2017-08-01 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 1, 2017 – 8:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of July 18, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of July 17, 2017 City Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of Resolution 2017-59, Call for a Public Hearing on an Easement Vacation at 950
Mendota Heights Road – St. Thomas Ice Arena
e. Accept Resignation of Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator and Authorize the
Recruitment Process to fill the Recreation Program Coordinator Position
f. Authorize RFP for Animal Control Services
g. Approval of Resolution 2017- 60, Support of Robert Street Funding
h. Approval of June 2017 Treasurer’s Report
i. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentation - none
8. Public Hearing - none
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2017- 61, Approving a Development Agreement and TIF Note for Michael
Development
b. Resolution 2017-58, Approving a Critical Area Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Certain Construction Activities in the Critical Area Overlay District - 796 Sibley
Memorial Highway (Planning Case 2017-16)
c. Resolution 2017-56, Approving Municipal Consent For The MnDOT Highway 149 (Dodd
Road) Rehabilitation Project
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, July 18, 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, Duggan, and
Paper were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE – IN MEMORY OF OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK
Mayor Garlock read a brief statement regarding Officer Scott Patrick and how he lost his life in the line
of duty on July 30, 2014.
The Council, staff, and the audience observed a moment of silence in memory of Officer Scott Patrick,
Badge #2231.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the
revised agenda.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
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. Councilor Duggan requested the pulling items
A) Approval of July 5, 2017 City Council Minutes, D) Approval of Temporary Liquor License for Holy
Family Maronite Church, and F) Approve Private Water Main Agreement for the Mendota Plaza
Expansion.
6.a Pulled for Separate Consideration
page 3
6.b Approval of July 5, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes
6.c Approval of Council meeting start time for August 1, 2017 and November 7, 2017
6.d Pulled for Separate Consideration
6.e Approval of Amendment to the City Administrator Employment Agreement
6.f Pulled for Separate Consideration
6.g Accept Notice of Retirement of Mike Maczko, and Authorize Staff to Begin Recruitment of a
Maintenance III Worker within Public Works
6.h Approval of Par 3 Golf Course Maintenance Worker Lead Position, Seasonal Pay Matrix Amendment and Desi
6.i Acknowledge Fire Synopsis Report
6.j Approval of Claims List
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
A) APPROVAL OF JULY 5, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilmember Duggan, referencing the section of the minutes relating to the Mendota Plaza Planned
Unit Development, asked if the Paster Properties had been informed about the concern in relation to the
vehicles and the loading dock for the upcoming changes to the South Plaza Drive area.
City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that staff was not certain that Paster Properties had been
specifically notified is unknown. He said that staff will ensure that they are made aware.
Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the July 5, 2017 City Council Minutes
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR HOLY FAMILY MARONITE
CHURCH
Councilmember Duggan expressed his desire to alert the new Police Chief to previous parking issues
which had been experienced previously had during this event.
Councilmember Petschel moved to approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor license for Holy Family
Maronite Catholic Church for September 8-10, 2017, and also for the use of the City Hall parking lot for
overflow parking. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
F) APPROVE PRIVATE WATER MAIN AGREEMENT FOR THE MENDOTA PLAZA
EXPANSION
page 4
Councilmember Duggan, referencing the top of page 3 of the agreement, noted that he was amused by
the word “burdened” but had no suggestions for changing it. However, this was followed by “. . .
contained a perpetual easement . . .” and he was unsure if ‘contained’ should be changed to ‘contains’.
Councilmember Petschel replied that she read this and felt that it should remain as past tense. She
believes that the tense was referring to the original water agreement, which St. Paul Regional Water
Services wishes to terminate and replace with the new agreement.
Councilmember Duggan disagreed; however, if the Council believed it to be alright then he would go
with it.
Councilmember Duggan then referenced the first paragraph on page 5 of the agreement, which read, “In
the event of nonpayment by an Owner, the Board reserves the right to deny service to any Parcel owned
by the non-paying Owner”. He stated that he is uncomfortable with the ‘deny service to any Parcel
owned by the non-paying Owner” as it implies that any other property owned by the non-payer could be
denied service. Mr. McNeill replied that there are four parcels covered by the same agreement and he
was certain that was what the intent had been. He suggested that the sentence be changed to read “any
Parcel in Mendota Heights.” He also noted that this was not a document that the City authored, this was
from the St. Paul Regional Water System and that their board had approved this language. ]He said that
if the City were to make modifications to the agreement, it would have to go back to the SPRWS board.
Councilmember Duggan suggested that the changes be made ‘subject to the approval of the St. Paul
Regional Water System’. Councilmember Petschel expressed her disagreement saying that the parcel
has four pieces and to her the intent was very clear that they would shut off the water that was on those
four parcels. She then asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann for his opinion. Counsel Lehmann stated that
his interpretation was that when they talk about ‘owner’ it is as set forth in the very first page and it
defined who the owners were; specifically four owners as set forth – Mendota Mall Associates – WAG,
LLC (“Owner 1”), Mendota Mall Associates, LLC (“Owner 2”), Mendota Mall Associates – Outlots,
LLC (“Owner 3”), and Mendota Plaza Apartments, LLC (“Owner 4”). Therefore, when it spoke about
shutting off water service to the owners, it is defined within the four corners of this document as those
four. He said that if the concern was that it could be interpreted broadly, if someone decided to pursue
it, any ambiguity would be resolved against the draft or, in this case, the Board of Water Commissioners
for the City of St. Paul. However, to him, it was pretty clear that it was talking about ‘owners’ being
those four parties with regards to this private water main agreement. He agreed that the point could be
construed broadly; however, in this case it was pretty well laid out who those owners are.
Councilmember Duggan pointed out that the agreement reads ‘by the non-paying owner’, one possibly
of four. He questioned if this could possibly include that ‘owner’s’ home. Counsel Lehmann replied that
this agreement is specifically limited to the owners for those properties. The agreement lays out that
“Owner 1” owns and then it gives the property’s legal description [which was omitted from the City
Council packet]. He said that it defined pretty clearly who these owners were. If one of these owners
failed to pay, the SPRWS would have the right to deny service to them.
Councilmember Duggan then asked if the proper term should be ‘deny service to the Parcel owned by
the non-paying Owner.” Counsel Lehmann replied that this would make the agreement clearer; however,
he did not feel that the Council needed to go to that extent. The concern would be that if this document
page 5
has to go back for the revisions to be accepted, then it would have to come back to the Council for
approval. Councilmember Duggan disagreed that it would have to come back to the Council.
Again, Councilmember Petschel expressed her disagreement by stating that, as Counsel Lehmann
explained, the four owning entities have been described in detail in the opening part of the document.
She said that clearly this document only referred to those parcels, and she would hate to have to send
this document back to the Water Board, then to have it come back to the Council. The Plaza
Development would be delayed by changing what seemed to be an unnecessary change in a document
where the language has already been approved by both parties.
Councilmember Duggan asked Councilmember Petschel if she disagreed when it says ‘reserves the right
to deny service to any Parcel owned by the non-paying Owner’. Councilmember Petschel replied that
this was very clear to her because the Owners and the Parcels were spelled out in the opening part of the
contract. Councilmember Duggan disagreed as this specifically said ‘non-paying Owner’ – singular of
those four – ‘any Parcel owned’; deleting the word any and replacing it with the word “the” would solve
the problem. Councilmember Petschel disagreed that there was a problem.
Mayor Garlock asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann for clarification that he saw no issue with the
language contained in the agreement. Counsel Lehmann replied that he saw no problems; however, he
could see where Councilmember Duggan was coming from. But looking at the four corners of this
document, he felt that it was pretty well spelled out which parcels were set forth in this document and it
was known who the owners were.
Mayor Garlock noted that the Council listened to Councilmember Duggan’s concerns, and the legal
counsel said that it would probably not be a problem down the road.
Mayor Garlock moved to approve the Private Water Main Agreement for the Mendota Plaza Expansion
and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the document.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 1 (Duggan)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments
PRESENTATIONS
No items scheduled
PUBLIC HEARING
A) RESOLUTION 2017-56 APPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE MNDOT HIGHWAY
149 (DODD ROAD) REHABILITATION PROJECT - CONTINUATION
page 6
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek introduced Ms. Molly Kline, Area Engineer from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and stated that MnDOT was seeking municipal consent
regarding right-of-way acquisitions that are outside of the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Mr. Ruzek
said that there are a number of properties which needed some storm sewer replacement, as well as a
clean up some old plat files. He also noted that this is a continuation of the public hearing that occurred
on June 20, 2017 and; therefore, once Ms. Kline had made her presentation, the Council would need to
reopen the public hearing and address comments from the public. Notices had been sent to the affected
property owners prior to this current meeting.
Ms. Kline went through the June 20th presentation. She said that MnDOT has a project on State Trunk
Highway 149 (Dodd Road) from George Street to I-494 for the summer of 2018. It is an estimated $7.8
million project, and includes a trail segment that the City has estimated; it could potentially be tied to
this project. The estimate would change if the trail is not included in the project.
The project includes pavement resurfacing, ADA improvements at the intersections, drainage
improvements (including ditch grading and pipe replacement), signal replacements, turn lane
construction, and the removal of ash trees throughout the corridor.
The project is anticipated to occur in the spring through fall of 2018. In Mendota Heights, the drainage
replacement would require short-term closures. MNDOT is working with city staff as to when to
incorporate those road closures and what the detour routes should be. They anticipate either night
closures or weekend closures; however, the anticipation is not to have peak time impacts to the traveling
public. There would also be a very short-term turn lane closure on I-494 while they incorporate that turn
lane construction.
MnDOT has identified 13 parcels where they need to purchase right-of-way; one on Highway 13, and
twelve on Highway 149. She shared images of the affected parcels and explained the need for the
purchases.
Mayor Garlock moved to reopen the public hearing.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Ms. Amy Nelson-Sander, 1119 Delaware Avenue, stated that her property is on the corner of Dodd
Road and Delaware Avenue. She was contacted by MnDOT the preceding day and received some
clarification, but not a lot. She noted that there are three very large trees that, which she has been told
are the oldest in Dakota County. She expressed concern that these trees would be removed as part of this
project. Ms. Kline stated that she currently does not have the information on those trees but she would
contact Ms. Nelson-Sander.
Mr. Eric Sander, 1119 Delaware Avenue, expressed his concern about drainage along the right-of-way
and if it were to be carved back it would expose that area to additional erosion. Ms. Kline agreed to
contact Mr. Sander as well.
page 7
Seeing no one else coming forward to comment, Councilmember Petschel moved to close the public
hearing.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mr. Ruzek explained that the Council has three resolutions to consider; one for approval of the
Municipal Consent, one for denial of the Municipal Consent, and the other for waiving Municipal
Consent. He also noted that the Council has 90 days until official action needs to be taken if the
Council would like to verify with the property owners who had concerns, before moving forward with
one of the resolutions.
Councilmember Duggan asked what would happen if MnDOT was not able to resolve the situation at
1119 Delaware to the owners’ satisfaction? Mr. Ruzek replied that MnDOT could choose to not make
improvements in that area, which would risk failures to the existing storm sewer infrastructure. He did
explain that MnDOT has came out with its “90% complete” plans. and he was unaware of any tree
removals along that area. However, they would be replacing the existing bituminous curb with a
concrete curb and gutter. It did not appear to increase the footprint of Dodd Road in that area. Any
disturbed areas would be re-vegetated.
Councilmember Petschel asked now that the Council has become aware of the residents’ concern, if
there was anything in the engineering of this project that could assist them in their current erosion
concerns? Ms. Kline replied that they would need to take a look at what is going on there today.
However, the project is coming in the very near future, and one last summer of the current conditions
might not necessitate any action on their part. MNDOT could look at it and make sure that they would
be making it better instead of worse.
Councilmember Petschel moved to Adopt RESOLUTION 2017-56, RESOLUTION APPROVING
MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHABILITATION
PROJECT, subject to MnDOT and the property owners at 1119 Delaware Avenue satisfactorily
resolving the identified issues.
Counsel Lehmann said that from the procedural statutory position, the issue is whether the Council
would either approve or not approve it. It could not approve it with conditions, as if those are not
resolved, the City must do a formal denial. By not doing anything it becomes effective.
Councilmember Duggan suggested that this item be held over to the first meeting in August for the
decision, giving MnDOT time to meet with the Sanders and address their concerns.
Councilmember Duggan moved to hold this item over to the first meeting in August.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) WELCOMING CITY POLICY DISCUSSION
page 8
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that several weeks ago, some Mendota Heights residents
approached a couple members of the Council and wanted to talk about things relating to immigration,
but also practices and policies of Mendota Heights, specifically the Police Department, relating to such
things as nationality, age, gender, disability, and other factors. Informal discussions have taken place;
however, it would be appropriate to have the Police Chief talk about what Mendota Heights has as its
current policies and procedures.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy gave a brief outline on what the current practices and policies are:
• Unconditional respect for all members of the community
• The police department does not inquire or investigate issues of immigration status
This has been the past practice of the Mendota Heights Police Department and was codified into policy
in July of this year. The policy was developed by Lexipol, a nation-wide provider of risk management
policies. Before implementation of this policy, officers and members of the community had an
opportunity to weigh in on the content of the policy to ensure it was consistent with community
standards.
The resulting affirms that the police department will not inquire as to the immigration status of any of
the citizens.
Councilmember Duggan asked if this policy works for the City? Chief McCarthy replied that, as
discussed, she was very comfortable with this statement and the policies as it relates to the checking of
immigration status. She believes that it is important that the citizens know that the police department not
only ‘talks the talk, but they walk the walk’. She was not terribly comfortable expounding on anything
other than the immigration policy or the department’s role in enforcing federal immigration law.
Certainly, the MHPD obeys all federal and state regulations as they relate to the characteristics listed in
the policy; however, she has not had the opportunities to seek input from members of these affected
communities to ensure that they are in agreement with it. For example, she said that the needs of the
immigration population is very different than the needs of the Asian population as a whole. She wanted
to make sure that the department is respectful to all of communities, and that each one of them gets the
time that they deserve.
Councilmember Duggan then stated that if the Council were to affirm the current local police policies
and practices, those could always be modified later to give consideration to some of the thoughts in the
document. Mr. McNeill replied that he was unaware if all of the Councilmembers have had the
opportunity to see or review the written policy. The recommendation was not necessarily to adopt this
that evening. The preparations made for this evening were to talk about what the current practices are.
The Chief has also indicated that staff wants to ensure that if it is something that is going to be adopted,
that it meets the needs of those who they intended it to benefit from it.
Councilmember Duggan asked if it would be appropriate to have the document read aloud as part of this
presentation. Mayor Garlock provided permission for the document to be read.
Mr. Robin Ehrlich, who lives on Gryc Court in St. Paul, came forward and noted that he was probably
the instigator of this topic at this meeting. He explained that shortly after the election there were
page 9
concerns about legal and illegal immigrants, and immigration status. The Cities of Minneapolis and St.
Paul came out with statements of how they dealt with undocumented immigrants.
He had sent an email to Councilmembers Duggan and Petschel, as he knows them. After emails back
and forth, his email was sent to Chief McCarthy. She came back with what he considered to be a very
positive email. As a result, Chief McCarthy and he – along with a few other people – had some
meetings to discuss the exact policy that could be put into place. His hope was that this document could
be adopted by Mendota Heights as its official policy. He said that it could be published on the Mendota
Heights website, and that it could be published in the Mendota Highlights to make it clear to everyone
what the policy is in Mendota Heights. If this was not publically made available, the people who might
be affected by it would not know about it. He offered to have it translated into Spanish or other
languages, and have it posted at the schools and other places where it would be appropriate.
Councilmember Petschel expressed her appreciation to Mr. Ehrlich for bringing this forward. She also
noted that she believed the concern from Chief McCarthy is that the ordinance came from Lexipol and
she would like to leave the ordinance as it is. She would not be that comfortable with the Council re-
doing the wording. However, the concern raised by Mr. Ehrlich related to getting a message out on what
is the policy in the ordinance, and for the police department and the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office. She
asked if Mr. Ehrlich would be willing to work with Chief McCarthy on something that could be written
and posted. Mr. Ehrlich stated that he was more than willing to work with Chief McCarthy.
Councilmember Duggan suggested that the Council:
1. Express appreciation to the people who have worked on this – Mr. Ehrlich, Chief McCarthy,
Counsel Lehmann, etc. who have supported and worked on this since December/January
2. Note the recommendation of the Police Chief and Administrator McNeill to continue with the
City’s existing policies and practices
3. Have Mr. Ehrlich and Chief McCarthy work together to put together a document, get if approved
by all of the necessary parties, and bring it back to the Council – probably in August or
September. That could then put it into the Heights Highlights and the website
Mayor Garlock noted the actual recommendation of the Police Chief and the City Administrator was to
continue with the City’s existing policies and practices. These policies and practices have been in place
for a long time and the City of Mendota Heights has always treated people in accordance with those
policies and practices. The City is not an extension of immigration. The City has a long history of ‘doing
the job right’.
Councilmember Paper stated that the policy is that the City does not ask, it is open, and they don’t dig.
He then asked what was it that the City is seeking to do differently. Chief McCarthy replied that the only
thing she is uncomfortable with is the inclusion of anything other than immigration status in the first
paragraph of the policy. She suggested that the first paragraph be removed, which was OK with Mr.
Ehrlich. She made this suggestion only because she wanted to be respectful of all of the other
populations that are mentioned in the first paragraph.
Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt the document created by Mr. Ehrlich with the removal of the
first paragraph as suggested by Chief McCarthy.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
page 10
Upon request, a written copy of the policy was given to Councilmember Paper so he could read it. Chief
McCarthy also stated that a copy would be provided to the remainder of the Council.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
B) RESOLUTION 2017-55 APPOINT CANDIDATE TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
City Administrator Mark McNeill that a resignation from a Planning Commissioner had been received,
leaving a vacancy on the Planning Commission. Staff advertised and received seven well qualified
applicants, one of whom subsequently withdrew. The Council interviewed the remaining six candidates
the preceding night. By consensus, it was agreed that the appointment should go to Mr. John
Mazzitello, the former Public Works Director of Mendota Heights.
Councilmember Duggan moved to Adopt Resolution 2017-55 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MR.
JOHN MAZZITELLO TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Duggan noted for the record that it was a unanimous decision on the part of the
Council. He also noted that the City of Mendota Heights is blessed with a plethora of great people who
come forward, are subjected to, and burdened with questions from the Council as they try to serve the
City.
C) AWARD CONTRACT FOR FRIENDLY HILLS WARMING HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that at the last Council meeting the Councilmembers heard
that staff had received two quotes for the demolition and the replacement of the warming house at
Friendly Hills. Because of the size of the contract, staff had recommended that additional quotes be
solicited. The two previous bidders were informed and given the opportunity to retain, withdraw, or
change their existing quotes. Four additional contractors were contacted and staff received one
additional quote. Of the two previous bidders, one increased its bid; the other reduced its bid. In the end,
staff considered three bids. The lowest of those was received from Kirchner Contracting, Inc. at
$38,120.
Councilmember Petschel moved to award a contract to Kirschner Contracting, Inc. to demolish and
replace the warming house at Friendly Hills Park at a total cost of $38,120.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
D) UPDATE TO DAKOTA COUNTY BROADBAND INITIATIVE –
CRAIG EBELING AND LISA ALFSON
page 11
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that more than three years, the City has had work being
done by the Dakota County CDA on connecting Dakota County cities to fiber optic. The two individuals
who have been working on that came forward to provide an update; Ms. Lisa Alfson of Dakota County
CDA and Craig Ebeling, Consutant to the CDA.
Ms. Alfson noted that she has been working on this project with Mr. Ebeling for three years. The Dakota
County CDA is known for affordable housing and redevelopment efforts; however, they also have
Economic Development Authority power, which is why they have gotten into this broadband effort.
Ms. Alfson shared a brief history of the initiative:
• Build an enhanced/ consolidated network to make government operations more efficient by using
existing publicly owned fiber assets – the “I-Net”
• Supplement the I-Net to create an enhanced network making the system available for commerce
– the “C-Net”
• Implement a JPA governance model governed by Dakota County and Cities Governments
• Implement a wholesale, open access, multi-service business C-Net model – government does not
offer any direct retail business or residential services
• Make it possible for more network and Internet Service Providers to come into the market
• Working together, a “Systems Plan” spelling out how these goals can be met has been prepared
Mr. Ebeling shared the Diagram of a Modern Broadband Network, which had been shared previously
during this initiative. He described a core network, co-location facilities or nodes, and laterals, drops ,
and networks.
Mr. Ebeling then shared an image of the Dakota County I-Net Schematic, which showed what now
exists in Dakota County. He stated that the most important thing for Mendota Heights was to provide a
more resilient redundant system.
He displayed maps, diagrams, and images showing the physical layout of how the system would work;
the locations of the nodes; how the City of Mendota Heights would be served by two core nodes; and the
route that would be followed to get to the two core nodes were shared.
He said that the C-Net uses mostly existing infrastructure, but allows the governments in the County to
capitalize by using the assets. This allows internet service providers in the County to provide better
service for the businesses.
An image of the Dakota County C-Net Schematic was shown and explained. The I-Net and the C-Net
use some, but not all of the same facilities. They do require some supplementing to create a ‘commercial
class network’. He then shared an image of the layout of the C-Net throughout the county.
He said that the initial estimated cost for the I-Net is approximately $1.6 million, which was reduced
from an earlier estimate of $3 million.
Ebeling discussed funding options. He said that initial capital costs for the I-Net could be shared as
follows:
page 12
• Cities would pay the cost of their switches, optics, and costs relating to furnishing an appropriate
location for the equipment
• Cities would pay their proportionate share of splicing and other construction related costs
• Cities would pay for any member’s needed lateral fiber optic cable up to 2,000 feet
• Dakota County pays for lateral fiber optic cable installations of longer than 2,000 feet
• Dakota County pays costs related to the core nodes (a significant amount of the total $1.6 million
cost)
It has been proposed that the needed one-time capital cost in Mendota Heights (approx. $340,000) for
the C-Net would be funded by the Dakota County Community Development Agency. The agency has
agreed to consider this but no final approval has of yet been made.
Councilmember Duggan asked if there was any urgency, and what this would mean to the City of
Mendota Heights? Mr. Ebeling replied that this is the way the Systems Plan is prepared. What is being
asked of the cities at the present time is to consider the Systems Plan. There is not any drop dead date on
this; the only thing that he wants the Cities to do is to move this along--they believe there are advantages
to everyone in having the system implemented and having the consortium in place. It would also create
opportunities for a better system for the cities and for, potentially, economic development. There is no
outside entity that is pushing anyone to get this done.
Councilmember Duggan, referencing the fact that Scott County is already using a system like this, asked
if there was a way to receive the information as to what exactly that system may be. Mr. Ebeling replied
that their system has been studied extensively as part of this initiative. Councilmember Duggan asked if
that information would help the City get a better understanding or grasp of the costs. Mr. Ebeling replied
in the affirmative and noted that there was a lot more data to be shared yet this evening. What he really
wanted to emphasize is that the engineers they have hired have studied Scott County and hundreds of
examples from across the country. All of that information is embodied in the Systems Plan and the
answers to what would be obtained and what amounts would have to be paid have already been
established. It would also show what the benefits would be to Mendota Heights.
Mr. Ebeling continued by stating that once they own something, it has to be operated. This is a
significant concern because their engineers estimate that this consolidated system throughout the county
would cost about $540,000 a year to operate. The operational costs are proposed to be shared as
follows:
• Operational costs shared based on a series of distribution parameters; in general, the members
who own larger portions of the infrastructure will be a proportionately larger share of the
operational costs.
• Assets are being inventoried to provide a basis for this sharing. More inventory work remains.
• Members will be adding to the system in the future, increasing their share of the total assets
managed by the consortium. Thus, it is envisioned that the cost sharing proportions will be
updated each year.
This is not meant to compete with the companies which provide direct service to retail customers or new
internet service providers. This is intended to make sure that the governments are well served within the
County, and that new internet service providers would provide better, faster, cheaper systems to existing
page 13
and potentially new businesses. However, the efficiencies would mean that some revenue would be
generated. Revenues would be shared based on three cost sharing principles:
• 45% would go to individual city members who sponsor the C-Net implementation within their
city limits
• 50% of the revenue will go to those members who have provided and will be providing the
infrastructure necessary to make the I-Net and C-Net functional.
• 5% will go to a “pool” to be shared by all members in proportion to their population.
Mr. Ebeling stated before that it is difficult to know how quickly and to what extent the system would
start to be used by ISP’s; however, they had to have some numbers to be able demonstrate how the
formulas work. He then shared an example of a summary spreadsheet:
• Of the $1.6 million initial capital project related to the I-Net, the Mendota Heights share is
estimated to be $93,682
• Mendota Heights share of the annual $540,000 operational costs would be estimated at $6,753
• If the revenue generated in the County is estimated to be $390,000, Mendota Heights would
share approximately $11,000
Councilmember Duggan asked for an explanation of the differences in relation to costs versus the size of
the cities listed on the example and asked if there was a formula. Mr. Ebeling replied that the amount of
initial capital costs are a function of how much fiber the City owns, and how much fiber is needed to
serve the first core needs of the City. In the Mendota Heights case, there are a couple of pretty long runs
that needs to be done to make sure a good syst em is in place. The first one, connecting the Public Works
facility, is approximately 1.25 miles long. Most other cities do not have laterals that long to install.
This is an example of where the 2,000 foot rule came from.
He reviewed that advantages of investing in the I-Net and the C-Net.
Councilmember Duggan asked if the businesses would be charged for accessing or being part of the
system. Mr. Ebeling replied that the machinery on this goes something like this:
• The ISP’s would come to the consortium and that they have some customers that we would like
to have circuit of a given capacity
• The Joint Powers Agency would have a pre-price for that
• The ISP would then approach the business and with a service proposal and pricing.
Councilmember Duggan asked if those businesses could go and find a private supplier of these same
services. Mr. Ebeling replied that the only public part of this is the fact that the consortium would have
this network; this network would be available to any private supplier. The retail businesses are not going
to do business with the government; Dakota County would not be in competition with any the private
sector. However, this is being thought of as an infrastructure improvement. No retail customer would do
business with either the City or the consortium. However, the business could do business with an ISP
that is doing business with the City or the consortium.
page 14
Mr. Ebeling stated that a decision is at hand. The Systems Plan is completed and now it is being brought
before the Council with the question of whether or not the City is still interested. If the City is still
interested, then is it willing to sit down and work with the other cities to finalize the actual agreement to
create this entity? The goal is to be operational in 2018.
Councilmember Petschel asked for clarification that for the City to get into the system would cost
approximately $100,000; and the desire is to have this system operational by 2018 means it would be
incumbent upon the City to budget $100,000 pretty rapidly. Mr. Ebeling replied that there are lists of
things that are in this document; the Systems Plan is 143 pages long with another 100 pages of
appendices. He said that the Dakota County CDA would help with financing on that; so the cost could
be spread over a few years – it would not be free, but with interest.
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that one of the recommendations that staff has is that the
Telecommunications Fund has a balance of approximately $265,000, and would be a logical source of
funding which would not impact the levy.
Councilmember Petschel stated that this would take a significant period of time to build that fund – it is
something that the City would have sit down and look at as a group – taking money from here or there to
make it work because their budget is so small – that $100,000 is like another police officer. It would also
be another percent in the levy.
Mr. Ebeling stated again that this is not something for which the City would receive a bill, unless the
City wants to. It would be possible for the City to execute an agreement with the Dakota County SCA to
spread those costs out over a period of years.
Mr. Ebeling concluded by stating his hope that the City would take this under consideration and that it
would continue to be involved in the discussion. He believes that the System Plan is as fair as they know
how to make it; there has been thousands of hours of effort put into it, involving a lot of Mendota
Heights staff as well in the formulation of these principles.
E) AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR FIRE STATION FIBER OPTIC EXTENSION
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained that this item specifically relates to the Fire
Department and connecting the Department to Dakota County fiber. She shared a map showing the Fire
Station and where the existing Dakota County fiber is located. The request is to award a contract for the
installation of conduit fiber optic, as well as the purchase of switches necessary for the fire station to
connect to that existing Dakota County fiber.
It was somewhat related to the topic about which Mr. Ebeling was speaking in the previous discussion--
it is not part of the gap project that has been identified in the Systems Plan, because of the fiber already
existing there, and there is the ability to tap into it.
Staff has been working with LOGIS, which put together a Request for Quotations (RFQ) for the
installation of conduits and fiber optic cable to City Hall, the Fire Department, and Public Works
buildings with the purpose of connecting all three buildings to the Dakota County fiber ring or I-Net.
page 15
That was approved at the June 6, 2017 City Council meeting. LOGIS released and received three quotes
and they recommended that the City award the contract to Comlink. Their proposal was $10,962 to
connect it to the fire station building. The high bid which was received was $17,112. She said that
LOGIS has fully vetted Comlink and has worked with them before; Comlink is a state-approved vendor.
In addition to the materials and installation of the fiber connection by the vendor, LOGIS would need to
update their switches that are already located at the fire station. LOGIS has submitted a cost proposal in
the amount of $6,000. That brought the total for this project to $16,962.
Councilmember Miller asked if any future changes to the Fire Station would have any impact on the line
that would then be in place? Ms. Jacobson replied in the affirmative, and added that how much would
be determined at the time that it was demolished or rebuilt. Staff would account for the placement of that
fiber.
Councilmember Duggan noted that the proposal mentioned that funds would be available from the Cable
Fund to cover costs. He then asked if the City actually had a Cable Fund. Administrator McNeill replied
that this was actually referring to the Telecommunications Fund; the City has been getting a percentage
from cable subscribers that has been going into that fund; the current balance of which is approximately
$265,000.
Councilmember Duggan then asked what this proposal would do for the City that is currently not being
done. Ms. Jacobson replied that a couple of the benefits would be that the Fire Station itself would have
connectivity to Dakota County fiber. If the connection to Dakota County fiber did not occur, that would
significantly alter how the City would design the Wi-Fi access within the fire station. In order to re-
design without fiber connection and continue with the connection that is currently in place, staff would
need an additional appliance that would cost approximately the same as the installation of the fiber
connection itself. That Wi-Fi access re-design is important from a systems and operational standpoint,
and brings many benefits to fire services and operations.
Councilmember Duggan asked if speed of response be one of the benefits. Ms. Jacobson replied that her
understanding is that the Fire Department’s mapping is still in a book. Perhaps, if they were able to
improve connectivity for the fire station with faster connections and faster speeds, they may be able to
take advantage of Wi-Fi on-line, and use “cloud-based” sources for mapping purposes. Councilmember
Miller confirmed that assumption.
Councilmember Duggan moved to award the contract for purchase and installation of conduits and fiber
optic cable to Comlink in the amount of $10,962; to approve the purchase of switches by LOGIS in the
amount of $6,000; and to approve LOGIS as the project manager for the completion of the Fire
Department fiber connection project.
Councilmember Duggan asked who from the Fire Department would work with the LOGIS
representative. Ms. Jacobson replied that currently the Fire Department has a technology committee
established and that she, along with the representative from LOGIS, has met with them and would
continue that conversation and updating via that group.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion
Ayes: 5
page 16
Nays: 0
F) AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF REQUEST OF QUOTATIONS FOR FIBER INSTALLATION
AND CONNECTIONS AT CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDINGS TO THE
DAKOTA COUNTY FIBER RING
Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained that this request had been brought to the
Council at the June 6, 2017 Council meeting, where the Council approved the release of the Request for
Quotations. The reason for this request for approval again was to update and release a Request for
Quotations on a modified project; including both the connections to the backbone of the fiber highway
and then the lateral connections to Public Works and to City Hall.
The existing fiber network is located approximately 1.5 miles away, so this Request for Quotations
revision focuses on that stretch of fiber. The original Request for Quotations was approved at the June 6,
2017 meeting, based on information that was available at the time and written to specifications that were
had at the time. LOGIS, acting as the project manager, did release and received three price quotes for
this specified work.
In the meantime, staff continued to work on conversations with Dakota County Information Technology
staff. Administrator McNeill and Ms. Jacobson met with Dakota County Information Technology staff
and those discussions resulted in a verbal agreement on the terms of timing and financing this
connection of the fiber highway. Right now, the arrangement would be a two-thirds/one-third split, with
the County paying two-thirds of the cost as well as provide the materials, and the City would be
responsible for remaining one-third. She said that this had not been placed in writing – it is a verbal
agreement based on discussions with the County Administrator.
The original RFQ had it set up a little differently. It established that backbone piece of the fiber
backbone, and the lateral connection. The fire station was taken care of because that was already
existing.
Staff is requesting that Council authorize the release of three updated Request for Quotations, as
follows:
1. For the installation of conduit and fiber optic to connect to the Dakota County fiber ring
2. To complete a lateral connection from Dakota County fiber to City Hall
3. To complete a lateral connection from Dakota County to the Public Works building
The reason for the request to re-release the RFQ is because of the additional or supplemental
information available, to include Dakota County’s specifications, and to divide out the labor and
materials costs differently.
Councilmember Duggan asked for confirmation that there are no dollars involved with the Council
approving the release of these three RFQ’s. Ms. Jacobson confirmed that there are no dollars involved at
this time.
page 17
Councilmember Petschel asked if any of this would be a part of the $93,000 to $96,000 estimate that is
coming from Dakota County for the City to buy in to become part of the great system. Would the City
be accomplishing anything as regards to addressing that? Ms. Jacobson replied in the affirmative and
explained that would be RFQ number 1. Councilmember Petschel noted that if this does eventually go
through, then the City has essentially bought into the greater project without going through a incredibly
laborious process. If the JPA goes ahead, the City has already made a significant stride towards
becoming part of that greater process. Mr. Craig Ebeling, the consultant from the previous discussion,
replied that in order to get that redundancy, there is another element not in Mendota Heights – the fiber
would actually go down Mendota Heights Road, crosses over, and goes into Eagan. Councilmember
Petschel noted that when she looked at the original plan and where the hook ups would be, irrespective
to redundancy done down Mendota Heights Road, this is a significant step towards becoming part of the
bigger network. Ms. Jacobson confirmed that this was true. It filled that gap piece but also would fill a
need for the City.
Councilmember Petschel stated that she knows, particularly in City Hall and in the Police Department,
they are frequently dealing with transferring items of data that are so large and is taking so long to
download, that this would be a tremendous source of efficiency for both City Hall and the Police
Department. Ms. Jacobson confirmed.
Councilmember Duggan asked whether the City would need to coordinate more with MnDOT in
relation to future road construction, as they would be digging to put fiber in. Ms. Jacobson replied that
the project manager LOGIS is very familiar with working with MnDOT in trying to even maximize
when road construction is happening. Dakota County has also coordinated road construction projects in
order to simultaneously get the fiber in the ground at the same time.
Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the Request for Quotation for the installation of conduit
and fiber optic to connect to the Dakota County fiber ring; to authorize the Request for Quotation to
complete a lateral connection from Dakota County fiber to City Hall; and to authorize the Request for
Quotation to complete a lateral connection from Dakota County fiber to the Public Works building
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Councilmember Paper asked about the depth of the fiber. Mr. Ebeling replied that it varies, but it is
usually around 24 – 36 inches deep and is in conduit. This would be on the east side of Lexington.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill made the following announcements:
• Night to Unite is scheduled for August 1, 2017. If residents have a party that they would like to
have someone from the City attend, they should call the Police Department to be put on the list.
• The City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 1, 2017 will start at 8:00 p.m. rather than the
usual 7:00 p.m.
page 18
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petschel pointed out the scarf she was wearing as being created by Mr. Jimmy Reagan,
who lives in Mendota Heights and is challenged with autism. He has found art as his voice, has become
an international known artist, and his art has been turned into various pieces that can be purchased. A
certain percentage of the proceeds of the sale of these products to the Ann Connelly Memorial Cancer
Research Fund.
She also noted that she has had some calls regarding the F-16’s jet fighters flying over the City. They
have been part of a regional strategic training program that the Air Force has been doing. She believed
that the maneuvers are over.
Mayor Garlock informed residents of a Fallen Officer Motorcycle Ride on Saturday, July 22, 2017 at the
South St. Paul VFW, starting at 9:00 AM. They will start at the location where Officer Scott Patrick was
shot and killed, go to the cemetery, and then to other locations. This will also include a fund raiser for
fallen officers.
Councilmember Miller added to the Mayor’s comments, saying that in light of Officer Scott Patrick’s
remembrance, everyone is reminded of the risks and importance of the job of being a Police Officer, in
Mendota Heights, in the County, in the State, and throughout the Country. He asked that the next time a
Peace Officer is seen, that people thank them.
Councilmember Paper expressed his appreciation to Mr. Mike Maczko for his 34 years of service to the
City – he said that he Mr. Maczko mowed a lot of grass, plowed a lot of snow, and dumped a lot of
water in the ice arenas, worked nights and weekends, and a lot of time working to make the community
the community that it is. He congratulated him on his retirement.
Councilmember Duggan reminded residents of “Music in the Park” scheduled for Wednesday, June 19.
The entertainer scheduled is a Pat Donahue who has been featured as one of the lead musicians with
Garrison Keeler and Prairie Home Companion. He also reminded everyone that the businesses in
Mendota Heights, with all of the interruptions on Highway 110 and Dodd Road, desperately need
patronage and dollars to keep going.
He echoed the comments and sentiments expressed about Police Officers. He said that the same could be
said about the Fire Fighters.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Petschel moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
page 19
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 20
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Work Session
Monday, July 17, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held
at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and
Petschel were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill.
INTERVIEWS OF CANDIDATES FOR VACANT PLANNING COMMISSIONER POSITION
The City Council interviewed the following individuals who had indicated their interest in being
appointed to the vacant Planning Commissioner vacancy:
Joseph Hertenstein
Dan Johnson
Michael Toth
Nancy Breymeier
John Mazzitello
Lawrence Sommer
After the interviews, the consensus of the City Council was that John Mazzitello be appointed to fill
the vacancy. A resolution with that action would be considered at the July 18th City Council meeting.
REVIEW OF RIGHTS OF WAY TAKINGS
At 7:38, the formal portion of the workshop was adjourned.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek then joined the City Council and the City Administrator to make
a field inspection of prospective right of way takings at 1834 Dodd Road. Mayor Garlock did not
attend. The remainder of the Council met with affected residents at the site until approximately 8:45
PM.
No action was taken.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 21
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 27, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June
27, 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 Michael
Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
None
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field, after consulting with the other Planning Commissioners, changed the order of the
agenda as follows:
B) Planning Case #2017-12
C) Planning Case #2017-13
E) Planning Case #2017-15
A) Planning Case #2017-11
D) Planning Case #2017-14
All of the commissioners agreed to this change in the order of the agenda.
Approval of May 23, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Hearings
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-12
GEMINI MEDICAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
17,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to amend the previously approved Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for Mendota Heights Plaza. The property is generally located at 796-820 Highway 110.
The applicants are seeking approval to amend the Planned Unit Development in conjunction with
page 22
a proposed 17,000 headquarter office building to locate just behind the current Walgreens
facility. The City Code requires the City Council approval for any amendments to an approved
PUD.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the property under consideration, located immediately
behind the current Walgreens facility, right off of South Plaza and Dodd Road.
Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices and feel they would be better
able to serve their clientele of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area with this new facility. This
new facility would serve as their new headquarters/primary offices for business administration
and sales teams, provide area for shipping and receiving necessary supplies and inventory, with
2/3 of the building area being for client hospitality/education and administration and sales, while
the remaining 1/3 of the building area would be dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
The building itself would have some decent architectural features to match the tones and themes
within The Plaza. The Comprehensive Plan says that the intent of the subject area within the
Mendota Plaza development is guided as Mixed-Use PUD; to allow for mixed use developments
that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development
project.
Mr. Benetti shared the necessary standards that need to be met to amend an existing PUD and
shared how this development would meet those standards.
The site plan shows the building being centrally located on the lot with two access points off of
the access road with parking along the north and the east sides of the building. The backyard area
will not be incorporated parking at this point; however, it is identified as proof of parking. This is
a simple way of saying that if additional parking is needed in the future, this area could be
converted to a parking lot.
Mr. Benetti, along with the site plan, shared the grading plan, utility plan, landscape plan,
lighting plan, and parking plan. All of this information was available in the Planning
Commission’s information packet.
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were any concerns on the city’s part that the proposed
project is a lot smaller than what was envisioned in the original PUD. Mr. Benetti replied that, at
this point, there are no concerns. The City and Paster Properties are happy to see a viable
business and activity coming onto the space. It would also serve an economic need and this
project is seen as adequate and suitable.
Commissioner Hennes also asked if there had been any discussions with city staff about a larger
building, whether it is two or three stories, and leasing out the rest of the space. Mr. Benetti
replied that, to his knowledge, there have been no such discussions.
Councilmember Petschel noted that in the drawings provided the building appears to be two
stories. Mr. Benetti replied that it does appear that way; however, it is only one story. There was
page 23
a proposal initially to do a mezzanine level but that was dropped. The warehouse portion of the
building requires a higher roof line and it is easier to build using all one frame.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the vehicles would be coming in and out from Dodd Road.
Mr. Benetti replied in the negative, the two access points are on the access road between Subway
and Walgreens.
Mr. Jeff Schuler, 275 Market Street, Minneapolis is the architect of this project; came forward
and stated that Mr. Benetti explained the project very well. He noted that what they are trying to
do is to get a bigger space for Gemini Medical to grow into. They are designing this building and
there have been multiple discussions to ensure that this building will serve their needs for a long
time coming. They have tried to incorporate current colors and building tones of the existing
space in the existing PUD, but have it incorporate a high technical feel.
Commissioner Hennes asked about the timetable. Mr. Schuler replied that they plan to be open in
the spring; hoping to start construction in October 2017.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the rendering that was shown is an accurate representation of the
height, notwithstanding the fact that the mezzanine is not included. Mr. Schuler replied that it is
an accurate representation and that they tried to do that to allow for plenty of height for the
shipping area. They also knew that the original plan was for a three-story building and they tried
to respect the initial planning by making it look taller and have it fit a similar mold.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING in accordance with the staff
recommendations on pages 15 and 16, with the conditions as outlined on page 17, and the
findings of fact on page 17 of the staff report
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
page 24
page 25
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-13
XCEL ENERGY, 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF
GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Mr. Brian
Sullivan on behalf of North States Power/Xcel Energy. They requested an Interim Use Permit, or
short-term use permit, for an outdoor storage area in their gas plant facility located at 800 Sibley
Memorial Highway.
The property is currently zoned B-1A, Business Parking. Commercial businesses do allow for
essential services, such as this gas plant, so this is a permitted use in this area. The proposed
outdoor storage area would be in the excess patch of parking on the front edge of the property,
just off of the entry point.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to allow this temporary use and explained
how this project meets those standards. He also noted that although this site is located within the
Critical Area, no new development, permanent structures, grading work, or removal of
vegetation is taking place; therefore, the City has elected to forgo the need or processing of a
separate critical area permit or review at this time.
It was also explained that there will be no storage of any type of hazardous waste or any
chemicals on the site. Basically all that will be seen are gas pipes. The interim use shall terminate
by December 31, 2017; any continuation of this use would need to return to the Commission and
the City Council for approval.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on putting up any kind of a fence. Mr.
Benetti replied that there are no plans to install any type of fencing or landscaping because of the
short-term duration.
Mr. Brian Sullivan of Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis came forward to address the
Commission and answer questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report. In regards to any
security concerns, the pipes being stored would be 20 inches in diameter and 20 feet long; it
would take more than a football team to move one.
Mr. Jake Sedlacek of Xcel Energy, 3000 Maxwell Avenue, Newport also came forward and
presented on the project taking place across the street from the proposed storage area. Excel
Energy has two transmission or large natural gas lines, which currently go right down the bluff
from the garden center down to the parking lot of the trail. They have been there since 1948 and
serve approximately 400,000 customers in the metro area. The intent of this project is to do
regular maintenance, replace the pipes, and have it operating seamlessly in a way that no one
would really know that they are there. Because of the challenge of construction in this area, there
would have been impacts upon Highway 13, the senior living facility, the garden center, and the
vegetation area. Their proposal is to take the two gas transmission lines and bring them down
page 26
around the State right-of-way, avoiding the other sanitary facilities in the area, and then stop
short of the railroad trestle, stop short of their own electric transmission work, and then cross
under the railroad to where they can hook up with those lines in Lilydale Park. There really is no
other area for them to store these pipes in a safe and reliable manner.
The plan is start construction in early August with an anticipated completion date in October
2017. Any restoration they would not be able to get into by winter or when the asphalt plants
would close would be completed in the spring. That would be part of the project – not part of this
interim use so there would be no concerns about having to extend the interim use.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this project was related or unrelated to the work being done at
the propane storage facility nearby. Mr. Sedlacek replied that the propane work has been
completed and was last year’s project. Xcel Energy worked east of that area, at the propane
plant, and this is the final piece to have it all tied up in this area.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, 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
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-13, INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES
BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH
THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between Xcel and
the City Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures
upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit
3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota
Heights at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City
Council.
4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the permit, the
outdoor storage site shall be restored to its original condition.
5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no
dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept on the site. All
gas main pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far
away from the trail system along Sibley Memorial Highway.
page 27
6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured
and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of
weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit term.
7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast,
shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential area to the east.
8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between
7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be
approved by the City Council.
9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1:
INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically
reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary,
amended accordingly.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
E) PLANNING CASE #2017-15
BOB AND JANE REIDELL, 751 WILLOW LANE
WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN-
GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING
WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this is a wetlands permit applied for
by Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Homes on behalf of the property owners, Bob and Jane Reidell at
751 Willow Lane. This permit would facilitate the construction of a new in-ground pool, deck,
pool house, and some landscaping. As part of the wetlands permit, whenever any work is done
within 100 feet of any wetland or recognized water resource area, a wetlands permit is necessary.
This is being presented under a public hearing and notices had been sent to the owner; no
comments have been received up to this time.
The property was a new lot that was created a couple of years ago under a lot split [April 2015].
It is over 25,000 square feet, or 0.59 acre parcel. There is an existing brand new single family
home on the site, is currently zoned R-1 Residential, is guided as R-1 or LR, and there are no
changes on that. Marie Creek touches on the back corner of the lot, making this a wetland area.
Mr. Benetti shared images taken of the area in question showing a very well landscaped back
yard and unfinished area, which is the proposed location of the pool, deck, pool house, and
landscaping. He also made sure the commission understood that the proposed items are not
located within the wetland area itself, just within the 100-foot boundary from the wetland. There
would be no impact to Marie Creek. However, staff has recommended that they provide a 25-
foot vegetative strip that is usually required around any water resource areas to help prevent any
page 28
type of washout or runoff and to help hold down any fertilizer runoff from the lawn before it
reaches the creek.
Due to an oversight in 2015, staff is demanding that easements be replatted or rededicated on this
site as a part of this process. Before any work can begin, easement dedications will be done,
simply as a carryover from the 2015 approvals.
Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Home Contractors came forward to address the Commission and to
answer any questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report and the Commissioners had no
questions.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joy Cacicia, 724 Spring Creek Circle, stated that her backyard, all 162 feet of it, looks out on
this piece of property. She came to the meeting two years ago and was told that there would be
no building within 100 feet of the wetland. She was also told that a considerable number of pines
would be saved. As of now, 27 of those pines have been removed along with a lot of other trees.
She understands that the house is built and is not looking to make enemies with the new
neighbors as it is their property to do exactly what they want with it. She asked how high the
pool house would be, would there be a fence installed, and how close to the creek will it be.
Mr. Benetti replied that the edge of the pool would be approximately 40 feet inside the 100-foot
line [approximately 60 feet from the creek] and the pool house itself would basically be an
accessory structure. Therefore, it cannot exceed 15 feet in height per code. The preliminary plans
show that it would be 10 x 14.
Commissioner Petschel asked about the fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it is yet to be determined;
as part of a new pool they are required to have a new fence either around the pool itself or around
the backyard. It must be a five or six foot high fence and is part of the conditions of approval.
The Reidell’s indicated that the fence would be around the backyard.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-15, WETLANDS PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL
HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
page 29
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the
purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility
easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to
the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if
needed.
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will
occur as part of the proposed construction projects.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie
Creek; along with a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the front and rear
property line; and 5-foot wide easements along the two side property lines.
2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering
Department as part of any building permit application.
3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall
occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing
vegetation to be re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area after
construction.
6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of the City
Code. The pool site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations of all fencing.
7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane
neighborhood, the City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its workers to
park personal vehicles and/or equipment in front of the subject property only, or farther
down the road at Valley Curve Road and Willow Lane. Parking in front of neighboring
residence shall be discouraged and avoided.
8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall be
submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all
work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, the buffer/vegetation strip is well
established, easements dedicated, and necessary restoration work to the site has been
completed in accordance with this permit approvals and City Code standards.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
page 30
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-11
KEITH OSTROSKY, TALAIA BOWEN, RAY J. MILLER; 1680 LEXINGTON
AVENUE AND 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was an official request from
Mr. Keith Ostrosky, Ms. Talaia Bowen, and Mr. Ray J. Miller to only change the Comprehensive
Plan / Land Use for the community. This was not a rezoning and it is not a new development
plan. This is simply the beginning stages of opening a door for development if they so choose.
The land use is just an underlying land use that has to be consistent with any future zoning or
current zoning. The current land use is LR-Low Density Residential and the request is to change
it to MR-Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the properties under consideration with Lexington Avenue
and Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) surround it. The Overlook Condos; Riverpointe;
and Lexington Riverside condos surround the property and a limited number of single family
dwellings are immediately to the west and surrounding area of the Overlook development.
1680 Lexington Avenue is a complete 2.33 acre parcel, has a one-story single-family dwelling
that was originally built in 1952, and the site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line
along the mostly northerly half segment of the lot. The useable area of this lot is approximately
1.0 acre in size.
The house next door, located at 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, is located on 0.42 acres of land.
It contains a two-story split-level single-family home originally built in 1977. It too is impacted
by woods and grades along the bluff line.
The vacant lot next door is 0.38 acres, undeveloped and has been on the market for sale. This lot
is mostly wooded, with evidence of some very steep slopes.
Mr. Benetti continued by stating that the ‘buildable’ portions of these lots, based on aerial photos
and GIS contour elevation interpretations, are as follows:
• The Ostrosky parcel – is approximately 0.9 to 1 acre
• The Bowen parcel – is estimated to be 0.3 acres
• The Miller lot is undetermined
In the future, final determinations would have to be made or determined later should these sites
become available or presented for future development.
Mr. Benetti shared the definitions of the current land use category and the requested land use
category:
Low Density Residential (LR), (LR-H)
• Most prevalent land use category in the City
page 31
• Provides for single family development
• Density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre
• Corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential Districts
Medium Density Residential (MR), (MR-PUD)
• Provides for townhome and attached housing development
• Urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre
• Corresponding zoning district classifications are R-2 (Medium Density Residential
District) and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development)
Taking these definitions in consideration and the current lot areas, the current density allowed on
the parcels are:
• Ostrosky parcel – 10 units
• Bowen parcel – 1 unit
• Miller lot – 1 unit
• All three lots combined – 13 units
• Bowen and Miller lots combined – 3 units
Mr. Benetti clarified that these numbers are based only on the parcel acreage; however, the
actual number of units would need to take into consideration the parking, stormwater
management, and setback requirements. If these requirements cannot be met, they may not be
able to get 13 units in there. Mr. Benetti believes (assumptions only) that they may be able to fit
only four to six units.
Mr. Benetti then shared the character of the area and how this request in land use would meet
those characteristics. City staff believes the existing multi-family and single-family uses should
experience little, if any impacts due to this proposed land use change and recommended approval
of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Commissioner Hennes asked for a review of the overview map to see how the three properties
related to each other, which Mr. Benetti provided.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this was purely a step to attract a potential developer. Without
speaking on behalf of the owners, Mr. Benetti replied that he believes this is true. Commissioner
Petschel then asked if the Commission could even consider this without Mr. Miller’s signature
on the application. Mr. Benetti replied that Mr. Miller did provide written permission; so yes,
this can be considered.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there isn’t a plan on the table and this is to have something
available down the road should something occur, why the Commission is being asked to
recommend approval now when the City is in the process of redoing the Comprehensive Plan
anyway. She asked if this shouldn’t be dealt with in the overall contours of the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Benetti replied that he asked Mr. Ostrosky if this could be presented at that time;
however, because the City does not have a moratorium in place to stop these type of land use
applications during the Comprehensive Plan review, Mr. Ostrosky had the ability to apply for the
application and expressed his desire to get it done.
page 32
Commissioner Petschel asked for a primer on what legal rights this would give a combined
owner of these three properties if they were sold together. Mr. Benetti replied that this would be
an outward expression to a potential developer that may be interested but they would have to
proceed at their own risk. This decision would not bind the City in any way.
Commissioner Hennes asked how long this decision would be delayed if the Commission
decided to wait until the Comprehensive Plan was up for review. Mr. Benetti replied that would
be approximately one year from now; the deadline is the end of 2018 but the City is planning on
having it done by June or July 2018. They would then have to layer in the Metropolitan
Council’s approval.
Ms. Talaia Bowen came forward and explained that she and Mr. Ostrosky believe this to be an
opportune time with the housing market and the development market. Hearing that it may look at
a 2020 date to incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan, it was important to them to come
forward and start this opportunity; knowing that there still some additional steps to be taken.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lucille Collins, 1137 Sibley Memorial Highway, has lived in her home for 50 years. She has
seen Lilydale develop and Mendota Heights does not need it. There are enough problems going
on as all of the land along Lilydale and along Highway 13, and even up into Mendota Heights –
everything is on springs. She is afraid there will be a water problem; more than what they have
currently. They are digging next to her unit to put in water mains because of the problems with
the bluff. Also, the corner there is so bad with traffic – even at night with motorcycles, semi-
trucks, etc. Rush hour is terrible. Chair Field stated that the Commission appreciates her
comments and concerns; however, they are not approving development right now, they are just
approving the land use designation. She continued by stating that it is a bad concept and should
not be approved.
Upon request, Ms. Collins showed the location of her townhome in relation to the properties
under consideration.
Commissioner Noonan asked Ms. Collins if she was aware that even if the Council were to deny
this application, redevelopment of the lots could still take place on the three properties.
According to the existing guide plans something in the range of 10 units could be potentially
sited on the Ostrosky property. He also asked if her concerns about single family homes being
built there would be same as what she has expressed about medium-density homes. Ms. Collins
replied that her concerns would remain because of the water problems and the traffic. She would
express her opposition to any additional development occurring on the property, even if it was
allowed per density and zoning codes. Commissioner Noonan continued to press his point that
the property owners have their rights and they could not be denied to exercise those rights.
Ms. Marsha Easton, 1123 Sibley Memorial Highway, expressed the same concerns and
objections as Ms. Collins and also stated that 10 units would be better than 30 units. There are
more houses on the bluff that cannot be sold because they have water issues, mold, and there are
page 33
springs that move from day to day. Also, the City would have to provide ponding for all of that
water; from the parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Chair Field stated that one of
the rules is that the testimony provided needs to be relevant to the proposed application. The
Commission does not have any specific application at this time; so it is very hard for them to
conceptualize parking lots, building surfaces, and 30-unit buildings when that is not what is in
front of them. He also explained that the land use guidance is what would be changing, not the
actual zoning.
Councilmember Noonan reminded everyone that Mr. Benetti stated that the maximum number of
units that could be put on the combined sites is 13; and then he provided the testimony that in
light of his professional opinion and taking into consideration the steep slopes and the wooded
areas, it would probably be more like 6 units. To suggest 20 or 30 units is misleading.
In response to Ms. Easton’s continued comments about developers cutting down trees and
wooded areas disappearing, Chair Field also explained that these properties are located in the
critical area so the Commission and the Council has more than a few considerations as to respect
to protecting the slopes and the quality of the wooded area and the elevations on these particular
lots. This is a very unique parcel of land and the development potential is exceedingly limited.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification on what exactly the Commission is being asked
to do and what the limitations are; as they are not being asked to approve a development, they
are doing something vastly different. Mr. Benetti replied that what was presented was simply a
‘land use change’. The land use is simply the beginning process of to rezone a property. If this
were currently guided medium density, the conversation about a rezoning could occur. However,
that is not the case. Under a rezoning package, the City would typically ask a developer why they
are requesting a rezoning; are they proposing new development – the City would want to see that
development plan if they were rezoning. The land use amendment is just to change the
underlying land use; there is no rezoning, there is no proposed development plan. The units per
acre is set in the Comprehensive Plan because that is what is used to guide the land use; how
many units does the City want to see per acre under the single-family, the multi-family, and so
forth. In this case, it is 2.9 units per acre under the single-family (low density) guidance and 4.25
units per acre under the medium density guidance. That is under a clear case scenario; if this
were a beautiful piece of flat ground with no issues or problems on it. With the impacts of the
slope and everything else in this area, this would include a lot of ‘what if’s’ and ‘hypotheticals’
because there is no plan and there should not be a plan at this point. This is just the beginning
steps of a potential redevelopment later on down the road – that may never occur. All of the
concerns raised would be meted out at that time; and the critical area is not a fun area to deal
with and that is on purpose. The City does not want people destroying the integrity of the bluff
line and the slopes.
Mr. James Lindsey, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, noted that many in attendance are from
Lilydale and asked if they have much to say. Chair Field noted that they are an adjoining
community and are welcome to speak. Mr. Benetti replied that the normal standard of operating
procedure for notifications is typically only those residents in the community that are being
affected. Under this process, he selected to choose all of the residents within 350 feet of the three
sites. Dakota County has the ability to pick all of the property owners within a 350 foot radius of
page 34
the property. All of the names came up on the list and all were notified. Normally whenever
something is in an adjacent or abutting jurisdiction, typically a notice is only sent to the official
in charge of the community. Those jurisdictions did receive notices, but so did everyone within
the 350 feet, regardless of their municipality. If the Commission decides that he should continue
to do that in this case, he would be more than happy to do so.
Commissioner Noonan noted, as clarification, that if an individual comes to the meeting and they
live outside of the municipality under consideration but within the 350 feet surrounding it, their
testimony would be heard and taken under consideration.
Ms. Susan O’Connell, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, lives directly above Mr. Ostrosky. She,
along with her neighbors, would prefer to see that the land use does not change to medium
density. They are very concerned about additional units being added below them. They have
noise levels that drive them crazy now, not just from the residents already there but from the
traffic on Highway 13. Generally, most of the people living in the building would prefer this to
not be multi-use; however, the do understand that the land could be developed by the owner or
by another purchaser. Any landowner wants to be able to put something on it. However, they
would prefer to see it not as a multi-residential use.
Commissioner Noonan asked why not multi-residential use. Ms. O’Connell replied that there are
simply too many units. If someone were to come forward with a plan to put 10 units on the
property, as is their right, the neighbors would return to express their dislike. Commissioner
Noonan reiterated that medium-density can get them a maximum of 13 but the likelihood,
because of all of the reasons mentioned before, is significantly less than that.
Ms. Joelle Rasmussen, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, asked how many acres comprise the
subject property. Mr. Benetti replied that all three properties combined is 3.13 acres. She asked
for clarification on Commissioner Hennes’ comment about the number of units per acre.
Commissioner Hennes replied that he said that changing the land use to medium density would
add one unit per acre.
Ms. Rasmussen then asked if this land could possibly be zoned as rental in the future. Chair Field
replied that the only thing under consideration tonight is the use of the land; not the potential
development of the land. But rental is always a possibility.
Ms. Rasmussen stated that she finds it strange that they are asking for this land use change now
when they could ask for that land use change when they present a plan for development.
Another resident (name/address unknown) noted that when he looked at the documentation that
came out there was a land use program dated April 25, 2017 and it was designated as low-
density. He then asked why, after this study came out, there is an interest now in changing it.
Chair Field replied that, at the end of the day, someone asked the Commission to do this and they
paid a fee; so that is what the Commission is dealing with. He also noted that the last land use
plan came out in 2010. The date on the document he may have seen would have referenced what
Comprehensive Plan edition it was issued under.
page 35
Mr. Bruce Westland, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, stated that basically everyone speaking this
evening is sharing their human side of the concerns of what the development may be. He agreed
with Commissioner Noonan that everyone has the right to ask and to request development of
their property and do a change. As a Commission, he believes their responsibility is to
understand what those changes are and how that affects the city and the overall look. He
understands that he does not have a right to own the sunset that a potential building may block,
nor the city line that a potential development may obscure; however, what are the limitations that
Mendota Heights has to that property in a maximum condition for occupancy – in height and
elevations. Chair Field and Commissioner Petschel replied that, because this is in the critical
area, the DNR and the City of St. Paul would have input into any development on the property.
Chair Field noted that he understands that coming into a public hearing such as this can be
confusing; however, the Commission is just trying to make a decision on what is before them
now; not what could possibly come in the future.
Mr. Westland continued by stating that he understands what is before the Commission; however,
everyone knows that once this change is done the potential development will go through. Chair
Field disagreed and stated that the rezoning is a much bigger issue than the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Petschel stated that the Commission has tried to make it clear that this does
nothing in terms of firm plans. Mr. Westland replied that he understands the position of the
Commission this evening; however, this approval opens the gateway for potential development
on that ridge or just below the ridge. No one knows what that is going to be, including the
Commission. He then asked what the maximum condition and restrictions would be that the City
would allow. Mr. Benetti replied that R-2 is the same as a single-family; it is two stories or 25
feet in height maximum, the setbacks are 30 feet in the front and in the rear and 10 feet on the
side. Commissioner Magnuson stated that it would be fair to add that there are some building
restrictions with respect to bluff lines because it is in the critical area. This in no way should give
anyone false indication that they can develop to the maximum on these properties; there are
restrictions – they cannot clear cut the woods and plot out 13 units. The reality is that there is not
a lot that can be done on these properties and it would be up to the developer – if any – to meet
the rezoning requirements and that would be very hard to do. The critical area has height
limitations, it has limitations on the color so it cannot stand out from river – limitations designed
to preserve the quality of the Mississippi Corridor. It makes building in that area very difficult.
Ms. Talaia Bowen returned and commented that the discourse and the back and forth is
important. Everyone needs to be heard and it is important that, as neighbors, really understand
and recognize what is important to one another. She expressed her appreciation to the
Commission for recognizing that ultimately, land owners have the right to have some type of
open opportunity to consider what they would like to do with their property and how they move
forward with it.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIO NER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
page 36
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL based on the Findings of Fact
on page 7 of the staff report
Commissioner Noonan comments that when the Commission looks at re-guiding, they look at
the surrounding area and they look at the context. Commissioner Magnuson has said very clearly
that it is not a slam-dunk, it is not an immediate intensive development coming forward; but
rather there are limitations on to what the maximum condition could be. The reality is that it is an
extremely difficult site, it is a site that has unique challenges, and if a matter comes forward a
developer is going to have to find real opportunities here to bring something forward because it
is a considerable cost to bring something forward. It is going to have to come forward with
significant background material to help the Commission address and be satisfied with the myriad
of concerns that have been addressed. That would apply even if the Commission did not re-guide
the property and were to consider a plat under the residential.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she would vote in favor of this request; however, she
wanted to mention that it is only because the Commission is not looking at anything specific at
this point. It is simply a re-guiding of the land. She knows that if there is a proposal that comes
forward, there would be another public hearing – or more than one public hearing – and Mr.
Benetti has indicated that everyone would be notified as they were this time. She encouraged all
of them to come and provide their input and the Commission would actually have something to
look at and would be able to discuss specifics, issues, problems, or whatever.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2017-14
MARCEL EIBENSTEINER, ROYAL OAKS REALTY,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A NEW
SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE TITLED “ORCHARD HEIGHTS” 1136 AND 1140
ORCHARD PLACE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal
Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to
subdivide an existing single family parcel, located at 1136/1140 Orchard Place, into 19 new lots,
to be titled “Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights. This also involves a variance and a wetlands
permit.
page 37
The site is a 13.45 acre parcel located right off of Orchard Place, is currently guided LR – Low
Density Residential, and is zoned R-1. There is no change in the land use or the zoning under this
proposal. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard for some time and all of the
dwellings on the site would be removed as part of this project.
The single family home on the mid-point or the high-point of the lot is where Ms. Olin currently
lives. There are a couple of outbuildings off to the side, just a couple hundred feet away from the
home and another single family resident on the 1136 parcel, on the corner.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards required in the R-1 district for new lots and explained how this
project meets those standards; all of the 19 proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum standards.
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 are on the south side of the plat and are very large because of the impact to the
wetlands or ponds on the south.
Most of the adjacent lots on the Sun View Hills Addition, on the other side of Hunter, are 150-
foot wide lots – wider than what is being proposed here. The lots on the other side of Orchard
Hill Roadway, the Swanson 2nd Addition, are also a little bit wider and they also have some
wider lots for those lots coming off of Lexington on the far east side. There are some very, very
larger lots next door to this one.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the proposed plat and explained that basically it is a new
roadway, a cul-de-sac road coming off of Orchard Place. The 19 lots are strategically situated
around the cul-de-sac and meet the minimum width, depth, and size requirements and the larger
lots are on the south side because of this was as far as they could go with the cul-de-sac for the
extension. All of the contours reflected on the image are reflective of the new contours that
would be graded into the site as part of the grading plan.
A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, July 22, 2017 which was fairly well attended.
Mr. Benetti noted that the plan falls well within the R-1 design standards. The density of the new
plat is 1.41 units/acre, which his much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9
units/acre. When entering the property, a person would go up the hill, hit the top of the hill which
is very flat, and then it drops way down. In order for this development to work and the grades to
work for the new roadway and especially for the lots to lay out, they have to grade all of that
stuff down. There is going to be a lot of dirt moving in this area to make this work. A lot of
grading work needs to be done on the backside as well because they are putting in a retention
pond – capturing pond – on the backside of the property before it enters the other pond on the
back. As part of the stormwater management, they have to preserve and protect as much as
possible.
Mr. Benetti then shared the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Storm Sewer System, and
Utility Plan for the sanitary sewer and water; all of which had been included in the
Commissioner’s meeting packet.
All easements will be shown as 10-foot along the front and 5-foot along the side, but 25 feet
along the back side to ensure that all of the drainage is taken care of on-site. However, as the
page 38
report indicated, it shows that some of the utility service mains will be approximately 20 feet
deep, which is a very deep system. Whenever those systems break down, cities have to go in
there and fix them and going down 20 to 30-plus feet to fix a sanitary, sewer, or water line it is
expensive. The deeper the system the more expensive it is on the city’s end; and pose some
nightmares or concerns to any city engineer or city official. Staff has expressed concerns with the
20-foot lines; however, due to the complicated topography of the site the developer is wishing to
provide this grading as much as possible without destroying the whole integrity of the site and is
trying to make the grades work as best as possible with the depths as shown. Therefore, staff is
having the City Council approve the new utility depths. Should the Council disapprove, the
developer would have to go back and re-evaluate and redesign and make it work for them.
For all intents and purposes, would the new system work at the 20-foot depth – yes, it would all
work but they need a confirmation from the City Council.
Mr. Benetti also noted that with this heavy grading there would be a lot of trees lost; expect
possibly some perimeter trees and the backside trees. The grade difference at the entrance to
midpoint of the lot is approximately 52 feet. It is hoped that a lot of the landscaping and trees at
the backside of the property can be saved as the slope begins to gradually slope down towards
the pond and wetlands, from 952 feet to approximately 894 feet.
Mr. Benetti then shared the reason for the street design and variances as being very simple. The
new subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The
developer intends to dedicate the road back to the public and would meet the minimum 60-foot
width but is short by three feet in the curb-to-curb width, 30 feet to the required 33 feet. Also,
City Code Title 11-3-3 says that streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer
recommends or allows excess street grades. Currently, the streets would range from 1% to 8%;
therefore engineering was queried and the City Engineer is allowing the plat to exceed the 6%
street grades in certain (limited) areas and accepts the 3-foot difference (down to 30-feet) in
street width.
The planned cul-de-sac measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place
to the center-point of the end circle. City Code states that cul-de-sacs shall normally not be
longer than 500 feet. Staff encouraged the developer to meet the standard as the fire department
does not like to see anything longer because of hose lengths to fight fires. Mr. Benetti noted that
there is a segment of right-of-way that splits between properties; an undeveloped segment of
right-of-way referred to as ‘a segment of Mallard Road.’ Basically it looks like a yard space
between the two properties. Veronica Lane is a paved surface that connects and provides access
for homes and dead-ends right at this property line. So they could have pursued an access point
here; however, when on the south end of the lot it would be tricky. To meet those grades and try
to make a road connection on the south side would involve a lot more grading and would have
impacted the wetland area and the pond areas. Staff felt that this was not a very good idea and
would not support it. There are no available connection points on the east side. Because of these
points and there being no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access, staff allowed
the developer to present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway.
page 39
Based on this determination, the developer returned to the fire department and asked what
alternatives he had to get their approval. Their reply was that if he fire-sprinkled all of the homes
they would acquiesce on the length. The developer agreed and so all of the new homes will be
fire-sprinkled as a part of the conditions for approval.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to grant a variance and explained how this
project meets those standards.
The wetland impacts report was received just today and is being reviewed by the city
engineer/public works director for accuracy and will be reviewing/analyzing that later on. Staff
will make sure that all impacts to the wetland are minimal or zero and will also provide for
buffering and protection throughout the duration of the project; before, during, and after the
project.
Mr. Benetti pointed out a letter given to the Planning Commission from an adjacent resident who
was concerned about traffic coming in and out of the development. He stated that he believes the
developer did a great job in indicating that the level of service or level of traffic coming in and
out of the development would be approximately 100 – 150 vehicle trips per day (based on the
typical family home generating approximately six to eight trips per day).
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were a lot of cul-de-sacs longer than 500 feet now in the
City. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and stated that there are a number of them.
Commissioner Hennes then asked if any approached the 900 foot length. Mr. Benetti replied that
there are some approaching almost a quarter mile.
Commissioner Hennes, referencing the possible access points off of Veronica or Mallard, stated
that the Veronica one seems like it would be totally unreasonable due to the wetland and ponds.
The Mallard one is actually fairly close to the cul-de-sac and asked if there would be a way to
build a reasonable access point in there to have a shorter cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti deferred to the
Public Works Engineer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that City staff did draw out
what that would like. He noted that anything is possible, it is just a matter of who much work,
money, and effort will it take to accomplish that. If that connection was made shallower utilities
could also be provided. Staff did drop an option and that has not been shared with the developer.
However, they would gladly share that with the Commission and the public.
Commissioner Noonan stated that there is a preliminary plat in front of the Commission and
asked, if the preliminary plat were to advance, if the final plat would be coming back to the
Commission for approval. Mr. Benetti replied that the final plat only goes back to the City
Council. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that, in any event, the final plat gets
reviewed by some recommending or decision-making body. Mr. Benetti confirm that typically
when a final plat is submitted, city staff reviews it for compliance with the approved preliminary
plat and then it goes to the City Council for final recommendation or final approvals.
Commissioner Noonan then asked, in order to deny the preliminary plat, what findings the
Commission would have to make. Mr. Benetti replied that they can make a number of them;
however, they would have to find technical basis – the grading does not work, the sewer does not
page 40
work; or the access does not work. Commissioner Noonan clarified that staff has not identified
any technical reasons; which Mr. Benetti confirmed. However, for all intents and purposes, if
there is something that the Commission feels warrants or merits a denial, staff would have to
have some very strong technical or reasonable findings for denial.
Commissioner Noonan noted that the suggestion was that 60-foot is the standard city right-of-
way; Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by indicating that they are only
putting in 30 feet, even though a 33-foot cross section could fit in there. He asked why the City
was moving away from the standard to 30 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a preference made
by the applicant to narrow the roadway by three feet. Commissioner Noonan reminded the
Commission on the long and exhaustive discussion they had when Mr. Mazzitello was here with
respect to going from 30 to 33.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he did not understand why sprinklers are being requested. Mr.
Benetti replied that the new fire chief and the fire marshal felt that if the houses were sprinkled,
it would give them [the fire department] added extra time to respond to emergency if there was a
fire. Basically, they said that if the developer were to fire-sprinkler their buildings the fire
department would drop their objections. Mr. Benetti also noted that the State Legislature has
been talking about making all new homes auto fire-sprinkled as part of any new home
improvement. However, there is a lot of push back from builders and other organizations.
Commissioner Petschel asked about the owner situation on the back eighth of this property;
where the ring water pond is and the adjacent areas. Mr. Benetti replied that the three lots on the
back side; their lot lines would go almost all of the way back to the south perimeter.
Commissioner Petschel then asked if they could conceivably be further subdivided. Mr. Benetti
replied in the negative because it is all wetland and would be encumbered under the drainage and
utility easement. All that area back there will, more than likely, be unbuildable.
Mr. Ruzek also noted that the long-term maintenance of the pond would be maintained by the
City; however, there would not be any weekly mowing or maintenance as it is not park land.
Also, under the drainage and utility easement, it would be the responsibility of the land owner to
maintain the trees and maintenance of that area.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was an access granted off of Hunter Lane [the Mallard
portion], what that would do to the holding pond and all of those drainage easements. Mr. Ruzek
replied that staff has not redesigned any ponds or shown any grades. Things could be moved,
they may lose a lot, and they may be able to add a lot, it is hard to say without their engineers
having fully looked at the plan.
Chair Field asked if it would be fair to say that it could be done, in theory and based on the work
that has been done to date. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and noted that there would be the
added step of wetland impacts so they would have to go through a wetland conservation act
process. That process would also include the DNR, the State Board of Water and Soil Resources,
Dakota County Soil and Water; a number of agencies would comment on any wetland impacts.
page 41
Chair Field stated that it would be unfair, since the applicant has not even seen it, for the
Commission to review Mr. Ruzek’s handiwork; although he finds it extremely appealing as an
alternative.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for an explanation of why there is no opportunity to provide
access off of Lexington. Mr. Benetti replied that the area in question is a long private driveway.
He also noted that the original intent was to have an access point road coming off of Orchard,
extending west over to approximately mid-point of the Olin property. In any event, that
extension never got created or approved. Therefore, they basically land locked this parcel and the
developer indicated that it would not work from a design standpoint.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the City Engineer agreed that it would not work. Mr. Ruzek
replied that Veronica would be prohibitive; however, Mallard Way could have potential. The
impacts to the wetlands from Veronica would be too major.
Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty came forward to address the Commission and to
answer any questions. He stated that Mr. Benetti did a good job as far as explaining the complete
project. He also noted that he understands that certain things need to be tweaked as the project
goes along. Some of the main issues are, as far as he is concerned, is that people are interested in
saving trees. However, they have a lot of grading going throughout the whole project and they
have some catch basins in the back yards. They will save as many trees as they can but a lot of
them will be removed. Most of them are not of very good quality.
As far as grading is concerned, they have to maintain erosion control during the project so that
rain does not drain onto the neighbors lots. They will do everything possible to maintain the
erosion on their own property. If something does happen they will reimburse.
Commissioner Noonan, noting that there was some discussion with respect to the pursuing of a
secondary access point, asked if the development team looked at that in any detail, specifically
the Mallard or potentially just exploring an extension of Veronica Lane. Mr. Eibensteiner replied
that they were told that it would take approximately 17 feet of fill to build Mallard open to their
property, plus there are tremendous wetlands across, and city staff advised them that it would
practically be impossible. The same thing for Veronica Lane.
Commissioner Noonan stated that there has been some sketching done for extending Mallard;
however, that has not been shared with Mr. Eibensteiner; who confirmed. Commissioner Noonan
also noted that Mr. Eibensteiner said they would need 17 feet of fill for the Mallard option;
however, a portion of this site is going to have to be cut to the tune of 10 – 12 feet; sounds like
the developer is going to be a little long on dirt in any event. Mr. Eibensteiner disagreed and
stated that he still might be short.
Chair Field asked for confirmation that Mr. Eibensteiner has not seen the drawings by staff on
the Mallard easement. Mr. Eibensteiner confirmed that this is so.
Commissioner Magnuson, to ensure she was operating with full disclosure, noted that she is a
neighbor of this property and so would have some interest on a personal level. One of her major
page 42
concerns is, when looking at the character of the neighborhood, this proposal of 19 additional
houses basically doubles the size of the neighborhood in one little development. She wondered,
with 19 houses on one cul-de-sac with one only opportunity to in and out onto Orchard Place, if
that was extraordinarily dense for that neighborhood and creating a lot of traffic issues and not
fitting with what is already there. She asked if he had considered increasing the lot sizes and
reducing the number of homes being put into this development. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that the
current minimum lot size is 106 feet by 141 feet; however, as they go along and they have a
project approved by September 1 or October 1, then he would talk to his clients and some lots
would be larger, and some would be a lot and half or so, before they record the plat. The total
number of lots may be reduced down to 12 lots. As a developer, they start out with 19 lots – the
maximum that can be approved – and adjustments can be made to make the lots larger but not to
make them smaller – before the final plat is recorded.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stephen Rolf, 1861 S. Lexington Avenue, who owns the property on the east side of the
development and also adjacent to Orchard Hills Road, stated that he had a few concerns that
have already been dealt with, including the number of lots brought up by Commissioner
Magnuson. He then shared an image of his solution and noted that Mr. Eibensteiner spoke of
being willing to reduce the number of lots as low as 12. The solution he shared was for 11 lots
with the road being on the edge of the property so that the large lots – expensive lots – would be
able to have deep lots. The original plan, with the road going up the middle would still reduce the
depth of the lots, even if more than one were combined. The lots would still be short with the
homes being close to the road. His option gives the opportunity for houses to be further from the
road and gives home buyers more flexibility with what to do with the placement of their houses
and their yards.
Chair Field noted that he has given Mr. Rolf some flexibility; however, this is not the plan that is
before the Commission to consider. It is an illustrative example of what could be done. However,
the Commission cannot dwell on it unless the applicant is applying for it. Since Mr. Rolf does
not own the land, there is very little that the Commission or the Council can take into
consideration. It is Mr. Eibensteiner’s application.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that the Planning Commission only makes recommendation to
the City Council. When this comes to the Council for consideration, then Mr. Rolf can provide
input. She stated that she likes his plan a lot better, it is very creative; however, as the chair
stated that is not what is before the Commission currently.
Commissioner Noonan also explained that the property is zoned a particular way and what is
being presented is clearly in compliance with the zoning.
Mr. Rolf explained that he came up with this scenario because, as mentioned by Commissioner
Magnuson, many of the surrounding residents do not feel that the small lot sizes are not in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He also noted that one of the neighbors at the
meeting talked about vision; what is the vision of this development and what is the vision of the
City. It occurred to him, and he just recently learned about this, that the proclamation that Mayor
page 43
Krebsbach made declaring Mendota Heights a pollinator-friendly community – he has created a
horticultural experiment on his property that has been pretty successful. Because the City
encourages pollinator-friendly lots, have larger lots would provide a vision, would be in accord
with the City’s own proclamation, and would enhance the rural feel and the character of the
neighborhood. He would like to see the residents of the development take up this cause and make
it an emblem for their community.
Mr. Joe Capecchi, 1162 Veronica Lane, raised his concern about the water table. Currently, there
is a very large wetland area; at least two-thirds the length of the property. With pushing the hill
down into the southern part of the property; despite the fact that there would be holding basins,
his concern is fluctuation of the water table. Three years ago they had flooded basements and he
wished to go on record as to his concern about the water level. Chair Field replied that it was
commented by Mr. Benetti that the City Engineer would be completely evaluating the water plan
as part of any final condition. However, his comments would definitely be on record.
Ms. Peggy Reagan, 1853 Orchard Hill, was a part of the 1996 ‘no access’ because it would have
come directly across her backyard. She is on a one acre lot and most the lots in her neighborhood
are large. The discussion at the meeting was that the homes would be worth approximately $1M
to $3.5M and she questioned how that could be on 0.3 acres of land. She does not understand
why the land is being plotted for 19 homes just because it is allowed; being allowable does not
make it the best value. She was also unsure if the lots are larger if they would sell for more rather
than the smaller pieces of property. She expressed her desire to preserve the neighborhood and it
would be nice to see fewer homes.
Mr. Keith Kelley, 1905 Lexington Avenue, has a lengthy piece of property. The hill on the
subject property slopes west toward his property so he is quite concerned about the 25 foot
easement because now there is going to be hard surfaces with water runoff; running right back
down onto his property. He is also very concerned about the pond. The three property owners
along the north side of the pond do not use chemicals on their yards because they do not want
anything in the pond that does not have to be. They are very protective. The catch basins that
have been mentioned will actually need catch everything from the top of the hill flowing south
and he wanted to ensure that they would be large enough to catch all of that. The new property
owners will probably have a very nice lawn and probably lawn care – with chemicals. More than
likely these would runoff into the pond and he asked that everyone be very careful to keep that in
mind.
Upon being asked, Mr. Ruzek noted that the catch basins would not run directly into the pond
but would run into some pretreatment basins and/or infiltration basins. There would still be
further review of the stormwater needs that occur.
Mr. Robert Fogt, 1145 Orchard Place, noted that his driveway is directly across Orchard Place
from the intended new street. His living room and bedroom windows face the front of the house
and this is going to have a big presence for them. He asked to be put on record as saying that
they would love nothing more than a second point of access to share the traffic load going in and
out.
page 44
Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, expressed his agreement with Commissioner Magnuson on
the character of the neighborhood; it is a huge factor in regards to his personal well-being in the
neighborhood. He bought his property because of the open lots and is really concerned about
adding 19 properties. It seems like an excessive number of homes. Going by the estimated
number of trips per home of six, times 19 homes, which is 114 trips up and down and is currently
dumping on his route. He would prefer a second access point. Even if they reduced the number
down to 13, that would still be 78 additional trips a day coming down his street. Speeds on the
road have increased since the rehabilitation of it and adding more cars will not change that.
In regards to the size of the road, he would prefer the 30-foot road to the 33-foot. When they
were doing Orchard Place and Hunter Lane there was much discussion about that and they
specifically requested something narrower because they did not want it to look like a runway.
After some negotiations they settled on 29 feet. He would also prefer a second access point.
He noted that they have some very good neighbors in the Olin’s and the property is an absolute
gem and he is probably in the early stages of grief to see that going.
Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, is a neighbor and a real estate broker and he represents the
Olin’s in this transaction. He also knows most of the people that have provided testimony this
evening. He understands everything they are saying and thinks he will probably be involved in
the sale of these lots. He can tell from the initial request he received for information and the type
of homes that would be going in here, most of the buyers probably would not buy a lot unless
they were larger than this what is planned. He understands that the Commission has to consider
the application before them as it is written; however, he highly doubts that the lot sizes will
remain as small as planned – not to say that could not happen because it could – but it is highly
unlikely.
Ms. Dawn Loving, 1851 Orchard Hill, lives next to the apple orchard and is really going to miss
the purchasing the apples and the honey. She wished to reiterate what everyone else has said;
they have concerns about 19 lots, concerns with things like noise and traffic, and they would be
an advocate of smaller number of homes on larger lots.
Chair Field asked Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty if he would like to respond to
any of the comments and concerns raised by the neighbors. Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he would
take everyone’s comments into consideration; however, they still have a long way to go and will
be doing a lot of tweaking. He agreed with Mr. Dorn that there will most likely be less than 19
lots; he gut feeling is that they will end up with approximately 12 lots. However, he is not
promising anything – the market could change and they would be back to building houses on 106
foot lots.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
page 45
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION; SPECIFICALLY TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO
CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ROAD CONNECTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION, THE
PLATTING AND LOT SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION; THE FINDINGS OF THE WETLAND
DELINEATION PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR
UNDERSTANDING; A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED, INCLUDING THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE POND HIGH-WATER AND THE BALANCE OF THE POND;
AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND JUSTIFICATION FOR SPRINKLERS TO BE
IMPOSED OR INCLUDED IN THE NEW HOMES.
Commissioner Noonan explained that the reason he is suggesting to table is that there a number
of the concerns really are quite concerning and does not believe that the Commission has enough
information. The applicant did say that he would take the comments into consideration but the
Commission is being asked to make a final decision and they should have the benefit of hearing
the consideration and making a determination based upon that consideration. He also heard the
comment that there is a lot of tweaking that needs to be done. Whenever he hears that there is a
lot of tweaking that needs to be done leads him to believe that the application is not necessarily
ready for prime time and there is additional work that needs to be brought before the
Commission.
Commissioner Hennes expressed his agreement to Commissioner Noonan as there is too much
fuzziness and the Commission needs more definition to they have a more complete proposal and
a better sense of where this is going and able to make a better decision.
Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the Commission really as no control over the
lot size other than to beg for consideration, as long as they are conforming lots. That was
confirmed.
Chair Field asked Mr. Benetti about the 60 day rule. Mr. Benetti replied that the City is still well
within the 60 day rule on this application and it could also be extended. The 60 days would be
August 1 so the Commission would have the July 25, 2017 meeting to consider the application.
Commissioner Noonan suggested staff exercise the 60-day extension. Mr. Benetti asked the
applicant if he would be open to that extension. After research, Mr. Benetti replied that the City
has time on the plat decision (120 days) but not on the variance (60 days); however, the
Commission can exercise one extension.
Chair Field noted that the 60 day extension for the variance would need to be added to the
motion. Upon the request of the applicant, the Commission took a five minute recess to allow
him to confer with his client.
page 46
Upon return of the Commission, Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he and his client would accept the
decision to table the application tonight but asked that if the decision at the July 25th meeting is
again to table, could he request a denial judgment and have it move on to the City Council.
Chair Field informed Mr. Eibensteiner that the action tonight would essentially grant a 60 day
extension on the variance request because of the timing of the next City Council meeting.
However, he could return to staff and request an up or down decision and staff could present that
to the Commission at the July 25th meeting. However, the Commission is hoping that he would
do some wonderful things between now and the 25th of July.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MODIFIED HIS MOTION BY EXERCISING THE
COMMISSIONS 60-DAY RIGHT TO EXTEND THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AND THE
WETLANDS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON SECONDED THE
MODIFICATION.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field noted that the public hearing was officially closed; however, it can be reopened at the
next Planning Commission meeting.
As requested by Mr. Benetti. Chair Field stated that anything the Commission saw at their desk
this evening would be part of the public record.
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the Commission, at their last meeting,
recommended denial of the code amendment for the auto sales for service stations. The City
Council tabled the application because they wanted the City Attorney and staff to work with the
applicant to see if they could explore some alternatives or other options. Staff met with the
applicant; however, the City Attorney is still exploring those options.
The Dodge Nature Center lot split, the Jacobs variance request for a garage, the Christopherson
variance request for an encroachment, and the sign ordinance were approved.
The Swenson land use change for the Mendota Motel and the Larson Garden Center was
approved and is now in the review stages at the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). Also, the
TIF #2 was approved at the last Council meeting. Staff will be finalizing that agreement under a
future development agreement before the Council.
There is one application in for next month’s meeting and that would be for a critical area permit
for a two lot subdivision that is two lots with one house. They would be removing the house and
building on the individual lots. They need a critical area permit for the demolition and future
work on that site.
Also, the tabled preliminary plat would return for consideration.
page 47
Staff and Commission Announcements
Chair Field stated that the City Council is in the throes of evaluating the open Planning
Commission position. The interviews have been set with the Councilmembers.
The July 4th festivities will be occurring next week with fireworks at Mendakota.
Highway 110 is still closed but should be open by September 1; however, they will still be
working on the project until November.
The Mendota Heights Road project will be starting, possibly as early as July 5, 2017. This would
be between 35-E and Dodd Road.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:11 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
page 48
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 1, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-59 – Call for a Public Hearing on an Easement Vacation at 950
Mendota Heights Road - St. Thomas Ice Arena
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2017-59 calling for a public hearing on a utility
easement vacation started by a petition of abutting land owners. In this case, the only abutting
land owner is St. Thomas Ice Arena.
BACKGROUND
An easement was platted over a private water service line with the construction of the St.
Thomas Ice Arena. Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) has stated that the utility
easement is unnecessary as the water service is only serving the Ice Arena and is not required to
be in a utility easement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Ice Arena is proposing an addition to the west of the existing building. The proposed
addition encroaches upon a platted utility easement for a private water main. SPRWS has
reviewed the plan is has no objections to the project as proposed and has recommended for the
vacation of the utility easement.
BUDGET IMPACT
The petitioners submitted the required $250 fee to cover the advertising, mailing and staff time
for this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve the resolution calling for a public hearing.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2017-59,
“RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUTILITY EASMENT
VACATION STARTED BY A PETITION OF ABUTTING LANDOWNERS”. This action
requires a simple majority vote.
page 49
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-59
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A UTILITY EASEMENT
VACATION STARTED BY A PETITION OF AN ABUTTING LANDOWNER
WHEREAS, a request signed by a majority of property owners (St. Thomas Ice Arena) abutting
the utility easement for water main was received by the City Clerk on the 27th day of July, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the petition requested the City Council pursuant to Minnesota Statute §412.851 to
vacate said utility easement described as:
The 30 foot wide utility easement as dedicated over a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, ST. THOMAS ACADEMY
ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. The centerline of said easement is described as follows.
Commencing at the most easterly corner on the north line of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed
bearing of South 89 degrees 53 minutes 07 seconds West along said north line a distance of
277.50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minute 06 seconds West a distance of 30.00 feet to the
point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence continuing South 00 degrees 01
minute 06 seconds West a distance of 510.29 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 54 seconds
East a distance of 53.50 feet and said centerline there terminating.
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reviewed and examined the signatures on said request and
determined that such signatures constitute a majority of landowners abutting upon the utility easement to
be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council will consider the
vacation of such utility easement and a public hearing shall be held on such proposed vacation on the 5th
day of September, 2017, before the City Council in the Mendota Heights City Hall located at 1101
Victoria Curve at 7:00 p.m.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to give published, posted, and mailed notice of such hearing as required
by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of August, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
BY________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
BY_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 50
page 51
page 52
DATE: August 1, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Resignation of Sloan Wallgren and Recruitment to fill the Recreation Program
Coordinator Position
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to accept the resignation of Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program
Coordinator and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the position.
Background
Sloan Wallgren has submitted his letter of resignation as the City’s Recreation Program
Coordinator. His last day is Friday, August, 4, 2017.
Sloan began working with the City in March, 2013. During his tenure, Sloan has coordinated
and administered a variety of recreation programs for all ages as well as directed operations at
the Par 3 golf course. Sloan has accepted a position with the Wayzata School District. The
position offers him the opportunity of professional growth as well as work life balance. His time
and talents will be greatly missed.
The Recreation Program Coordinator position is a key position within the organization. Staff is
seeking authorization to begin the recruitment process to fill the vacancy.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the resignation of Sloan Wallgren and provide
authorization to begin the recruitment process to fill the Recreation Program Coordinator
position.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept with regret the resignation of Sloan
Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator, effective August 4, 2017 and authorize staff to begin
the recruitment process to fill the Recreation Program Coordinator position.
page 53
DATE: August 1, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: RFP for Animal Control Contract
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize staff to seek proposals for animal contract services for the
City.
BACKGROUND
The City’s animal control services have been provided by 4 Paws, Inc., for as long as anyone can
remember. 4 Paws responds when called, but does not do proactive patrolling to look for
animals. Typically, a lost dog is picked up by a Mendota Heights police officer, and the animal
is brought to the Police Station. 4 Paws is called, and comes to Mendota Heights to retrieve the
animal.
Several residents have questioned this practice recently, as the owner then must travel to the 4
Paws location in Shakopee to retrieve the animal. They feel a location closer to Mendota heights
would be more desirable.
The attached draft RFP has been drafted, and local animal advocates have had input. As shown,
the availability of the RFP would be circulated, and responses would be due back by September
1st.
BUDGET IMPACT
There are typically about 30 animal impounds per year in Mendota Heights. The City has paid
$300 per month for a retainer to 4 Paws. The City is also responsible for paying 4 Paws for
medical, boarding, and euthanasia expenses above that of unclaimed animals. Overall, the
animal control budget annually is about $5000.
page 54
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that RFPs be authorized for animal control services for the City.
The results would be reviewed by staff, and a recommendation would be brought to the City
Council for future action.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize animal control services be sought for the
City of Mendota Heights.
Kelly McCarthy Mark McNeill
Police Chief City Administrator
page 55
The purpose of this request for proposal (RFP) is to obtain quotes for providing the housing and
management of impounding and boarding animals for the City of Mendota Heights.
Proposals are due by the Close of Business 4:30 PM on Friday, September 1, 2017
Introduction
The City of Mendota Heights (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) is requesting proposals from
qualified entities to provide services relating to the impounding and boarding of animals found to be in
the need of care including, but no limited to those that are running at large within the City limits.
The City currently uses a vendor that picks up and boards animals. Approximately 30 animals are
impounded annually. The City wishes to enter into an agreement commencing 1/1/2018.
Requested Services
Services sought under this RFP include the following (alternative services may be proposed and will be
considered):
The vendor will provide, at its own expense, a suitable and adequate animal shelter for the proper
handling of all impounded animals. The vendor shall:
1. Be supervised by a competent person.
2. Be open a minimum of five days per week, excluding holidays.
3. Be open to the public to reclaim animals a minimum of four consecutive hours between
08:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
4. Have someone consistently available during business hours to answer phone, electronic and
in-person inquiries regarding impounded animals.
5. Vendor will provide twenty-four (24) hour access to City staff for impoundment and access
to all City impounded animals.
6. Vendor will accept all animals picked up or delivered to vendor by the City or its employees.
Vendor shall not have to accept large animals such as horses, cattle, deer or other large
animals not customarily sheltered by vendor. Any animal brought directly to the animal
shelter by the public will be impounded by vendor only after securing the consent of City
staff.
7. Vendor will check each impounded animal for microchip and other forms of identification. If
owner can be identified, vendor will notify animal owner as soon as possible but no later
than within one business day after the owner is identified.
8. Vendor will hold all the animals delivered to it by the City and not provided for in subsection
j. or k. below, for a period of five (5) business days, longer as required by Minnesota law or
as requested by the City (the "Holding Period"). That animal may be reclaimed by its legal
owner within the Holding Period.
9. If during the Holding Period, the vendor believes an animal is suffering inhumanely from
illness or injury, the vendor will immediately contact the City to request veterinary attention
for that animal. If the City consents to provide veterinary care, the veterinary care will be at
the City's expense. The vendor must record and follow veterinary treatment prescribed by
the treating veterinarian (e.g. oral or topical antibiotics, wound care, etc.).
page 56
10. Vendor will care for the animals delivered to it by the City that have bitten, scratched or
otherwise injured a person or are suspected of having rabies, for a quarantine period of ten
(10) days or a longer period of time as requested by the City. Vendor agrees to ensure that
animals that are quarantined will not be allowed to be in contact with other animals or be
off-leash and unattended during the observation period.
11. Vendor agrees to care for animals that are the subject of criminal investigations and/or held
for safekeeping for the length of time as required by law.
12. Provide proper and adequate food, shelter, water and other humane care and treatment of
the animals delivered to it by the City, (excluding medical or veterinary care, except as
provided below) during all times the animals are in its possession and until redeemed or
otherwise disposed.
13. At all times keep easily accessible to impounding officers food, water, dishes and bedding
material for appropriate care of impounds. If an officer makes a reasonable request for
special or additional accommodations for an animal (e.g. a sheet draped over the front of a
kennel to minimize an animal’s stress, etc.) the vendor will accommodate that request until
otherwise directed by the officer or until the animal becomes property of vendor.
14. Maintain a record for each animal through the use of log book, on impound cards, electronic
records or other method approved by the City. This record shall contain:
a. A description of the animal (species, breed, sex, approximate age, and other
distinguishing traits)
b. The location at which the animal was impounded
c. The date of impoundment
d. The in-shelter status/location and history of each animal (quarantined, adoptable,
sick, etc.)
e. Care log
f. Disposition of each animal (reclaimed, euthanized, adopted, etc.)
15. Vendor agrees to keep such records and make such reports as shall be reasonably required
by the City concerning the animals it cares for on behalf of the City, and vendor shall render
monthly reports to the City.
16. The vendor will require, prior to releasing an animal, that the person reclaiming the animal
show proper identification. The vendor will ensure that persons reclaiming animals fully
comply with City procedures. Vendor agrees to document information related to persons
reclaiming animals. Dogs, cats and ferrets released to their owners are required to be rabies
vaccinated or show proof of vaccination prior to release.
17. Vendor has the right to de-worm, apply pest control products or administer vaccinations for
the prevention of ear mites, fleas, or diseases, on all animals upon arrival at vendor’s facility
to protect the animal and others from disease.
18. Vendor agrees to comply with the provisions of the HSUS Guidelines for the Operation of an
Animal Shelter http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/eng_guidelines_operation_shelter.pdf
Specifically the city requires:
a. Daily cleaning and disinfection of interior and exterior animal holding areas and
kennels with removal of all fecal matter. Animals must be relocated to suitable area
during wet / chemical cleaning with the exception of extraordinary circumstances.
Additional cleaning is encouraged.
page 57
b. Suitable lighting of at least eight consecutive daytime hours per day for all animal
areas. Suitable darkness of at least eight consecutive nighttime hours per evening
for all animal areas.
c. Daily outdoor exercise of at least 20 minutes for canines. Periods with extreme heat,
cold and severe weather events are excluded.
19. Vendor agrees to collect, record and receipt payment for impound, adoption, dog licenses
and related fees and submit to the city on a weekly basis.
20. At the end of the Holding Period, all animals that remain unclaimed either (dependent upon
the respondent’s proposal/final contract) shall be subject to one of the following:
a). Become the property of the City of Mendota Heights. The animals owned by the
City of Mendota Heights shall be listed for adoption by vendor, humanely euthanized,
transferred to another animal shelter, or relocated per the City’s direction; or,
b). Shall become the property of the vendor.
Contract Information
The purpose of Contract is to provide an accessible, appropriately located, safe, humane environment
for the housing of impounded animals for the City of Mendota Heights.
Contract Document
The contract resulting from this RFP shall include:
1. The executed agreement between the parties
2. Requirements of this RFP and any amendments thereto
3. The successful proposal, and any amendments thereto, submitted in response to the RFP as
agreed to by the City.
Contract Amendments
Any contract for services described in this RFP shall be amended only in writing and agreed to by both
parties.
Severability
The invalidity in whole or part of any provision of the contract that results from this RFP shall not void or
affect the validity of any other provision.
Term of Contract
The term of any contract that results from this RFP shall be in effect for one year from the effective date.
It shall automatically renew for successive one year periods unless either party gives ninety days written
notice to the other party prior to the expiration of the year.
Assignment, transfer, conveyance, subcontracting, and disposal
The contract resulting from this RFP may not be assigned to any other person, company, or corporation,
or entity without the previous written consent of the City.
Payments
The vendor shall submit a monthly report to the City which includes information on each animal
impounded, sheltered, disposition of animals leaving the shelter, and fees paid. Invoices for payments
page 58
due from the City to the vendor under this contract will be submitted monthly. Invoices shall be
itemized sufficiently to separate the portions of the contract that are subject to Minnesota Sales Tax,
from those items that are not.
Notices
Official notices by the parties to one another shall be given in writing to the persons identified in this
RFP or to such other persons as may be subsequently identified in the contract. Such notice shall be
effective on the date of receipt if sent by U.S. first-class mail, postpaid, or by overnight delivery, prepaid.
Governing Law
Any disputes arising with respect to the contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Termination
Either party may terminate the contract arising out of this RFP by giving the other party 90 days’ written
notice.
Hold Harmless/Indemnification
Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its governing body, officers, agents,
employees and representatives from and against all losses, claims, liabilities, demands, recoveries,
judgments or expenses including attorney fees arising out of the vendor’s performance or failure to
perform any terms or conditions of the Agreement, to include the non-discrimination clause and
including any acts or omissions by vendor, its employees, subcontractors or agents.
Compliance with laws, rules, and regulations
The entity that is awarded a contract shall at all times observe and comply with all applicable laws,
procedures, rules, and pertinent regulations of the City, the State of Minnesota and the United States
that are generally applicable, now existing or hereafter adopted.
Insurance
Throughout the duration of the Agreement, Vendor shall secure and maintain insurance of such types
and in at least such amounts as required herein. The vendor shall provide certificates of insurance and
renewals thereof to the City. The City shall be notified by receipt of written notice from the applicable
insurer at least thirty (30) days prior to material modifications or cancellation of any policy listed on the
certificate.
General Liability for property and bodily injury – Policy shall protect the vendor, City, and the City
officials, officers, and employees from any and all claims arising from operations under this Agreement
whether the acts or omissions are that of the vendor, its officers, directors, employees and agents, or
any subcontractor of vendor. This liability insurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, protection
against claims arising from bodily and personal injury and damage to property, resulting from all
vendors’ operations, products or services. The limit of insurance applying to bodily and personal injury
and property damage shall be at least $2,000,000 (combined single limits). The City must be named as
an additional insured.
Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 (combined single limits). The City must be named as an additional
insured.
page 59
The Vendor shall provide proof of Workers Compensation Insurance – The City will only accept coverage
from an insurance carrier who is licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota.
Proposal Format
Proposals submitted in response to this RFP should contain the following information:
1. A cover letter stating that the vendor wishes to be considered in the selection process. The letter
should also indicate the vendor is willing to schedule an interview with the City, should they be asked to
do so, and can comply with the contract and insurance requirements listed.
2. History and description of the vendor’s organization: origin, purpose, structure, and current
operations including but not limited to the number of employees, volunteer base and maximum
capacity for sheltering animals.
3. A description of the respondent’s qualifications, experience providing the requested or similar service
and summary of experience and training of personnel who will be assigned to handle this work.
4. A list of subcontractors, if any. A description of subcontractors’ qualifications and experience to
perform the work proposed to be subcontracted must be provided.
5. Name, address and telephone number of contact persons in agencies to whom the respondent has
provided similar services within the last three years. These references shall include the name of the
agency, the name of the contact person (preferably the contract oversight officer) the address, and the
telephone number of the contact person. Past and current employees and subcontractors of the
respondent may not be listed as references or contact persons. The City reserves the right to contact
additional persons in agencies for whom the respondent has provided services.
6. A detailed statement of work outlining the respondent’s proposed goals, objectives, and procedures
for providing the services including but not limited to a description of the services to be provided as set
forth in Section 2 and the costs for these services.
7. Costs of services proposed shall be on a per animal basis and/or on a monthly basis. Specify cost for
both live and deceased animals.
8. A detailed statement of respondent’s policies and record keeping methods including:
a. Euthanasia
b. Disposal of deceased animals
c. Spay and neutering while at shelter
d. Breed and gender identification.
e. Vaccinations
f. Adoption policies including adoption aggressive animals, spay/neuter policy, marketing plan,
etc.
page 60
g. Location/separation of animals in isolation/quarantine/cruelty complaints
h. Disease outbreak and containment
i. Cleaning/disinfecting
j. Exercising, feeding, watering and socialization of animals
k. Training provided to employees regarding safe handling of animals.
l. Security of facility and how access to facility will be handled after hours.
m. Veterinarian use
9. A copy of any inspection reports completed within the last 12 months by any related licensing board
or authority as it relates to the housing, treatment, or general welfare of animals.
10. With regard to contract fee, proposal should indicate which portion is subject to Minnesota Sales Tax
and which portion is not if applicable. For example, boarding fees are taxable, but management fees are
not.
Cost of Preparing Proposals
The cost of developing and submitting the proposal is entirely the responsibility of the respondent. This
includes costs to determine the nature of this engagement, preparation of the proposal, submitting the
proposal, negotiating for the contract, and other costs associated with responding to this RFP.
Selection Process
Due Date: Proposals are due by the Close of Business 4:30 PM Friday, September 1, 2017
Consideration and Acceptance of Proposals
Any proposal that are not received prior to the deadline date and time will not be considered. The City
reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals and to waive technicalities or irregularities
involving any proposal. The content of the successful respondent’s proposal, this RFP, and addenda may
become part of any contract awarded to perform work described in this RFP as the City considers
appropriate.
Selection Process
The City of Mendota Heights reserves the right to reject all proposals and the right to reject a proposal
which is in any way incomplete or irregular. Proposals will be awarded to the best overall proposals as
determined by the best interests of the City of Mendota Heights. In comparing the responses to the RFP
and making awards, the City of Mendota Heights may consider such factors as quality and thoroughness
of a proposal, and past performance of the contractor. Preference will be given to those contractors
providing demonstrated capability and experience in addition to that of the proposal price. The City of
Mendota Heights reserves the right to award the contract to a contractor who is not the lowest cost;
however, cost is an important factor in the selection of a contractor. The results of the evaluation and
selection process will be presented to the City Council for final approval.
page 61
Request for Additional Information
The City may request additional information as needed from any respondent who submits a proposal. If
additional information is requested, the City is not required to request the same information from all
respondents.
Rejection of Proposals
Issuance of this RFP in no way constitutes a commitment by the City to award a contract. The City
reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or portions of proposals received in response to this RFP,
or to cancel this RFP if it is in the best interest of the City to do so.
Questions regarding this RFP document shall be directed to
Kelly McCarthy
Police Chief, City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
kellym@mendota-heights.com
651-452-1366
page 62
DATE: August 1, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Resolution of Support--Robert Street Funding
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution of support for the City of West St. Paul’s request
to have the State of Minnesota assist it financially, to reduce the financial burden which was
assumed by that City as a result of the Robert Street reconstruction.
BACKGROUND
Attached is information from Mayor Jenny Halverson of the City of West St. Paul. In it, it
describes the history of the need and the funding of the reconstruction of TH 952A (also known
as Robert Street) in West St. Paul.
West St. Paul will be seeking additional funding from the Minnesota Legislature in 2018 to
offset the need for local property taxes, to address what has been determined to be a project
funding shortfall of more than $17 million. The City is seeking support from every other city in
Dakota County to back them in their quest.
The source of the funding is intended to be flexible; it could be from Local Government Aid
(LGA), but also any other source which might be seen as available.
City Mana ger Ryan Schroeder of West St. Paul is expected to be in attendance at the Mendota
Heights City Council meeting to answer questions.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no direct budget impact on the City of Mendota Heights.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the City of Mendota Heights support its neighbor by means of adopting the
resolution.
page 63
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF WEST SAINT PAUL’S REQUEST FOR STATE
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR ROBERT STREET RECONSTRUCTION COSTS
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 64
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-60
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF WEST SAINT PAUL’S REQUEST FOR STATE
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR ROBERT STREET RECONSTRUCTION COSTS
WHEREAS, between 2008-2010 there were 430 Crashes on the 2.5 mile State Trunk
Highway 952A (also known as Robert Street) corridor in West St. Paul, with 150 injury and 2
fatal crashes; and
WHEREAS, between 2006-2014 there were over 1,100 crashes on this corridor of which
9 were serious injury crashes, with three of those resulting in fatalities; and
WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, this corridor has
been consistently regarded as a high crash corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul took on lead project management responsibilities
in order to initiate a state reconstruction project for State Highway 952A; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of the City of West St. Paul’s project management on behalf of
the State of Minnesota, the cost to West St. Paul is currently projected to be $26.699 million,
with the total local project cost share at $29.9 Million, with the cost burden borne by the State at
$8,132,000 to reconstruct this State highway; and
WHEREAS, the City and State’s shares of the costs of this project are 65% and 18%,
respectively; and,
WHEREAS, MNDOT has provided data which shows similar state highway projects
typically result in a much lesser local cost share (in the range of 16% of total project cost),
meaning that the difference between the Local Cost Share Burden on State Highway 952A and
the expected local cost share on similar projects is $22 Million, and
WHEREAS, the resulting debt incurred by the City of West St. Paul as a result of
moving this State Highway project to completion is projected at up to $1,900,761 annually,
which will result in a significant tax burden to their local property tax payers for the next
seventeen years, and
WHEREAS, there is substantial precedent for the State of Minnesota providing annual
funding contributions to Cities which have faced even smaller cost burdens from State Highway
and similar projects, and
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul is one of constrained property tax base, and, as
such, the disproportionate financial burden of this State Highway project is particularly onerous
to that City’s fiscal health and to individual tax payers; and,
page 65
WHEREAS, the excessive local debt incurred will result in a significant tax burden for
every West St. Paul taxpayer for the next seventeen years; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, the State of Minnesota receives over $20 million annually in
sales tax and commercial property tax revenue from the businesses along the State Highway
952A corridor; and
WHEREAS, the redevelopment of commercial properties along State Highway 952A is
an additional burden taken on by the City of West St. Paul, from which every $15 million in new
commercial value creation is projected to increase State of Minnesota Sales Tax and Property
Tax revenues by $1 million per year; and,
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul is requesting funding relief from the State of
Minnesota for reconstructing this State Highway; and,
WHEREAS, a review of the sales tax transfer program of the State of Minnesota known
as Local Government Aid (LGA) reveals that similarly situated communities throughout the
State receive significantly greater LGA per capita on average than does West St. Paul; and,
WHEREAS, even increasing West Saint Paul’s LGA allocation annually by $1 million
annually, similarly situated cities throughout the State would continue to receive significantly
more LGA per capita on average than would the City of West St. Paul, in spite of many of those
comparison cities having greater property wealth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS that they hereby concur with the City
of West St. Paul that the significant financial burden resulting from the reconstruction of this
section of a State Highway being placed on that City is unwarranted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council hereby support the
request for funding reimbursement to the City of West St. Paul, from whatever source of funding
from the State of Minnesota as may be appropriate and available, so as to rectify the TH 952A
funding inequity.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 1st day of August, 2017.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 66
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Overview 2
Request 3
Local Funding Share 4
Urgency 5
Cost inflation 6
Precedence 7
Debt Creation 8
State Funding 9
Tax Capacity 10-11
CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL
STATE HIGHWAY 952A
STATE FUNDING REQUEST
A Note From West St. Paul Mayor Jenny Halverson
“The City of West St. Paul recently reconstructed State Highway 952A on behalf of the State of
Minnesota. Given that this is a State Highway, the State Department of Transportation has driven
nearly all design decisions for this project. Our community is now faced with paying the bill for
a State Highway; we cannot afford to carry this misplaced burden. Now that construction is
complete, we are seeing a significant increase in redevelopment opportunities along the corridor.
A direct result of this project will be an increase in annual sales tax and property tax revenue for
the State. These increases will yield far greater financial gains for the State than what granting
our request would cost the State. The following presentation briefly describes: how we got here,
how the costs disproportionately borne by West St. Paul vary from what other similarly situated
communities have incurred, the precedent that exists for granting our request, and why providing
relief to our residents should be widely acknowledged as the responsible and appropriate course
of action. Our taxpayers deserve Legislative attention to correct the deleterious situation we
currently face as a result of necessary improvements made to this 2.5-mile segment of the State
Highway system. ”
page 67
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION
The City of West St. Paul accepted the leadership responsibilities for addressing the significantly
deteriorating conditions of TH952A (South Robert Street). The reconstruction of this 2.5 mile corridor has
been completed. Due to the unsafe conditions of the road surface, as well as required deadlines of federal
grant proceeds, the City authorized this project to proceed while it requested $12 million of additional State
Trunk Highway proceeds in each of 2015, 2016 and 2017. State bonding bills were not approved in 2015 or
2016 and by 2017 the project was virtually complete.
REQUEST
The City of West St. Paul is requesting $12 million of supplemental financial assistance to reimburse the
City for project costs which would increase the State’s contribution to 46% of the total project cost. The
State’s contribution at that level would still be far deficient from typical contributions to state highway
projects.
PROBLEM
• State pavement quality ratings placed the condition of this corridor at the bottom 8% of all MN State
Roads.
• Before construction, this corridor section ranked in the top 5 MN Trunk Highways for vehicle crashes.
• Traffic volumes are expected to grow to over 32,000 vehicles/day.
• The aging infrastructure created a significant barrier for successful commercial and retail opportunities
which negatively impacts annual State sales tax revenues.
• The previous road conditions had a direct and negative impact on the perception, future growth and
long term stability of West St. Paul as businesses struggle to be successful, commercial investors would
search elsewhere and homeowners select alternative locations to live.
• The funding for this State Trunk Highway project has disproportionately fallen onto West St. Paul
taxpayers resulting in significant increases in homeowners’ and businesses’ property taxes.
PROJECT
• Phase 1 - Robert Street has been reconstructed into a divided four lane Highway. The project includes
a new asphalt road surface, new LED street lighting, replacement of necessary underground utilities,
installation of fiber optic for intersection controls and future economic development opportunities.
• Phase 2 - Installation of sidewalks to create a safe, pedestrian-friendly corridor and landscaping to build
an inviting atmosphere for future private investment. Phase two includes over $3,000,000 in landscaping
which is 100% paid for by the City of West St. Paul.
City of
West St. Paul
$26,699,000
58%
Federal Grant
$8,000,000
17%
State/MnDOT
$8,132,000
18%
Dakota County$2,000,000 - 4%
St. Paul Water$1,138,000 - 3%
Cities of Inver Grove Heights/Saint Paul$31,000 - 0%
Project Cost
$46,000,000
PROJECT COST AND
FINANCIAL BURDEN
Local Share
65%
page 68
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
A REASONABLE REQUEST
LOCAL
(West St. Paul, Dakota County, SPRWS,
St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights)
State Trunk Highway 952A Cost Share Scenarios
CURRENT TYPICAL REQUESTED
1
2
1
2
1
2LOCAL
65%
STATE/ FEDERAL
35%
LOCAL
16%
STATE/ FEDERAL
84%
LOCAL
39%STATE/ FEDERAL
61%
$29,900,000 - 65%
STATE / FEDERAL
$16,132,000 - 35%
LOCAL
(West St. Paul, Dakota County, SPRWS,
St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights)
$7,360,000 - 16%
STATE / FEDERAL
$38,640,000 - 84%
LOCAL
(West St. Paul, Dakota County, SPRWS,
St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights)
$17,900,000 - 39%
STATE / FEDERAL
$28,100,000 - 61%
Local share includes cost of, and engineering for: sidewalks, trails, street lights, utilities, and right-of-way.
$8,000,000 - FEDERAL
$20,100,000 - STATE
page 69
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
1
2
1
2
LOCAL FUNDING SHARE
In an examination of recent Metro District MNDOT projects totaling $161.3M, MNDOT has
informed us that the locals experienced $25.9M in project costs which is 16% of total project
costs. For 952A the Local share is 65%, or $29.9M of a total $46M project. Our local share is
twice that, on a percentage basis, of the next highest project in the Metro District and four
times higher than the average of these projects.
Of note is that MNDOT has programmed a $12.4M mill and overlay project on 952A in St.
Paul for 2021 with the local share programmed at 1.5M which is 12% of project cost. The
West St. Paul segment was a full reconstruct and MNDOT is contributing only $8.1M.
952A Current Local Share
$29.9M
952A Local Share at Average
$7.36M
State Highway Project Total Cost Local % Share Local $ Share
West St. Paul 952A $46M 63% $29,900,000
TH7/Wooddale $11.6M 29% $3,364,000
I35E @ CSAH 14 $18.4M 8% $1,472,000
TH36 @ Rice $16.6M 1% $166,000
TH13/CSAH 5 $31.9M 3% $957,000
TH7 @ Louisiana $25.2M 29% $7,308,000
TH169/CSAH 69 $16.7M 25% $4,175,000
TH101/CSAH 144 $22.4M 14% $3,136,000
CSAH 12 @ 35 $18.5M 29% $5,365,000
Total (excluding 952A) $161.3M 16% $25,900,000
65%16%
page 70
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
URGENCY
According to MnDOT’s own standards, pre-construction State
Highway 952A was in the bottom 8% of roads in MN and at the same
time in the top 5% for crashes. The condition of Robert Street was
so dreadful that ambulances took longer routes to hospitals to avoid
Robert Street for the safety of their patients.
Due to the dire circumstances, Robert Street was awarded an $8M
Federal grant to help repair and reconfigure the road. The grant came
with the stipulation that the project must begin by May, 2015. Rather
than allow 32,000 vehicles travel the deadly road and lose $8M in
federal funding, West St. Paul decided to move forward.
1,100+
crashes in
2006-2014
$8,000,000
in federal funds would
have been lost if WSP
didn’t step up 3 fatalities in
2006-2014
page 71
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
COST I NFLATION
When the State of Minnesota provided partial State
Highway 952A funding, local costs were projected
at $13.66M on a $26.3M project. Now, local costs are
projected at $29.9M on a $46M project; a local cost
increase of $16.24M.
Year Estimate Federal State Local
2011 $11.3M $7.3M NA $4M
2012 $13.5M $7.3M NA $6M
2013 $21M $7.0M NA $14M
2014 $26.3M $7.0M $5.64M $13.66M
2015 $32.2M $6.99M $5.6M $19.61M
2016 $42M $8M $5.6M $28.4M
2017 $42.3M $8M $8.1M $26.2M
2018 $46 M $8M $8.1M $29.9M
2011 Estimated Local Costs
$13.66M
Final Estimated Local Costs
$29.9M
page 72
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENCE
The City of West St Paul is requesting an increase
in LGA to cover some of the project costs for this
State Highway project that are being borne by Local
Government. According to House Research there is
significant precedent for LGA increases due to similar
situations around the state.
LGA Increases for Local Hwy
costs and either Ten Year Term or
permanent approved increases
have been typical.
Year City Increase Term Basis
1998 Coon Rapids $450K 10 year Interchange
2000 Baxter $225K 3 year Hwy 371 Bypass Local Share
2001 Newport $150K 10 year Hwy 10 Local Costs
2002 Osseo $50K 10 year Various Road Improvements
2004 Red Wing $200K Permanent Public Safety Costs
2009 Newport $75K 6 year Hwy 10 Additional Local Costs
2009 Taylors Falls $30K Permanent Public Safety Costs
2009 Crookston $100K 5 years Floodplain Relocation
2009 Mendota $25K 5 years Sewer Infrastructure
page 73
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
DEBT CREATION
The debt for West St. Paul taxpayers due to this project
is projected up to $1.9M/year. That alone, for this single
project, represents 14% of our General Operating Fund
and 15% of our levy. This cost burden impacts a generation
of West St. Paul taxpayers.
Year Issued Max Annual Payment Term Retired
2014 $4,930,000 $387,246 15 years 2030
2015 $0 $0 0
2016 $4,825,000 $408,250 16 years 2033
2017 $4,825,000 $428,100 16 years 2034
2018/’19 $7,632,300 $677,165 16 years 2035
West St. Paul’s Projected
Total Debt $22,212,300
Max Annual Payment
$1,900,761
page 74
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
NEED FOR STATE FUNDING
West St. Paul is not a community of great property wealth or future growth opportunities
that would result in readily covering State Highway 952A Project Debt.
26%
Less tax capacity per capita than
the average of similarly sized
metro communities. (39 Cities)
3%
Less tax capacity per capita than
the average of similarly sized
Greater MN communities. (28 Cities)
Robert Street businesses in West St. Paul generate over$20 MILLION
to state coffers annually; $17-19M in sales tax, $2.4M in State Property Tax.
Further, property values have not recovered in
West St. Paul from the recession.
The average residential market
value in 2017 is still 16% below that
of 2009. Our total tax capacity value
in 2016 was 18% below that of 2008 while
the tax rate in 2016 was 160% greater than
that which was levied against local taxpayers
in 2008. This is due to the stagnation in property
values at the same time as project costs from 952A
were coming on line.
West St. Paul is projecting that creation of $15M in
retail market value across 22 acres of Robert Street
can create a State sales and property tax revenue
stream of $1M per year. Redevelopment of just
6% of existing taxable market value on the
corridor would be required to hit that mark.
Tax Capacity per capita - $658
2009 Mean Residential Est. Market Value - $219,285
2017 Mean Residential Est. Market Value - $184,500
2008 Tax Rate - 44%
2016 Tax Rate - 70%
2008 City-wide TC Value - $20,297,053
2016 City-wide TC Value - $16,647,178
WEST ST. PAUL BY THE NUMBERS
West St. Paul’s request is a return
of just 5% of that which the State
receives each year from Robert
Street to pay the Debt Service
for Robert Street.
West St. Paul
currently has
-and-
page 75
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
TAX CAPACITIES (METRO)
Tax Cap. Household
City per capita Net Levy LGA Income
Monticello $1794 $641 $70,254
Mendota Heights $1656 $582 $95,353
Chanhassen $1545 $380 $110,569
Golden Valley $1491 $814 11 $81,534
Rogers $1274 $515 8 $103,980
Arden Hills $1158 $316 $80,208
Mound $1099 $550 32 $73,750
Prior Lake $1063 $340 $96,405
Shoreview $1022 $357 $79,252
Hugo $1018 $362 $82,880
Vadnais Heights $997 $268 2 $71,518
Waconia $939 11,752 7 $79,600
Stillwater $937 $516 31 $76,970
Rosemount $928 $419 $90,448
Chaska $913 $226 19 $75,828
Ham Lake $896 $241 $91,603
Forest Lake $848 $363 3 $69,315
White Bear Lake $830 $169 64 $62,205
Lino Lakes $830 $363 $102,904
Saint Michael $818 $316 14 $92,546
Little Canada $808 $248 35 $50,156
Hopkins $806 $492 16 $50,252
Oakdale $784 $307 4 $67,036
Fridley $748 $325 44 $54,652
Champlin $745 $307 10 $83,851
Ramsey $734 $310 4 $86,794
Otsego $734 $302 8 $79,117
New Brighton $720 $261 22 $60,964
Hastings $680 $426 23 $62,976
New Hope $677 $372 $50,165
East Bethel $666 $343 2 $87,245
Farmington $664 $408 11 $87,925
West St. Paul $658 $465 58 $47,710
Mounds View $588 $252 48 $57,799
Crystal $585 $287 73 $59,188
South St. Paul $572 $346 113 $55,607
North Saint Paul $548 $193 160 $55,708
Robbinsdale $540 $270 114 $57,357
Anoka $526 $237 89 $45,820
Columbia Heights $483 $342 71 $47,717
Average (w/o WSP) $888 $365 37 $73,881
TAKEAWAYS
• Within 39 metro cities
WSP has the 8th
lowest property wealth
as measured by Tax
Capacity per capita
• All but one city with
lesser property wealth
receives significantly
more LGA/capita
• WSP has 8th highest Net
Levy with highest levy
among peer cities
• WSP property wealth is
26% BELOW the average
of these peer cities
• WSP Net Levy is 28%
ABOVE the average of
these peer cities
METRO
page 76
952A - South Robert Street, West St. Paul
TAX CAPACITIES (GREATER MN)
Tax Cap. Household
City per capita Population LGA Income
Red Wing $1,586 16,534 98 $45,890
Alexandria $1,080 13,340 113 $40,633
Elk River $885 23,987 10 $77,938
Marshall $777 13,793 180 $46,863
Sartell $763 17,203 7 $73,872
North Mankato $762 13,689 116 $55,440
Fairmont $754 10,421 356 $47,428
Grand Rapids $714 11,281 116 $39,777
Fergus Falls $708 13,288 274 $43,852
Buffalo $704 16,033 41 $63,830
Owatonna $666 25,782 155 $55,884
North Branch $661 10,330 53 $67,122
Cloquet * $657 12,271 189 $46,064
Willmar * $647 19,848 225 $42,250
Winona * $638 27,591 349 $41,053
Hutchinson* $637 14,170 158 $51,032
Northfield $627 20,320 138 $57,866
Bemidji $618 14,969 237 $35,610
Big Lake $615 10,671 47 $62,324
New Ulm $610 13,583 315 $50,254
Faribault $570 23,700 226 $48,220
Albert Lea $540 17,899 287 $40,127
Sauk Rapids $529 13,406 148 $48,410
Brainard $505 13,671 295 $30,975
Worthington $469 13,208 241 $47,467
Austin $421 25,111 317 $42,268
Hibbing $420 16,316 496 $43,831
St. Peter $396 11,784 253 $55,280
Average $677 16,221 188 $50,056
West St. Paul $658 20,222 58 $47,710
*The 4 cities most comparable to West St. Paul in household income and prop-
erty wealth (Cloquet, Willmar, Winona and Hutchinson) receive almost 4 times
the LGA/ capita than West St. Paul
TAKEAWAYS
• West St. Paul tax
capacity per capita is
3% below the average
of these 28 Greater MN
cities
• West St. Paul Household
Income is 5% below the
average of these cities
• West St. Paul LGA
received is 70% below
the average received by
these cities
• If the increase in State
Highway 952A LGA
funding is received,
West St. Paul LGA would
still be 45% below the
average received by
these cities
GREATER
MN
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
ECKBERG LAMMERS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Neil Garlock, Mendota Heights City Council
City Administrator Mark McNeill
Community Development Director Tim Benetti
FROM: Andy Pratt, Development Counsel
DATE: July 26, 2017
RE: Mendota Motel Redevelopment – Michael Development Minnesota, LLC
On June 20, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the establishment of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (a redevelopment district) (the “TIF District”), within
Municipal Development District No. 1. The impetus for the creation of the TIF District was
for the City to financially assist Michael Development Minnesota, LLC (the “Developer”), with
the acquisition of real property located at 2180 Highway 13, and the construction of an
approximately 69-unit market rate apartment building on the site, with surface and
underground parking (collectively, the “Project”). The Developer had presented Project budget
information to the City, showing that the Project as contemplated would not be able to be
completed without tax increment financing assistance from the City.
After the TIF District was created, work turned to drafting a “Contract for Private
Development” between the City and the Developer (the “Development Agreement”). The
purpose of the Development Agreement is to essentially set the parameters of the Project,
provide the terms for the tax increment financing assistance, and memorialize what may
happen in case the Developer defaults on the Project. The Development Agreement is on the
City Council’s August 1, 2017 meeting agenda for approval. No additional public hearing is
required.
Here are some highlights for the City Council to keep in mind related to the Development
Agreement:
• The Agreement mentions that there may be a second phase of development occurring
in the TIF District in the future, which would be another approximately 69-unit
apartment building on the greenhouse site. That project is not a part of this
Development Agreement, and a separate process would be required should TIF
assistance be used for “Phase II” in the future.
page 89
• The City will issue a Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note (TIF Note) to the
Developer, in the maximum principal amount of $634,000. The City will give the TIF
Note to the Developer, allowing the Developer to receive regular payments of tax
increment revenues, once the Developer has incurred “qualified costs” (e.g. site
acquisition, site preparation, etc.), in an amount of at least $634,000. In other words,
this is a “pay as you go” arrangement for the Developer, and the City will not be on the
hook for any up-front payments.
• If not enough tax increment revenue is captured from the Project to pay off the TIF
Note, the Developer takes that risk. The City will not be liable to pay any shortfalls to
the Developer.
• The City may pay the TIF Note off early at any time, if greater than anticipated TIF
revenues come in from the County.
• The City may hold back up to 10% of the TIF Note amount to compensate it for its
administrative costs for the TIF District.
• The Agreement provides the project shall commence construction by December 31,
2017, and shall complete construction by June 1, 2019.
• The Developer and the City will enter into a “Minimum Assessment Agreement,”
which will be endorsed by the County Assessor. This agreement places a minimum
market value on the property, no matter what is built on it. This minimum value
ensures that enough tax revenues will be generated to pay off the TIF Note over time.
• The Developer may transfer its rights and obligations under this Agreement without
City consent, to another affiliated limited liability company it intends to set up to own
and operate the Project.
I will be present at the August 1 City Council meeting to present the Development Agreement and
take questions from the Council.
page 90
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Council member ______________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 2017-61
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
AND AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS,
COVENANTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR, THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY’S
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REVENUE NOTE (MICHAEL
DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The City has heretofore approved the establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 2, a redevelopment district (the “TIF District”) within Municipal Development
District No. 1 (the “Project Area”), and adopted a tax increment financing plan therefor for the purpose of
financing certain improvements within the Project Area, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.124 through 469.133, as amended, and Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, as amended (the “TIF
Act”).
Pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act, the City is authorized to issue and sell a revenue note
for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the TIF District. The revenue
note is payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and pledged to the
payment of the revenue note. This Council therefore finds and determines that it is in the best interests of
the City that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note, in the total aggregate principal
amount not-to-exceed $634,000 (the “Note”), for the purposes of financing certain public development
costs of the TIF District. More specifically, the proceeds of the Note will assist Michael Development
Minnesota, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”), with the acquisition of certain
real property located at 2180 Highway 13 in the City and the development of a market-rate apartment
building totaling approximately 69 units, with surface and underground parking (the “Project”).
The Project is contemplated to be the first of two phases of development within the boundaries of
the TIF District. The second phase is intended to consist of the acquisition of certain real property
located at 2160 Highway 13 in the City, and the development of an additional market-rate apartment
building, totaling approximately 69 units on that property, with surface and underground parking (“Phase
II”). The Phase II project, if commenced and if tax increment financing assistance is requested, will
require a separate approving resolution for a separate contract for private development, and a separate tax
increment financing revenue note.
1.02. Agreement Approved; Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. This Council has
additionally reviewed a proposed Contract for Private Development (the “Agreement”), to be entered into
between the City and the Developer. The form of the Agreement is hereby approved, and this Council
authorizes the Mayor and the City Administrator to execute such Agreement in substantially the form on
file with the City, subject to modifications that do not substantially alter the substance of the transaction
page 91
and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the Agreement by such officials is
conclusive evidence of their approval.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Note shall be sold to the Developer and delivered at the time and
subject to the conditions of Section 3.1 of the Agreement. The Note shall be dated as of the date of
delivery and shall bear interest from the date of original issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment, at
an interest rate of the lesser of (i) four and eight tenths percent (4.800%) per annum, or (ii) the interest
rate received by the Developer from a participating financial institution providing mortgage financing for
the Project. The consideration for the sale of the Note is the Developer incurring the Qualified Costs (as
such term is defined in the Agreement) related to the Project.
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination; Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note numbered
R-1. The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal or and interest on the Note shall
be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Registration. This Council appoints the City Administrator to perform the functions of
registrar, transfer agent and paying agent relating to the Note (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration
and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and exchanges
of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the registered
owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably satisfactory to the
Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the
transferee or transferees, a new Note will be issued in a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as
requested by the transferor. The Registrar may close the books for registration of any transfer after the
fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled by the
Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such
Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its
refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose
name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Note, whether the
Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of
and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered
owner or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the
City upon such Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
page 92
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar may
impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other
governmental charge required by law to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case the Note shall become mutilated or be
lost, stolen or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity date and tenor in
exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in
substitution for such Note lost, stolen or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and
charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note is lost, stolen, or destroyed,
upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall
be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of
such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Note has already
matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a
new Note prior to payment.
3.03. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the City and
shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Clerk. In case any
officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the
Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer
had remained in office until delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the
City Administrator to the Developer.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The City pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note 90%
of Tax Increment derived from the Development Property, as defined in the Note, within the TIF District.
Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in accordance with
the terms of the Note.
4.02. No City Obligation. The Note is a special, limited revenue obligation and not a general
obligation of the City and is payable by the City only from Tax Increment, as derived from the TIF
District and as received from Dakota County. The Note is not a general obligation of the City, and
neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged to the payment of the
principal or interest of the Note, and no property or other asset of the City is for shall be a source of
payment of the City’s obligations under the Agreement and the Note. In the event Tax Increment is not
sufficient to pay the full amount of the principal of and interest on the Note, the City will not be
responsible to further fund or reimburse the Developer (or its assigns or creditors) for any such shortfall.
The City is not responsible to fund or reimburse any obligation of the Developer (or its assigns or
creditors) under the Agreement or the Note.
4.03. TIF Note Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding, the City shall maintain
a separate and special “TIF Note Fund” to be used for no purpose other than the payment of the principal
of and interest on the Note. The City irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the TIF Note Fund on or before
each TIF Note Payment Date an amount equal to 90% of Tax Increment available at each TIF Note
Payment Date. If any Tax Increment remains in the TIF Note Fund after the Note has been fully paid, the
remaining amount shall be transferred to the City’s account for the TIF District, pursuant to the TIF Act.
4.04. Additional Obligations. While the Note is outstanding, the City shall not pledge or
permit the pledge of all or any portion of the Tax Increment to the payment of principal of or interest on
any other obligations of the City unless and to the extent such pledge is subordinate to the pledge under
the Note, unless otherwise determined by the City Administrator.
page 93
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to
prepare and furnish to the Developer certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City, and such
other affidavits, certificates and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality
of the Note as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise
known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective upon full execution of the Agreement
between the City and the Developer. All capitalized but undefined terms herein shall have the definitions
as provided in the Agreement.
This Resolution is adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, this
1st day of August, 2017.
_______________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 94
EXHIBIT A
FORM OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING NOTE
No. R-1 $____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REVENUE NOTE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2
The City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “City”), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted
and, for value received, hereby promises to pay the amounts hereinafter described (the “Payment
Amounts”) to Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Developer”), or its registered assigns (the “Registered Owner”), but only in the manner, at the times,
from the sources of revenue, and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The principal amount of this Note shall equal from time to time the principal amount stated
above, as reduced to the extent that such principal installments shall have been paid in whole or in part
pursuant to the terms hereof; provided that the sum of the principal amount listed above shall in no event
exceed Six Hundred Thirty Four Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($634,000.00), as provided in that certain
Contract for Private Development, dated as of _______________, 2017, as the same may be amended
from time to time (the “Development Agreement”), by and between the City and the Developer. The
unpaid principal amount hereof shall bear interest from the date of this Note at the rate of _________%
per annum. Interest accruing from the date of issue through August 1, 2019 will be compounded
semiannually on each August 1 and February 1 and added to principal. Interest shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year consisting of twelve (12) 30-day months. All capitalized but undefined terms
herein shall be defined as in the Development Agreement.
The amounts due under this Note shall be payable on each February 1 and August 1, commencing
on August 1, 2019 and thereafter to and including February 1, 2028, or, if the first payment date should
not be on a Business Day, the payment shall be made on the next succeeding Business Day (the “Payment
Dates”). On each Payment Date the City shall pay by check or draft mailed to the person that was the
Registered Owner of this Note at the close of the last business day of the City preceding such Payment
Date an amount equal to the Tax Increment received by the City during the six-month period preceding
such Payment Date (or, with respect to the first Payment Date, in the period commencing on the date of
issuance of this Note through the day that is prior to the first Payment Date). All payments made by the
City under this Note shall first be applied to accrued interest and then to principal. This Note is pre-
payable by the City, without penalty, in whole or in part, on any date.
The Payment Amounts due hereon shall be payable solely from 90% of Tax Increment derived
from the Development Property within the City’s Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (the “TIF
District”) within its Municipal Development District No. 1, which is paid to the City and which the City
is entitled to retain pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799,
as the same may be amended or supplemented from time to time (the “TIF Act”). This Note shall
terminate and be of no further force and effect following the Termination Date, on any date upon which
page 95
the City shall have terminated the Development Agreement under Section 4.2(b) thereof, the date the TIF
District is terminated, or on the date that all principal and interest payable hereunder shall have been paid
in full, whichever occurs earliest.
The City makes no representation or covenant, express or implied, that the Tax Increment will be
sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or may become due and payable hereunder.
In the event Tax Increment is not sufficient, the City is not responsible to further fund or reimburse the
Developer (or its assigns or creditors) for any such shortfall. The City is not responsible to fund or
reimburse any obligation of the Developer (or its assigns or creditors) unless expressly stated in this
Agreement.
Subject to the terms of the Development Agreement, including Section 6.4(b) thereof, the City’s
payment obligations hereunder shall be further conditioned on the fact that no Event of Default under the
Development Agreement shall have occurred and be continuing at the time payment is otherwise due
hereunder, but such unpaid amounts shall become payable if said Event of Default shall thereafter have
been cured; and further, if pursuant to the occurrence of an Event of Default under the Development
Agreement the City elects, subject to the provisions of Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement, to
cancel and rescind the Development Agreement, the City shall have no further debt or obligation under
this Note whatsoever. Reference is hereby made to all of the provisions of the Development Agreement,
including without limitation Section 3.1 thereof, for a fuller statement of the rights and obligations of the
City to pay the principal of this Note, and said provisions are hereby incorporated into this Note as though
set out in full herein.
This Note is a special, limited revenue obligation and not a general obligation of the City and is
payable by the City only from the sources and subject to the qualifications stated or referenced herein.
This Note is not a general obligation of the City, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers
of the City are pledged to the payment of the principal of this Note and no property or other asset of the
City, save and except the above-referenced Tax Increment, is or shall be a source of payment of the City’s
obligations hereunder.
This Note is issued by the City in aid of financing a project pursuant to and in full conformity
with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including the TIF Act.
This Note may be assigned only with the consent of the City. In order to assign the Note, the
assignee shall surrender the same to the City either in exchange for a new fully registered note or for
transfer of this Note on the registration records for the Note maintained by the City. Each permitted
assignee shall take this Note subject to the foregoing conditions and subject to all provisions stated or
referenced herein.
page 96
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to have happened, and to be performed
precedent to and in the issuance of this Note have been done, have happened, and have been performed in
regular and due form, time, and manner as required by law; and that this Note, together with all other
indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery,
does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, by its City Council, has
caused this Note to be executed by the manual signatures of its Mayor and City Clerk and has caused this
Note to be dated as of ___________________, 20____.
_________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
page 97
CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note was registered in the
name of Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, and that, at the request of the Registered Owner of this
Note, the undersigned has this day registered the Note in the name of such Registered Owner, as indicated
in the registration blank below, on the books kept by the undersigned for such purposes.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
REGISTERED OWNER
DATE OF
REGISTRATION
SIGNATURE OF CITY
ADMINISTRATOR
Michael Development Minnesota,
LLC
971 Sibley Memorial Hwy, Suite 300
Lilydale, Minnesota 55118
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
page 98
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
BETWEEN
THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
AND
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC
Dated: _____________, 2017
This document was drafted by:
Eckberg Lammers, P.C.
1809 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota 5508
page 99
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
THIS CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of the
_____ day of ____________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation and political subdivision organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Minnesota (the “City”), and MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company (the “Developer”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is a need to promote and secure (i) the prompt
development of certain property located within the City, which property is not now in productive use or in
its highest and best use, in a manner consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and (ii) additional
housing opportunities within the City, thereby improving living standards, and in connection therewith
has previously created Municipal Development District No. 1 (the “Development District”), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.133, as amended (the “Development District Act”),
and has also adopted a Development Program for the Development District (the “Development
Program”); and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Development Program, the City has
created Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 2 (the “TIF District”), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, as amended (the “TIF Act”), and has adopted a
Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (the “TIF Plan”), which provides for the use of tax increment
financing in connection with certain development within the Development District and the TIF District;
and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Development Program and the TIF Plan,
and particularly to make certain land in the Development District and the TIF District available for
development by private enterprise in conformance with the Development Program and the TIF Plan, the
City has determined to assist the Developer with the financing of certain costs of the following project
(the “Project”): the acquisition of certain real property located at 2180 Highway 13 in the City (the
“Development Property”), and the development of a market-rate apartment building, to be constructed on
the Property, totaling approximately 69 units with surface and underground parking (the “Minimum
Improvements”), , through the issuance of a Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note, in the total
estimated aggregate principal amount of $634,000 (the “TIF Note”), as more particularly set forth in this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the development and construction of the Project and
fulfillment of this Agreement are vital and are in the best interests of the City, as well as the health, safety
and welfare of residents of the City, and in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of
applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is
being assisted; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has notified the City of its intention to acquire land located in the TIF
District directly to the north of the Development Property, at 2160 Highway 13, to be used for the future
construction of an approximately 69-unit market-rate apartment building, to be completed as a subsequent
phase of construction (“Phase II”); and
page 100
WHEREAS, if the Developer desires tax increment financing assistance or other public assistance
from the City for Phase II construction, a separate contract for private development and tax increment
financing revenue note will be required.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties
hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1 Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings given in this
Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
“Administrative Costs” is as defined in Section 2.2(11) of this Agreement.
“Administrative Expenses” means expenses incurred by the City with respect to the Project and
the TIF Plan, the TIF Note, or this Agreement, as defined in Section 469.174, Subdivision 14 of the TIF
Act, and in amounts equal up to ten percent (10%) of the Tax Increment received by the City.
“Affiliate” means any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by or under direct or
indirect common control with a person and any purchaser or all or substantially all of the assets of such
person. For this purpose, “control” means the power to direct management and policies, directly or
indirectly, whether through ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise, and the terms
“controlling” and controlled” have correlative meanings.
“Agreement” means this Contract for Private Development, as the same may be from time to time
modified, amended or supplemented.
“Authorizing Resolution” means the resolution of the City Council of the City authorizing
issuance of the TIF Note and the approval of this Agreement.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday or a day on which
banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close.
“City” means the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
“County” means Dakota County, Minnesota.
“Developer” means Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, its successors and assigns;
“Development District” means Municipal Development District No. 1.
“Development Program” means the Development Program approved in connection with the
Development District.
“Development Property” means the real property located at 2180 Highway 13 in the City, legally
described in EXHIBIT A attached to this Agreement.
“Event of Default” means any of the events described in Section 4.1 hereof.
page 101
“Minimum Assessment Agreement” means that certain Minimum Assessment Agreement, by and
between the City and the Developer, and certified to by the County Assessor, regarding the placement of
a minimum market value for the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements.
“Minimum Improvements” means development of a market-rate apartment building, to be
constructed on the Development Property, totaling approximately 69 units with surface and underground
parking.
“Phase II” means the potential future acquisition of certain real property located at 2160 Highway
13 in the City, and the construction of a market-rate apartment building thereon, totaling approximately
69 units.
“Project” means the acquisition of certain real property located at 2180 Highway 13 in the City,
and the construction of a market-rate apartment building thereon, totaling approximately 69 units, with
surface and underground parking.
“Qualified Costs” means the following categories of costs that may be reimbursed to the
Developer by the City out of Tax Increment:
(1) Cost of acquisition of the Development Property;
(2) Cost of site improvements and preparation of the Development Property;
(3) Utility costs to service the Development Property; and
(4) Such other costs as are incurred by the Developer and reasonably determined by the City
to constitute Qualified Costs under the TIF Act.
“State” means the State of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment” means 90% of the tax increment revenue derived from the Development
Property, which has been received and retained by the City in accordance with the provisions of Section
469.177 of the TIF Act.
“Termination Date” means the earlier of (i) the date the TIF District terminates by law, (ii) the
date by which the City has received sufficient Tax Increment with respect to the Project to reimburse
itself for the Administrative Expenses and the Developer for all principal and accrued interest on the TIF
Note, (iii) February 1, 2028, or (iv) the date this Agreement is terminated or rescinded in accordance with
its terms hereunder.
“TIF Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, as amended.
“TIF District” means Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 2, located within
the Development District, which was qualified as a redevelopment district under the TIF Act.
“TIF Note” means the Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note to be executed by the City and
delivered to the Developer pursuant to Article III hereof, in the maximum principal amount of $634,000,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
page 102
“TIF Note Payment Date” means each February 1 and August 1, commencing on August 1, 2019,
and thereafter to and including February 1, 2028; provided, that if any such TIF Note Payment Date
should not fall on a Business Day, the TIF Note Payment Date shall be the next succeeding Business Day.
“TIF Plan” means the Tax Increment Financing Plan, approved for the TIF District by the City
Council of the City pursuant to Resolution No. 2017-48, adopted on June 20, 2017.
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays, outside the control of the party claiming its occurrence,
which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or prolonged bad weather,
acts of God, fire or other casualty to Phase I of the Project, litigation commenced by third parties which,
by injunction or other similar judicial action or by the exercise of reasonable discretion, directly results in
delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the City) which directly result in
delays.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
page 103
ARTICLE II
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Section 2.1 Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the following
representations and warranties:
(1) The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision and has the power to enter
into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(2) The TIF District is a “redevelopment district” within the meaning of Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10 of the TIF Act.
(3) The Project is in conformance with the development objectives set forth in the
Development Program. Separately from this Agreement, any land use permits required as a part of the
Project shall be governed by City land use ordinances, specific land use approvals and other agreements.
(4) The City makes no representation or warranty, either express or implied, as to the
Development Property or its condition or the soil conditions thereon, or that the Development Property
shall be suitable for the Developer’s purposes or needs.
(5) The persons executing this Agreement and related agreements and documents on behalf
of the City have the authority to do so and to bind the City by their actions.
(6) The City has received no notice or communication from any local, State or federal
official that the activities of the Developer or the City in the Development District or the TIF District
may be or will be in violation of any law or regulation. The City is aware of no facts the existence of
which would cause it to be in violation of any local, State or federal law, regulation or review procedure.
(7) To finance certain costs within the TIF District, the City proposes, subject to the other
provisions of this Agreement, to apply certain Tax Increment through the TIF Note to reimburse the
Developer for the Qualified Costs in connection with the Project. The City neither pledges nor provides
any other financial assistance to the Developer to reimburse for the Qualified Costs in connection with
the Project.
Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties of the Developer. The Developer makes the
following representations and warranties:
(1) The Developer is a Minnesota limited liability company duly organized and in good
standing under the laws of the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and to perform its
obligations hereunder and, by doing so, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles, bylaws or the
laws of the State.
(2) The Developer will cause the Project to be acquired, constructed, maintained and
operated in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Development Program, the TIF Plan, all
issued permits for the Project and all local, State and federal laws and regulations (including, but not
limited to, environmental, zoning, energy conservation, building code and public health laws and
regulations).
page 104
(3) The Developer will secure adequate financing to complete the Project, and will provide
adequate evidence of said financing for the construction of the Project.
(4) The construction of the Project to the size and scope contemplated by this Agreement
would not have been undertaken by the Developer, and in the opinion of the Developer would not be
economically feasible within the reasonably foreseeable future, without the assistance and benefit to the
Developer provided for in this Agreement.
(5) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions
or provision of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of
whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default
under any of the foregoing.
(6) So long as the Developer owns the Development Property, the Developer shall promptly
advise the City in writing of all litigation or claims affecting any part of the Project, which may delay or
require changes in construction of the Project, and all written complaints and charges made by any
governmental authority materially affecting the Project or materially affecting the Developer or its
business, which may delay or require changes in construction of the Project.
(7) The Developer will cooperate with the City in resolution of any traffic, parking, trash
removal or public safety problems which may arise in connection with the construction of the Project.
The Developer will additionally construct the Project as provided herein in accordance with all local,
State and federal energy conservation laws and regulations that are applicable to the Project.
(8) The Developer will obtain in a timely manner all required permits, licenses and
approvals, and will meet in a timely manner all requirements of all applicable local, State and federal
laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Project may be lawfully constructed.
The Developer did not obtain a building permit for any portion of the Project before the date of approval
of the TIF Plan.
(9) The Developer has made its own projections of Tax Increment and revenues to be
generated from the Project and of the Developer’s return on investment and the Developer has not relied
on any assumptions, calculations, determinations or conclusions made by the City, its governing body
members, officers or agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel,
servants and employees thereof, with respect to the foregoing or in determining to proceed with the
Project.
(10) The person or persons executing this Agreement and related agreements and documents
on behalf of the Developer have the authority to do so and to bind the Developer by their actions.
(11) The Developer has deposited $15,000 in escrow with the City to pay for, or reimburse
the City for payment of, all City-incurred expenses in connection with the establishment of the
Development District and the TIF District, the issuance of the TIF Note, and the preparation of this
Agreement (collectively, the “Administrative Costs”). Administrative Costs include, but are not limited
to, fees paid to attorneys, the City’s independent municipal advisor, and any engineering consultants
retained by the City in relation to the Project. The City shall pay the Administrative Costs from the
escrow funds deposited by the Developer. If the City in good faith requires additional funds to pay for
or reimburse the Administrative Costs, the City shall inform the Developer in writing of such expenses,
page 105
and the Developer shall deposit the requested amount into escrow with the City within 10 business days
after receipt of the written notice. All other ongoing costs other than as set forth herein shall be
categorized as Administrative Expenses. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the ability of
the City to lawfully recover Administrative Expenses from Tax Increment during or after the termination
of this Agreement, as provided by the TIF Act.
(12) The Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns and every successor in
interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer and such successors and
assigns shall operate, or cause to be operated, Phase I of the Project as a multifamily residential rental
facility and shall devote the Development Property to, and in accordance with, the uses specified in this
Agreement.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
page 106
ARTICLE III
PROJECT FINANCING AND ADMINISTRATION
Section 3.1 Issuance of the TIF Note. The City shall reimburse the Developer for a portion
of the costs incurred for the Project, as identified in this Agreement, through the issuance of the TIF
Note, in substantially the form attached to this Agreement as EXHIBIT B. The principal amount of the
TIF Note shall be in the original aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed $634,000.
(1) The TIF Note shall be dated, issued in the principal amount stated above, and delivered
to the Developer upon receipt by the City from the Developer of evidence of Qualified Costs (shown in
the form of contractor certifications, invoices, lien waivers, or the like), incurred in an amount equal to
or exceeding the final principal amount of the TIF Note.
(2) The unpaid principal amount of the TIF Note shall bear interest from the date of
issuance of the TIF Note, at an interest rate of the lesser of (i) 4.800% per annum, or (ii) the interest rate
received by the Developer from a participating financial institution providing mortgage financing for the
Project. Interest accruing from the date of issue of the TIF Note through August 1, 2019 will be
compounded semiannually on each August 1 and February 1 and added to principal. Interest shall be
computed on the basis of a 360- day year consisting of twelve 30-day months.
(3) The principal amount of the TIF Note and the interest thereon shall be payable solely
and exclusively from Tax Increment, and shall, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 4.2 hereof,
be conditioned on the Developer being compliant with the terms and provisions of this Agreement and
all issued permits for the Project.
(4) On each TIF Note Payment Date and subject to the provisions of the TIF Note, the City
shall pay to the Developer, solely from the Tax Increment received by the City during the preceding six
months (or, with respect to the first TIF Note Payment Date, in the period commencing on the date of
issuance of the TIF Note through the day prior to the first TIF Note Payment Date) principal and accrued
interest on the TIF Note. All such payments shall be applied first to the payment of accrued interest and
then to the payment of the principal of the TIF Note.
(5) If, on any TIF Note Payment Date, the Tax Increment for payment of the accrued and
unpaid interest on the TIF Note is insufficient for such purposes, the difference shall be carried forward,
with interest at the rate set forth in the TIF Note, and shall be paid if and to the extent that on a future
TIF Note Payment Date there is Tax Increment in excess of the amounts needed to pay the accrued
interest then due on the TIF Note.
(6) The City’s obligation to make payments on the TIF Note on any TIF Note Payment
Date or any date thereafter shall, subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 4.2 and 6.4(b) hereof, be
conditioned upon the requirement that (A) there shall not at that time be an Event of Default that has
occurred and is continuing under this Agreement or any issued permits for the Project, and (B) this
Agreement shall not have been rescinded pursuant to Section 4.2(b) hereof.
(7) The TIF Note shall be governed by and payable pursuant to the additional terms thereof,
as set forth in Exhibit B, and as provided in the Authorizing Resolution, the terms of which are
incorporated into this Agreement by reference. In the event of any conflict between the terms of the TIF
Note and the terms of this Section, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. The issuance of the TIF
Note pursuant and subject to the terms of this Agreement, and the taking by the City of such additional
page 107
actions as bond counsel for the City may require in connection therewith, are hereby authorized and
approved by the City.
(8) No agreements or provisions contained in this Agreement shall give rise to any
pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers, or shall obligate the
City financially in any way except with respect to the application of the Tax Increment as specifically
provided in this Agreement and in the TIF Note. The TIF Note, including principal and any other
payments however designated, and the interest due thereon do not and shall never constitute a general
obligation of the City within the meaning of any state constitutional or statutory provision and do not
and shall not constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability or moral obligation of the City, the State or
any of its political subdivisions, or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers, or to the extent
permitted by law, any pecuniary liability of any officer, employee or agent of the City. The provisions
of this paragraph are controlling notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary.
(9) The estimate of Qualified Costs eligible for Tax Increment is based upon budget
estimates submitted by the Developer. The Developer understands and acknowledges that if the Qualified
Costs exceed the Tax Increment, the Developer will only be reimbursed for Qualified Costs in the
principal amount of the TIF Note, and accrued interest thereon.
Section 3.2 Developer Acknowledgments. The Developer understands and acknowledges
the following:
(1) The City makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Tax Increment
that will be available, or that revenues pledged to repayment of the TIF Note will be sufficient to pay all
or any of the amounts payable on the TIF Note. The City additionally makes no representations as to the
sufficiency of the Development Property (including soil conditions or the presence of any hazardous
substances on the Development Property) for the Project. Any estimates of Tax Increment available
prepared by the City, or the City’s independent municipal advisor, consultants, agents, employees or
officers in connection with the TIF District or this Agreement are for the sole benefit of the City, and are
not intended as representations on which the Developer or any purchaser of the TIF Note may rely. The
Developer further understands and acknowledges that no assistance is being provided by the City under
this Agreement except through the issuance of the TIF Note, and the Developer has no claim against any
funds of the City except as set forth in the Authorizing Resolution and the TIF Note.
(2) Up to ten percent (10%) of Tax Increment will be retained by the City for the on-going
Administrative Expenses related to the TIF District.
Section 3.3. Construction of Minimum Improvements. The Developer agrees that it will
construct the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property in substantial accordance with this
Agreement and the plans, specifications, drawings, and related documents relating to the construction
work to be performed on the Development Property. At all times prior to the Termination Date and
during which the Minimum Improvements are owned by the Developer, the Developer will operate and
maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause such improvements to be maintained,
preserved and kept in good repair and condition. The City has no obligation to operate or maintain the
Minimum Improvements. The Developer additionally agrees not to engage in any financing that creates
any mortgage or other encumbrance or lien upon the Development Property or the Minimum
Improvements, whether by express agreement or operation of law, or suffer any encumbrance or lien to be
made on or attached to the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements, other than the liens or
encumbrances directly and solely related to the acquisition, construction and equipping of the
Development Property and the Minimum Improvements.
page 108
Section 3.4. Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to Unavoidable
Delays, the Developer shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements no later than
December 31, 2017. Such commencement shall at a minimum consist of subsurface excavation activities
on the Development Property. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall substantially complete
the construction of the Minimum Improvements no later than June 1, 2019. The Developer shall make
such reports to the City regarding construction of the Minimum Improvements as the City deems
necessary or helpful in order to monitor progress on construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
page 109
ARTICLE IV
EVENTS OF DEFAULT; INDEMNIFICATION
Section 4.1 Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under this
Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean whenever it is used in this Agreement any one or
more of the following events:
(a) Failure by the Developer to timely pay any ad valorem real property taxes
assessed with respect to the Development Property.
(b) Failure by the Developer to cause the construction of the Project to be completed
pursuant to the terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement or any issued permits for the
Project.
(c) Failure of the Developer to observe or perform any other covenant, condition,
obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement.
(d) If the Developer shall:
(A) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United
States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended or under any similar federal or state law; or
(B) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or
(C) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become
due; or
(D) be adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent; or if a petition or answer
proposing the adjudication of the Developer as a bankrupt or its reorganization under
any present or future federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state law shall be
filed in any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged or denied within
60 days after the filing thereof; or a receiver, trustee or liquidator of the Developer, or of
the Project, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any proceeding brought against the
Developer, and shall not be discharged within 60 days after such appointment, or if the
Developer, shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment.
Section 4.2 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 4.1
occurs and is continuing, the City, as specified below, may take any one or more of the following
actions after the giving of 30 days’ written notice to the Developer, citing with specificity the item or
items of default and notifying the Developer that it has 30 days within which to cure said Event of
Default. If the Event of Default is by its nature incurable within 30 days, the City shall not take any one
or more of the following actions below if the Developer, in the good-faith opinion of the City, is
undertaking action to cure the Event of Default as soon as reasonably possible.
(a) The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement and the TIF Note
until it receives written assurances from the Developer, deemed adequate by the City, that the
Developer will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement, and no
page 110
interest shall accrue on the TIF Note for the benefit of the Developer while performance is
suspended in accordance with this Section 4.2.
(b) The City may cancel and rescind this Agreement and the TIF Note.
(c) The City may take any action, including legal or administrative action, in law or
equity, which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any
obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary herein, the City agrees that if the Developer
completes construction of the Project and has assigned the TIF Note to an assignee, which has been
separately approved by the City, the City will not exercise any remedies set forth in this Section 4.2 which
would have the effect of reducing, suspending or terminating any payments on the TIF Note. This
paragraph shall not limit the City’s remedies provided under any other agreement between the City and
the Developer, provided such remedies do not have the effect of reducing, suspending or terminating any
payments on the TIF Note.
Section 4.3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the City
is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy
shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or
hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power
accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver
thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be
deemed expedient.
Section 4.4 No Implied Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement
should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by any other party, such waiver shall be limited
to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or
subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 4.5 Agreement to Pay Attorney’s Fees and Expenses. Whenever any Event of
Default occurs and the City shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of
payments due or to become due or for the enforcement or performance or observance of any obligation
or agreement on the part of the Developer herein contained, the Developer agrees that it shall, on
demand therefor, pay to the City the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so
incurred by the City.
Section 4.6 Indemnification of City.
(1) The Developer releases from and covenants and agrees that the City, its governing body
members, officers, agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel, and
employees thereof (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”), shall not be liable for and agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any
injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Project,
provided that the foregoing indemnification shall not be effective for any intentional actions of the
Indemnified Parties that are not contemplated by this Agreement.
(2) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of the
Indemnified Parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and
forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other
page 111
proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from the
actions or inactions of the Developer (or if other persons acting on its behalf or under its direction or
control) under this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction,
installation, ownership, and operation of the Project.
(3) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City contained
herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the
City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of the City, as the case
may be.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
page 112
ARTICLE V
INSURANCE
Section 5.1. Required Insurance. (a) The Developer agrees to provide and maintain at all times
during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements and, from time to time at the request of
the City, will furnish the City with proof of payment of premiums on:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder's Risk -- Completed
Value Basis,” in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value of the
Minimum Improvements at the date of completion, and with coverage available in nonreporting
form on the so called “all risk” form of policy;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability insurance)
together with an Owner’s Contractor’s Policy with limits against bodily injury and property
damage of not less than $1,500,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above required limits,
an umbrella excess liability policy may be used); and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage.
The policies of insurance required pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) above shall be placed with financially
sound and reputable insurers licensed to transact business in the State. The policy of insurance delivered
pursuant to clause (i) above shall contain an agreement of the insurer to give not less than thirty (30)
days’ advance written notice to the City in the event of cancellation of such policy or change affecting the
coverage thereunder. The City shall be named as an additional insured under the policies of insurance
referred to in (i) and (ii) above.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements, and prior to the
Termination Date, the Developer shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense, and
from time to time at the request of the City shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums on, insurance
as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss or damage to the Minimum Improvements under a policy
or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar businesses, including
(without limiting the generality of the foregoing) fire, extended coverage, vandalism and
malicious mischief, heating system explosion, water damage, demolition, debris removal,
collapse and flood, in an amount not less than the full insurable replacement value of the
Minimum Improvements. No policy of insurance shall be so written that the proceeds thereof
will produce less than the minimum coverage required by the preceding sentence, by reason of
coinsurance provisions or otherwise, without the prior consent thereto in writing by the City. The
term “full insurable replacement value” shall mean the actual replacement cost of the Minimum
Improvements and shall be determined from time to time at the request of the City, but not more
frequently than once every three years, by an insurance consultant or insurer, selected and paid
for by the Developer and approved by the City; and
page 113
(ii) Such other insurance, including worker’s compensation insurance respecting all
employees of the Developer, in such amount as is customarily carried by like organizations
engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure.
In lieu of any of the foregoing, the Developer may provide assurance to the City that the Developer has
self-insured for the amounts and terms satisfying this Section.
(c) The parties agree that all of the provisions set forth in this Article shall terminate upon
the Termination Date.
Section 5.2. Evidence of Insurance. All insurance required in this Article shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Developer which are authorized under the
laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. The Developer agrees to deposit with the City
copies of policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective
insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article, each
policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor materially modify the policy without
giving written notice to the Developer and the City at least 30 days before the cancellation or
modification becomes effective. In lieu of separate policies, the Developer may maintain a single policy,
blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which
event the Developer shall deposit with the City a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to
the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
Section 5.3. Notification; Repair, Reconstruction and Restoration. So long as the Developer is
the owner thereof and until the Termination Date, the Developer agrees to notify the City immediately in
the case of damage exceeding $50,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements, or
any portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. Subject to the rights of applicable lenders, in
such event the Developer shall forthwith repair, reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to
substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such
damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the
Developer will apply the net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the
Developer to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. Any net proceeds remaining after
completion of such repairs, reconstruction and restoration shall be the property of the Developer. In the
event the Developer does not repair, reconstruct or restore the Minimum Improvements, the City shall
have no further obligation to make payments to the Developer under the TIF Note.
Section 5.4. Reconstruction of Minimum Improvements. If the Minimum Improvements are
damaged or destroyed before or after completion thereof, but prior to the Termination Date, and the net
proceeds from the Developer’s applicable insurance policies are sufficient to pay all costs related thereto,
and the holder of any mortgage covering the Development Property consents thereto, then the Developer
shall commence the reconstruction of the Minimum Improvements within 180 days of the availability of
such insurance proceeds. The Developer’s obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements shall
end on the Termination Date.
page 114
ARTICLE VI
USE OF TAX INCREMENT
Section 6.1. Use of Tax Increment. Except with respect to its obligations to the Developer under
this Agreement in connection with the Tax Increment, the City shall be free to use any Tax Increment it
receives from the TIF District for any purpose for which such Tax Increment may lawfully be used under
the TIF Act and pursuant to other general provisions of State law, and the City shall have no obligations
to the Developer with respect to the use of such Tax Increment.
Section 6.2. Reimbursement of Tax Increment. Section 469.176, Subdivision 4j of the TIF Act
limits the use of Tax Increment in a redevelopment district to specific permitted uses. Section 469.1771,
Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act requires the City to pay the County for Tax Increment distributed to the City
and used to assist a project which does not qualify for tax increment assistance. If the City is required to
pay Tax Increment to the County or any other governmental entity pursuant to Section 469.1771 of the
TIF Act, or any other provision of the TIF Act, by reason of any Developer act or omission that is
inconsistent with or contrary to the terms of this Agreement, the Developer agrees, for itself and its
successors and assigns, to reimburse a similar amount to the City within 30 days’ written notice from the
City. This obligation to reimburse Tax Increment to the City shall run with the Development Property,
and each subdivided part thereof, and shall bind the Developer and its successors and assigns. The City is
authorized to undertake all necessary legal action to recover said amounts described in this Section from
the Developer. Any sum owed under this Section but not reimbursed by the Developer or its successors
and assigns shall remain a lien against the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements, or
any part thereof, until paid.
Section 6.3. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Developer acknowledges that the City is
providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the completion of the Minimum Improvements
through issuance of the TIF Note. The Developer understands that the Tax Increment pledged to payment
of the TIF Note is derived from real estate taxes on the Development Property and the Minimum
Improvements, which taxes must be promptly, timely, and fully paid. To that end, the Developer agrees
for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to State statute to pay real
estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement, through the Termination Date, to pay
before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Development Property and the Minimum
Improvements. The Developer acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on behalf of
the City to sue the Developer or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes, and any
penalty or interest thereon, and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the County. In any such suit, the
City shall also be entitled to recover from the Developer the City’s costs, expenses and reasonable
attorney fees. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the Developer from contesting the amount of real
estate taxes (whether because of valuation, classification or otherwise, but subject always to the
requirements and restrictions of the Minimum Assessment Agreement) in accordance with State law.
Section 6.4. Reduction of Taxes. (a) The Developer agrees that through the Termination Date it
will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Development Property through:
(i) willful destruction of the Development Property or any part thereof; (ii) willful refusal to reconstruct
damaged or destroyed property from insurance proceeds available to the Developer for such purposes;
(iii) application for a deferral of real property tax on the Development Property pursuant to any law or
regulation; or (iv) conveyance or transfer of the Development Property to any entity that is exempt from
payment of real property taxes under State law.
page 115
(b) Subject always to the requirements and restrictions of the Minimum Assessment
Agreement, the Developer may use any administrative or legal process provided under State law to seek a
reduction of market value of the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements for ad valorem
tax purposes, provided that (i) promptly upon filing any petition or claim with any tax official, the
Developer shall provide written notice of such action to the City, and (ii) if the Developer files such a
position or claim, the City will withhold payment of any Tax Increment (without interest) that is
attributable to the tax payable year that is the subject of the petition or claim until the petition or claim is
fully resolved such that the County has finally determined the amount of property taxes payable with
respect to the Development Property for that year.
Section 6.5. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree to
execute that certain Minimum Assessment Agreement, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The Minimum Assessment Agreement will provide that the minimum market value which shall be
assessed for ad valorem tax purposes for the Development Property, together with the Minimum
Improvements constructed thereon, shall be $9,660,000 as of January 2, 2019, for taxes payable in 2020,
notwithstanding the progress of construction of the Minimum Improvements by such date, and said
minimum value shall remain in effect as of each January 2 thereafter until the earlier of the following: (i)
the date of receipt by the City of the final payment from the County of Tax Increment from the TIF
District; or (ii) the date when the TIF Note and any interfund loan or loans attributable to the TIF District
have been fully paid or defeased in accordance with their terms. The events referred to in this paragraph
shall be evidenced by a certificate or affidavit in recordable form executed by the City. The Minimum
Assessment Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. The Developer shall pay all
costs of recording.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
page 116
ARTICLE VII
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER
Section 7.1. Representation as to Development. The Developer represents and agrees that its
undertakings pursuant to this Agreement are and will be for the purpose of development of the
Development Property and the Minimum Improvements and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 7.2. Prohibition Against Developer’s Transfer of Development Property and Assignment
of Agreement. The Developer represents and agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
by the City for the Minimum Improvements:
(a) Except only by way of security for, and only for the purpose of obtaining financing
necessary to enable the Developer or any successor-in-interest to the Development Property, or any part
thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to making, owning or operating the Minimum
Improvements under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the Developer
has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial
sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or
with respect to this Agreement or the Development Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or
any contract or agreement to do any of the same, without the prior written approval of the City, unless the
Developer remains liable and bound by this Agreement, in which event the City’s approval is not
required. In the absence of a specific written agreement by the City to the contrary, no such transfer or
approval by the City thereof shall be deemed to relieve the Developer or any other party bound in any
way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to the construction of the Minimum Improvements from
any of its obligations with respect thereto.
(b) In the event the Developer, upon transfer or assignment of the Development Property or
any portion thereof, seeks to be released from its obligations under this Agreement as to the portions of
the Development Property that are transferred or assigned, the City shall be entitled to require, except as
otherwise provided in this Agreement, as conditions to any such release that:
(i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial responsibility,
in the reasonable judgment of the City, necessary and adequate to fulfill the obligations
undertaken in this Agreement by the Developer as to the portion of the Minimum Improvements
or the Development Property to be transferred.
(ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the City and in
form recordable among the County’s land records, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns,
and expressly for the benefit of the City, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the
Developer under this Agreement as to the portion of the Minimum Improvements or the
Development Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and
restrictions to which the Developer is subject as to such portion; provided, however, that the fact
that any transferee of, or any other successor-in-interest whatsoever to, the Minimum
Improvements or the Development Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for whatever reason,
have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise
specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the City) deprive the City of
any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the Development Property or any part thereof or
the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as expressed in
this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in equity and excepting only in the
page 117
manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or
change with respect to, ownership in the Minimum Improvements or the Development Property
or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated or occurring, and whether
voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally or practically, to deprive or limit the City of or
with respect to any rights or remedies or controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement
with respect to the Minimum Improvements or the Development Property that the City would
have had, had there been no such transfer. In the absence of specific written agreement by the
City to the contrary, no transfer or approval by the City thereof shall be deemed to relieve the
Developer, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to
the construction of the Minimum Improvements, from any of its obligations with respect thereto.
(iii) Any and all instruments and other documents involved in effecting the transfer of
any interest in this Agreement or the Minimum Improvements or the Development Property
governed by this Article shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City.
(c) Any notice of rejection from the City shall contain detailed reasons for the rejection. The
City’s approval of any transfer shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event the foregoing conditions
are satisfied, the Developer shall be released from its obligation under this Agreement as to the portion of
the Minimum Improvements or the Development Property that is transferred, assigned or otherwise
conveyed.
(d) After the Minimum Improvements have been completed and a Certificate of Occupancy
has been issued by the City, the Developer may transfer or assign any portion of the Development
Property or the Developer’s interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City,
provided that until the occurrence of the Termination Date, the transferee or assignee is bound by all the
Developer’s obligations hereunder. Prior to any such transfer or assignment, the Developer shall submit
to the City written evidence of any such transfer or assignment, including the transferee or assignee’s
express assumption of the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement. If the Developer fails to
provide such evidence of transfer and assumption, the Developer shall remain bound by all of its
obligations under this Agreement.
Section 7.3 Affiliate. The prohibitions of this Article do not apply to any transfer of the
Project to an Affiliate of the Developer.
page 118
ARTICLE VIII
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 8.1 Conflicts of Interest. No member of the governing body or other official of the
City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the Development Property or
the Project, or any contract, agreement or other transaction contemplated to occur or be undertaken
thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such member of the governing body or other official
participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the
interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly
interested. No member, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the City in the
event of any default or breach by the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of
this Agreement.
Section 8.2 Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, articles and
sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in
construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 8.3 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to any other
shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, or delivered personally, and
in the case of the Developer is addressed to or delivered personally to:
Michael Development Minnesota, LLC
971 Sibley Memorial Hwy, Suite 300
Lilydale, Minnesota 55118
Attn: Michael J. Swenson
With copy to:
(Developer’s legal counsel)
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
8300 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060
Attn: Thomas P. Stoltman, Esq.
in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at:
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
Attn: City Administrator
With copy to:
Eckberg Lammers, P.C.
1809 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
page 119
or at such other address with respect to any such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in
writing and forward to the other, as provided in this Section.
Section 8.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 8.5 Law Governing. This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State.
Section 8.6 Expiration. This Agreement shall expire on the Termination Date.
Section 8.7 Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration. Sections 4.5 (Agreement to Pay
Attorney’s Fees and Expenses) and 4.6 (Indemnification of City) shall survive any rescission, termination
or expiration of this Agreement with respect to or arising out of any event, occurrence or circumstance
existing prior to the date thereof.
Section 8.8 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with
the laws of the State. Any dispute arising from this Agreement shall be heard in the State or federal
courts of Minnesota, and all parties waive any objection to the jurisdiction thereof, whether based on
convenience or otherwise.
Section 8.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties pertaining to its subject matter and it supersedes all prior contemporaneous agreements,
representations, and understandings of the parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement. This
Agreement may be modified, amended, terminated, or waived, in whole or in part, only by a writing
signed by all of the parties.
Section 8.10 Re-execution of Documents. The City and the Developer agree to re-execute any
documents which may be necessary to correct an error or to enable said document to be filed of record.
Section 8.11 Severability. If any provision or application of this Agreement is held unlawful
or unenforceable in any respect, such illegality or unenforceability shall not affect other provisions or
applications that can be given effect, and this Agreement shall be construed as if the unlawful or
unenforceable provision or application had never been contained herein or prescribed hereby.
page 120
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Contract for Private Development to be duly
executed in its name and on its behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed, and the Developer has
caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, on or as of the date first above
written.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA
By_______________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
By_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
(SEAL)
(City signature page for the Contract for Private Development, by and between the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, and Michael Development Minnesota, LLC)
page 121
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC
By: _________________________________________
Its: _________________________________________
(Developer signature page for the Contract for Private Development, by and between the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, and Michael Development Minnesota, LLC)
page 122
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
page 123
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF TIF NOTE
No. R-1 $__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REVENUE NOTE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2
The City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “City”), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted
and, for value received, hereby promises to pay the amounts hereinafter described (the “Payment
Amounts”) to Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Developer”), or its registered assigns (the “Registered Owner”), but only in the manner, at the times,
from the sources of revenue, and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The principal amount of this Note shall equal from time to time the principal amount stated
above, as reduced to the extent that such principal installments shall have been paid in whole or in part
pursuant to the terms hereof; provided that the sum of the principal amount listed above shall in no event
exceed Six Hundred Thirty Four Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($634,000.00), as provided in that certain
Contract for Private Development, dated as of _______________, 2017, as the same may be amended
from time to time (the “Development Agreement”), by and between the City and the Developer. The
unpaid principal amount hereof shall bear interest from the date of this Note at the rate of _______% per
annum. Interest accruing from the date of issue through August 1, 2019 will be compounded
semiannually on each August 1 and February 1 and added to principal. Interest shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year consisting of twelve (12) 30-day months. All capitalized but undefined terms
herein shall be defined as in the Development Agreement.
The amounts due under this Note shall be payable on each February 1 and August 1, commencing
on August 1, 2019 and thereafter to and including the February 1, 2028, or, if the first payment date
should not be on a Business Day, the payment shall be made on the next succeeding Business Day (the
“Payment Dates”). On each Payment Date the City shall pay by check or draft mailed to the person that
was the Registered Owner of this Note at the close of the last business day of the City preceding such
Payment Date an amount equal to the Tax Increment received by the City during the six-month period
preceding such Payment Date (or, with respect to the first Payment Date, in the period commencing on
the date of issuance of this Note through the day that is prior to the first Payment Date). All payments
made by the City under this Note shall first be applied to accrued interest and then to principal. This Note
is pre-payable by the City, without penalty, in whole or in part, on any date.
The Payment Amounts due hereon shall be payable solely from 90% of Tax Increment derived
from the Development Property within the City’s Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (the “TIF
District”) within its Municipal Development District No. 1, which is paid to the City and which the City
is entitled to retain pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799,
page 124
as the same may be amended or supplemented from time to time (the “TIF Act”). This Note shall
terminate and be of no further force and effect following the Termination Date.
The City makes no representation or covenant, express or implied, that the Tax Increment will be
sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or may become due and payable hereunder.
In the event Tax Increment is not sufficient, the City is not responsible to further fund or reimburse the
Developer (or its assigns or creditors) for any such shortfall. The City is not responsible to fund or
reimburse any obligation of the Developer (or its assigns or creditors) unless expressly stated in this
Agreement.
Subject to the terms of the Development Agreement, including Section 6.4(b) thereof, the City’s
payment obligations hereunder shall be further conditioned on the fact that no Event of Default under the
Development Agreement shall have occurred and be continuing at the time payment is otherwise due
hereunder, but such unpaid amounts shall become payable if said Event of Default shall thereafter have
been cured; and further, if pursuant to the occurrence of an Event of Default under the Development
Agreement the City elects, subject to the provisions of Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement, to
cancel and rescind the Development Agreement, the City shall have no further debt or obligation under
this Note whatsoever. Reference is hereby made to all of the provisions of the Development Agreement,
including without limitation Section 3.1 thereof, for a fuller statement of the rights and obligations of the
City to pay the principal of this Note, and said provisions are hereby incorporated into this Note as though
set out in full herein.
This Note is a special, limited revenue obligation and not a general obligation of the City and is
payable by the City only from the sources and subject to the qualifications stated or referenced herein.
This Note is not a general obligation of the City, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers
of the City are pledged to the payment of the principal of this Note and no property or other asset of the
City, save and except the above-referenced Tax Increment, is or shall be a source of payment of the City’s
obligations hereunder.
This Note is issued by the City in aid of financing a project pursuant to and in full conformity
with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including the TIF Act.
This Note may be assigned only with the consent of the City. In order to assign the Note, the
assignee shall surrender the same to the City either in exchange for a new fully registered note or for
transfer of this Note on the registration records for the Note maintained by the City. Each permitted
assignee shall take this Note subject to the foregoing conditions and subject to all provisions stated or
referenced herein.
page 125
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to have happened, and to be performed
precedent to and in the issuance of this Note have been done, have happened, and have been performed in
regular and due form, time, and manner as required by law; and that this Note, together with all other
indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery,
does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, by its City Council, has
caused this Note to be executed by the manual signatures of its Mayor and City Clerk and has caused this
Note to be dated as of ___________________, 20____.
_________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
page 126
CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Tax Increment Financing Revenue Note was registered in
the name of Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, and that, at the request of the Registered Owner of
this Note, the undersigned has this day registered the Note in the name of such Registered Owner, as
indicated in the registration blank below, on the books kept by the undersigned for such purposes.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
REGISTERED OWNER
DATE OF
REGISTRATION
SIGNATURE OF CITY
ADMINISTRATOR
Michael Development Minnesota,
LLC
971 Sibley Memorial Hwy, Suite 300
Lilydale, Minnesota 55118
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
page 127
EXHIBIT C
FORM OF MINIMUM ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
MINIMUM ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
AND
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC
AND CERTIFIED BY:
DAKOTA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE
Dated as of: ________________, 2017
This document was drafted by:
Eckberg Lammers, P.C.
1809 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
651.439.2878
page 128
MINIMUM ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
THIS MINIMUM ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), is made on or as of the
_____ day of ______________, 2017, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, a
municipal corporation and political subdivision existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the
“City”), and Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Developer”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof, the City and the Developer entered into a Contract for
Private Development (the “Development Agreement”), pursuant to which the City is to provide tax
increment financing assistance to the Developer, derived from certain real property (the “Development
Property”) located within the City’s Municipal Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing
District No. 2; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Agreement, the Developer is obligated to acquire the
Development Property, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and construct certain
improvements thereon, including a market-rate apartment building totaling approximately 69 units, with
surface and underground parking (the “Minimum Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer desire to establish a minimum market value for the
Development Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Section
469.177, Subdivision 8 of the TIF Act; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Dakota County Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the
preliminary plans and specifications for the Minimum Improvements and have inspected the
Development Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises, covenants
and agreements made by each to the other, agree as follows:
1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes for the
Development Property, together with the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon, shall be
$9,660,000 as of January 2, 2019, for taxes payable in 2020, notwithstanding the progress of construction
of the Minimum Improvements by such date, and said minimum value shall remain in effect as of each
January 2 thereafter until termination of this Agreement under paragraph 2 hereof.
2. The minimum market value established herein shall be of no further force and effect and
this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of the following: (i) the date of receipt by the City of the
final payment from the County of Tax Increment from the TIF District; or (ii) the date when the TIF Note
and any interfund loan or loans attributable to the TIF District have been fully paid or defeased in
accordance with their terms. The events referred to in this paragraph shall be evidenced by a certificate or
affidavit in recordable form executed by the City.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded in the County land records by the Developer
by no later than December 31, 2017. The Developer shall pay all costs of recording.
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall they be
construed as, modifying the terms of the Development Agreement between the City and the Developer.
page 129
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all actions
required, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement.
7. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision
hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and
deliver, or cause to be delivered, such supplements, amendments and modifications hereto, and such
required further instruments as may be reasonably required for correcting any inadequate, or incorrect, or
amended description of the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements or for carrying out the
expressed intention of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any further instruments required to
delete from the description of the Development Property such part or parts as may be included with a
separate assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in paragraph 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be
amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties hereto,
in compliance with Section 469.177, Subdivision 8 of the TIF Act.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State.
12. Capitalized but undefined terms in this Agreement shall have the meanings assigned in
the Development Agreement.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
page 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
By: _________________________________
Its: Mayor
By: _________________________________
Its: City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2017,
by Neil Garlock and Lorri Smith, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on
behalf of the City.
_________________________________
Notary Public
(Signature page of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota to the Minimum Assessment Agreement)
page 131
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT MINNESOTA, LLC
By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2017,
by Michael Swanson, the Chief Manager of Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
(Signature page of Michael Development Minnesota, LLC to the Minimum Assessment Agreement)
page 132
EXHIBIT A TO MINIMUM ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
page 133
CERTIFICATION BY COUNTY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed certain construction plans for the Minimum Improvements,
and the market value assigned to the Minimum Improvements and the Development Property, as
described in the Minimum Assessment Agreement, dated as of ______________, 2017, by and between
the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, and Michael Development Minnesota, LLC, to which this
certification is attached, states as follows:
Legal Description of Property:
The undersigned assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described
property, certifies that the market values assigned to the land and improvements are reasonable.
Nothing herein shall limit the discretion of the undersigned assessor or any other public official or
body having the duty to determine the market value of the above-described Minimum Improvements and
Development Property for ad valorem tax purposes, to assign to such Minimum Improvements and
Development Property a market value in excess of the minimum market value specified above and in the
Minimum Assessment Agreement.
All capitalized but undefined terms herein are assigned definitions as provided in that certain
Contract for Private Development, dated as of ______________, 2017, by and between the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, and Michael Development Minnesota, LLC.
_________________________________
Assessor
Dakota County, Minnesota
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2017,
by _______________, the Assessor for the County of Dakota, Minnesota.
____________________________________
Notary Public
page 134
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: August 1, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit to Allow
Certain Construction Activities in the Critical Area Overlay District, located at 796
Sibley Memorial Highway (Precision Homes, LLC – Applicants)
[Planning Case No. 2017-16]
Introduction
Precision Homes, acting on behalf of the property owner James R. Hanson, is seeking a Critical Area Permit
and Conditional Use Permit to allow certain construction activities within an existing single family
residential property, located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway. The subject property is located within the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and the proposed project requires City Council approval before any
demolition, removal or grading work commences.
Background
The subject property includes two parcels, which are considered separate (legal) lots, but under single
ownership by James R. Hanson. The northerly lot is identified as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow, which is
1.08 acres; while the southerly Lot 7 consists of 1.19 acres, or 2.27 acres total. The property contains an
existing single-family dwelling, which is slated to be removed in order to develop both lots.
Based on the proposed project scope and applicable City Code requirements, the following requests are
required:
1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities.
2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%.
The two permits highlighted herein will allow the demolition of the existing home; grading of certain parts of
the properties; and removal of certain trees and vegetation in and around the new development areas only.
Construction of any new home on each lot will require future consideration and approval of separate Critical
Area Permits.
At the July 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Staff Report was presented on this item
(attached hereto); and the Applicant was present to answer any questions. The Planning Commission
conducted a noticed public hearing at this meeting; and there were no additional public comments.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on land use requests such as these and has
broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way
related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether
or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
page 135
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the land use requests as described in Planning Case
2017-16, with amended conditions as noted in the attached resolution.
If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2017-
58, APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 136
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-58
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, Precision Homes, LLC, acting on behalf of the property owner James R.
Hanson, has applied for a critical area permit and conditional use permit to allow certain
construction activities in the Critical Area Overlay District, as proposed under Planning Case
2017-16, located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting of July 25, 2017, whereby comments from the Applicant and
general public were received and noted for the record, and whereupon closing the hearing, the
Planning Commission recommended approval (by 5-0 vote) of the critical area permit and
conditional use permit with certain findings of fact and amended conditions of approval, as noted
herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the critical area permit and conditional use permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-16 are
hereby approved with the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed development of the properties with two separate dwelling structures
meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay
District, including the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of
any significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of
invasive and harmful planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural
environment and native plant growth in this area; and provides a condition to help
replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees.
4. The grades in excess of 18% and 40% impacted by the proposed project appear to
have been man-made and will not negatively impact the bluff area or any
significant or protected areas of the subject property or surrounding properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the
critical area permit and conditional use permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-16 are
hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any
demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of
any new dwelling on each lot.
page 137
2. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural
or native stone materials.
3. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable
vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
Removal of vegetation is primarily confined to the silt fenced area noted on the
“Existing Conditions, Soils, Landscaping and Demo Plan” map. Any removals
beyond this silt fenced area shall be limited to buckthorn and other similar but
smaller invasive plantings [2” or less caliper size]. The cutting or clearing of any
significant trees beyond the silt fence boundary line, regardless of variety, is
prohibited.
4. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit
review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to
replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan.
5. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities.
6. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional
contractor and/or landscape company.
7. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00
pm.
8. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
9. Construction of any new home and any additional (related) work on each lot will
require future consideration and approval of separate critical area permits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of August, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 138
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description – 796 Sibley Memorial Highway
PID: 27-30700-00-060
Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow, Dakota County, Minnesota
&
PID: 27-30700-00-070
Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow, Dakota County, Minnesota
page 139
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-16
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Precision Homes, LLC
(on behalf of James R. Hanson- Property Owner)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 796 Sibley Memorial Highway
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: September 5, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the removal
of an existing single family dwelling currently situated across a shared lot line between two lots; and further
allow the construction of two new single-family dwellings on each lot. The subject property is located at
796 Sibley Memorial Highway, which is within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires
approval of the proposed project by the City Council before any building permit can be issued.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city.
BACKGROUND
The subject property encompasses two parcels, which are considered separate, legal parcels and are not
combined for property tax purposes. The two parcels are however, under single ownership by James R.
Hanson. The northerly lot is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08 acres;
while the southerly Lot 7 consists of 1.19 acres, or 2.27 acres total. The site contains an existing two-story,
single-family dwelling of 3,432 square feet, constructed in 1952; along with a two-car attached garage. The
site contains a single access point/driveway off Sibley Memorial Highway, currently situated on Lot 6 only
(see attached image – below left)
The westerly half section of subject site is fairly level with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway,
but the property begins a dramatic upward slope towards the back half of the property, going form 810 feet
to roughly 860 feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with a variety of mature trees, along with a
large section of volunteers and nuisance (buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered throughout the site.
(see attached image – below right)
page 140
Aerial/Location Map Contour/Elevation Map
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Applicant, acting as the Developer, intends to remove the existing single-family structure and any other
related accessory structures, remove a number of trees, regrade and reshape the property in order to provide
two new house pads on each lot (see image below).
Based on the applicable City Code requirements, the proposed project requires the following requests:
1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities.
2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%.
Approval of a critical area permit would allow the developer to remove the dwelling, commence grading
and tree removal work; and allow the construction of the two new homes on each lot. There are two areas
in and around the new house pad sites that contain slopes greater than 18%, which will be affected by this
new construction work. According to Title 12-3-14-B of the City Code, any work in sloped area between
18% and up to 40% requires a conditional use permit approval.
page 141
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant’s request to construct new single family dwellings on each lot is consistent with the property’s
current land use designation and use as single-family residences.
Critical Area Permit
The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay
District.
Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
• Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource
• Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public
areas; and
• Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential
element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements:
No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for
any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared
and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required
Title 12-3-8: Development Standards:
The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment
of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance
the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to
prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground
water.
• Setbacks.
No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river.
The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic
reasons. In this case, the proposed house pads are located approximately 300+ feet from the toe of the
bluff line; so the above standard does not apply. All new grading work and land disturbance will take
place in and around the new house pad sites and driveway areas, so no impacts to the bluff line or areas
will occur under this development.
• Height limits.
• R-1 District: 12-1-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2)
stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height….”
• Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8.C: “All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet…”
The developer has not provide the city with any proposed or final house plan or design, as these homes will
be custom-built dwellings. Any new home will be subject to the two-story, 25-foot height limitations
established under the R-1 Ordinance.
page 142
• Retaining Wall
The proposed development includes a new, U-shaped retaining wall structure on the north edge of the new
driveway for the house on Lot 6. This wall will be used to shore up the driveway tab or vehicle turn-around
off the new driveway (see image below).
Title 12-3-9.2.d requires retaining walls in the Critical Area, on slopes between 12% and 18%, to be
constructed of native stone or wood and not exceed 5 feet in height. The plans indicated the wall will be
3-feet in height; but do not provide specific details of the materials to be used. Staff has added a condition
that this wall must be natural or native stone as part of any approval.
There is no dimension or setback shown on the driveway tab. Using the map scale measurement, it appears
the driveway tab is less than 5 feet from the north lot line. Code requires driveways have a 5-foot setback
from property lines. The plan needs to show this driveway tab meets the 5-foot setback; reduced in size or
moved to the other side of the driveway. The wall also needs to be moved outside of the new [proposed]
drainage and utility easement along the outer lot lines, which will be addressed later under the Surface
Water Runoff Management section below.
Title 12-3-14: Process for Construction on Property within the Critical Area:
Critical Area Permit: The construction of any building or structure, or the alteration of any land
consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or excavation, shall require a critical
area permit from the city council.”
The grading and land alteration to accommodate these two new dwelling structures are likely to consist of
more than 100 cubic yards; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required.
Title 12-3-9-D & 12-3-9-F Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management
The Applicant/Developer provided a detailed survey identifying a certain number of significant trees that
will be saved/protected under this new development plan, along with some removals. The proposed
developments of these two new home will occupy the previously-developed area of the existing house and
driveway area. According to the Applicant, a number of volunteer trees and invasive species (buckthorn,
box elders, and others) are planned to be removed and thinned from the site in order to gain more useable
yard space. Staff recommended in pre-application meeting with the Developer, to be very prudent and
mindful when removing existing trees and vegetation on the site, and save and protect as many mature and
significant trees as possible. From an overall review of their landscape and grading plans, staff does not
anticipate any negative impacts to the habitat or the remaining natural vegetation on the subject property.
page 143
The removal plans identified 43 “high value trees within the main development area. Of these trees, 16
have been targeted for removal, with 27 marked for saving. The plans note that these trees will be protected
during construction activities; and new tree replacement will take place when new homes are constructed
(reviewed at time of building permit review).
Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management:
The original Goodrich Happy Hollow plat (cir. 1950) that includes these two lots, does not appear to show
any easements dedicated on each existing lot. Although the Site Plan appears to show some form of dashed-
line pattern inside the lot line boundaries, it is not clear if these are supposed to be easements or setback
delineation, or other. Nevertheless, the City typically requests developers/owners to dedicate new drainage
and utility easements along the outer perimeters of lots when under consideration of similar land use
applications (i.e. lot splits, wetland permits, critical area permits), if or when needed. These easements are
typically 10 foot wide along the front and rear lot lines, and 5 feet along side lines. Due to this requests of
easements, the retaining wall noted previously in this report (to be built on the north edge of the new
driveway, will need to be moved outside of any drainage easement area.
Engineering staff has reviewed the application information and does not believe the proposed project clearly
addresses or meets the general requirements for surface water runoff. The applicable Code section lists six
requirements a project in the critical area must meet. The first five are not applicable to the subject property
as they deal with septic systems, well draw from local aquafers, contaminated areas, surface water
infiltration, and siltation deposits in area wetlands and water bodies. The only applicable requirement
states:
6. Development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm
water.
The City Engineer has provided the following statements and noted deficiencies when reviewing the
submitted site/grading and drainage plans:
• The survey does not capture enough surrounding topography to accurately determine there will not
be negative consequences from this proposal. Topography should be gathered on neighboring
properties with the drainage area (existing water issue to the south cannot have increased drainage).
• The catch basin to the north is not shown.
• Storm sewer and elevations must be shown.
• The drainage swale between proposed homes needs to be a minimum of 2% grade (currently under
1%).
• More information if a driveway culvert is needed for the new driveway on to Wachtler; and if the
culvert underneath the new driveway on to HWY 13 is scheduled for replacement.
• Must show new driveway grades.
page 144
• Must move wall out of any new easement.
• The plans are absent of many grade contours; the plan must be updated and resubmitted for review.
• Utility data appears incorrect on utility plan and must be updated and resubmitted for review.
• Additional trees may need to be removed to provide adequate drainage.
Since the new dwellings will be built essentially over pre-existing built-out or graded areas, and new grades
will be established that tie the grades from the new house pad sites to the existing surrounding grades, the
new home developments must not substantially alter the runoff rate or quantity from the subject property.
City staff is aware of previous (unauthorized) grading and maintenance work performed by the current
property owners, which led to some impacts and issues with neighboring properties. Because of these
previous impacts, city staff needs to be assured that any new grading work will be acceptable and suitable
for the site; and all storm water management is handled accordingly.
Conditional Use Permit
As noted on the “Existing Conditions” map, there is an area along the north side of Lot 6 and the south side
of Lot 7 that identify “Slopes Greater than 18%”, which are also identified by a unique hatch pattern. The
proposed house pad on the north lot (Lot 6) will involve some additional grading work in this sloped area
in order to provide necessary side yard drainage swales and protection from the north neighboring property.
The sloped area on the south portion of Lot 7 area will also be affected, but again it appears that only new
grades will be replaced and established to help provide effective drainage way and protection of the
neighboring property to the south.
Title 12-3-14-B:
Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but
less than forty percent (40%) shall require a conditional use permit, and shall be required to meet the
procedural and performance requirements of this section.
Title 12-3-16:
A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to
those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the city's comprehensive
plan;
B. The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and
C. The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights.
D. Any request for a conditional use permit shall include, in addition to other required public notice,
a notification to the appropriate Minnesota department of natural resources staff for review and
comment.
The slopes in-question do not appear to be natural and were likely created when the lot was originally
developed many years ago, and were probably established prior to establishment of the Critical Area
Overlay District. Under the circumstances surrounding this case, the proposed project meets all four
required findings above.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
page 145
The site plan was forwarded to Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with Dept. of Natural Resources, and
confirmed the development plan appear to show minimal impacts to the bluff area; appeared to be a
fairly routine [single-family] development plan; and no additional comments or conditions would be
needed from the DNR.
City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Lilydale Regional Park)
No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks Dept. on this item.
City of Lilydale
No comments were received from the City of Lilydale on this case.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the
property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property
located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the finding of fact that the application does not
meet certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the
site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an
additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is “tentatively” recommending Alternative No. 3, which asks the Planning Commission to consider
tabling the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and
grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period
The reason for the tentative recommendation is that Staff contacted the Developers just prior to this planning
report being finalized, and sent them the City Engineer’s review comments and red-lined image of the
grading/drainage plans. The Developer stated a strong desire not to have this item delayed; and asked if
they could submit an updated plan before next Tuesday night’s meeting. Should the Developer provide the
necessary information or make the changes needed to the plans (per the city engineer’s comments), then
city staff agreed to provide an update to the Planning Commission at next Tuesday night’s public hearing.
If all outstanding issues have been or will be resolved to the satisfaction of city staff before the meeting,
and more importantly to the Planning Commission, then staff will offer an amended recommendation to
approve the critical area permit and conditional use permit, based on the attached findings of fact and
following conditions:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or removal of
any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on each lot.
2. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone
materials.
3. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be
performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation is primarily
confined to the silt fenced area noted on the “Existing Conditions, Soils, Landscaping and Demo
Plan” map. Any removals beyond this silt fenced area shall be limited to buckthorn and other
page 146
similar but smaller invasive plantings [2” or less caliper size]. The cutting or clearing of any
significant trees beyond the silt fence boundary line, regardless of variety, is prohibited.
4. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of
at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal
under this development plan.
5. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
6. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor and/or
landscape company.
7. A financial security of $5,000 ($2,500 per lot) shall be held by the City to ensure all grading, tree
and vegetation removals, and any new landscaping work is performed according to plans. The
security shall be held a minimum of one-year after construction work on each home has been
completed, to ensure all plantings have been established and survived at least one growing season.
8. A park dedication fee of $4,000 shall be paid at time of the first building permit submittal.
9. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
10. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent
2. Aerial/Location map
3. Full Site & Grading Plans
page 147
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
796 Sibley Memorial Highway
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed development of the properties with two separate dwelling structures meets the
general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including
the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any significant
trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful planting provides
a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant growth in this area; and
provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees.
4. The grades in excess of 18% and 40% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been man-
made and will not negatively impact the bluff area or any significant or protected areas of the
subject property or surrounding properties.
page 148
Precision Homes
Pavel Bodnar
Owner and Builder
10937 93rd Ave N
Maple Grove, Minnesota
(612) 290-9336
pavel@precisionhomesllc.org
City of Mendota Heights, Tim Benetti
Street Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Telephone
Email
July 6th 2017
Dear City of Mendota Heights, Tim Benetti,
Precision Homes is submitting a request to tear down the existing residence located at 796
Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Once tear down is complete the
builder would utilize both lots and rebuild a single family home on each meeting city
requirements for setbacks. The homes that will be built will be priced between $800,000
and $1,100,000 each depending on final approval of project. Please feel free to reach out
with any questions or concerns to Myself or my real estate agent Stephanie Cook, (612)-
308-6902.
Sincerely,
Pavel Bodnar
page 149
((?
?
G!.
G!.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666*
!
*
*
*
!
"
"
*
*
*
!
³
³
³
³66666666666666666666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
788
796
1256
1238
782
1268
774
1275
1223
1235WACHTLER AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY12''8''0''12''0''
Dakota County GIS
796 Sibley Memorial Highway City ofMendotaHeights0100
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
3/7/2017
page 150
page 151
page 152
page 153
page 154
page 155
page 156
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
July 25, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 25,
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 John
Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Doug Hennes,
Christine Costello
Chair Field introduced Mr. John Mazzitello, who was appointed as commissioner in the spot
vacated by Commissioner Roston. Commissioner Mazzitello provided a brief introduction by
noting that he is the former Public Works Director/City Engineer for the City of Mendota Heights,
has been a resident of Mendota Heights for nine years, and currently works for a regional national
consulting firm running municipal services across six states in 14 offices.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 27, 2017 Minutes
Commissioner Noonan pointed out that on Planning Case #2017-13 Commissioner Hennes did not
move and second the same motion. Staff agreed to make the correction.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2017, AS CORRECTED.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
ABSTAIN: 1 (MAZZITELLO)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-16
PRECISION HOMES, LLC ON BEHALF OF JAMES R. HANSON, 796 SIBLEY
MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Tim Benetti, Community Development Director explained that this request was for a Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway.
The applicant is Precision Homes, LLC on behalf of the owner, Mr. James R. Hanson. This permit
page 157
was to approve the removal of an existing single-family dwelling on two lots. This would allow
for the construction of two brand new dwellings, one on each lot. This is located within the
Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and would require a Critical Area Permit; and the
Conditional Use Permit would be for work on slopes greater than 18%.
Being a public hearing item this was duly noticed and notices were also sent to all of the property
owners within 350 feet of the subject parcels. One comment was received from a neighboring
property owner and an email inquiry from a second residential neighbor.
The subject property is located at the corner of Wachtler and Sibley Memorial Highway (Highway
13) and is described as Lots 7 and 6 of Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres and Lot 7 is
1.19 acres, totaling 2.27 acres of land. The site does contain an existing single-family home just
over 3,400 square feet, constructed in 1952. There is a single driveway off of Sibley Memorial
Highway and is zoned R-1, Residential and guided as Low-Density Residential on the Land Use
Plan.
This site is fairly level on the front edge with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway but
begins an upward slope towards the back half of the property, going from 810 feet to roughly 860
feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with mature trees along with buckthorn, box elder,
and other nuisance growth.
Based on the applicable City Code requirements, the proposed project requires the following
requests:
1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities
2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%
Mr. Benetti provided an amended plan set with the house pads remaining the same from the
original. He also shared the utility plan, grading plan, and noted that a detailed survey had been
completed identifying a certain number of significant trees that would be saved/protected under
this new development plan, along with some removals.
Chair Field asked if staff had ben provided with adequate time to review the revised documents
and were assured that any new grading work would be acceptable and suitable for the site and that
all storm water management would be handled accordingly. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
indicated that staff has had time to review, and were satisfied with the new plans.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards necessary for issuing a Critical Area Permit and a Conditional
Use Permit and explained how this project, with the revised plan sets, met those standards.
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing Condition 7, noted that the Commission typically does not
see a financial security requirement and asked why there was one in this case. Mr. Benetti replied
that staff wanted to ensure that the work being done, even though they have an expert, was done
appropriately. It was more of a security measure in case they start some work and they decide to
walk away.
page 158
Commissioner Magnuson then asked if there were any concerns about the way the driveways are
both coming out onto an intersection, which strikes her as problematic. Mr. Benetti replied that
ideally the driveways would have to be reviewed or approved by the County so if these do not
meet certain distance requirements or site distance requirements, they can require alterations to the
plans.
Chair Field stated that it appeared to him that one of the new driveways was located very near to
the location of the old driveway. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Additional discussions occurred regarding
the location of the driveways; however, the Commission concluded that they are not approving
driveway locations with this application. The applicant would have to satisfy both the State and
the County.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that in a critical overlay the building materials are required to be
of natural character and noted that there is a condition regarding the retaining wall. So, when the
building permits were submitted it was her understanding that staff would also look at the building
materials of the homes being proposed to ensure they comply with the critical area requirements.
Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked why Condition 8, requiring a park dedication fee be paid, was
included when a new lot was not being created. Mr. Benetti replied that it was his understanding
that a park dedication fee was applied on each new residential dwelling. The Commission stated
that park dedication fees are typically only for new lots. Mr. Benetti agreed to remove this
condition.
Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if a new condition could be added that a new critical area
permit be applied for with any new developments on the properties. Mr. Benetti replied that this
would be advisable.
Commissioner Noonan asked, as a follow-up to Commissioner Magnuson, if it was the intention
that, in terms of any lot splits that come forward with new development, which the City would be
asking for a financial security in all cases. It seemed to him that asking for a security deposit in
this case where one had never been asked for previously in similar cases was inappropriate.
Ms. Stephanie Cook, representing Precision Homes, LLC located at 3352 Sherman Court, Suite
202 in Eagan came forward and stated that they are just trying to better the area. She has worked
on this project since the time that it was decided that the property was going to be sold. Right now
Precision Homes, LLC is trying to come in and improve the value, to bring in a nicer finish, and
to clean up the area. They fully intend to cooperate with the City, County, and State and follow
through with all of the procedures that are necessary.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
page 159
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-16, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
SUBJECT TO THE DELETION OF CONDITIONS 7 AND 8
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MADE A SUGGESTION THAT A NEW CONDITION 9 BE
ADDED THAT WOULD STATE, WITH THE PROFESSIONAL WORD SMITHING OF THE
CRACK STAFF, THAT CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW HOME WOULD REQUIRE A
FUTURE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS NECESSARY
Commissioner Noonan agreed to this friendly amendment to his motion.
1. The proposed development of the properties with two separate dwelling structures meets
the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District,
including the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any
significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful
planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant
growth in this area; and provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some
significant trees.
4. The grades in excess of 18% and 40% impacted by the proposed project appear to have
been manmade and will not negatively impact the bluff area or any significant or protected
areas of the subject property or surrounding properties.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or
removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on
each lot.
2. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native
stone materials.
3. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must
be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation
is primarily confined to the silt fenced area noted on the “Existing Conditions, Soils,
Landscaping and Demo Plan” map. Any removals beyond this silt fenced area shall be
limited to buckthorn and other similar but smaller invasive plantings [2” or less caliper
size]. The cutting or clearing of any significant trees beyond the silt fence boundary line,
regardless of variety, is prohibited.
page 160
4. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit
review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16
trees projected for removal under this development plan.
5. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
6. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor
and/or landscape company.
7. A financial security of $5,000 ($2,500 per lot) shall be held by the City to ensure all
grading, tree and vegetation removals, and any new landscaping work is performed
according to plans. The security shall be held a minimum of one-year after construction
work on each home has been completed, to ensure all plantings have been established and
survived at least one growing season.
8. A park dedication fee of $4,000 shall be paid at time of the first building permit submittal.
7. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
8. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
9. Construction of any new residence will require a critical area permit or conditional use
permit be applied for, as necessary
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 1, 2017 meeting,
which starts at 8:00 p.m.
page 161
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 1, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: MnDOT Highway 149 (Dodd Road) Rehabilitation Project and Request for
Municipal Consent – Continuation from June 20, 2017 & July 18, 2017
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to act on a request by Minnesota State Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) regarding Municipal Consent, relating to the acquisition of land for public purposes.
BACKGROUND
MnDOT is planning to rehabilitate State Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) in 2018. As part of
the design process, MnDOT needs to ask for local government approval of any external access
changes to the State facility.
The project is being developed to improve multiple aspects of Highway 149. The pavement
structure will be restored and the ride smoothness increased by resurfacing. Pedestrian safety
and ADA improvements will be made by updating infrastructure to meet current ADA
guidelines. Drainage infrastructure will be improved by repairing or replacing deficient
infrastructure.
DISCUSSION
The Municipal Consent Public Hearing was tabled at the June 20, 2017 City Council meeting to
July 18, 2017 and one affected property owner had questions regarding impact to trees and
slopes on their property. MnDOT has since had further communications with the property
owners, and the owners have emailed the city stating they are satisfied with the proposed
impacts.
The attached Resolutions (2017-56) provide the City Council with three options for acting on the
requested Municipal Consent. Council may:
- Approve Municipal Consent,
- Waive Municipal Consent, or
- Disapprove Municipal Consent.
-
Approving Municipal Consent is self-explanatory. Waiving Municipal Consent is essentially a
“non-objection,” or a “non-disapproval” of the proposed layout. Disapproving Municipal
page 162
Consent says the City disapproves of the layout and MnDOT would have three courses of action
as outlined in the attached Statutes 161.162 - 161.167.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve Municipal Consent by adopting the Resolution approving
Municipal Consent for the TH 149 rehabilitation project.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to act on the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting
Resolution 2017-56,
RESOLUTION APPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE MNDOT HIGHWAY
149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT.
If Council wishes to take a different action, pass a motion adopting another variation of 2017-56,
meaning either:
Resolution 2017-56, RESOLUTION WAIVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE
MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT,
or
Resolution 2017-56, RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR
THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT LAYOUT.
Any of these actions require a simple majority vote.
page 163
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-56
RESOLUTION APPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR
THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for State
Project 1917-45 on Trunk Highway 149, from I494 to Delaware Ave. within the City of Mendota
Heights for pavement, drainage and ADA improvements; and seeks the approval thereof, as
described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167; and
WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Metro District Minnesota Department of
Transportation office, Roseville, Minnesota, being marked as Layout No. 1 and 1A, S.P. 1917-
45, from R.P. 4+00.149 to 8+00.468.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layout for the improvement
of said Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this First day of August, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 164
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-56
RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR
THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for State
Project 1917-45 on Trunk Highway 149, from I494 to Delaware Ave. within the City of Mendota
Heights for pavement, drainage and ADA improvements; and seeks the approval thereof, as
described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167; and
WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Metro District Minnesota Department of
Transportation office, Roseville, Minnesota, being marked as Layout No. 1 and 1A, S.P. 1917-
45, from R.P. 4+00.149 to 8+00.468; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes the Commissioner of
Transportation’s right to appeal a disapproval decision to an appeals panel as described in
Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council disapproves
municipal consent, described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167, of the final layout for SP
1917-45 for the improvement of said Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) within the corporate
limits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this First day of August, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 165
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-56
RESOLUTION WAIVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR
THE MNDOT HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHBILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for State
Project 1917-45 on Trunk Highway 149, from I494 to Delaware Ave. within the City of Mendota
Heights for pavement, drainage and ADA improvements; and seeks the approval thereof, as
described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167; and
WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Metro District Minnesota Department of
Transportation office, Roseville, Minnesota, being marked as Layout No. 1 and 1A, S.P. 1917-
45, from R.P. 4+00.149 to 8+00.468; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council waives the municipal
consent approval action, described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167, of the final layout
for SP 1917-45 for the improvement of said Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) within the
corporate limits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this First day of August, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 166