.1.pdf 2017 01 29 Grading Plan - Parcel B for 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway L2.1.pdf MN Native Landscapes - Pollinator Friendly Mesic Prairie Mix.pdf Bur Oak.jpg Eastern White Pine.jpg Swamp White Oak.jpg American Larch (Tamarack).jpg page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75 page 76 page 77 8740 77th Street NE Otsego, MN 55362 Mixed height prairie mix for medium moisture or clay soils Scientific Name Common Name % of Mix Seeds/ Sq Ft PLS lbs/ac Grasses:Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem 9.00 4.96 1.35 Bouteloua curtipendula Side-Oats Grama 23.00 12.61 3.45 Bromus kalmii Prairie Brome 1.00 0.44 0.15 Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye 9.00 2.58 1.35 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 4.00 3.09 0.60 Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 16.25 13.43 2.44 Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 12.00 7.93 1.80 Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed 0.75 0.66 0.11 Forbs:Amorpha canescens Leadplant 1.25 1.10 0.19 Asclepias incarnata Marsh Milkweed 0.50 0.13 0.08 Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 1.20 0.26 0.18 Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Milkweed 0.25 0.06 0.04 Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 2.65 0.39 0.40 Dalea candida White Prairie Clover 2.50 2.62 0.38 Dalea purpureum Purple Prairie Clover 4.00 3.31 0.60 Desmodium canadense Canada Tick Trefoil 1.25 0.38 0.19 Heliopsis helianthoides Common Ox-Eye 2.00 0.69 0.30 Liatris ligulistylis Meadow Blazing Star 0.50 0.28 0.08 Liatris pycnostachya Prairie Blazing Star 1.25 0.76 0.19 Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot 0.75 2.89 0.11 Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain Mint 0.20 2.42 0.03 Ratibida pinnata Yellow Coneflower 1.25 2.07 0.19 Rudbeckia hirta Black Eyed Susan 1.25 6.34 0.19 Solidago rigida Stiff Goldenrod 1.40 3.16 0.21 Symphyotrichum laevis Smooth Blue Aster 0.15 0.45 0.02 Symphyotrichum oolentangiensis Sky Blue Aster 0.15 0.66 0.02 Verbena stricta Hoary Vervain 1.25 1.93 0.19 Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders 1.25 0.76 0.19 100.00 76.36 15.00 Seeds/sq ft:76.00 MNL Mesic Prairie Mix Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability page 78 8740 77th Street NE Otsego, MN 55362 Shade tolerant mix for woodland understories. Scientific Name Common Name % of Mix Seeds/ Sq Ft PLS lbs/ac Grasses:Bromus ciliatus Fringed Brome 9.00 3.64 0.90 Bromus pubescens Hairy Woodland Brome 10.00 2.79 1.00 Elymus hystrix Bottlebrush Grass 15.00 4.19 1.50 Elymus villosus Silky Wild Rye 15.00 3.03 1.50 Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 15.00 2.31 1.50 Festuca subverticillata Nodding Fescue 1.50 1.10 0.15 Sedges/Rushes:Carex normalis Greater Straw Sedge 5.50 5.05 0.55 Carex radiata Eastern Star Sedge 6.00 9.04 0.60 Carex sprengelii Long-Beaked Sedge 3.00 1.10 0.30 Forbs:Agastache foeniculum Fragrant Giant Hyssop 1.50 4.96 0.15 Allium tricoccum Wild Leek 0.25 0.01 0.03 Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone 0.30 0.09 0.03 Aquilegia canadensis Columbine 1.30 1.81 0.13 Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-Pulpit 0.25 0.00 0.03 Campanula americana Tall Bellflower 0.55 3.43 0.06 Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue Cohosh 3.15 0.01 0.32 Dicentra cucullaria Dutchman's Breeches 0.05 0.03 0.01 Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium 0.15 0.03 0.02 Heracleum maximum Cow Parsnip 0.50 0.05 0.05 Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf 0.25 0.03 0.03 Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot 1.25 3.21 0.13 Polygonatum biflorum Solomons Seal 1.00 0.03 0.10 Rudbeckia laciniata Wild Golden Glow 1.00 0.51 0.10 Rudbeckia triloba Brown-Eyed Susan 2.50 3.12 0.25 Smilacina racemosa Solomon's Plume 0.25 0.00 0.03 Solidago flexicaulis Zig Zag Goldenrod 0.25 0.77 0.03 Symphyotrichum ciliolatum Lindley's Aster 0.50 1.73 0.05 Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster 1.00 9.18 0.10 Thalictrum dioicum Early Meadow Rue 2.00 0.54 0.20 Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders 2.00 0.81 0.20 100.00 62.61 10.00 Seeds/sq ft:63.00 MNL Minnesota Woodland Mix Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability page 79 8740 77th Street NE Otsego, MN 55362 Mix approved by the Xerces Society for Pollinator habitat enhancement and restoration Scientific Name Common Name % of Mix Seeds/ Sq Ft PLS lbs/ac Grasses:Bouteloua curtipendula Side-Oats Grama 20.00 7.31 2.00 Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama 6.00 8.82 0.60 Elymus trachycaulus Slender Wheat Grass 1.00 0.25 0.10 Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 0.75 5.51 0.08 Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 20.00 11.02 2.00 Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed 2.25 1.32 0.23 Forbs:Allium stellatum Prairie Onion 0.25 0.10 0.03 Amorpha canescens Leadplant 2.00 1.18 0.20 Aquilegia canadensis Columbine 0.25 0.35 0.03 Asclepias incarnata Marsh Milkweed 1.75 0.31 0.18 Asclepias speciosa Showy Milkweed 0.50 0.08 0.05 Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 1.50 0.22 0.15 Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Milkweed 1.20 0.19 0.12 Astragalus canadensis Canada Milk Vetch 0.50 0.31 0.05 Baptisia alba White Wild Indigo 1.25 0.08 0.13 Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 5.00 0.50 0.50 Dalea candida White Prairie Clover 3.50 2.44 0.35 Dalea purpureum Purple Prairie Clover 5.50 3.03 0.55 Desmodium canadense Canada Tick Trefoil 1.50 0.30 0.15 Echinacea pallida Pale Purple Coneflower 1.50 0.29 0.15 Heliopsis helianthoides Common Ox-Eye 2.25 0.52 0.23 Liatris ligulistylis Meadow Blazing Star 2.50 0.92 0.25 Liatris pycnostachya Prairie Blazing Star 3.00 1.21 0.30 Lupinus perennis Wild Lupine 1.50 0.06 0.15 Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot 2.85 7.33 0.29 Penstemon gracilis Slender Beardtongue 0.20 4.41 0.02 Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain Mint 0.75 6.06 0.08 Ratibida columnifera Long-Headed Coneflower 1.00 1.54 0.10 Ratibida pinnata Yellow Coneflower 2.50 2.75 0.25 Rudbeckia hirta Black Eyed Susan 2.75 9.29 0.28 Solidago rigida Stiff Goldenrod 2.25 3.39 0.23 Solidago speciosa Showy Goldenrod 0.20 0.70 0.02 Symphyotrichum laevis Smooth Blue Aster 0.10 0.20 0.01 Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 0.25 0.61 0.03 Veronicastrum virginicum Culvers's Root 0.20 5.88 0.02 Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders 1.50 0.61 0.15 100.00 89.08 10.00 Seeds/sq ft:89.00 MNL Pollinator Mix Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Mary Magnuson. The following city staff were present: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Phil Carlson, Consultant Planner (Stantec); and Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. Approval of Agenda Chair Field proposed that the agenda be revised by moving Public Hearing Case No. 2017-03 from being heard third to being heard first. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of January 24, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Administrative Items This was not listed on the agenda; however, every February the Commission welcomes new members. Chair Field was pleased to note that the commission this year is made up of the same members as last year. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO NOMINATE LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO NOMINATE DOUG HENNES AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) page 85 A) PLANNING CASE #2016-41 JERRY TROOIEN, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that the application was for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The critical area is that portion of the City that is on or near the bluff of the Mississippi River Valley. The property at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway is a fairly large rectangular single-family residential parcel of approximately five acres. The property, as noted in the packet and as some of the commissioners may remember, received an approval for a lot split in 2014; so there is a second single-family lot that will be permitted to be built upon, which will show up on the plans later. Any significant development or disturbance of the critical area requires a critical area permit. Mr. Trooien originally proposed last fall to clear buckthorn and some other trees that were diseased and dying on the property. When staff went to look at that piece of property, they discovered that there had been some work done on the property in the previous year. Mr. Carlson then shared an image of the property with the proposed building site, the area in this request to be cleared, and the area graded without a permit highlighted. In that fall, that application was continued until a more sophisticated and complete plan could be prepared. Mr. Trooien retained the services of a landscape architect, Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc., who was present at this meeting, and who worked with the applicant and city staff to develop that plan. Because this was unfolding last fall, Mr. Mastey approached city staff and requested permission to at least secure the site for the winter so that the spring thaw would not contribute to erosion down the hill. He was given that permission and the erosion control measures were installed. Therefore, the site was secured over the winter. As part of this application, Mr. Trooien is asking for to do some work in grading, tree removal, and reseeding and replanting of the property, mostly in the area of this new home lot. Most of the Commissioners and city staff went out last Saturday morning (February 25th) and walked the site with Mr. Trooien and Mr. Mastey so they could explain the kind of work that is being proposed and the nature of the area. The critical area has a special code on it because it is a unique environment with a unique feature that needs to be preserved, protected, and enhanced. Mr. Mastey’s analysis revealed that there is a lot of scrub material, buckthorn, invasive species of trees, and dead and dying trees located on the property. Therefore, some kind of work on the property is appropriate and reasonable. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the previously disturbed area and explained that it is to be re- graded with the native seed mix so that when it comes up it would be native and appropriate for this area, as well as adding in native species of trees. In tandem with this plan they are looking forward to when this second lot could be built on. Again, it is an approved lot split, a home will go there; however, disturbance in the critical area requires review and city approval. Mr. Carlson then explained the intended location of the driveway and page 86 building pad and, in the process of that, create a depression that would be a drainage area, filtration pond, which would overflow into another depression and infiltration area inside the driveway turnaround, that would in turn flow to a lower part of the site. It is a plan that would enhance and protect the drainage on the site and at the same time create this new home site. Also included in this plan is a proposal to move the proposed building pad for a new house well away from the neighboring property to the east. In the original approval, in 2014 for the lot split, this building pad was approved within 20 feet of the lot line. It is now being placed about 60 feet away from that lot line. This is a significant improvement to the overall site planning and relationships to the area and will improve the drainage on the site. A key component of this is to try to preserve the character of the area and the river valley. Right now, most of that area is comprised of invasive species and so the plan is to remove buckthorn and to selectively remove some of the dead and dying elm and other trees that are non-native to the area and replacing them with native trees. Staff recommended approval of this application. To that tend, Mr. Carlson read the first condition of approval as, “Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application.” He then continued by stating that there would be new drawings prepared because there is recommendation for an added area to be able to remove buckthorn. Therefore, Mr. Carlson would be adding a phrase here that would be ‘drawings prepared by whom and on specific dates’ so everyone knows exactly what drawings are being referred to. It is the intent of all involved to have these preparers and dates included by the time this application would reach the City Council, if approval were recommended by the commission. As further definition, Mr. Carlson explained that the applicant was proposing is that they be allowed to remove buckthorn on the entire property, not just on the confined area around the new building pad; and remove invasive non-native trees that are smaller than 3” in diameter. The larger trees would not be removed, except for those that are in the building pad area. The next five conditions would remain the same; however, based on this additional work, staff would add two new conditions seven and eight: 6. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of three years from the date of installation. Chair Field noted that this is a public hearing that was held open from a prior meeting and is a continuation. He also noted that under the extension that was authorized by the applicant, the City has until June to act on this request. page 87 Commissioner Roston asked for clarification that the lot split has already been approved and completed. Mr. Carlson replied that this is correct. The only item under consideration is the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Petschel requested Mr. Carlson to review the constraints with respect to the removal of vegetation. Mr. Carlson replied that the Landscape Plan is only in the previously disturbed area. The removal of trees would be in the other area that was originally defined; to remove buckthorn and the large trees because the grading and such for the new home pad would remove those and many those, as noted, are invasive species. They are now asking to try to take a larger view of the whole property and remove buckthorn on the entire property and if there are invasive trees that are no larger than 3” in diameter, to remove those too. Invasive trees larger than 3” in diameter would remain so there would be no removal of the high canopy. Commissioner Noonan noted that in the added phrase to Condition #1, those plans that are being prepared would define what is being removed. He then asked if it would also define what is being replaced. Mr. Carlson replied that what is being replaced are already outlined in the plans. The plans will also define the extent of the removal. The plans would be agreed upon between the City Engineer, the City Planner, and the applicant. The plans also would not come before the City Council until approved by all. Chair Field noted for the record that staff did properly advertise a site visit last Saturday (February 25, 2017) and all but one commissioner was present. It was merely a fact-finding visit to the property since it is somewhat restricted access so they could get a complete appreciation of the site. Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc. came forward and reiterated that the summary provided by Mr. Carlson clearly stated the intent. The additional fact- finding exercise was held so the commission could actually get to the site, see what is there, and understand the highly degraded woodland that is there. The intent of trying to flip that over and work toward something 50 to 100 years from now more closely resembles a pre-European settlement with native forest, whether that is thick woods or oak savannahs. He provided a couple of clarifications by sharing an image and pointing out on that image the grading limits. There are three parts to this request; re-vegetation, request to remove and re-grade to start to set the stage, and to look at the entire property that is overrun with buckthorn. They are not only requesting permission to address the invasive that are in the area that has been disturbed and where the new house pad is proposed to be, but to work out from that point and remove any buckthorn and other invasive that are less than 3” in diameter. They desire is to create more healthy woodland. Chair Field asked for Mr. Mastey’s professional opinion on whether or not Mr. Trooien would need to make special precautions during the removal of the buckthorn and other invasive species so as to not degradate the slope and create some potential erosion problems. Mr. Mastey replied that they would be taking a two-phase approach; cut the trees down at grade leaving the entire root page 88 system intact and using Minnesota Department of Agriculture approved chemicals that would kill the buckthorn. They do not wish to disturb the soil at all. Then as these plants start to die back, the vegetation that is still there would take up the extra air and sunlight and fill in. Hopefully, they will start to see some of those species, even some of those things as simple as Ash trees start to reseed now that there is some light. This is a cautious approach by not disturbing the understory and leaving the root system in place. Commissioner Petschel noted that the final grading as demonstrated in the staff report does not seem to be reflected in the landscape plan. Mr. Mastey replied that there were three ways they could entertain what they are requesting. Firstly, look at what needs to be done to restore the area that has been disturbed. He wanted to clearly delineate, at the very least, that this needed to be addressed. So it was left as is. Secondly, moving into the larger area, they are assuming that as this is developed and they put final construction documents together there will need to be native seeding that is similar in character to what was being suggested in the disturbed area except to move more towards woodland species that do a better job in lower sunlight situations. There may also be some additional trees that are planted but right now they just wanted to get over this hump and then they could work with the City and what their requirements might be for single-family lots for landscape requirements, etc. Ms. Maxine Bergh, 996 Caren Court, explained that her property backs onto Mr. Trooien’s property. At the present time, there are two stakes visible from her kitchen: one on her lot line and the second where the building pad was originally intended to be. She asked if the movement of the building pad farther away from the lot line has been carved in stone. According to the drawing she saw, it appears that the impervious driveway surface will be very close to her property. She wanted to ensure that the Commission is cognizant of this because they have lived in this neighborhood for more than 40 years and love it. She understands that nothing is guaranteed but is understandably concerned about what happens behind them. Mr. Carlson returned and stated that the original building pad during the lot split was shown to be about 20 feet from the lot line. That is what is staked on the site. All of the split lot is below Ms. Bergh’s property. With this approval and plan then the new home would be placed about 60 feet from her lot instead of 20 feet. Then what is next to her lot would be partly a driveway but it would be below her view, down the slope, and flat to the ground at that point. Commissioner Noonan stated that once a formal proposal is made for a home, it would be brought before the Commission for consideration and a second critical area application. Commissioner Roston stated that it appears that most of the homes in her neighborhood are roughly the same distance apart from each other as she would be from the new lot. This proposal does not appear to be changing that. Ms. Bergh agreed; however, they are used to woods and love it. When she looks at this proposal and sees the location of the proposed driveway she sees quite a change in her view. She just wants everyone to know that she is paying attention. Mr. George Bergh, 996 Caren Court, said that he appreciates the effort that the 60-foot setback from their lot line and it appears that it is documented. Obviously there is some flexibility in page 89 development; however, he was unclear on just how close to his lot line the driveway would be. He understands that it would be below their profile because of the berm. Mr. Carlson replied that the driveway would be approximately 20 feet from the lot line. Just about the same place as the previous location of the building pad. Mr. Bergh asked for clarification, as it appears that, on the plans in the staff report, the dotted line extends over onto his property. The response was that the line Mr. Bergh was referring to were contour lines of the existing grading and was not boundary lines in any of the plans. Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, stated that he liked the changes that were proposed both in terms of moving of the building pad but also the vegetation plans. He asked about the grading limits and how far does that have to be from the property line. The response was that there are not setback requirements for a grading permit. He then noted that this property has had somewhat of a checkered past and part of the resolution was to have a complete plan before moving forward on approving the permit. It does appear to be very good and complete, except for this Prepared By X on Date X. Given the history of this property this leaves him very uncomfortable. He believes this should be completed before any approval is provided, as a ‘complete plan’ was what was agreed upon. Chair Field noted that one of the clarifications received from Mr. Carlson was that this would be completed before it goes before the City Council for final review and possible approval. In effect, the commission is granting staff some latitude to come up with a plan to go to the City Council and still move this along. Commissioner Noonan replied that the commission is only making a recommendation; the City Council ultimately makes the decision and they have to be satisfied that all of the I’s are dotted and all of the T’s are crossed. Ms. Alice Chapman, 1011 James Court, noted that her concern was the plan to clean out the total property of buckthorn and trees that may be like 20 feet or less in height. She just purchased her property a year ago and one of the selling points was the privacy behind her property. If they remove all of those trees there will be no privacy. Commissioner Noonan requested clarification from staff that any of the work that is being proposed is not on the Trooien lot – the existing Trooien lot where the house is – but rather on the lot on the north side of the Trooien house and therefore would not affect Ms. Chapman’s view. Before staff could answer Ms. Chapman noted that she just heard was that they wanted to have permission to do the entire property. Chair Field replied that the request if not to remove every tree 20 feet or less in height; it is only certain invasive species that are not natural that have evolved there over time. Commissioner Petschel further clarified that the trees would be 3” or less in diameter, not less than 20 feet in height. page 90 Mr. Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, came forward and asked for a quick education on the added condition #7; “A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.” Mr. Carlson replied that this condition was added since there is a significant amount of work to be done on this property and there is going to be material removed and then material replaced, including the native seed mix and including a number of new trees. Worst-case scenario, he gets halfway through the project and disappears. The City needs to know, and the neighbors need to know, that work will be completed. It is like any other project where there is a guarantee and assurance necessary. Mr. Trooien stated that no one is required to provide letters of credit to get their work done – that is between them and their contractor. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the applicant is requesting to disturb up to five acres for invasive species removal. In development situation, the City typically requires a Letter of Credit for the landscaping portion of that project, which is usually 125% to 150% of the value of the landscaping work. Mr. Trooien asked if an infrastructure being built is asked to provide a Letter of Credit for their landscaping work. Chair Field replied that five acres is typically for more than one home; although in this case it is for one home; it is a five-acre site in the critical area and that was staff’s recommendation. The commission saw this for the first time this evening and they will have a discussion about it now that Mr. Trooien has voiced his concern. Mr. Trooien stated that he feels like this is singling him out and is onerous and unusual. Mr. Carlson indicated that it is an unusual situation; however, this is in an unusual location. Mr. Trooien is probably right that a homeowner in another part of Mendota Heights no one would care because if someone were to take down a tree and not replant it – that is just part of being in a suburban environment. Here in the critical area the commission, City Council, and the neighbors want to know that this work will be completed and when it is completed then that Letter of Credit or bond is relinquished. Mr. Trooien then asked is everyone who lives between the river and Highway 110 going to be asked to submit a Letter of Credit if they are doing work in their yard. Chair Field replied that it in part due to the size of the lot. However, it can be debated all evening. The commission will make the decision and they appreciated his comments. Commissioner Noonan noted that he believes that it also has to bear the fact that it is an after-the- fact approval that is being asked. They are looking to restore something that was removed without the necessary approvals. He recalled a similar situation in the critical area where the commission came forward and it was done without the necessary approvals and a letter of credit was also asked at that time as well. Mr. Mastey returned and noted that they are aware that it is five acres they are requesting to remove buckthorn from. This gives Mr. Trooien the ability to sit in his backyard and think about at what page 91 point do you pull it out or not; that is why they did not specify it in the plan because part of it is standing on the site and making sense of it. To that point, one of the overlying things to be thought about is if they do not remove the buckthorn then all they will have is buckthorn at some point in time in the future. They are trying to come in and have a balance where they start to set the stage where they have some larger trees starting to regenerate so that 50 or 100 years from now they actually have something on this property other than buckthorn. His second point was that in developing Parcel B, where would the best spot be for the house. They looked at the lot real close and thought about a couple of layouts; and thought about the details of the house. Commissioner Roston pointed out that this is not the venue for discussing the house detail, as the commission is not making a decision today on that issue. The point was that he and Mr. Trooien made a thoughtful analysis of where the best place for the house would be. This is why they pushed the house further away from the lot line because 20 feet away did not make sense. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Because staff made some changes in terms of the recommendations and the commission did not have that in their packet, Chair Field requested Mr. Carlson to put the revised recommendation on the overhead. Mr. Carlson complied. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application. These [specific] drawings were prepared by [whom] on [specific date(s)]. 2. Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place during grading and construction activities. 3. Grading and landscape work will be performed by a qualified professional. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. page 92 5. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit. 6. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, utility plans will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 7. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of three years from the date of installation. In his motion, Commissioner Noonan also requested an amendment of Condition #6 that reads, “If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit.” He requested that “all grading, stormwater management, and utility plans” be added as this would add an additional level of detail to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Petschel asked about the bond requirement. The only way it made sense to him is if the grading would somehow undermine the integrity of the hill and staff would want to ensure that it was secured to prevent any sort of catastrophic erosion if it wasn’t completed. Chair Field did not agree completely with this observation. Staff would want to have it completed as a condition of the plan. A lot of times with landscaping, particularly in the critical area, it does not take and there needs to be some way to remedy it not taking and have the ability to enforce someone coming in to complete it. That is not to say that Mr. Trooien wouldn’t; it is just a common practice to address the concern by, in this case the City, to make sure there is a remedy there. Commissioner Roston noted that there is a process in place that Mr. Mastey has outlined very well. They are removing old material, grading the site, reseeding with a native mix, planting new trees and it is a process that will happen over the course of some time. Staff and the city want to ensure all of that is done. If there is an interruption for whatever reason in the middle of that no wants to be left with a hillside that is half done and the city needs to make sure that it can be completed. This is why a bond or letter of credit is required on many kinds of projects. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application after the work has been done with staff to prepare the necessary documentations. page 93 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Phil Carlson, AICP, Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-03 Conditional Use Permit Holy Family Maronite Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue COMMENT: Introduction The application is for a Conditional Use Permit for modest additions to the existing church building. Background Churches are a conditional use in the R-1 district. The church wishes to add to the building on two sides. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation At the February 28, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit request, with conditions noted in the attached Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2017-03. If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2017-22 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 94 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-22 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE WHEREAS, Holy Family Maronite Church, has applied for a conditional use permit as proposed in Planning Case 2017-03 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on February 28, 2017. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2017-03 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The use is existing and has been a good neighbor in this location in this zoning district for many years. 2. The existing church use is on a busy corner and not in the middle of a quiet residential area. 3. The proposed additions are modest is size and will have minimal impact on activity, traffic, noise, or other issues that might affect the neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will meet all zoning code standards for setbacks, building height and number of parking stalls. 5. The proposed grading and drainage plan poses no concerns to the City Engineer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the M endota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2017-03 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) The applicant will submit grading plans, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2) The applicant will submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. 3) All new exterior lighting will be downcast cutoff type fixtures to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. page 95 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of March, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 96 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID: 27-02600-30-021 SECTION 26 TWN 28 RANGE 23 N 275.58 FT OF S 693 FT OF W 378 FT OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 & W 417.42 FT OF S 417.42 FT OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 EX HWY page 97 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: February 28, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-03 Conditional Use Permit Holy Family Maronite Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue COMMENT: Introduction The application is for a Conditional Use Permit for modest additions to the existing church building. Background Churches are a conditional use in the R-1 district. The church wishes to add to the building on two sides. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 98 Item No. 2017-03 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 2017 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner RE: Planning Case 2017-03: Holy Family Maronite Church Addition, Conditional Use Permit 1960 Lexington Avenue Request for CUP in an R-1 zoning district to construct an addition to the existing church building Action: Approve and determine conditions of approval Deadline: April 8, 2017 (60 days from complete application submittal) Introduction The Holy Family Maronite Church is seeking approval for a Conditional Use Permit to construct modest additions to their building and minor site modifications at 1960 Lexington Avenue in the R-1 Zoning District. Churches are a conditional use in the R-1 District. Section 12-1L-6 of the Zoning Code describes the purpose of the Conditional Use designation: [T]here are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. From Section 12-1E-3B of the Zoning Code, list of Conditional Uses in the R-1 District: Religious institutions and places of religious worship, including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the principal use, convent or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site, provided no more than ten (10) persons shall reside on the site, and no building shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any lot line of abutting private property in an R district. page 99 Project Description The existing church building sits on the west side of a large lot at the corner of Lexington Avenue and Victoria Road, fronting Highway 110. The applicant proposes two small additions totaling 3,750 square feet on the west side and southeast corner of the building, as illustrated below. The additions will add space to the fellowship hall, kitchen, and storage, and will add a sacristy, classroom, restrooms, and two offices. There is no change to the main nave or sanctuary space. The new additions meet the required front setbacks to Lexington and Victoria, and are only one story high, so height limits are not an issue. ANALYSIS 1) The Holy Family Maronite Church is located on a busy corner at the edge of a single family neighborhood. The building is on a large lot some distance from the closest neighboring single family homes to the east and north. Given its location the use likely will not impact the character of the singe family neighborhood like a site at the interior of a neighborhood might. The small size and location of the proposed additions are also not likely to impact the neighborhood. There is no additional building space being added to the north side, closest to the nearest residential neighbor. 2) There is no residential component to the church use on this site. 3) Setbacks and height limit are met with the project. 4) There are minor modifications proposed to the parking lot, resulting in a net loss of one parking space – 88 to 87 spaces on site. page 100 5) Parking requirements are based on seating in the main sanctuary space. Seating capacity is 250. At the rate of 1 space per 3.5 seats required by code, the use requires 72 parking. Parking is adequate. 6) Lighting is proposed at the new building entrances. These should be downcast cutoff type fixtures. 7) There is minimal additional landscaping proposed, in the form pf reestablishing turf around the building and a small infiltration area on the south side of the building. 8) Stormwater issues have been reviewed by the City Engineer per the grading, drainage and erosion control plans submitted, and he has no concerns. This will be reviewed again at the building permit stage to confirm that there will be no stormwater impacts. RECOMMENDATION We recommend approval of the conditional Use Permit for Holy Family Maronite Church as submitted with the following conditions: 1) The applicant will submit grading plans, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2) The applicant will submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. 3) All new exterior lighting will be downcast cutoff type fixtures to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on findings of fact. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. page 101 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for Holy Family Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue 1. The use is existing and has been a good neighbor in this location in this zoning district for many years. 2. The existing church use is on a busy corner and not in the middle of a quiet residential area. 3. The proposed additions are modest is size and will have minimal impact on activity, traffic, noise, or other issues that might affect the neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will meet all zoning code standards for setbacks, building height and number of parking stalls. 5. The proposed grading and drainage plan poses no concerns to the City Engineer. page 102 276268174 170 176143 142 74 52 39 17 33 15 291018216413226819602031 10841092 1074 1101 1939 LEXINGTON AVEVIC T O R I A R D VICTORIA RD S Dakota County GIS Holy Family Maronite Church1960 Lexington AvenuePlanning Case 2017-03 Date: 2/22/2017 City ofMendotaHeights060 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entityfrom which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, 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 103 page 104 Conditional Use Permit Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 1 of 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website or by contacting the City Planner.Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case #:_____________________ Applicant:____________________ Address:_____________________ APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: x Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. x Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. Completed Application Form(s). Letter of Intent. Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Site Development Plan: Location of all buildings, including existing and proposed. Location of all adjacent buildings located within 350’ of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. Floor area ratio. Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. Vehicular circulation. Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces). Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. Location and candle power of all luminaries. Location of all existing easements. page 105 Conditional Use Permit Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 2 of 2 Dimension Plan: Lot dimensions and area. Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. “Typical” floor plan and “typical” room plan. Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question. Proposed setbacks. Grading Plan: Existing contour. Proposed grading elevations. Drainage configuration. Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. Spot elevations. Proposed road profile. Landscape Plan: Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. Location and material used of all screening devices. NOTES: page 106 G:\1603-02 Holy Family Maronite Church - Phase 1\01 - Pre Construction Files\03 - Correspondence\Letters\2016 01-30 CIty Planner-CUP Application.doc Page 1 of 1 January 30, 2017 Phil Carlson, City Planner City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Conditional Use Permit application for Holy Family Maronite Church Dear Mr. Carlson, Enclosed are the materials related to the Conditional Use Permit application for the proposed addition to Holy Family Maronite Church. The project has developed out of a need to expand the facilities at the church so that their activities can continue to grow and flourish. This modest expansion of their facilities allows for two offices to be sized for privacy for administration and counseling. It also allows for properly sized rest rooms that will serve the members more effectively. It allows for a classroom as well as a meeting room to be added and it expands storage and the serving area for the kitchen, the heart of their community and its gatherings. The church itself remains the same with the exception of a more suitable sacristy that is being proposed as an alternate should funds be realized for its inclusion. These elements are tied into the existing structure as simply and as minimally disruptive as possible in order to leave the congregation functioning during a brief five month construction period that is target to start in April of 2017. This submittal for the CUP ties all of these items with site development plan requirements: the existing site survey, the proposed site and building plan, the topographic as well as building elevations, and the calculations related to the site and other required materials including site disturbance. Fees are included as well. Our conversations with the City have suggested that we will not need to request any variances. The project is very important for Holy Family Church; they are proud to be direct neighbors with City Hall and are earnest in their desire to be good neighbors for the community. Sincerely, RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. Craig Rafferty, FAIA xc: File page 107 February 8th, 2017 Phil Carlson, City Planner City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Conditional Use Permit application for Holy Family Maronite Church Dear Mr. Carlson, Enclosed are the materials to update our Conditional Use Permit application for the proposed addition to Holy Family Maronite Church. The update includes an addition along the west façade that pushes out 8 feet further than the existing Fellowship Hall exterior wall. This addition assists the church in expanding their Fellowship Hall, their serving area, and a sacristy. The project is very important for Holy Family Church; they are proud to be direct neighbors with City Hall and are earnest in their desire to be good neighbors for the community. Thank you for allowing modifications to our original CUP application. Sincerely, RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. Craig Rafferty, FAIA xc: File page 108 MEMORANDUM TO: Krista Nebraska FROM: Larry Wacker PROJECT: Holy Family Maronite Church Expansion SUBJECT: Site design information for CUP Application DATE: January 31, 2017 CC: Enclosed please find drawings and information for site improvements proposed as part of the building expansion project at Holy Family Maronite Church. The package is a submittal for review by the City as part of a CUP application for the project. The primary design goals for site improvements include: • Provide walk access to proposed building entries. • Comply with ADA requirements for parking and walk areas. • Adjust grades in the building expansion areas to provide positive drainage away from the building, walks and parking areas. • Use native plantings to aid in treating storm water run-off from paved surfaces. The enclosed drawings include the following: 1. C1-1 – Existing Conditions 2. C1-2 – Demolition Plan 3. C2-1 - Site Plan 4. C3-1 – Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 5. C8-1 – Civil Details 6. L1-1 - Landscape Plan PARKING The total number of existing, standard parking stalls on the church site is 88 and existing ADA stalls is 4. The total number of stalls required by ordinance is 66, based on the sanctuary seating capacity of 250. The number of standard stalls on the site will be reduced to 87 and the number of ADA parking stalls will remain unchanged. page 109 SITE LIGHTING Light fixtures will be installed on exterior building walls at proposed entry locations. EXISTING TREES One, 16” caliper flowering crab and one 4” caliper green ash will be removed but all other existing trees on the site will be retained and protected during construction. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The total area disturbed by construction will not exceed 5,663 sq.ft. or 0.13 acres (see Sheet C2-1). The total amount of existing impervious surfacing within the disturbed area is 871 sq.ft. and the total amount of impervious surfacing added in the disturbed area will be 3,920 sq.ft. Storm water run-off from the roof and drive on the east side of the building expansion will be directed to a swale planted with native forbs and grasses as shown on Sheet L1-1. The storm water will pass through the native planting area prior to entering a City catch basin located at the southwest corner of the church property. Please contact Larry Wacker at 763-496-6782 or lwacker@loucksassociates.com with questions regarding proposed site work. page 110 1/31/2017 Holy Family Maronite Church Mendota Heights MN Bing Maps https://www.bing.com/maps?&ty=18&q=Holy%20Family%20Maronite%20Church%20Mendota%20Heights%20MN&ss=ypid.YN873x14774830887104746325&…1/1 Aerial showing Holy Family Maronite Church and all adjacent buildings located within 350' of the exterior boundaries of the property. Notes © 2017 HERE 100 feet 25 m page 111 TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJ #:DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS Copyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE: ARCHITECT: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUE DATE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 (763) 843-0420 (763) 843-0421 FAX BKBM ENGINEERS 278 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH 1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR 2737 Fairview Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55113 (651) 633-5050 (651) 633-5673 FAX MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ARCHITECT: DATE:XXXX ENGINEER:TREVOR GRUYS, PE 01/30/17 53706 CUP APPLICATION 02/08/17 PROJECT NO. 17001.00 C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS N DECIDUOUS TREE GATE VALVE LIGHT POLE CATCH BASIN SURVEY LEGEND - EXISTING CONDITIONS SPOT ELEVATION x x TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SIGN HYDRANT SANITARY MANHOLE POWER POLE STORM MANHOLE CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER OVERHEAD UTILITY CHAIN LINK FENCE WATERMAIN UNDERGROUND GAS CONCRETE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE RETAINING WALL TOP WALL CURB CUT TOP CURB TW TC CC FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE CABLE TV PEDESTAL CURB STOP MAILBOX FLAG POLE RD A/C UNIT ELECTRIC METER GAS METER HAND HOLE YARD LIGHT GUY WIRE GUARD POST ELM CATULPA MISC FRUIT PINE POPLAR SPRUCE COTTONWOOD MAPLE EL CA AS FR PI PO SP CO MA CONIFEROUS TREE ASH ROOF DRAIN BOTTOM WALLBW AR ARBORVITAE B12 R/W BOUNDARY CORNER PER MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 19-91387 WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. page 112 TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJ #:DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS Copyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE: ARCHITECT: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUE DATE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 (763) 843-0420 (763) 843-0421 FAX BKBM ENGINEERS 278 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH 1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR 2737 Fairview Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55113 (651) 633-5050 (651) 633-5673 FAX MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ARCHITECT: DATE:XXXX ENGINEER:TREVOR GRUYS, PE 01/30/17 53706 CUP APPLICATION 02/08/17 PROJECT NO. 17001.00 C1-2 DEMOLITION PLAN N WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. MILL AND OVERLAY EXISTING PARKING LOT REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER, RETAINING WALLS, FENCE, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, POWER POLES, LIGHT POLES, BOLLARDS, PARKING METERS, SIGNS, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING TREES/SHRUBS REMOVE EXISTING UTILITIES REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING DEMOLITION LEGEND: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL. 3. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, STRIP TOP SOIL, AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. REFER TO GRADING PLAN FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 4. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SITE SURFACE FEATURES WITHIN REMOVAL LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SITE DEMOLITION NOTES RD SURVEY LEGEND SPOT ELEVATION GATE VALVE SIGN LIGHT POLE SANITARY MANHOLE POWER POLE HYDRANT STORM MANHOLE CATCH BASIN CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER CHAIN LINK FENCE WATERMAIN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER HAND HOLE UNDERGROUND GAS GUY WIRE GUARD POST ELM LOCUST SPRUCE EL AS LO SP CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE OVERHEAD UTILITY ASH ELEV @ THRESHOLDTHSD GUARDRAIL WALL ROOF DRAIN ELECTRIC OUTLETEO FIRE CONNECTION PER MAP / RECORD TOP OF CURBTC FLAG POLE TOP OF WALLTW BOTTOM OF WALLBW CURB CUTCC 2" X 4" WOOD STAKE, POSITIONED AS NOTED. STRING 4' HIGH, ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING BETWEEN WOOD STAKES PLACED 5' ON CENTER AND PLACED EXISTING GRADE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN BETWEEN TREE PROTECTION AND DRIP EDGE OF TREE DISTURBED AREAS. page 113 TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJ #:DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS Copyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE: ARCHITECT: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUE DATE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 (763) 843-0420 (763) 843-0421 FAX BKBM ENGINEERS 278 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH 1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR 2737 Fairview Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55113 (651) 633-5050 (651) 633-5673 FAX MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ARCHITECT: DATE:XXXX ENGINEER:TREVOR GRUYS, PE 01/30/17 53706 CUP APPLICATION 02/08/17 PROJECT NO. 17001.00 C2-1 SITE PLAN N WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE 23 SITE NOTES 1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 3.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. DISTURBED AREA: 0.17 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.03 AC (18%) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.10 AC (59%) SITE DATA EXISTING PARKING = 88 STALLS EXISTING PARKING REMOVED = - 5 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING = 4 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 87 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING: = 4 STALLS REMOVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: = - 4 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING:= 4 STALLS TOTAL ACCESSIBLE STALLS: = 4 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE PAINT. 4. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. 5. ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. 6. ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PAVEMENT TYPES NOTE: SEE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ON SHEET C8-1 FOR TYPE AND DEPTH INFORMATION. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK MILL & OVERLAY EXISTING PAVEMENT page 114 TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJ #:DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS Copyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE: ARCHITECT: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUE DATE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 (763) 843-0420 (763) 843-0421 FAX BKBM ENGINEERS 278 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH 1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR 2737 Fairview Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55113 (651) 633-5050 (651) 633-5673 FAX MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ARCHITECT: DATE:XXXX ENGINEER:TREVOR GRUYS, PE 01/30/17 53706 CUP APPLICATION 02/08/17 PROJECT NO. 17001.00 C3-1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN N WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE 23 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FEET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 3. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 4. FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS "TW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OF WALL (NOT TOP OF WALL), "GW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT WALL GRADE TRANSITION, AND "BW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACE OF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES). 5. STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 6. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED. 7. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. page 115 TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJ #:DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS Copyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE: ARCHITECT: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUE DATE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 (763) 843-0420 (763) 843-0421 FAX BKBM ENGINEERS 278 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH 1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR 2737 Fairview Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55113 (651) 633-5050 (651) 633-5673 FAX MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ARCHITECT: DATE:XXXX ENGINEER:TREVOR GRUYS, PE 01/30/17 53706 CUP APPLICATION 02/08/17 PROJECT NO. 17001.00 C8-1 CIVIL DETAILS CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2035LOUCKS FINISHED GRADE PREPARED SUBGRADE 4" COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE (100% CRUSHED OR RECYCLE, MNDOT 2211) 4" 4,000 PSI TYPE I CONCRETE (REINFORCE W/FIBER MESH) 1 2'' X 2'' X 18'' LONG WOODEN STAKES AT 2'-0'' SPACING. DRIVE THROUGH NETTING, NOT PENETRATING FIBER LOG. NOTE: POINT ''A'' (BOTTOM OF BIOROLL AT END) MUST BE HIGHER THAN POINT ''B'' (TOP OF BIOROLL IN MIDDLE) TO ENSURE THAT WATER FLOWS OVER THE DIKE AND NOT AROUND THE ENDS. STRAW OR WOOD FIBER 9" OR 12'' DIA. SEDIMENT LOG ROLL ENCLOSED IN POLYPROPYLENE NETTING BIOROLL DITCH CHECK POINT ''A'' POINT ''B'' TRENCH IF LOOSE SOILS DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3007LOUCKS 1'-0" SEE PLAN18'-0" DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2037LOUCKS TYPICAL ADA WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL & PARKING SIGN "PARKING BY DISABLED PERMIT ONLY" ATTACH SIGN TO POST WITH APPROPRIATE STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS, WASHERS & NUTS. (TYP. AT TOP & BOTTOM OF SIGN) "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN GRADE NOTES: 1. PROVIDE (1) SIGN PER STALL 2. SIGN MUST MEET LOCAL STANDARDS PROVIDE PAINTED WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL AT EACH DESIGNATED HANDICAP PARKING STALL. CENTER SYMBOL IN STALL. ALL LINES 5" WIDE 10" DIAMETER WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL NOT TO SCALE HANDICAP PARKING SIGN NOT TO SCALE 67.5 5 "HANDICAP DROP-OFF ZONE NO PARKING" ATTACH SIGN TO POST WITH APPROPRIATE STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS, WASHERS & NUTS. (TYP. AT TOP & BOTTOM OF SIGN) GRADE NOTES: 1. PROVIDE (1) SIGN PER ACCESS AISLE 2. SIGN MUST MEET LOCAL STANDARDS HANDICAP ACCESS ISLE NO PARKING SIGN NOT TO SCALE DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2038LOUCKS SILT FENCE PRE-ASSEMBLED OR MACHINE SLICED 6" 6" NOTES: 1. PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF FENCE INTO 6 IN DEEP TRENCH AND BACKFILL IMMEDIATELY. 2. POSTS SHALL BE: x 6 FT MAX. SPACING. x 2 IN X 2IN HARDWOOD, OR STANDARD STEEL T-TYPE FENCE POSTS. x 5' MIN. LENGTH POSTS, DRIVEN 2 FT INTO THE GROUND. 3. ATTACH FABRIC TO WOOD POST WITH A MIN. OF 5, 1 INCH LONG STAPLES. 4. ATTACH FABRIC TO STEEL POST WITH A MIN. OF 3 ZIP TIES IN TOP 8 INCHES OF FABRIC. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT 3886 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT 3886 DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3000LOUCKSINLET PROTECTION - EXISTING STORM STRUCTURES HIGH-FLOW FABRIC CURB DEFLECTOR PLATE OVERFLOW 1-CENTER OF FILTER ASSEMBLY OVERFLOW 2 - TOP OF CURB BOX POLYESTER SLEEVE MANHOLE COVER ASSEMBLY FILTER ASSEMBLY 27" 27" SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER 2'X3' SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER ROAD DRAIN HIGH-FLOW INLET PROTECTION CURB AND GUTTER MODEL WIMCO ROAD DRAIN, OR APPROVED EQUAL DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3011LOUCKS 23 6 5 4 7 page 116 TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJ #:DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS Copyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE: ARCHITECT: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUE DATE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 (763) 843-0420 (763) 843-0421 FAX BKBM ENGINEERS 278 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 365 East Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0401 (651) 297-6817 FAX LOUCKS ASSOCIATES HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH 1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR 2737 Fairview Ave N Saint Paul, MN 55113 (651) 633-5050 (651) 633-5673 FAX MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ARCHITECT: DATE:XXXX ENGINEER:TREVOR GRUYS, PE 01/30/17 53706 CUP APPLICATION 02/08/17 PROJECT NO. 17001.00 N WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. TURF SEED MIX - MNDOT 25-131 NATIVE PLUGS - 24" O.C. SEE NATIVE PLUG LIST NODDING WILD RYE FOWL BLUEGRASS AMERICAN SLOUGH GRASS VIRGINIA WILD RYE FRINGED BROME INDIAN GRASS SWITCHGRASS BLUE VERVAIN PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER PLANT 2" PLUGS AT 24" O.C. USING AN EQUAL NUMBER OF THE SPECIFIED SPECIES PLACED RANDOMLY. CANADA TICK TREFOIL BLACK-EYED SUSAN MARSH MILKWEED EARLY SUNFLOWER 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Date of the State of Minnesota. Larry Wacker - LA I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was 12579 License No. L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN page 117 A1021A102A102A1022432932 SFNAVE672 SFNARTHEX2133 SFFELLOWSHIP HALL278 SFSERVING588 SFKITCHEN141 SFDW73 SFMECHANICAL226 SFMECHANICAL205 SFSERVING EXTENSION127 SFCRYING RM70 SFUNISEX65 SFUNISEX379 SFADMINISTRATIONOFFICE454 SFKITCH STORAGE542 SFCLASSROOM308 SFCLERGY OFFICE53 SFELECTRICAL CLOSET6' - 0"10' - 0"EXISTING - NOT IN CONTRACT145 SFMEN152 SFWOMEN23 SFJ.C.54' - 6"58' - 6"119' - 6"LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING12' - 0"62 SFWASHROOM313 SFVESTING SACRISTYLINE OF EXISTING BUILDING684 SFFELLOWSHIP HALLEXPANSIONFOLDING PARTITION85' - 6"8' - 6"TITLESHEET NUMBERPROJ #:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:REVISIONScCopyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE:ARCHITECT:I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly registered architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUEDATESTRUCTURAL ENGINEER5930 Brooklyn Blvd.Minneapolis, MN 55429(763) 843-0420(763) 843-0421 FAXBKBM ENGINEERS278 EAST SEVENTH STREETSAINT PAUL, MN 55101(651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAXCIVIL ENGINEER365 East Kellogg Blvd.Saint Paul, MN 55101(651) 221-0401(651) 297-6817 FAXLOUCKS ASSOCIATESNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT365 East Kellogg Blvd.Saint Paul, MN 55101(651) 221-0401(651) 297-6817 FAXLOUCKS ASSOCIATESHOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR2737 Fairview Ave NSaint Paul, MN 55113(651) 633-5050(651) 633-5673 FAXMCGOUGH CONSTRUCTIONCraig E. Rafferty1303702/08/2017CUP APPLICATIONA101FLOOR PLAN1603.0102/08/2017SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLANNNOTE:GRAY TONE ON PLANS AND ELEVATIONS DENOTES EXISTING BUILDINGGRAY HATCH ON PLANS DENOTES RENOVATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDING: 8,900 GSFRENOVATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING: 580 GSFNEW CONSTRUCTION: 3,750 GSFTOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 12,650 GSFpage 118 NEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PAINTED, SCORED BLOCKEXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLESEXISTING WOOD SIDINGCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD LAP SIDINGALUMINUM AND GLASS CURTAINWALLEXISTING ALUMINUM AND GLASS CURTAINWALLCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD SIDING SCREENING ROOFTOP EQUIPMENTEXISTING LUMINARYRECESSED LED LIGHT IN SOFFIT ABOVE ENTRY DOOREXISTING LUMINARY AT CROSSEXISTING LUMINARYEXISTING LUMINARYALUMINUM OR FIBERGLASS FRAMED WINDOWALUMINUM OR FIBERGLASS FRAMED WINDOWFLOOR LEVEL0' - 0"EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PAINTED, SCORED BLOCKEXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLESEXISTING LUMINARYEXISTING LUMINARYFLOOR LEVEL0' - 0"OFFICE ROOF10' - 0"NEW CONSTRUCTIONRECLAD EXISTING WALLNEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING PAINTED, SCORED BLOCKEXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLESEXISTING WOOD SIDINGCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD LAP SIDINGEXISTING BUILDINGCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD SIDING SCREENING FOR ROOFTOP EQUIPMENTMETAL DOORALUMINUM OR FIBERGLASS FRAMED WINDOWMETAL DOORCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOODLAP SIDINGNEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PAINTED, SCORED BLOCKEXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLESEXISTING WOOD SIDINGCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD LAP SIDINGCOMPOSITE WOOD SIDING SCREENING FOR ROOFTOP EQUIPMENTCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD LAP SIDINGALUMINUM AND GLASS CURTAIN WALL & DOORCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDEXISTING LUMINARYRECLAD EXISTING WALLEXISTING SLOPED ROOFBEYONDCOMPOSITE WOOD TRIM BOARDALUMINUM AND GLASS CURTAIN WALL & DOORALUMINUM AND GLASS CURTAIN WALLNEW CONSTRUCTIONTITLESHEET NUMBERPROJ #:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:REVISIONScCopyright 2017 RRTL Architects, Inc. All Right Reserved. Copying, reproduction or distribution prohibited without express written permission.DATE:ARCHITECT:I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly registered architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS, INC. REG. NO.: ISSUEDATESTRUCTURAL ENGINEER5930 Brooklyn Blvd.Minneapolis, MN 55429(763) 843-0420(763) 843-0421 FAXBKBM ENGINEERS278 EAST SEVENTH STREETSAINT PAUL, MN 55101(651) 224-4831 (651) 228-0624 FAXCIVIL ENGINEER365 East Kellogg Blvd.Saint Paul, MN 55101(651) 221-0401(651) 297-6817 FAXLOUCKS ASSOCIATESNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT365 East Kellogg Blvd.Saint Paul, MN 55101(651) 221-0401(651) 297-6817 FAXLOUCKS ASSOCIATESHOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH1960 Lexington Ave South Mendota Heights, MN 55118DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR2737 Fairview Ave NSaint Paul, MN 55113(651) 633-5050(651) 633-5673 FAXMCGOUGH CONSTRUCTIONCraig E. Rafferty1303702/08/2017CUP APPLICATIONA102ELEVATIONS1603.0102/08/2017 1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"3SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"4WEST ELEVATIONNOTE: GRAY TONE ON PLANS AND ELEVATIONS DENOTES EXISTING BUILDINGpage 119 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Mary Magnuson. The following city staff were present: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Phil Carlson, Consultant Planner (Stantec); and Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. Approval of Agenda Chair Field proposed that the agenda be revised by moving Public Hearing Case No. 2017-03 from being heard third to being heard first. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of January 24, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Administrative Items This was not listed on the agenda; however, every February the Commission welcomes new members. Chair Field was pleased to note that the commission this year is made up of the same members as last year. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO NOMINATE LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO NOMINATE DOUG HENNES AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) page 120 Hearings C) PLANNING CASE #2017-03 HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH, 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that Holy Family Maronite Church at 1960 Lexington Avenue wishes to make two small additions to their existing church facility. The commission is being asked to consider the impact on the neighborhood that this conditional use, as opposed to a permitted use, might have on the neighborhood. The existing church occupies the western part of the lot, which is a relatively large lot considering it is a single-family neighborhood. The parking lot occupies most of the lot. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the site plan with the proposed additions. The two proposed additions would be relatively small and one story. There would be no change to the sanctuary or the main assembly space. Therefore, there would be no change to the required parking spaces. Looking at the existing church and what is being proposed, Mr. Carlson stated that the additions are relatively minor and small. It is of the opinion that they would not have a significant impact on the site or on the surroundings. Staff recommended approval of this application. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Craig Rafferty of RRTL Architects located at 253 E. 7th Street, St. Paul came forward to address any questions from the Commission. He noted that the church is, and wants to continue to be, a very good neighbor. They have enjoyed their relationship with all of their neighbors in the area. The summary provided by Mr. Carlson was spot-on in the sense that this is a relatively innocent addition but it means an awful lot to the church. This would provide them the opportunity to expand their counseling areas, their dining area, and coordinate their administrative space. Mr. Bob Klepperich, 1092 Vale Drive, is the closest neighbor to the church, his property being directly north of the church. He stated that the church has been a great neighbor; has been fortunate to meet members of their congregation; and has had frequent visits with Father Emmanuel, the pastor and on occasion, participated in the church’s liturgy. He has no problem endorsing the project, which has become before the commission. Father Emmanuel reviewed the project with him and he sees a definite need for this type of expansion. For the record, he has only one concern, which he does not believe will be a problem. There is a definite water table problem in the area. The plan does not call for any basement work or excavation work, as the Father has explained it to him, so he does not feel that this would be a problem. He is hopeful that this project would not negatively affect the water table. Mr. Rafferty returned and noted that they were aware of, through the discussions with the planning office, and modest provisions have been made within the reach of this project to adapt the drainage page 121 swell and to create a more absorbent series of surfaces as it contributes to a nearby catch basin. Otherwise, the ponding areas within the parking area are all being directed to a more distant area from the neighbor’s property within the limits of the project. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use is existing and has been a good neighbor in this location in this zoning district for many years. 2. The existing church use is on a busy corner and not in the middle of a quiet residential area. 3. The proposed additions are modest is size and will have minimal impact on activity, traffic, noise, or other issues that might affect the neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will meet all zoning code standards for setbacks, building height and number of parking stalls. 5. The proposed grading and drainage plan poses no concerns to the City Engineer. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant will submit grading plans, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. The applicant will submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. 3. All new exterior lighting will be downcast cutoff type fixtures to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 7, 2017 meeting. page 122 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Phil Carlson, AICP, Consultant Planner (Stantec) SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 508 Amending Part of Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Domestic Chickens COMMENT: Introduction The City is considering an amendment to City Code Title 5 - Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning regarding the keeping of domestic chickens in certain residential areas. Background The City Council asked the Planning Commission to prepare an ordinance to allow keeping domestic chickens in residential neighborhoods in Mendota Heights. The Planning Commission initially discussed a draft ordinance at their January 24, 2017 meeting and provided guidance for revisions. From that meeting, staff developed a revised draft code amendment addresses these suggested changes. Discussion At the January 24th meeting, the Commissioners held a public hearing, and reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance section-by-section, and provided direction to staff of the following recommended edits (which motion was approved): • Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar to the zoning enforcement officer • Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed • Section 12-1D-3C o The run – the run should have a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven feet o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the rear yard lot line o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents [substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents] o Remove the reference to screening o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue” o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit This item was tabled at the meeting, and was directed to be brought back to the Planning Commission at the February 28th meeting. page 123 At the February 28, 2017 meeting, the draft ordinance was presented to the Commission for further consideration. The Planning Commission elected not to re-open the public hearing; and after brief discussion with staff, a motion was made to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as presented. Attached is draft Ordinance No. 508, which is a “clean” formatted version for review. This report also contains a red-lined version to illustrate the changes made by staff and the Commission. Budget Impact There should be no impacts to the city budget. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval (by 4-2 vote) of DRAFT Ordinance No. 508, as described in Planning Report for Planning Case 2016-43. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, make a motion adopting ORDINANCE NO. 508 AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING REGARDING THE KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 124 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 508 ORDINANCE 508 AMENDING PART OF TITLE 5 - POLICE REGULATIONS AND TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 5 – POLICE REGULATIONS is hereby amended as follows: Title 5-3 is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows: Chapter 3 Domestic Animals Title 5-3-1: Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definition: CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to as domesticated fowl. Title 5-3-7: Impoundment and Redemption Provisions, subparagraph B is hereby amended as follows: B. Enforcement Officials Designated; Powers: The city council shall designate the animal warden and may, if it so determines, appoint such additional persons as it may deem necessary to aid and assist the animal warden in the performance of his/her duties hereunder. All references to the animal warden in this chapter shall be deemed to include such assistants. Such persons and the police officers of the city are authorized to cite owners of dogs or other animals for violations of this chapter in addition to their authority to impound dogs as prescribed by subsection C1 of this section. Title 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub-section 5-3-10 as follows and renumbering the subsequent sub-sections: 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to four female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. page 125 B. The Animal Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals. 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) 5-3-12: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor, be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003 Code) Section 2. City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows: Title 12-1B-2: Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or egg production for household use only. CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens. CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER: A male chicken. Title 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new paragraph 2 as follows: 2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts a. Number, Size and Building Requirements: (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this Title. (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: (A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor page 126 area of the run must have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred and forty-four (144) square feet. (B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of ten (10) feet tall, whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten (10) feet tall. (C) The coop and run must be set back 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: (A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather- resistant, protective covering material, decay-resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. (C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests. (D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. (E) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. page 127 (6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor-free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or other pests at all times. (8) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage. (9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. (10) Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by the City Zoning Administrator, Animal Warden or their designee. (11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: a. The applicant signed thereto; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in Section 12-1D-3; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; page 128 (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. (12) A permit granted under this section of the code may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator or Animal Warden with a finding in writing to the applicant that a violation of any of these standards has occurred or that there is a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Such revocation may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final. Title 12-1D-3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub-paragraph 2 as follows: 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: (2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coop and run provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Title 12-1E-3C. Permitted Accessory Uses is hereby amended to add the following use: Keeping of chickens for noncommercial purposes, as regulated in Section 5-3-10 and in Section 12-1D-3 of this code Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this seventh day of March, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 129 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: February 28, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-43 Domestic Chicken Ordinance COMMENT: Introduction The item is a revised draft ordinance allowing domestic chickens, for Planning Commission review. Background The City Council asked the Planning Commission to prepare an ordinance to allow keeping domestic chickens in residential neighborhoods in Mendota Heights. The Planning Commission discussed a draft ordinance at their January 24, 2017 meeting and provided guidance for revisions. The attached revised draft code amendment addresses these suggested changes. Discussion Minutes of the January Planning Commission meeting include the following direction: The Commissioner then went through the proposed ordinance section-by-section and provided direction to staff of their recommended edits (which motion was approved): Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar to the zoning enforcement officer Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed Section 12-1D-3C o The run – the run should have a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven feet o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the rear yard lot line o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents [substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents] o Remove the reference to screening o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue” o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit page 130 Attached are draft ordinances both in a “clean” format and another with comments on the side to see the rationale or explanation for each section. All type that is red underlined is new since the last draft the Planning Commission reviewed. One item in this revised draft is the permitted height of a chicken coop. The Commission asked us to research typical accessory building height to arrive at a reasonable standard. There are some sample graphics at the end of the code drafts showing a typical 10-foot tall shed, which is the recommended standard. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the revised draft ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council, or carry it over for further discussion at a future Planning Commission meeting. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 131 The City Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows: Chapter 3 Domestic Animals Section 5-3-1 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition: CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to as domesticated fowl. Section 5-3-7B of the City Code is hereby amended as follows: B. Enforcement Officials Designated; Powers: The city council shall designate the animal warden and may, if it so determines, appoint such additional persons as it may deem necessary to aid and assist the animal warden in the performance of his/her duties hereunder. All references to the animal warden in this chapter shall be deemed to include such assistants. Such persons and the police officers of the city are authorized to cite owners of dogs or other animals for violations of this chapter in addition to their authority to impound dogs as prescribed by subsection C1 of this section. Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub-section 5-3-10 as follows and renumbering the subsequent sub-sections: 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to four female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. B. The Animal Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals. 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) 5-3-12: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor, be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003 Code) Section 12-1B-2 Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions: page 132 ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or egg production for household use only. CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens. CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER: A male chicken. Section 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new paragraph 2 as follows: 2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts a. Number, Size and Building Requirements: (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this Title. (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: (A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor area of the run must be have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred and forty-four (144) square feet. (B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of six (6)ten (10) feet tall, whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten (10) feet tall. (C) The coop and run must be set back 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines of the property and thirty (30) feet from the rear lot line of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: (A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather-resistant, protective covering material, decay-resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. (C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests. page 133 (D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. (E) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. (F) Screening of the coop and run is required as per Section 12-1I-9 of this Code. b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. (6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor-free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or other pests vermin at all times. (8) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue. (9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. (10) Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by the City Zoning Administraror, Animal Warden or their designee. (10)(11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: page 134 a. The applicant signed thereto; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in Section 12-1D-3; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. (11)(12) A permit granted under this section of the code may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator or Animal Warden with a finding in writing to the applicant that a violation of any of these standards has occurred or that there is a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Such revocation may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final. Section 12-1D-3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub- paragraph 2 as follows: 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: (2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coop and run provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Section 12-1E-3C Accessory Uses in hereby amended to add the following conditional use: Keeping of chickens for noncommercial purposes, as regulated in Section 5-3-10 and in Section 12-1D-3 of this code page 135 Sheds page 136 Typical Shed – 10’W x 12’D x 10’H 6’-8” 12’-0” 8’-0” 10’-0” Height 4’-0” 10’-0” page 137 The City Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows: Chapter 3 Domestic Animals Section 5-3-1 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition: CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to as domesticated fowl. Section 5-3-7B of the City Code is hereby amended as follows: B. Enforcement Officials Designated; Powers: The city council shall designate the animal warden and may, if it so determines, appoint such additional persons as it may deem necessary to aid and assist the animal warden in the performance of his/her duties hereunder. All references to the animal warden in this chapter shall be deemed to include such assistants. Such persons and the police officers of the city are authorized to cite owners of dogs or other animals for violations of this chapter in addition to their authority to impound dogs as prescribed by subsection C1 of this section. Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub-section 5-3-10 as follows and renumbering the subsequent sub-sections: 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to four female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. B. The Animal Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals. 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) 5-3-12: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor, be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003 Code) Section 12-1B-2 Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Commented [PC1]: Section 5-3 is currently “Dogs & Cats” Commented [PC2]: This is the standard term to clearly define what we mean by domestic chickens Commented [PC3]: Adds enforcement authority to the Animal Warden for chickens, not just dogs Commented [PC4]: In the Domestic Animal section we clarify that chickens are allowed and refer to the Zoning Code for detailed standards Commented [PC5]: Gives the Animal Warden authority to inspect if necessary Commented [PC6]: Simply renumbering existing sections that are moved down the list Commented [PC7]: Adding definitions in the Zoning Code that relate to chickens page 138 ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or egg production for household use only. CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens. CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER: A male chicken. Section 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new paragraph 2 as follows: 2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts a. Number, Size and Building Requirements: (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this Title. (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: (A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor area of the run must be have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred and forty-four (144) square feet. (B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of six (6)ten (10) feet tall, whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten (10) feet tall. (C) The coop and run must be set back 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines of the property and thirty (30) feet from the rear lot line of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: (A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather-resistant, protective covering material, decay-resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. (C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests. Commented [PC8]: Adding to the regulations under Accessory Structures in the Zoning Code Commented [PC9]: Permit requirements in section b(10) further down Commented [PC10]: Many cities require 2 sq ft per chicken Commented [PC11]: Clarification per PC direction Commented [PC12]: Similarly, we require 5 sq ft per chicken for the run Commented [PC13]: Ten feet is a reasonable height to allow typical storage sheds as chicken coops- see attached graphics Commented [PC14]: Clarifies that a storage shed taller than 10 feet may not be converted in whole or in part to a chicken coop, per PC direction. Commented [PC15]: Side setback supersedes standard 5- foot setback for other accessory structures Commented [PC16]: Ten-foot setback both side and rear per PC direction Commented [PC17]: Rear or side yard only Commented [PC18]: Added language per PC direction page 139 (D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. (E) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. (F) Screening of the coop and run is required as per Section 12-1I-9 of this Code. b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. (6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor-free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or other pests vermin at all times. (8) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue. (9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. (10) Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by the City Zoning Administraror, Animal Warden or their designee. (10)(11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: Commented [PC19]: Screening removed per PC direction. Commented [PC20]: Standards as we understood discussion from the Planning Commission and City Council Commented [PC21]: Clarifies intent per PC direction. Commented [PC22]: Composting deleted per PC direction Commented [PC23]: Allows inspection Commented [PC24]: Permit is under the Zoning Code which means it would be processed as a zoning action, not animal control. page 140 a. The applicant signed thereto; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in Section 12-1D-3; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. (12) A permit granted under this section of the code may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator or Animal Warden with a finding in writing to the applicant that a violation of any of these standards has occurred or that there is a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Such revocation may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final. Section 12-1D-3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub- paragraph 2 as follows: 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: (2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coop and run provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Section 12-1E-3C Accessory Uses in hereby amended to add the following conditional use: Keeping of chickens for noncommercial purposes, as regulated in Section 5-3-10 and in Section 12-1D-3 of this code Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 10 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.52" Commented [PC25]: Revocation language added per PC direction Commented [PC26]: Clarifies that a person might have a storage shed plus a chicken coop and run, but the total area must stay under 144 sq ft. It seemed unreasonable to allow either a storage shed or a chicken coop/run. Commented [PC27]: Adds keeping od domestic chickens under the list of permitted Accessory Uses in the Zoning Code page 141 B) PLANNING CASE #2016-43 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE Chair Litton Field explained that the item under consideration is a revised draft ordinance for domestic chickens. He asked for confirmation that the commission closed the public hearing at the last meeting and directed staff to work towards a proposed ordinance for the commission to review. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP replied that he recalled the direction from staff but did not recollect the closing of the public hearing. There were people in attendance interested in this topic if the commission wished to hear from them. Chair Field read the minutes of the last meeting and confirmed that the public hearing was closed. At this time, Mr. Carlson quickly reviewed the edits made to the draft ordinance per the requests made by the commission at their last meeting. Those changes being: • Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar to the zoning enforcement officer • Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed • Section 12-1D-3C o The run – the run should have a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven feet o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the rear o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents [substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents] o Remove the reference to screening o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue” o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit Commissioner Hennes asked if the Council had discussed this at all since the commissions last meeting. Mr. Carlson replied in the negative and noted that Council had discussed this at their January 3, 2017 meeting and directed the commission to prepare an ordinance for them to review. COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-43, DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE AYES: 4 (Hennes, Costello, Petschel, Field) NAYS: 2 (Roston, Noonan) ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) page 142 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2017 Municipal Clean Up Day – Award Contract COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a contract for the operation of the Mendota Heights 2017 Clean Up Day with Highland Sanitation & Recycling, Inc. This year’s event is scheduled for April 29, 2017. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights has held an annual Clean Up Day where residents can bring acceptable materials to a central location for recycling and disposal. City Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) at their November 15, 2016 meeting and accepted quotes at their February 21, 2017 meeting. DISCUSSION Previous years events have been accomplished through the combined efforts of staff, volunteers and contracted waste haulers. Staff has researched similar programs in surrounding communities and determined that the cost of having the event staffed by licensed waste haulers is comparable to the format currently used by the city, but without the liability to the volunteers. Staff time is also expected to be reduced as the selected contractor will be required to manage the fee collection, signage, clean up, etc. Mendota Heights subsidizes a portion of the disposal and recycling costs. The city contributes approximately $7000 towards this event annually. In 2016, there were 373 vehicles that went through the gate and the city collected $4,200 from residents using this service. Due to this being the first year of a new fee schedule, staff is estimating the cost to the residents using this service may increase in 2017. Staff made assumptions on the volume of vehicles and types of materials that is expected to be dropped off this year and is proposing the following fee schedule: Item Contractors Fee City Share Amount Charged To Residents Pickup Load $ 25 $ 5 $ 20 Minivan/SUV Load $ 20 $ 5 $ 15 Car Load $ 15 $ 5 $ 10 Trailer (4’x 4’x 8’) $ 60 $ 30 $ 30 page 143 Mattress (any size) $ 25 $ 10 $ 15 Appliance (any size) $ 20 $ 10 $ 10 Appliance (with Freon) $ 25 $ 15 $ 10 Tires (each) $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 Tires (each) with rim $ 15 $ 10 $ 5 Scrap Metal $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Electronics Small Household Appliances $ 5 $ 3 $ 2 Microwave $ 20 $ 10 $ 10 Lamps/Fans $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 Scanner/Fax Machine $ 15 $ 10 $ 5 VCR/DVD $ 5 $ 3 $ 2 Land Phone $ 5 $ 3 $ 2 Inkjet Printer $ 15 $ 10 $ 5 All in one printer $ 25 $ 15 $ 10 LCD/Plasma TV* $ 15 $ 10 $ 5 Flat Screen Monitor* $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 * Add $20 if broken screen Staff compared the fees collected and feel that the proposed schedule is comparable to previous events. If the fees are too high some residents may look at other disposal options which may include not recycling or littering. The grant the city receives from the County is intended to reduce the amount of material that ends up in a landfill. Bicycles will also collected for reuse. In addition to the above items, the City is proposing to coordinate paper shredding events with the neighboring cities of West St. Paul, South St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights throughout the year. West St. Paul has an event scheduled for April 22, 2017 in which Mendota Heights residents are invited to use. It is proposed that Mendota Heights would host an event in the fall. BUDGET IMPACT The recycling budget has $12,000 identified for recycling supplies and subsidies to the clean up day. Staff is estimating the city share to comparable to previous year’s events. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council authorize staff to execute a contract with Highland Sanitation for the Operation of the Mendota Heights 2017 Clean Up Day event to be held on April 29th, 2017. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs, it should pass a motion authorizing staff to execute a contract with Highland Sanitation for operation of the 2017 Clean Up Day event. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 144