2018-04-03 Council packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 3, 2018 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of March 20 , 20 18 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge the February 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c. Approve Purchase of Installation Enhanced Visibility Pedestrian Crossing Signs
d. Approve No Loss Determination for the Ivy Hills Park Pond
e. Approve Resolution 2018-26 Final Payment and Acceptance of the 2017 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Project
f. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Electronic Pollbooks
g. Approve Ordinance 521 Moratorium on Massage Establishment and Therapist Licenses
h. Approve Resolution 2018-28 Supporting Dakota County Request for State Bond Funding
for the Safety and Mental Health Alternative Response Training Center
i. Approve Training Request for the Police Department
j. Update on the City’s 2017-18 Goals
k. Acknowledge February 2018 Fire Synopsis
l. Approval of February 2018 Treasurer’s Report
m. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations - none
8. Public Hearing - none
9.New and Unfinished Business
a.Resolution2018-29Approving an Amendment to the Final Development Plan –AND –
Accepting Findings and Recommendations from the Planning Commission Regarding the
Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (Ref. Planning Case No. 2018-
09)
10.Community Announcements
11.Council Comments
12.Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda
provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the
agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person
and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the
City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to
make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not
enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as
a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the
citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the
issues raised.”
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, March 20, 2018
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. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also
present. Councilor Duggan was absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution
of any necessary documents.
a. Approval of March 6, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy, April 20-21, 2018
c. Award Bid for 2018 Street Sweeping
d. Approval of Out of State Travel – Fire Department
e. Approval of Training – Police Department
f. Approval of Ordinance 520 – Water Availability Charge
g. Approval of Part -Time Receptionist Hire
h. Approve February 2018 Building Activity Report
i. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
page 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
A) TOBACCO FREE ALLIANCE REGARDING FLAVORED TOBACCO
City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced Ms. Mary Montagne, Health Promotions Supervisor for
the Dakota County Public Health Department. Ms. Montagne began her presentation by sharing that
Mendota Heights was one of the first cities in Dakota County to pass a policy for tobacco-free city
parks. She has also worked on smoke-free hotels/motels, voluntary smoke-free homes and cars, and is
currently working on smoke-free apartments. She continued by stating that tobacco is still the number
one cause of death and disease in Minnesota and in America.
Ms. Montagne shared results from the 2017 Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey. She stated that tobacco
kills more Minnesotans than alcohol, illegal drugs, homicides, suicides, car accidents, and aids all
combined. It is a contributing factor for heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
She stated that the main concern now is the increase in youth tobacco use, mainly caused by a huge
increase in flavored tobacco products and non-cigarettes on the market. This puts a new generation of
kids at risk for nicotine addiction and serious health harms that result from tobacco use. Youth cigarette
use in Minnesota is at its highest point ever recorded. More than 1 in 4 high school students use tobacco
products, and 1 in 5 Minnesota high school students use e-cigarettes. This is nearly a 50% increase
since 2014. More than 10% of Minnesota high school students use cigars or cigarillos, which is nearly a
30% increase from 2014.
Electronic cigarettes and these types of cigars are almost always flavored. Evidence suggests that youth
who have tried e-cigarettes are twice as likely to start smoking later on as those who have never tried
them. Nearly all e-cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine primes the brain for further addiction, not only
to tobacco products. Preventing children from becoming addicted to nicotine is critical for reducing the
harm caused by tobacco products.
Students from Henry Sibley High School and members of ALMAS provided information on flavored
tobacco products and encouraged the City Council to restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products. They
shared images of flavored tobacco products and how they mimic popular candy wrappers and boxes.
Flavored tobacco products include cigars, chewing tobacco, blunt wraps, electronic cigarettes, and
shisha (the tobacco used in hookah). This is how the tobacco industry circumvents the 2009 ban of
flavored cigarettes. Common flavors used are chocolate, piña colada, apple, grape, berry, cotton candy,
bubble gum, and menthol. Note: menthol is not one of the banned flavors for cigarettes. The 2009 ruling
by the FDA ban does not prevent local communities from restricting the sale of flavored tobacco
products within their jurisdiction.
page 4
Councilor Paper asked what ALMAS stands for and what they do. She was informed that ALMAS
stands for “Anglos and Latinos Motivated to Succeed” and they participate in community work,
volunteering, and helping out with events. Community is important to them. There are approximately 50
members at Henry Sibley High School and they meet three times per week.
Councilor Paper noted that until he met with Mr. Hansen he never knew about flavored tobacco
products.
Councilor Miller noted that he was a student of Mr. Hansen’s and he encouraged students to get
involved with the ALMAS group. Bringing this concern to the Council is paramount, and the next step
is deciding if the Council should do something.
Councilor Petschel commended all of the students for their presentation and the work they put into it and
for being so well spoken. She recommended that the Council hold a workshop on this topic. The Council
would keep the student group in the loop on what the city is able to accomplish.
Councilor Petschel explained that there is a bi-partisan attempt in the legislature to raise the smoking age
to 21. She suggested that would be a wonderful thing for these students to get involved with. Students
have very powerful voices these days.
Mayor Garlock echoed the comments made by the Councilors and asked City Administrator Mark
McNeill to get this topic on a workshop agenda as soon as possible. The Council decided to discuss this
at an upcoming work session.
B) ISD 197 SCHOOL REFERENDUM PRESENTATION
City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced Superintendent of Schools Peter Olson-Skoog to present
on the upcoming May 8th Bond referendum for ISD 197.
Mr. Olson-Skoog noted the passing of this Bond referendum is supported by the community as the work
would impact the academics, arts, athletic s programs, along with the community.
The referendum would ask the voters to support the building bonds for school additions, renovations,
and repairs. This is the result of an 18 month study conducted by a facilities task force.
More specifically, the bond proceeds would be used for updating building and mechanical maintenance,
modernize outdated classroom and educational spaces, improve the fine arts and athletics spaces, and
address school parking lot safety and handicap accessibility.
The average age of the school buildings is 50 years, and there are thousands of non-school day events
that take place in them each year.
Approximately 42% of the funds being requested are for ‘behind-the-scene’ repairs such as tuck
pointing of brick, improving the lighting, plumbing, boilers, and mechanical systems, and additions or
renovations to all of the buildings and in all of the areas of academics, fine arts, and athletics.
page 5
More specific projects include altering the kindergarten classrooms and adding bathrooms, parking lots,
cafeteria and gyms – to have both in a facility rather than using the gym area as a cafeteria, enhance the
music and science areas, invest in a swimming pool to minimize transportation costs, turf field and track
– currently using Matson Field at Heritage Middle School, and multi-purpose athletic space addition.
The Superintendent said that the total school property taxes that are payable in 2017 on a home with an
estimated market value of $200,000, is on average $742/year. ISD 197 ranks 3rd from the bottom out of
the 40 metro area school districts in terms of the amount of school property taxes.
He said that there are many reasons why residents move to Mendota Heights, one of which is the
excellent school system, but also because of the low taxes.
The polling sites will open on May 8 th at 7:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m. Polling locations are Friendly
Hills, Pilot Knob, Heritage, Henry Sibley, and St. Stephen’s Church. Additional voting information can
be found at www.mnvotes.org or at the school district ’s website at www.isd197.org/about/bond.
Councilor Petschel asked what the total amount of the proposed referendum is. Mr. Olson-Skoog replied
that the amount is $117 million.
Councilor Paper asked how many people were reached with the school’s survey and ho w was it
completed? Mr. Olson-Skoog replied that they did a representative survey until the company completing
the survey got to +/-5% confidence in the vote. That is typically 500 – 600 residents that they call on a
random sampling.
No action was taken by the Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS AT ROGERS LAKE SKATE PARK
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that in 2003, the City converted the tennis court at Rogers
Lake Park into the skate park facility by adding some on-grade ramps and other structures that were
purchased. The equipment is now nearing 15 years in age with little maintenance completed at the
facility. The skating surface is the original tennis court surface that was constructed in the mid-1970’s.
Three requests for quotes were sent to companies that are known to do this type of work. Only o ne quote
was received back, that from Actio n Sports of Minnesota, Inc. It proposed replacing a number of the
boards, much of the metal on the ramps and grinding surfaces, skim patching some of the surface cracks
and grinding down high areas, and replacing worn or rotted surface boards and support boards.
page 6
Staff requested the Council award the contract to Action Sports of MN, Inc. in the not -to-exceed amount
of $10,000.
Mayor Garlock asked if some of the equipment is currently unsafe. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff has not
received any direct calls from park users on the condition of the eq uipment; however, t he inspection by
the contractor stated there were potential problems.
Councilor Miller, in reference to the maintenance work, asked if most of the work needed is due to
heavy use, or wear and tear, or intentional acts. Mr. Ruzek replied that most of the repairs are due to the
use of the equipment. The park is being used heavily although wood being out in the weather conditions
does shorten its lifespan. He has not received any vandalism repair requests.
Councilor Paper asked if the contractor would address a rail slide or curb slide. Mr. Ruzek replied that
there are rails specifically for that purpose, and it is his understanding that all of the equipment would be
brought back up to its original standards.
Councilor Paper, in reference to the $1,500 contingency for unforeseen conditions, asked what those
unforeseen conditions could be. Mr. Ruzek replied that it may be just overhead costs.
Councilor Paper asked if the trees a long the fence could be cut back to have a better view of the skate
park from Wagon Wheel. Mr. Ruzek stated that staff could take care of that.
Mayor Garlock moved to authorize staff to issue a purchase order to Action Sports of MN, Inc. in the
amount of $10,000 for repairs at the Rogers Lake Skate Park.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1
B) SET MEETING DATE FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARKS -RECREATION
COMMISSION WORK SESSION
City Ad ministrator Mark McNeill stat ed that the Parks and Recreation Commission had held a workshop
meeting on March 1 st, where they looked at a number of capital projects that are needed or are desired
for the Parks and Recreation Department . The Commission also discussed natural resources. A joint
meeting of the City Council and the Commission to discuss the projects is recommended. Staff
recommended a meeting date be set for Wednesday, May 9, at 5:30 p.m. The Council concurred.
The Council also discussed holding a Council Work Session to discuss Flavored Tobacco sales. The
Council set the date for this work session for Tuesday, April 3, at 5:30 pm.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill had no community announcements.
page 7
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Petschel noted of a news piece on KSTP regarding Mr. Mark Westlake, a long-time science
teacher at St. Thomas Academy, who had been recently honored as being the National Space Teacher of
the Year.
Mayor Garlock gave a special thank you to a long-time supporter of the Mendota Heights 5K and Special
Olympics, Mr. Bob Brackey. He had made an additional contribution of $2,000 for Special Olympics and
a 55-inch television for the 2018 5K.
Councilor Miller echoed Mayor Garlock’s comments. He also stated he was pleased that the Council
would be having a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission, in part to address the city’s
natural resources needs.
Councilor Paper expressed his appreciation to ALMAS for their presentation on flavored tobacco and to
Mr. Peter Olson-Skoog for sharing the information on the bond referendum. He wished good luck to two
local high schools at the State Basketball Tournament – Minnehaha Academy and St. Thomas Academy.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 8
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
27, 2018 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 , Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None
City staff present were: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Community Development
Director Tim Benetti.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
COMMISSIONER NOONAN NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAZZITELLO, TO APPOINT MR. LITTON FIELD, JR. AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR 2018.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
NOONAN, TO APPOINT MS. MARY MAGNUSON AS THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Approval of January 23, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2018 AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 9
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-03
CHRIS ROBICHAUD, 1991 HUNTER LANE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a Critical Area
Permit to construct a 20’ x 21’ two car garage addition to an existing attached garage structure. As
the property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor, a Critical Area Permit is required.
This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located
within 350 feet of the subject parcel, located at 1991 Hunter Lane. One phone call was received;
however, staff was unable to contact that caller.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial image of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding
street and properties. The property is 0.61 acres in size and currently has a 2,240 square foot single
family dwelling. The residence sits well beyond the setback requirements and the proposed
attached to the garage would not cause the need for a variance from those setback requirements.
The proposed new garage addition would be constructed of very similar brick material as the
existing home and garage but would be recessed slightly behind the existing 2-car attached garage.
The city’s ordinance allows for an attached garage up to 1,200 square feet. The addition of this
new garage space would make their total 969 square feet, well within the ordinance limitations.
Mr. Benetti shared City Code Title 12-3-2, which outlined the purpose and intent of the Critical
Area Overlay District. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition would comply
with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application
request and they had no objections.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Mr. John “Chris” Robichaud came forward to provide comment and answer questions from the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Noonan commented that he thought it was very helpful to have the proposed
elevation that was provided by the applicant.
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.
page 10
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-03, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT,
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical
Area.
3. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area.
4. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards
and regulations of the zoning ordinance.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. 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.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established
and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2018-04
SHIRLEY HETHERINGTON, 2144 THERESA STREET
VARIANCE REQUEST
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a Variance Request to build
an addition to an existing two car attached garage, which would encroach approximately three feet
into the 10-foot side-yard setback standard.
This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located
within 350 feet of the subject parcel. A mini-petition was also included in the Commission
materials.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding streets
and properties. The property consists of 0.24 acres of land with a 2,190 square foot, two-story
page 11
single family dwelling. The existing two-car garage is approximately 528 square feet with a
concrete driveway apron and the proposed addition would not exceed the square foot maximum
for an attached garage as outlined in the zoning ordinance.
As indicated in the materials, this garage addition would be approximately 18 feet from an existing
three-season porch on the southern neighboring residence, the house to the north is also
approximately 30 feet away from the garage addition – a very good separate from the proposed
garage addition.
Mr. Benetti provided an explanation of the findings or determinations that should be met to allow
a variance and explained how this request met those standards.
Mr. Benetti noted that, as a planner, he really enjoys seeing the full support of a neighborhood like
this. According to the survey provided to the surrounding residents, they all seem to be in favor of
this request and the mini-petition also supported it.
Staff recommended approval of this request.
Commissioner Toth, noting a downspout on the side of the existing garage, asked if there would
be any drainage issues with the new addition. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not believe there
would be because there is currently pretty good drainage between the two properties now and
because of the separation of the two properties he did not believe it would be an issue.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if staff had explored with the applicant any other construction
plans that might reduce the encroachment. Mr. Benetti replied that they looked at doing a tandem
style garage as part of the expanded use; however, more and more people want the three-car garage
for the usability and the availability. He deferred any other comments to the applicant.
Commissioner Noonan asked for an expansion on the analysis with practical difficulties. What the
applicant wants and what is convenient may not meet the test of ‘practical difficulties’. Mr. Benetti
replied that the terminology ‘practical difficulties’ can be very subjective. Looking at this from a
development standpoint, would it be reasonable to put on a 9-foot addition to make the garage
work. They could have just expanded this garage for additional space without being able to pull in
a car. The practical difficult y comes into play when trying to add a third stall, which most people
would love to have and want. Is that really a practical difficulty – no. However, if this is something
that the applicant feels is necessary to get that extra space or make the house a little more
marketable or saleable in the future, adding on that 9-foot space may not meet the practical
difficulties test; however, Mr. Benetti still felt that this is a reasonable case.
Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that an applicant does not have to show hardship. Mr.
Benetti confirmed that this has been changed in the ordinance and an owner no longer has to show
‘hardship’ under the State law to obtain a variance. It is a ‘reasonable’ test instead of a ‘hardship’
case.
page 12
Chair Field, noting that Mr. Benetti was favorability disposed of the petition with all of the
neighbors supporting it, asked what his opinion would have been if two of the neighbors did not
sign. Mr. Benetti replied that he still would have recommended approval.
Ms. Shirley Hetherington, her son-in-law Dr. Bill Simonet, and her daughter Katie Hetherington
came forward to address the Commission. Dr. Simonet explained that the proposal is to keep the
existing 16-foot garage door, steal two feet from the four foot wide wall on the side of the garage
– keeping the two-foot separation needed for the door to function. The new garage door would be
nine feet wide with a two-foot separation on the end; totaling an 11-foot addition. They looked at
every possible way to not encroach on the setback and found that there was not room to have a
standard 9-foot garage door without encroaching a bit.
Commissioner Noonan asked how they were proposing to use the additional garage bay. Dr.
Simonet replied that it would be used for storage and his mother-in-law wishes to improve her
property value for resale.
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 CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING
CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Construction of the proposed garage addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a
reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a
reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in
compliance with all other applicable codes.
3. The garage addition on the existing single-family dwelling is considered a reasonable
request and use of the property.
4. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which
will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
5. Granting of the variance is made in accordance with the standards as indicated under the
City Code.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3-feet into the
required side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the
application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2018-
04).
page 13
2. The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and
design of the existing garage and residential dwelling.
3. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
4. 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.
5. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building
permit for construction of the proposed garage addition.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a ‘practical difficulty’ in proposing a reduced setback
Discussion
Commissioner Toth asked if there was a good definition of ‘practical difficulty’. Intuitively this
does not feel like a practical difficulty; however, he could be wrong. He continued by asking what
would be the purpose of any setback rules if people come in and they are very charming and they
have the support of their neighbors; and they wanted to go up to the property line, would the
Commission just say yes. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative stating that this is not the case.
Variances should always be weighed on what they present and stand on their own individual merits
and tests. In this case, if he felt that a 7-foot setback was going to be detrimental to the
neighborhood he would not have recommended it. He can see where it would probably be
concerning if the property next door had a reduced setback. In retrospect, when looking at the
setback shown on the shared image, the neighbor is approximately 18 feet away on one side and
30 feet away on the other – there really is not an issue for him. He did agree that ‘practical
difficulty’ is a very wishy-washy standard to really apply a variance on. However, this is what the
city uses. Staff defers to the Commission to decide if this was reasonable and were practical
difficulties met in establishing this need for a variance.
Commissioner Noonan commented that in the past, when the Commission has wrestled with
practical difficulties, certain things have jumped out. For instance, an awkwardly aligned lot line,
topography, unusual site conditions, etc. That met the definition fairly easily. In terms of the
exhibit shared, to suggest that the city felt comfortable with that because there is a 30-foot
separation between the proposed building face and the neighbor, or 18-foot – it sort of transfers
the proof onto the adjoining property. There is no guarantee that the 30-foot could not be filled in.
That would change the feel of the situation. Zoning ordinances are established for a certain purpose
and the standards in there are to be followed to the greatest extent possible. To simply say that we
feel comfortable with reducing the 10-foot setback, which is the minimum in the City of Mendota
Heights, to seven feet because of the separation with the neighbors just does not feel right. He
page 14
believed they were throwing the sanctity of the zoning ordinance out for a matter of convenience
and a want.
Commissioner Noonan continued by saying that the other practical difficulty, and he was not
buying it, is the lot has certain dimensions; and there is so much that can be done on a lot. In many
cases individuals make have a desire to do more; however, a person can only do so much on a lot
in line of the setback requirements. When asked what they wanted to do with the extra space two
answers were given. One was for storage – if storage is truly what is needed then punch it out the
back of the existing garage. For the desire to seek a variance to enhance the property value, he was
not sure that would meet the test.
He felt quite strongly that if the Commission goes down the road of being very liberal with respect
to the definition of ‘practical difficulties’, the slope gets very steep and very slippery very quickly.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he looks at this in a very different way. Having seen many of
these cases in the past, it is sort of the unofficial standard of Mendota Heights for 100-foot lots to
have three-stall garages. It is not codified, but it is sort of the unofficial standard. So they look at
what the practical difficulty may be that is not caused by the property owner. He then asked for a
site plan for the whole site, showing the south end of the house as well. It is not built to the setback
line. If the house had been built further to the south they would not need the variance. Had the
house been shifted three feet to the south when it was constructed, they would not need the variance
for the third stall. Therefore, there is a practical difficulty not caused by the owner in the placement
of the house on the lot.
Commissioner Toth stated, understanding both comments, he has a hard time accepting Mr.
Mazzitello’s explanation on how he came up with the numbers. The City may have that situation
in many, many homes within Mendota Heights and many homes in the same situation that have a
two -car garage, 10-foot right -of-way, and now they want to go bigger. He was afraid, due to the
applicant’s comments on storage and to increase the value of the home, the Commission may be
going down the wrong road with many applicants coming forward and opening up a big can of
worms.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she agreed with everything that Commissioner Noonan had
said. She liked Commissioner Mazzitello’s argument; however, it just did not do it for her. In her
6.5 years on the Planning Commission they have grappled a lot with these variance and have
actually denied garage variances with far less space involved. At least to date, the Commission has
always defined practical difficulties in the way Commissioner Noonan has defined them – there
has to be something unique about the property that makes it practically difficult to comply with
the code. It has always been topography, a unique lot line, or positioning that has made it difficult
to comply with the code. She does not see that here. She would be open for the applicant to come
back with another application that somehow could meet the standards or some tweaking that would
potentially arrive at where they want to go that meets the practical difficulty standard. However,
the Commission has been pretty consistently hard and fast on what constitutes practical difficulty.
She agreed that if the Commission allowed this to happen they would be opening the floodgates
to anybody coming in a saying ‘I want to have this’ rather than coming in saying ‘we cannot
page 15
comply with the code because there is something unique about our property that does not allow us
to’.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2018-05
LANDFORM / MCDONALD’S, 2020 DODD ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this application was for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Wetlands Permit to remodel and construct a new small building
addition to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the
existing use and any subsequent improvements in the B-4 Shopping Center business district and
the Wetlands Permit is required for any work conducted within 100 feet of the Ordinary High
Water level of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature.
This item was presented as a public hearing item; a notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer
Press newspaper and notices were mailed to all owners located within 350 feet of the subject
parcel. No objections or comments were received.
This facility is located on a 2.26 acre site adjacent to the Mendota Heights Plaza shopping center;
however, it actually not officially part of the overall Plaza Planned Unit Development and is not
subject to the overall requirements of the MU-PUD zoning of the Plaza. Surrounding businesses
include the BP Gas/Mendota Heights Auto Service station, Walgreen’s/Plaza Center, and the
Reserves Apartments. The main access point to the restaurant is from the Plaza shopping center,
just off of Dodd Road.
The building has a very dated look and the plans basically include the re-skinning the whole
building, taking out the roof structure and replacing it with a flat-style roof; which appears to be
consistent with the other newly remodeled McDonald’s restaurants throughout the metro area. The
general placement of the building is not significantly changing under this updated (new) CUP plan.
They do plan a small addition on east end to install a new cooler and freezer. All parking is
remaining the same except some reconstructed areas along the front edge for handicap parking.
Materials in the packet included an explanation of how the subject property is compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. The analysis of the Conditional Use Permit included the Building Design
and Construction, Landscaping, Off-street Parking, Lighting, Signage, and Conditional Use Permit
Standards. The Wetlands Permit analysis shared the purpose of the Wetlands Permit and explained
that this proposed work has very little, if any, impacts to the nearby wetland/water feature and
there are no plans showing major disturbances outside the parking lot areas.
page 16
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application
request and they had no objections.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Noonan, referring to Condition #5 which reads “McDonald’s shall provide
staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the
easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment
development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff”, noted that the
applicant had mentioned the difficulties with a staggered row of new trees and asked if that
condition would be updated to be “. . . shall provide a row of new trees and plantings., , ,”, which
Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked if Condition #5 would be necessary
given Condition #6 (A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for
review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan
to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions). Mr. Benetti confirmed that they could
remove Co ndition #5 and simply go with Condition #6.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the noise complaints about the drive-thru order box came from
residents. Mr. Benetti replied that these types of complaints often emanate from these types of
uses, not from this particular site. He has not received any complaints specific to this site.
Commissioner Magnuson shared that the Findings of Fact #2, which reads “additional plantings
will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary” can either be removed,
or at least have the ‘if necessary’ deleted. Mr. Benetti agreed that this could be taken out since
there is the requirement to have an approved landscape plan. After discussion it was agreed to
leave the finding #2 in but remove the “if necessary”.
Commissioner Toth, going back to Condition #5 requiring the staggered row of trees, asked if the
plantings were staggered if they would encroach on city property. Mr. Benetti replied that it could
be possible. If the plantings were staggered, he doubted if the city would allow plantings on their
property due to the question of who would maintain the landscaping.
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing page 4 of the staff report, noted that there was a statement
that read “The Planning Commission should make a recommendation or finding that these new
finishes, including the “corrugated metal panels” are acceptable under this CUP review” and if
this is true, then they should include something in the Findings – at least verbally if not in the
written Findings. Mr. Benetti thanked her for the reminder as he had intended to have that reflective
recommendation and recommended it be added as Finding #6 to read “The proposed exterior
treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable”.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any chance that, if trees are planted on the McDonald’s
property, the City would ever be responsible for upkeep. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative.
Mr. Kevin Sha y with Landform Professional Services, representing McDonald’s, expla ined that
he was the one who was talking this morning with Mr. Benetti on this application and was the one
who explained why the staggered row of trees would not work. They look forward to working with
page 17
staff on the landscape plan to make something work with the ordinance. He also confirmed that
the only changes to parking would be the adjustments for ADA handicap accessibility.
Commissioner Toth asked, in the event the single row of trees does not work, what would their
Plan B be. Mr. Shay stated that they are open to many types of trees or plantings in that area;
whatever would work. McDonald’s is committed to doing something along that edge to provide
the screen mentioned by Mr. Benetti.
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 TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B-4
Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and
accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further determined this use
to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with
the following statements of support:
a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and
property;
b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which
should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area;
c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local
business operating since 1978; and
d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities.
2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if
necessary.
3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent
wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project.
4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit
and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
including (but not limited to):
a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the
Wetlands);
b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas.
5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland
areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit.
page 18
6. The proposed exterior treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed
project.
2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the
new exterior colors of the restaurant building.
3. [Unless recommended otherwise by the Planning Commission] In order to facilitate a
reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment;
and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non-conforming status of this fast-food
restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth
dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway,
and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking
spaces.
4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall
be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure,
an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of
90% or more opacity.
5. McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of
coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable
screening from the adjacent apartment development, which planting plan shall be reviewed
and approved by city staff.
6. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and
approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to
ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions.
7. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of
any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site.
8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall 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.
10. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance
standards, as required by City Code.
Discussion
Chair Field added that Title 12-1D addresses several legal non-conformities, the Commission has
made a big enough issue and it is glaring enough that part of him wants to state in the Findings of
Fact that this is a parking arrangement as it relates to the ordinance requirement is a legal non-
conformity.
Commissioner Noonan as the maker of the motion, and Commissioner Magnuson as the second,
approved the addition of #7 to the Findings of Fact as follows:
7. The existing parking on site of 61 parking spaces is recognized as a legal non-conformity.
page 19
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2018-06
PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND
E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07
PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked, since Items D and E were very similar, if
he could present both applications together but have separate motions and decisions. Cha ir Field
stated that as long as Mr. Benetti was very clear on which was which, he had no problems hearing
both items together.
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Mr.
Tim Benetti explained that these requests were for Critical Area Permits (CAP) by Precision
Homes, LLC for properties located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue.
These two properties, at one time, were two separate lots conjointly owned by Mr. Hansen, which
Precision Homes has purchased. The single-family dwelling that was located on the site has been
removed and the two lots have separate addresses, 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224
Wachtler Avenue.
796 Sibley Memorial Highway is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and 1224
Wachtler Avenue is legally described at Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres in
size, as is Lot 7.
In the last Critical Area Permit staff identified that the entire area on the west end of the lot is very
level and flat until one were to get to the back end of it, where it starts to slope up against the bluff
line. Most of the activity that has occurred so far and is scheduled to take place are located where
the previous structure used to stand.
Last year, part of the CAP from the resolution approval in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), staff
identified an initial site plan and future home pad layout. Staff also knew that this was not going
to be the final layout because of the need for two CAP’s for two new lots. As part of that resolution
approval, the applicant has already completed some of the initial site grading work and
tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure.
Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the two properties relative their location to surrounding streets
and properties.
page 20
The new proposed dwelling at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway would irregularly shaped with a
side-loading garage and a single point access, the same one off of Sibley Memorial Highway as
previously. There are no issues with complying with the setback requirements.
The new proposed dwelling at 1224 Wachtler Avenue would be a 4,005 square foot finished area
home (1,797 square feet main floor footprint). They will have access to this property from
Wachtler Avenue and they do have permission from Dakota County since Wachtler Avenue is a
county road. The utilities will also come from Wachtler Avenue. Again, there are no issues with
complying with the setback requirements.
As part of the analyses for these applications, Mr. Benetti explained the standards and provision
for the Critical Area Overlay District, Site Planning Requirements, Development Standards,
Setbacks, Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management, and Surface Water Runoff
Management.
These items were presented as public hearing items and notices were mailed to all residents located
within 350 feet of the subject parcels. In addition, the public hearing notices and application
materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of St. Paul Parks and
Recreation Department, and the City of Lilydale. No additional comments or conditions were
received from any of these agencies.
Staff recommended approval of these applications.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing the property at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, and taking note of
Conditions #3 (The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural
or native stone material) and #5 (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) asked if Condition #5 was a second step to ensure that the
drainage is appropriate and would not cause any impact on the adjacent owner. Mr. Benetti
confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan then noted that a point was made that in the application package staff
looked to the applicant to spell out the architecture and the building materials, yet there is no
recommendation that ties back to the building materials. He then asked if an applicant could come
forward, notwithstanding what was presented, and change the materials and compose something
completely different that the Commission had not seen. Mr. Benetti replied that he would not
recommend a developer, applicant, or builder do that. Commissioner Noonan suggested that a
condition be added that reads as follows: “A building permit application shall be submitted
substantially in accordance with the elevations and the architecture included within the package.”
Mr. Benetti whole heartedly agreed with adding that condition.
Commissioner Magnuson, also referencing the retaining wall, stated that Mr. Benetti said that the
retaining wall should help with the drainage issues and that Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
has looked at it and confirmed that would be the case. She then noted that the only thing in the
Conditions is that the retaining wall should be made of natural or native stone materials. She then
asked if there was some reason that the Commission may want to put in there “and shall provide
page 21
satisfactory water control measures as satisfied by the City Engineer”. At this point, the retaining
wall can be anything as long as it is made of natural stone and does not have to serve any purpose,
at least as currently described. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is the condition about meeting the
meeting the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. These documents have been made
public in both this Critical Area Permit plus the original lot split. He would not approve a grading
plan that does not meet the intent of what Engineering is looking for. However, if the Commission
wanted to add a Condition, he would be OK with that. Commissioner Magnuson stated that as long
as it is covered in the grading plan she would be fine with it.
Chair Field suggested that Conditions #3 and #5 be combined for clarity.
At this point (8:10 pm) - Commissioner Mazzitello, having an excused absence, left the meeting.
Mr. Pavel Bodnar, 10937 – 93rd Avenue in Maple Grove and the owner of Precision Homes, stated
that he spoke with both neighbors on both of the sites and asked them what the problems were
before they came in to see how they could make it better. The neighbor on the Wachtler side said
t hat there was a drainage problem. So their purpose is to level the grade and put up the retaining
wall so their water would not drain into the neighbor’s yard. The neighbor on the Sibley side was
concerned about the height of the new home, but he believes they are good on the height.
Commissioner Toth asked, once the retaining wall is installed, where the water would go. Mr.
Bodnar replied that they would ensure that the water would drain out to the street. They would do
whatever they could to meet the city requirements.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Caruso, 1238 Wachtler Avenue, is located just to the south. He noted that their situation
is that several years ago the previous homeowner illegally brought in approximately 50 to 70 dump
trucks of dirt. He elevated his yard from the front through the mid part of his yard and, as a result,
his yard got flooded. He informed city hall several years ago and they said they would remedy the
situation. In the spring and after rainfalls, they typically have a lake in their yard that is
approximately 12 or 18 inches deep and approximately 150 to 200 long and 60 to 80 feet wide.
Chair Field interjected that the Commission cannot and it is not their job this evening to remedy
whatever a previous owner may or may not have done. Mr. Caruso stated that this is not the current
owner is not guilty of this. However, what really is required – if he is installing a retaining wall it
is almost irrelevant because the retaining wall may be 50 to 100 feet long but the water will go
where it will go. He believes that what is required – and what the city said it was going to do back
then – is to have a ditch dug along the property line so that when the water goes in that it drains to
the street. To do that there needs to be a decrease in elevation so that it slopes to the street.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the city said this would be taken care of;
however, there was never an application submitted by the former owner. Mr. Caruso replied that
the previous owner said he would dig a ditch along the property line, which he dug a ditch and it
did not do anything. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was unfortunate that the former owner
did not do what was necessary. However, Mr. Caruso heard the testimo ny this evening that 1) the
page 22
retaining wall would be installed to intercept some flow coming north to south and redirect it and
2) the City Engineer said that there would be a grading plan provided so that there would be
positive drainage on the site so that it would go from front to back to the street. There is in the
package a survey and engineering plan that shows just that. However, there has not been a detailed
grading plan prepared as of yet.
Chair Field noted that the Commission is only setting the standard, the City Engineer would deal
with the details. However, his concerns have been noted and are part of the record.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-06, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling
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
and related development standards.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted):
1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit
review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
4. 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.
5. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and
materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07
PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
page 23
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-07, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT,
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling
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
and related development standards.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted):
1. The new 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.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native
stone materials.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
5. 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.
6. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and
materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider both of these applications at its March 6,
2018 meeting.
F) PLANNING CASE #2018-08
PATTERSON DENTAL COMPANY AND ST. THOMAS ACADEMY
1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this applicant was for a lot line
adjustment and Variance request. They are asking for a simple lot line adjustment between the two
properties – Patterson Dental Company to the west and Saint Thomas Academy to the east.
Patterson Dental would be deeding over a six foot strip of land to Saint Thomas Academy to help
adjust or provide relief on some encroachment issues.
Based upon this six foot relinquishment to resolve the encroachment issues, Patterson Dental
would require a Variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards.
page 24
Chair Field stated that this sounded like a harmonious clearing up of a long standing case of
adverse possession.
Staff recommended approval of this request.
Ms. Pam Kunkel of St. Thomas Academy came forward but had nothing to add to the staff report.
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 MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-08, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
VARIANCE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the
City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared
property boundary line between two separate property owners.
3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this
encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title
work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment
and variance are both appropriate in this case.
4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and
long term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or
necessary in this case.
5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either
property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. The appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County
Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in light of the Commission’s action earlier and the fact that
the Commission is really approving a Variance, she wanted to point out that in this case the
applicant did a very nice job explaining what the practical difficulties were and why this action
would be something that would be appropriate for a Variance. Clearly it would not be practical to
leave bleachers and a variety of other things on Saint Thomas Academy land and she believes that
the fact that the statement from the applicant was included in the packet was very helpful and
provided the Commission with the basis needed to go forward with this as a Variance.
page 25
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec provided the Commission a status update on the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, a copy of one of the chapters that has been formatted more or less in its final
form, as well as a summary of information received from the several community events and the
input received on-line.
There were over 100 comments received online and during community meetings, which were
broken down into the following topic areas:
• Character
• Environment
• Generations
• Location
• Traffic
• Bike/Walk/Bus
• Governance
Key Issues Identified in the Plan:
• Character and Natural Feel
• Commercial/Retail Options
• Development/Redevelopment Sites
• Housing Stock / Need for other kinds of housing
• Vikings Facility
• Airport
• Aging Infrastructure
Discussion occurred and suggestions were made by the Commissioners. No decisions were made
or expected.
Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
• Community Development Director Tim Benetti will have a pre-construction meeting with
the WoodSpring Hotel contractor/developer on Tuesday, March 6
• Construction on The Reserves is wrapping up / still on target to be open sometime in June
or July. Look for open house invitations
• Gemini Medical is wrapping up their building
• Orchard Heights hearing was held in mid-December and staff expects a decision sometime
in the next few weeks. Deadline for the 90-day rule is around March 16, 2018.
page 26
• Hearing was held before Judge Baxter on the Michael Development on the apartments at
the Larson Garden Center and the Mendota Motel site. Mr. Benetti believed it went very
well for the city’s side. As direct result of that hearing, Mr. Michael Swenson will be back
before the Planning Commission in March asking for an amendment to the Final
Development Plan. This would be presented under a public hearing.
• Next Thursday, March 8 in the Council Chambers an Active Master Gardener Group will
be hosting an Invasive Plants seminar to help residents learn how to identify invasive
plants, remove them, and replant them. This is a free workshop from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. No
registration is required.
Chair Field expressed his appreciation to city staff for the fine plowing they did during the most
recent snow events.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:31 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
page 27
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Installation of Enhanced Visibility Pedestrian Crossing Signs – South Plaza Drive
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve a purchase order for the installation of two solar powered, high
visibility pedestrian crossing signs (RRFB).
BACKGROUND
The city has received a number of concerns and close call reports of pedestrian safety at an existing
crosswalk location at South Plaza Drive over TH149 (Dodd Road). The rapid flash studies have
shown an 80% improvement in cars yielding to pedestrians.
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) discussed the issues at their October 9, 2017 meeting. Council
authorized the purchase of two RRFB signs at their October 17, 2018 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Staff was unable to install the signs in fall of 2017 due to a delay in obtaining the required MnDOT
permit and manufacturing of the new devices. The devices have been delivered to Public Works and
are ready to be installed once the frost has receded.
Staff received quotes from two contractors for the installation of these devices. Safety Signs
submitted the low er quote of $5000 for this work. Mid Northern Services submitted a quote of
$9,350. Safety Signs has installed a number of these devices and was recommended by the
manufacturer.
BUDGET IMPACT
This installation is proposed to be funded through the street department general levy and has
adequate funds for this improvement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the purchase order to safety signs for the installation of
the two RRFB enhanced pedestrian crossing signs.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council agrees with the recommendation, it should pass a motion approving a purchase order to
Safety Signs in the amount of $5,000 for the installation of two solar powered, high visibility
pedestrian crossing signs. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 28
page 29
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: No Loss Determination for the Ivy Hills Park Pond
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit application for a No Loss
determination of the Ivy Hills Park Pond.
BACKGROUND
The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A wetland delineation report for the Ivy Hills Park
pond was accepted by City Council at their November 21, 2017 meeting.
The Ivy Hills Park property is a n 8.8-acre parcel in Mendota Heights. The site is located at 645
Butler Avenue. The pond is proposed to be dredged to remove accumulated sediment.
DISCUSSION
The design plans for the Ivy Hills Park Pond Improvement calls for the pond to be restored to its
original design el evations. Because there are no new impacts to the wetland, this application can be
considered a No Loss determination and the project exempt from wetland replacement requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT
None, this process is a judicial requirement of the city. If Council approves the application a Notice
of Decision will be sent to respective agencies (Dakota County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, and Army
Corps of Engineers.)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the No Loss determination of Ivy Hills Park Pond, and direct
staff to issue the Notice of Decision.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion approving the No Loss
determination of Ivy Hills Park Pond and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action
requires a simple majority vote.
page 30
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-26 Final Payment and Acceptance of the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project – Project #201705 COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-26, to accept work and approve the final payment
for project #201705.
BACKGROUND
The City Council awarded the contract to Insituform Technologies at their May 16, 2017, City
Council meeting for their low bid of $430,728.40.
The contract work for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project has been completed, inspected, and
approved. The project is ready for final payment. This will start the one-year guarantee period.
All required paperwork needed before final payment has been submitted.
BUDGET IMPACT
The final payment for this contract is $16,984.20. In November 2017, $322,699.80 was previously
paid on the contract, bringing the total amount for the project to $399,684.00.
That amount is is $31,044.40 below the bid amount based on a reduced scope of work.
There are sufficient funds in the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund to cover the final payment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the attached Resolution No.
2018-26 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR
PROJECT #201705”
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution
No. 2018-26 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL
PAYMENT FOR PROJECT #201705”, by simple majority vote.
page 31
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-26
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT
FOR PROJECT #201705
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Mendota
Heights on May 18, 2017, with Insituform Technologies USA, LLC, of Dallas, Texas,
has satisfactorily completed the improvements for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
Project #201705, in accordance with such contract.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mendota Heights that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted
and approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby
directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of
$16,984.20, in exchange for the contractor’s receipt acknowledging payment in full.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of April,
2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 32
Request for City Council Action DATE: April 3, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: ePollbooks Purchase Authorization
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve a cost share agreement with Dakota County for ePollbooks.
Background
Dakota County applied for and was awarded a grant from the Minnesota Secretary of State to
assist cities with the purchase of electronic pollbooks (ePollbooks) for use at the precincts.
Dakota County agreed to split the remaining cost with the cities 50/50.
Dakota County will purchase the ePollbooks from KnowInk through a state contract on behalf
of all Dakota County cities as outlined in the cost share agreement. Similar to our other election
equipment, the County will own the ePollbooks and provide insurance. The City will keep
possession of the equipment and coordinate ongoing maintenance with Dakota County.
EPollbooks would provide many advantages such as:
- Eliminat ing the need for paper voter rosters at the polling sites
- Improving privacy for registered voters (voter will only see their own information)
- Simplifying the poll workers process
- Improving accuracy with voter names, Election Day registrations, and voter counts
- Improving accuracy with absentee/early voting designations on the roster
- Could reduce the number of elections judges needed at each polling site
- Faster check-in time for the voters is anticipated
Budget Impact
For Mendota Heights, the total purchase price of the ePollbooks would be $ 22,804.60.
The City’s share of the grant funds will cover $ 9,089.97. The remaining $ 13,714.63 will be
split equally between the City and Dakota County.
Mendota Heights’ total share of the cost would be $ 6,857.31. If paid equally over three years,
the annual payment would be approximately $2286. $3500 was budgeted this year for this
anticipated election equipment.
page 33
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the cost share agreement with Dakota County
for the purchase of ePollbooks.
The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a
cost sharing agreement with Dakotas County for the purchase of ePollbooks.
page 34
COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND COUNTY OF DAKOTA FOR
ELECTION ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED
SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Mendota Heights (“City”),
[address], and the County of Dakota (“County”) 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033. City
and County are referred to individually as the “Party” and are collectively referred to as the
“Parties.”
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59, two or more governmental units, by
agreement through action of their governing bodies, may jointly exercise powers common to the
governmental units; and
WHEREAS, under Minnesota law the parties are empowered to purchase, use, and
maintain electronic poll books, also referred to in law as “electronic rosters”; and
WHEREAS, the County is the recipient of grant funds by the State of Minnesota for the
purchase of electronic rosters, subject to a grant match of local funds; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are desirous of cooperating for the purchase and implementation
of an electronic poll book system through the State of Minnesota cooperative purchasing venture
by use of the grant funds and funds by the Parties and other cities in Dakota County who enter
into separate Cost Share Agreements with the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants contained herein
and subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 471.59, the Parties agree as follows:
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the County to purchase an electronic poll book
equipment, software, and related services (collectively, “electronic poll book system”) for use
by the Parties and to establish the obligations of the Parties with respect to their
implementation, use, and maintenance.
II. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, which is the date when all
signatures of the Parties are obtained, and shall remain in full force and effect until the
Expiration Date, which is the date when the Vendor Contract entered into pursuant to Section
III. A. expires, this Agreement is terminated as provided herein or by operation of law,
whichever occurs first.
This agreement may be extended by written mutual agreement of the Parties.
page 35
III. DUTIES OF THE COUNTY
In conformance with the provisions of Minnesota law and, specifically, Minn. Stat. § 16C.03,subd.10, the County will purchase an electronic poll book system through the State
of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture (“CPV”) in consultation with the City.
The electronic poll book system purchase will include vendor-supplied technical maintenance
and regular maintenance and upgrades of the electronic poll book system, for at least five years
from the date of purchase, including assurances of sufficient parts, supplies and accessories,
warranty services, and trade-in allowance for all electronic poll book systems owned by the
Parties.
A. Award of Contract. The final decision on the vendor to whom the contract shall be
awarded will be made by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. The contract
will be awarded to a vendor whose proposal meets all of the standards for electronic
poll book systems required by Minnesota law (“Vendor Contract”) and will be
purchased through the CPV.
B. Purchase and Delivery. The County will enter into the Vendor Contract to purchase
sufficient electronic poll book system devices for the City using funds awarded to the
County in the State of Minnesota Voting Equipment Grant Agreement in the amount
of $260,121.98 (“Grant Funds”) and funds provided by the Parties as provided in
Section IV.C (together, “Purchase Price”). The County will be responsible for the
payment to the vendor pursuant to the Vendor Contract.
C. Invoice. The County will provide to the City a copy of the Vendor Contract and an
invoice for the City Share of the Purchase Price as defined in Section IV.C. In addition,
the County will share with the City its calculations used to determine the City Share
and the City’s pro rata share of the annual maintenance costs, all as defined in Section
IV.C and illustrated in Appendix A, attached hereto.
D. Ownership. The County will own the electronic poll book system purchased pursuant
to this Agreement, regardless of where the electronic poll book system may be stored
or used.
E. Acceptance Testing. The electronic poll book system will be delivered to a County
location for acceptance testing by the Parties.
F. Repairs and Maintenance. The County will arrange for all necessary repairs,
maintenance and upgrades to the electronic poll book system between elections.
When upgrades or other services are to be performed by the County or vendor on any
part of the electronic poll book system, the City must transport the devices to a central
location if requested by the County.
page 36
G. Licenses. The County will obtain all licenses and other rights necessary for the City
to use the election hardware and software for its intended use.
H. Insurance. The County will include the electronic poll book system on its commercial
property casualty insurance coverage.
IV. DUTIES OF THE CITY
A. Testing. The City must provide enough staff to test the electronic poll book system for
its intended use.
B. Storage, Handling and Service. The City must provide safe storage and handling of
the electronic poll book system when such equipment is in the City's possession. City
must transport the devices to and from polling locations. The City must report any
needed hardware and software maintenance, in writing, to the County. Any
electronic poll book system problems on election days may be reported to the County
orally.
C. Payment. The County shall be responsible for the payment of one-half of the Purchase
Price. The other one-half of the Purchase Price shall be paid by all cities participating
in the purchase. Each city’s share of that one-half of the Purchase Price shall be
determined by first calculating that city’s percentage of the total Purchase Price, then
subtracting the same percentage of the grant funds from the city’s total cost (“City
Share”). Attached hereto as Appendix A are Cost Projections and corresponding City
Shares. The County will notify the City of its City Share upon entry into the Vendor
Contract.
Payment by the City to the County will be made in three equal annual installments,
without interest, beginning the first day of the month immediately following delivery
of the electronic poll book system packages to the City (years two and three shall be
on the first day of the month that the first installment was made). The City may
prepay installments at any time without penalty.
The City will pay to the County its pro rata share of the annual maintenance costs for
the electronic poll book system. The City’s pro rata share shall be based on the total
number of electronic poll book system packages purchased under the Vendor
Contract divided by the number of packages purchased for the City’s use. The City
will pay the County within 45 calendar days of receipt of an invoice from the County.
D. Additional Election Hardware and Software. The County will purchase additional
election hardware and software to meet the City's needs in connection with the
addition of voting precincts to the City. The cost of such election hardware and
software will be split equally between the City and the County. The City will pay the
County in a lump sum within 45 days of receipt of an invoice from the County.
page 37
V. INDEMNIFICATION
A. City. The City will defend and indemnify the County, its elected officials, employees,
and agents and hold them harmless from all claims and damages arising out of the
use, transport, storage, handling, or maintenance of the electronic poll book system,
which are attributable to the intentional, willful, or negligent acts or omissions of the
City, its elected officials, employees, or agents.
B. County. The County will defend and indemnify the City, its elected officials,
employees, and agents and hold them harmless from all claims and damages arising
out of the solicitation and award of the Vendor Contract and arising out of the
transport, handling, or storage of the electronic poll books attributable to the
intentional, willful, or negligent acts or omissions of the County, its elected officials,
employees, or agents. The County does not warrant nor does it indemnify the City for
performance of or failure to perform by the Contract Vendor for the electronic poll
book system. Nevertheless, the County will pursue any and all rights it may have
with respect to warranties, when requested by the City or when necessary, to assure
conformance with the intended use of the electronic poll book system.
C. Municipal Tort Claims Act. It is understood and agreed that the provisions of the
Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, and other applicable laws govern
liability arising from the Parties’ acts or omissions. Each Party warrants that it is able
to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or
self-insurance program and that each has minimum coverage consistent with the
liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466. For purposes of determining total
liability for tort damages which may arise from this Agreement, the Parties are to be
considered a single governmental unit.
VI. STATE AUDIT
Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, each Party’s books, records, documents, and accounting
procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the State
and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years
from the Expiration Date of this Agreement.
VII. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES
For purposes of this Agreement, all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained,
or disseminated by the Parties in the performance of this Agreement is subject to the
requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, and its
implementing rules, as well as any other applicable State or Federal laws on data privacy or
security.
Each Party shall provide the other Party with prompt notice of a breach of the security of data
page 38
defined in Minn. Stat. § 13.055, subd. 1(a) or suspected breach of the security of data and shall
assist in remedying such breach. Providing or accepting assistance does not constitute a waiver
of any claim or cause of action for breach of contract.
The Parties shall promptly notify each other when any third-party requests data related to this
Agreement, the electronic poll book system or the Vendor Contract. The Party who originated
the data subject to the request will give the Party receiving the request instructions concerning
the release of the data to the data requester before the data is released.
VIII. VENUE
Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate
court of competent jurisdiction in Dakota County, Minnesota.
IX. TERMINATION
The County will notify the City if its City Share as stated in Appendix A is increased due to
one or more cities’ failure to execute a Cost Sharing Agreement, a change in the amount of
Grant Funds or a change in the Purchase Price. The City will then have ten (10) business day s
from the date of the notification by the County to terminate this Agreement by written notice
to the County. Otherwise, the parties must mutually agree to terminate this Agreement in
writing by the undersigned or their successors.
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any provision of this
Agreement is void, invalid, or unenforceable, it will not affect the validity and
enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement, unless the void, invalid, or
unenforceable provision substantially impairs the value of the entire Agreement with
respect to either Party.
B. Assignment. No Party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior consent of the other Party and an assignment agreement,
approved and executed by all Parties to this Agreement, or their successors in office.
C. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and is not
effective until approved and executed by all Parties to this Agreement, or their
successors in office.
D. Waiver. If any Party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, such failure
does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it.
E. Contract Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements
between the Parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether
written or oral, is binding on any Party.
page 39
F. Compliance with Laws. The Parties shall abide by all Federal, State and local laws,
statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereinafter adopted
pertaining to this Agreement.
XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM
A. City shall distribute electronic pollbooks to precincts in the quantities advised by the
County in each election held in the City through 2020.
B. Devices requiring maintenance must be identified by the City to the County for reporting
to the Contract Vendor within 14 days after an election using the procedure agreed to
with the County.
C. City must conduct testing on all devices prior to deployment.
D. City must follow the County timeline for electronic poll book roster loading and
completed file upload after an election.
E. City must only use the polling place procedures approved by or from the County or the
Minnesota Secretary of State.
F. Electronic poll books are to be utilized for election purposes only, and no other function.
Electronic poll books are not to be used to scan ID cards of registered voters.
G. Voter data of any kind may not be transmitted wirelessly through any
device/network/etc. other than the equipment provided for the electronic poll books.
page 40
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the County have caused this Agreement to be
executed on their behalf.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS:
By: ______________________________ By: _____________________________
Mayor
Name: ___________________________ Date: _________________________
Title:_____________________________ By: _____________________________
City Clerk
Date: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________
Approved as to form:
_________________________________
Assistant County Attorney/Date
File No. KS-17-386
KS-17-386 Cost share for epollbooks.docx
page 41
Appendix A
COST PROJECTIONS*
City
Total cost for
City before
grant applied
City’s
percentage of
total purchase
City’s
percentage of
grant funds
Cost after grant
applied City Share County
Share
Apple Valley $ 81,049.60 12% $ 32,306.57 $ 48,743.03 $ 24,371.51 $ 24,371.51
Burnsville $ 100,384.50 15% $ 40,013.51 $ 60,370.99 $ 30,185.49 $ 30,185.49
Eagan $ 104,929.60 16% $ 41,825.20 $ 63,104.40 $ 31,552.20 $ 31,552.20
Farmington $ 36,199.56 6% $ 14,429.24 $ 21,770.32 $ 10,885.16 $ 10,885.16
Hastings $ 41,209.60 6% $ 16,426.25 $ 24,783.35 $ 12,391.67 $ 12,391.67
Inver Grove Heights $ 58,099.60 9% $ 23,158.65 $ 34,940.95 $ 17,470.48 $ 17,470.48
Lakeville $ 94,444.50 14% $ 37,645.82 $ 56,798.68 $ 28,399.34 $ 28,399.34
Mendota Heights $ 22,804.60 3% $ 9,089.97 $ 13,714.63 $ 6,857.31 $ 6,857.31
Northfield $ 7,834.58 1% $ 3,122.88 $ 4,711.70 $ 2,355.85 $ 2,355.85
Rosemount $ 35,734.59 5% $ 14,243.90 $ 21,490.69 $ 10,745.35 $ 10,745.35
South St Paul $ 36,664.60 6% $ 14,614.60 $ 22,050.00 $ 11,025.00 $ 11,025.00
West St Paul $ 33,229.56 5% $ 13,245.39 $ 19,984.17 $ 9,992.09 $ 9,992.09
*The information in this Appendix A is informational only and based on all cities identified in
the chart executing a Cost Sharing Agreement, the County’s receipt of grant funds in the amount
of $260,121.98 and a total Purchase Price of $643,405.00. If one or more of these factors changes,
the City Share will likely increase.
page 42
Request for City Council Action DATE: April 3, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance 521 Moratorium on Massage Establishments and Therapists licenses COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 521, placing a moratorium on additional massage
establishments and massage therapist licenses in the City.
Background
The City’s current regulations for Therapeutic Massage Enterprises were adopted in 2010 and are out of
date. Adoption of an interim ordinance (more commonly known as a moratorium) will allow the city to
study this issue without the pressure of time generated by pending applications. Cities must follow the
procedures established in Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4(a) to initiate a moratorium.
Cities must initiate a moratorium by adopting an ordinance (interim ordinance). The interim ordinance
may regulate, restrict, or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the city or a portion of the
city for a period not to exceed one year from the effective date of the ordinance. An interim ordinance
may only be adopted where the city:
• Is conducting studies on the issue.
• Has authorized a study to be conducted.
• Has held or scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a
comprehensive plan or other official controls, including the zoning code, subdivision controls,
site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps.
The legal justification for the interim ordinance should be stated in the findings of fact when the ordinance
is adopted.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance 521 An Interim Ordinance Placing A
Temporary Moratorium On Massage Estab lishments And Massage Therapists Licenses In The City
And Directing A Study To Be Conducted.
Note that state law requires a 10 day notification periods for the adoption of new ordinances. However,
interim ordinances are exempt from this provision.
page 43
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt the following Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 521
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE THERAPISTS LICENSES
IN THE CITY AND DIRECTING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED
page 44
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 521
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE THERAPISTS LICENSES
IN THE CITY AND DIRECTING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has previously determined that sexually oriented
businesses cause secondary effects that are detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare
of the citizens of the City of Mendota Heights; and,
WHEREAS, the Cit y’s comprehensive plan, zoning, licensing, and development regulations
may not adequately address various impacts to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare
that adult massage parlor businesses present; and,
WHEREAS, to provide for adequate time for study, analysis, and the finalization of a city code
amendments regarding massage parlor businesses and to preserve the status quo within the City, the
City desires to enact a temporary prohibition on the applications for and the issuance of per mits and
licenses for massage establishments.
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. THE FOLLOWING MORATORIUM ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED:
PURPOSE.
1.1 The purpose of this interim ordinance is to protect the planning process and the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Mendota Heights by placing temporary moratorium requirements
on massage establishments within the City. The ordinance will allo w the City to complete a
comprehensive study and enact permanent zoning and licensing regulations relating to massage
establishments. This ordinance does not have the effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the
content of any communicative materials.
FINDINGS.
2.1 Studies conducted by the Minnesota Attorney General and the Texas City Attorneys’
Association, as well as the Cities of St. Paul, Alexandria, and Rochester, Minnesota; Indianapolis,
Indiana; Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; St. Croix County, Wisconsin;
Adams County and the City of Denver, Colorado, have examined the impact that adult establishments
have on their respective communities. These studies concluded that adult establishments have an
adverse impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Those impacts include increased crime rates, lower
property values, increased transiency, neighborhood blight and potential health risks. The City Council
of the City of Mendota Heights recognizes that the same or similar adverse impacts could occur in a
page 45
smaller city. Therefore, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the need to regulate
adult establishments and massage establishments.
a) Adult uses have an impact on the neighborhoods surrounding them, which is
distinct from the impact caused by other commercial uses;
b) Studies of other cities have shown that the values of both commercial and
residential properties either are diminished or fail to appreciate at the rate of other comparable properties
when located in proximity to adult uses.
2.2 The City Council is also concerned that the City’s zoning and licensing regulations may
be inadequate to accomplish the purpose for which they were intended.
2.3 In addition to the proper zoning classifications of such uses there are a number of
significant planning and land use issues pertaining to the regulation of such uses, including the
following:
a) The particular districts in which such uses shall be allowed as permitted uses;
b) The concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods;
and,
c) The effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area.
2.4 There is a need for a study to be conducted so that the City, as part of its planning
process, can adopt comprehensive land use and zoning regulations pertaining to adult uses.
2.5 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, sub. 4, permit the adoption of interim zoning
ordinances during the planning process.
DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings given below:
3.1 Adult Use – Massage Parlor; Health Club: A massage parlor or health club that provides
the services of massage, if such service is distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on Specific
Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING STUDY; MORATORIUM.
4.1 A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff to determine how massage
establishments should be regulated within the City. The scope of the study should include, but is not
limited to, the following:
a) The particular zoning districts in which massage establishments should be
allowed as permitted uses;
page 46
b) The density and concentration of such uses; and,
c) The effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area; and,
d) The appropriate licensing requirements.
4.2 Upon completion of the study, the matter is to be considered by the planning
commission for its review and recommendation to the city council.
4.3 Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City’s official
controls, a moratorium is established on the issuance of any development approvals, including but not
limited to preliminary plats, re-zonings, variances, conditional use permits, site places, or licenses.
4.4 This ordinance will be effective for a period of twelve (12) months after its effective
date.
ENFORCEMENT.
5.1 Violation of any portion of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment for up to 90 days and a fine of $1,000.00 or both, plus the costs of prosecution. Each day
that a violation occurs shall be considered a separate offense.
5.2 The City may enforce any provision of this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or any
other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
SEPARABILITY.
6.1 Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every
section, provision or part of this ordinance. If any section, provision, or part of this ordinance is
adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not invalidate any other
section, provision, or part of this ordinance.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 3rd day of April, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_______________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 47
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-28 Supporting the Dakota County Request for State Bond
Funding for the Safety and Mental Health Alternative Response Training Center
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-28 supporting the Dakota County Bonding
Request for the Safety and Mental Health Alternative Response Training (SMART) Center.
BACKGROUND
In recent years, the demands and roles of police and other first responders have changed as the
number of crisis calls increased. Crisis calls can be volatile and dangerous to the responding
officer, the individual making the call, and the public. It is paramount that first responders are
provided with the awareness to recognize when a person is in crisis and the tools to bring the
situation to a safe resolution. As we learn about mental health, substance abuse, and other
conditions that can lead to frequent high risk interactions with officers, we recognize how critical
the training is to achieving positive outcomes.
DISCUSSION
In 2017, a new law was passed that added three training areas to the continuing education
requirement for licensed peace officers. Those three areas are: crisis intervention and mental
illness crises; conflict management and mediation; and recognizing and valuing community
diversity and cultural differences to include implicit bias. One of the leading providers of crisis
intervention and mental illness crisis training is the nonprofit Minnesota Crisis Intervention
Team (MN CIT). Currently, MN CIT does not have a permanent location.
Dakota County has requested state bond funding of $6.6 million to assist in the construct ion of a
35,000-square-foot facility in Inver Grove Heights that would house a training space for MN
CIT, as well as the Dakota County Electronics Crimes Unit, the Dakota County Drug Task
Force, the Dakota County Criminal Justice Network, and the Sheriff’s Water Rescue and
Recover Fleet. In addition to the state bond funding, Dakota County has budgeted an additional
$6.6 million for a total project cost of $13.2 million.
page 48
BUDGET IMPACT
Request is for $6.6 million is state bond funding, with no direct impact on the Mendota Heights
budget.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an important issue for Dakota County. Therefore, staff recommends that Council approve
Resolution 2018-28, Supporting the Dakota County Request for State Bond Funding for the
Safety and Mental Health Alternative Response Training Center.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to support the Dakota County request for state bond funding, they should adopt
the attached Resolution of support, RESOLUTION 2018-28, A RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING THE DAKOTA REQUEST FOR STATE BOND FUNDING FOR THE
SAFETY AND MENTAL HEALTH ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING CENTER.
Adoption of this Resolution would require a simple majority vote.
page 49
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-28
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DAKOTA REQUEST FOR STATE BOND
FUNDING FOR THE SAFETY AND MENTAL HEALTH ALTERNATIVE
RESPONSE TRAINING CENTER.
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights values the cooperative working relationship it
has with Dakota County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendot a Heights supports peace officer training to better serve
all of our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is also supportive of a centrally-located
regional hub for law enforcement officers to receive state-mandated crisis intervention training.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota supports the efforts of Dakota County to receive state bond funding to
construct the Safety and Mental Health Alternative Response Training Center.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of April, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Mayor, Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager
SUBJECT: Out of Metro Travel
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
City policy requires notification for out of state travel. By policy, the Council is also required to
approve out of metro area travel in excess of $1000.
BACKGROUND:
Chief Kelly McCarthy and Captain Wayne Wegener are registered to attend the Minnesota
Chiefs of Police conference in Duluth, MN
Conference costs $410 x 2 = $820
Travel date: April 22nd to April 25 th, 2018
Location: Duluth, MN
Lodging: Holiday Inn Duluth
$390 x 2= 780
Meals: GSA maximum rate $51/per day, 5 days x 2 = $510
City Vehicle: 24.7 gallons of fuel at current $2.76 maximum cost = $68.17
Total estimated cost: $2,178
BACKGROUND:
The money is available in the training budget to cover the costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to attend the training.
page 61
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: 2017/18 Goals Update
Date: April 3, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is the quarterly update of progress on the City’s 2017-18 Goals.
BACKGROUND:
In May, 2017, the Council and staff met to discuss and determine Goals to be pursued during the
remainder of 2017, and 2018. The 8 overall Goals were later supplemented by the establishment
of 28 Action Items.
Staff is providing updates on the progress every 90 days. Changes since the January update are
highlighted in yellow.
Questions or requested changes should be directed to staff.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Receive and acknowledge the updates.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 62
page 63
Action Plan for
2017-2018 City Council Goals
Abbreviations:
CA—City Administrator ACA—Assistant City Administrator PC—Police Chief FC—Fire Chief PWD—Public Works Director
CDD—Community Development Director FD—Finance Director RC—Recreation Coordinator
Goal One: Recruit and Retain a Qualified Workforce
ACTION ITEM 1:
Recruitment and Hiring
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Volunteer Coordinator position
o Create job description and assess options for filling CA/ACA/PC 11/2017
• GIS Assistant position
o Develop job description for a proposed full-time position CDD/PWD 11/2017
• Communications Coordinator position
o Create job description; consider joint position with potential Volunteer Coordinator ACA 11/2017
STATUS:
6/17 CA: Each of these positions will be dependent upon being included in FY 2018 budget. Communications Coordinator position was included in 2017
budget, but remained unfilled, due personnel funding needs elsewhere in the system.
9/17 CA: GIS Coordinator and Communications Coordinator proposed in preliminary FY 18 budget
12/17 ACA: All three positions included in the 2018 budget. Job descriptions will be developed in the month of January and postings will be considered.
3/2018 ACA/PWD: Staff is considering staffing structure between the Communications and Volunteer Coordinator positions. Additionally, job descriptions for
Natural Resources Specialist/Coordinator positions are being considered, combined with a GIS Assistant position, as a possible discussion at 5/9 Joint meeting.
ACTION ITEM 2:
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Recruit, hire and retain/maintain qualified Police Officer personnel to full FTE compliment
BUDGET:
$
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review McGrath Study and consider future staffing allocation models PC 9/2017
page 64
STATUS:
6/17 PC…From the current Police Officer recruitment process three offers were extended and accepted. New members will start mid-June to early-July.
Discussion of other police staffing needs will take place during FY 2018 budget prep.
9/17 PC: Three police officers added, and are currently undergoing FTO orientation. Two additional Police Officer Positions included in preliminary FY 2018
budget…One to start 1/1/18, and one to start 7/1/18
12/17 PC: In the final phase of hiring two officers. Job offers scheduled to be extended by 12/31/2017. Job posting for Captain published, applications are
due January 12.
03/2018 PC: Two officers hired and are scheduled to be fully trained by May. Captain has been selected and will start April 16th. On track to promote CSO to
officer in August.
ACTION ITEM 3:
Provide incentives for health and wellness among employees
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Develop wellness incentive program within the Police Department
o Consider extending to other city staff, if feasible ACA/PC 1/2018
STATUS:
12/17 PC: With the addition of two officers, we will be able to move to a 10 hour shift which is scientifically supported to be better for officers.
3/2018 PC: Was on track to move to 10 hour shifts, set back by officer on medical leave. Will need to wait for disposition of medical leave before schedule
change.
Goal Two: Address City Facilities, Infrastructure and Equipment Needs
ACTION ITEM 4:
Complete a Facility Needs Assessment to determine future space needs and uses
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Schedule presentation of Fire Department building study at future City Council Work Session FC 11/2017
Complete
• Consider and plan for long term space needs/uses for facilities
o Consider “campus” concept—City Hall, Police and Fire at one location
o Include community space, senior center
CA/PC/FC/RC Mid-2018
page 65
o Renovate parking lot and sidewalks, as appropriate
• Consider Council Chambers redesign for ADA compliance and efficient use of space CA/ACA 12/31/17
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Funding for additional architectural work for Fire Station discussion included in preliminary FY 18 budget, but funding for discussion to be started in
FY 17 is needed to get a head start The Council should determine how the options should be reviewed, and by whom.
12/17 CA: Contract with an architect for estimates and phasing of the Fire Station remodeling and addition awarded in December. Fire Station Building
committee is meeting. In December, the City Council, discussed a partnership with ISD 197 and City of WSP for possible partnership on joint facilities.
3/2018 CA Workshop held with City Council in January. Remodeling and addition to the Fire Station to be considered later this year.
ACTION ITEM 5:
Improve Building security at City Hall
BUDGET:
$10,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Complete installation of door access and panic button systems within identified building areas CA/ACA 12/31/17
STATUS:
9/5/17 ACA: Three quotes for door access and panic button systems have been received and are under review.
12/17 ACA: Contract approved with Ban-Koe. Installation will take place in the first quarter of 2018. Working with the construction schedule of current
rehab/remodel in the Police Department.
3/2018 ACA: Project was held off due to police department construction delays. The system software has been installed on city servers. Door hardware and
building cabling will be installed the week of 4/9/18. Project should be complete by the end of April.
ACTION ITEM 6:
Complete remediation of downstairs mold issues and Police Department remodel
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Bid document before City Council for approval CA 8/2017
Complete
• Award contract at City Council Meeting CA 9/2017
Complete
• Work start date CA 10/2017
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Plans for lower level work to be considered by Council in 9/17
12/17 PC: Contract awarded in October, and construction commenced. Exterior work mostly completed, interior work is underway.
page 66
3/2018 PC/CA: Interior construction nearing completion. Working with officers to ensure existing space is used efficiently. Need resolve lower level sidewalk
safety, and the need for garage/car port for squad cars.
ACTION ITEM 7:
Upgrade audio-visual system in Council Chambers
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Seek quote from vendor on a systems design which incorporates replacement technology for TVs,
projector, overhead camera, and possibly video cameras (Coordinate with NDC4) ACA 11/2017
3/2018
STATUS:
12/17 ACA: Need to give consideration to larger facility needs/assessment discussion. Vendor quotes to be sought during the first quarter 2018.
ACTION ITEM 8:
PUBLIC WORKS: Consider purchase of a street sweeper
BUDGET:
$200,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Present cost/benefit analysis of city-owned street sweeper PWD 8/2017
Complete
STATUS:
6/17 PWD: Pricing is available. Discuss during FY 2018 Budget review.
9/17 PWD: Pricing and current contract costs researched, and discussed with Council during Budget Review. Decision made to retain current practice of
contract sweeping.
ACTION ITEM 9:
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Establish a Rescue 10 Committee to plan for the replacement of equipment
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Determine replacement plan FC 12/31/17
No Action Needed
STATUS:
6/17 FC: The prior Rescue 10 committee has been disbanded. A new committee should be formed to determine fire apparatus needs in the next 3-5 years,
but only after the Council sets forth parameters of the Fire Department’s long term equipment needs.
page 67
Goal Three: Create an Agreed Upon Vision for Key Development/Redevelopment Areas in the City
ACTION ITEM 10:
Create short and long term visions for development/redevelopment areas within the city
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• City Council to discuss and examine ideas and options (e.g. The Village, Bourne Property)
o Solicit property owners and community input as appropriate
CDD/CA 3/2018
STATUS:
6/17 CA: Village Discussion underway soon; seeking input from local business regarding Bourn Property.
9/17 CA: Discussion of Dodd Road traffic study to Council in 9/17. Development of Village lots may be impacted by study.
1/18 CA: Direction as to next steps for Village lots being requested of Council at workshop.
3/2018 CA: Direction needed from Council on next steps.
ACTION ITEM 11:
Ready Bourne property for sale
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Work with local companies to identify next steps in the purchase/use of the property CDD TBD
• Develop contingency plan/alternatives for site CDD TBD
• Consider relocation of storage for public works materials and opportunities to cover costs of material
relocations PWD Prior to Sale
STATUS:
6/17 CA: Phase One Environmental Review completed—indicated that the only issues are those expected relating to septic system removals, and need to
clean up after relocation of Public Works materials.
1/18 CA: Council discussed this parcel at workshop in December. Direction given to staff to prepare a marketing announcement of its availability for the City’s
website.
3/2018 CA: Council discussed the Bourn property at a workshop held 2/22. The Council did have interest to explore a mixed use—ranging from a possible
rehab center, to a park, to residential. Staff will do more research.
page 68
ACTION ITEM 12:
Examine appropriate uses of City incentives in support of Economic Development
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Conduct business retention survey (utilize resources through DEED, Dakota County CDA) CDD 12/31/18
• Facilitate/support TIF redevelopment projects CDD As needed
STATUS:
3/2018 CA: Staff discussed interest with the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce re: Business Retention Survey. Still to be investigated.
Goal Four: Enhance Parks and Recreation Services and Facilities
ACTION ITEM 13:
Create plan to bridge generational gap through community space/multigenerational facility
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Include with Facility Needs Assessment under Action Item 4
12/17 CA Council discussed joint facilities Community Center with ISD 197 and WSP at December workshop.
Decision made to continue to research information
4/3/18 CA: Joint City Council/ Parks and Rec Commission meeting to be held 5/9, to discuss improvements
funding resources. Also for Action Items 14-16 below.
CA 7/2018
ACTION ITEM 14:
Upgrade parks facilities-e.g. warming house, lights at Mendakota Park
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review and update Trail Improvement Maintenance Plan PWD 7/2018
• Analyze tennis courts infrastructure and determine improvement needs and schedule PWD/RC 7/2018
• Analyze need for recreational lighting at Mendakota; complete cost/benefit analysis of lighting
installation.
RC/
P&R Commission 7/2018
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Action seeking Council approval for Marie Park Tennis Courts resurfacing, and lighting re-do at Friendly Hills on for 9/17. Contract awarded in July for
reconstruction of warming house at Friendly Hills Park.
page 69
12/17 ACA/RC: Warming House reconstruction and new lights installed at Friendly Hills. An application to the USTA for grant assistance was submitted for the
reconstruction of Marie Park tennis courts.
3/2018 ACA: A work session of the Parks and Recreation Commission was held on March 1. Parks funding was reviewed along with project ideas. The
Commission concluded that it would like to conduct a survey to assess what residents would like to see in the parks. Joint City Council/Parks and Rec
Commission meeting has been scheduled for May 9.
3/2018 PWD: A Trail Improvement and Maintenance Plan is underway.
ACTION ITEM 15:
Designate/develop additional athletic/soccer fields
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Analyze current use including user data, demand for additional fields , costs and user charges (work with
MHAA)
RC/
P&R Commission 7/2018
• Investigate joint usage with City of West St. Paul, ISD 197 City Council/CA/RC 12/31/17
• Investigate vacant properties for partnership with local non-profits City Council/CA/RC 7/2018
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Budget discussion with Council about possible partnership on Rec programs with WSP. Determined to be not ready now, but continue in 2018. Joint
meeting with WSP and ISD 197 to discuss joint facilities set for October.
12/17 RC: Data on field usage and additional demand was scarce for current and previous years. Staff is working to develop a facility/field reservation/use
policy and are collecting data as reservations are placed for 2018. Joint facility meetings continue with the City of West St. Paul and ISD197.
3/2018 CA: MHAA and REV soccer field assignments for 2018 soccer season apparently resolved.
ACTION ITEM 16:
Expand Community Engagement activities
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Inventory existing community engagement programs and activities CA/ACA/RC 9/2017
• Conduct a user survey to better understand community/resident needs (senior, youth) ACA/RC 10/2017
page 70
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Deferred until Recreation Program Coordinator position filled.
12/17 ACA/RC: Staff has meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission Chair and Vice Chair and is in the early stages of developing a survey and included
topics. A revised timeline will be provided once the project is more fully planned.
3/2018 CA Desire on part of P&R Commission to survey community for prioritization for capital improvements.
Goal Five: Address Natural Resource and Environmental Sustainability
ACTION ITEM 17:
Consider establishment of an Environmental Review Committee
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Determine Environment Review Committee mission and role
o Storm water treatment
o Invasive plants
o Preservation of existing resources
P&R Commission/
PWD/RC 3/2018
STATUS:
3/2018 ACA & PWD: Natural Resources updates are being provided at all Parks and Rec Commissioner meetings. The topic is to be included in the Natural
Resources discussion with the City Council and Parks and Rec Commission Joint meeting on 5/9.
ACTION ITEM 18:
Continue pollinator friendly policies for public property
BUDGET:
No funding needed
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Educate the public regarding the benefits of pollinator friendly policies ACA/ with Master
Gardeners 12/31/18
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Continued articles in Heights Highlights and Friday News. City-sponsored giveaways of plants at 8/3/17 demonstration at Victoria and Douglas
event.
12/17 ACA: Worked with Master Gardeners on re-establishing the rain garden and natural garden area near the clubhouse at the Par 3. Fall clean up and
clear out was completed on the two gardens. The Master Gardeners will host a community education and planting volunteer opportunity at the Par 3 this
coming spring. A date is yet to be determined.
3/2018 ACA & PWD: Staff has met with the Master Gardeners to further plan the Par 3 cleanup and replanting of the rain garden and natural area near the
clubhouse scheduled for late spring/early summer. This cleanup will include a community volunteer event. Master Gardeners are also working with staff on
page 71
2018 work pan, and staff is continuing mowing changes in parks. Currently, working with Great River Greening on creating a pollinator corridor under Xcel
power lines.
ACTION ITEM 19:
Deal with Impending Emerald Ash Borer Infestation
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Share information with the public regarding treatment on private lands ACA/PWD 12/31/18
• Provide appropriate levels of funding for treatment and eradication of publically-owned trees in FY18 and
FY 19 Budgets
City Council/
CA/PWD 12/31/17
• Review and implement EAB management plan PWD 5/2018
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Increased funding for EAB-related tree removal in FY 18 proposed budget.
3/2018 PWD: EAB policy revised to allow staff treatment of tree within City parks. Areas around Ivy Hills Park selected as a U of MN study for EAB treatment.
Goal Six: Implement the 10 year budget plan based on Ehlers work
ACTION ITEM 20:
Review Sanitary Utility Budget
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review existing I/I studies and review funding sources for sewer maintenance PWD 12/2017
STATUS:
6/17 PWD: Inspection of private sewer connections from sump pumps program will be completed by 7/31/17. Follow-ups will then start.
9/17 PWD: Final report from consultant due by the end of September.
1/18 PWD: Sump Pump Inspection presentation scheduled, Phase II decision to be made. Council to discuss sewer rate increases and a change of billing
format.
3/2018 PWD: In February, the Sewer rates increased for 2018. Staff will present Phase II Sump Pump program quote in April, 2018
page 72
ACTION ITEM 21:
Review Storm Water Utility Budget
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review storm water utility funding rate PWD 12/2017
• Update storm water CIP including pond maintenance PWD 7/2018
STATUS:
6/17 FD: Utility billing rates to be reviewed during FY 18 budget preparation.
7/18 PWD : Utility billing rates review after completion of Surface Water Management Plan
1/18 PWD: Storm sewer rate increases to be discussed with Council.
3/2018 PWD: Storm sewer rate increased in February. Rate to be assessed upon completion of Surface Water Management Plan. CIP Update is underway.
ACTION ITEM 22:
Consolidate CIPs into one document
BUDGET:
NA
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Create infrastructure CIP including Streets, Sanitary, Storm, Trails, Ponds PWD 7/2018
COMPLETED
STATUS:
6/17 CA: Decide in time for FY 18 Budget Consideration.
9/17 CA: Completed for FY 18
3/2018 PWD: CIP updates underway. To include facilities, fleet, and parks
Goal Seven: Establish Comprehensive Communications Strategy
ACTION ITEM 23:
Audit City Communications efforts and tools for effectiveness and outcomes
BUDGET:
N/A
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Inventory City communications pieces and tools ACA/CA/PC 3/2018
• Develop Communications Plan for traditional and social media ACA/CA/PC 3/2018
page 73
STATUS:
6/17 CA: If Communications Coordinator position filled as part of FY 18 budget, include in the recommendation/decision process.
9/17 CA: Communications Coordinator proposed for preliminary FY 18 budget
12/17 ACA/PC: Police Department goals for 2018 include a department twitter and publishing all policies on-line. Inventory of City communication pieces and
tools as well as development of an overall city communications plan, will be part of the job responsibilities of the new communications position. The Parks
and Recreation Department created a separate Facebook page for this department of the city. The page has been well received and is used to post timely
information regarding P&R activities including warming house updates.
3/2018 PC: Department posted annual report to website. Will be adding selected policies and officer contact information in 2018. Officers are researching
department use of Twitter
ACTION ITEM 24:
Improve timing of communications between staff and City Council regarding financial information
BUDGET:
N/A
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Develop and implement quarterly and monthly schedule of information FD 9/2017
STATUS:
3/2018 FD: The first quarter numbers will be available by the end of April. There will be monthly updates for the Par 3 once the season begins.
ACTION ITEM 25:
Complete website redesign and content revisions
BUDGET:
$15,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Edit and/or rewrite site content incorporating new ideas (linked with online applications and forms, e-
commerce and handouts action item) dependent on fiber availability ACA 11/2017
STATUS:
6/17 ACA: Staff continues to work with GovOffice to develop site redesign direction and templates.
12/17 ACA: Staff continues to work on this.
3/2018 ACA: The staff website committee has approved the redesign of the city homepage and interior page designs. The site is now in programming with
the developer.
page 74
ACTION ITEM 26:
Connect to Dakota County Fiber Ring
BUDGET:
$120,000 +/-
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Continue to work with LOGIS and Dakota County on fiber connections to the Fire Department, Public
Works, and City Hall buildings—determine timing of installation, project management and financing CA/ACA 9/2017
STATUS:
6/17 ACA…City Council approved the release of Request for Quotes, as prepared by LOGIS for installation of fiber to all three buildings, at their June 6
meeting. RFQ’s were released by LOGIS on June 8 and were due June 30.
9/17 ACA: Connection to Fire Dept. authorized by Council in July. Installation to occur this fall. Coordinating remaining work to PW Building and City Hall
between LOGIS and Dakota County.
12/17 ACA: Installation of the fiber backbone and lateral connections to City Hall, the Fire Station and Public Works is complete. Splicing and testing will occur
at the end of December and the network is expected to go live the first part of January. This project is largely complete.
3/2018 ACA: Dakota County is expected to complete the 2.5 block connection to the Northern Services Center early this spring. This will allow the City’s
connection to fully meet up with switches to the State and LOGIS. Approval to join the Dakota Broadband Board was received and the first organizational
meetings are being held.
ACTION ITEM 27:
Enhance customer service and communication to residents and consumers
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Research and determine appropriate city use of e-commerce options and other payment methods FD/ACA 3/2018
• Upgrade online city applications and forms for accuracy and ease of use by residents/consumers All Department Heads 3/2018
• Update various handouts (Community Development & Engineering) and increase accessibility of
handouts CDD/PWD 3/2018
• Research signage that informs of potential development/redevelopment of a site (communications tool
consideration) CDD 9/2017
STATUS:
6/17 ACA…First two steps dependent upon connection to fiber optic.
12/27 RC: Staff is working to upgrade the permit applications for renting park shelters, fields, and for special events. Staff will have registration applications
for recreation programs updated for all 2018 programs with up-to-date liability policies and information.
page 75
Goal Eight: Conduct Dodd Road Traffic Analysis
ACTION ITEM 28:
Work with MNDOT to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on Dodd Road
BUDGET:
$30-40,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review impact of area developments (i.e. Village lots, Vikings development) PWD/CDD 12/31/17
• Seek improvements to current traffic movement issues (review Village traffic study, investigate
roundabouts, etc. with MNDOT). Determine funding options. PWD/CDD 8/2018
STATUS:
9/17 CA: Recommendation for proposal for consultant to perform traffic study on Dodd Road to Council in 9/17.
12/17 PWD: Preliminary results of Traffic Study presented to Council. Consultant is reviewing comments, which will be incorporated into a final report.
3/2018 PWD: Street CIP to include intersection improvements along Dodd Road.
page 76
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: February 2018 Fire Synopsis
COMMENT:
Fire Calls
In February, the Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to 18 calls for service. Of those, 12 were
located in Mendota Heights, 1 in Mendota, 1 in Sunfish Lake, 2 in Lilydale and in 2 instances we provided
mutual aid outside of our regular coverage area (1 in Eagan and 1 in Inver Grove Heights). The call mix
was as follows: 5 false alarm calls, 3 were cancelled before our arrival, 1 CO alarm call, 1 HazMat call
without an actual HazMat release, 1 vehicle fire, 1 vehicle fire that was extinguished before our arrival, 1
medical assist, 1 accident requiring extrication, and 1 call to remove a victim from a stalled elevator.
Department Training Opportunities
Beginning with the New Year, the MHFD has stopped doing both squad drills and department drills and
in their place offer “department trainings”. For February, the following topics were offered (bold
indicates a mandatory training)
Feb. 14 18:30 Blood Borne Pathogen/Lock-Out/Tag-Out/Right to Know -This is a mandatory
class for all firefighters on an annual basis dedicated to blood borne pathogens that they could
potentially be exposed to and how to best protect themselves from those pathogens. In addition, it
covers lock-out/tag-out of hazardous environments and finally, Right to Know covering how to know
what hazards they may have been exposed to and what to do if that were to happen.
Feb. 15 07:00 MCI/Triage - This class was designed to sharpen firefighter’s skills when exposed
to a mass casualty incident and how to triage the victims, mitigate the chaos, and give the victims the
best possible outcome considering the circumstances encountered.
Feb. 21 18:30 Public Education - Our firefighters are expected to share their knowledge with
the community. Cory Lane presented a “best practices” training as to how to best deliver the message of
the fire service when working with the public.
Feb. 26 18:30 SCBA & PPE -This is a mandatory class for all firefighters on an annual basis on
the topic of their Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (their air pack on their back) as well as their
Personal Protective Equipment that they have available to them and when certain levels of PPE are
required based on the incident type.
Feb. 27 07:00 Size-ups - A class designed to make certain that our folks can identify the
important clues that a scene is providing upon first arrival and then how to best deliver that message
over the radio in common terminology so the entire department has a good idea as to what they are
coming into before their arrival.
page 77
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
FEBRUARY 2018 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE CALLS NO. 18017 -18034 NUMBER OF CALLS:18
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential $0
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined $0
Vehicle - MH $0
Vehicle - Contract Areas 1 $8,000 $8,000
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
MEDICAL
Assist 1 $0 $8,000 $0
Extrication 1
HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Spills/Leaks
Arcing/Shorting ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$8,000
Chemical
Power Line Down MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $0
FALSE ALARM
Residential Malfunction 2 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $0
Commercial Malfunction
Unintentional - Commercial 1 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $0
Unintentional - Residential 2
Criminal
GOOD INTENT
Smoke Scare
Carbon Monoxide Incident STRUCTURE CONTENT
Steam Mistaken for Smoke
Carbon Monoxide Alarms SPRINKLER ACTIVATION - MH 80,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Other 8
MUTUAL AID 2
TOTAL CALLS 18
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR
TOTALS:$103,000.00
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 13 26 32
MENDOTA 1 1 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
SUNFISH LAKE 0 1 3
LILYDALE 2 3 3 INSPECTIONS 36.5
OTHER 2 3 2
INVESTIGATIONS
TOTAL 18 34 42
RE-INSPECTION
WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR
MEETINGS
FIRE CALLS 305.5 515 475
MEETINGS 53.75 143.75 69 ADMINISTRATION 11
DRILLS 250.5 544.5 330
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 5 7 438 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 2
FIRE MARSHAL 49.5 62.5
TOTAL:49.5
TOTALS 614.75 1259.75 1374.5 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS
MISC LOSS
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Final Development Plan
AND – Accepting Findings and Recommendations from the Planning
Commission Regarding the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit
Development (PUD) [Planning Case No. 2018-09]
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to consider and adopt a resolution approving an Amendment to the Final
Development Plan, and accepting additional findings and recommendations from the Planning
Commission regarding the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD).
BACKGROUND
The subject property is generally located on the east side of Highway 13, between Acacia
Boulevard to the north and Victoria Avenue to the south. Title 12-1K-2, Paragraph A.1 of the City
Code grants authority to the City Council to approve a PUD for projects where the proposed uses
would not otherwise be permitted in the zoning district where the proposed project is located.
Prior to re-zoning, the Mendota Heights Apartments project was located in the B-3 General
Business district. Residential uses are not allowed in the B-3 and therefore the project was eligible
for PUD consideration pursuant to Title 12-1K-2, Paragraph A.1 of the City Code.
On September 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-69, which approved the
rezoning of the subject property from B-3 General Business to a new HR-PUD High Density
Residential – Planned Unit Development. The approvals also included a preliminary plat,
conditional use permit and a wetlands permit.
In early November 2017, several City residents initiated a lawsuit against the City relating to the
City Council’s approval of the development. The attorney representing the City in the lawsuit
recommended that the City Council adopt an addit ional resolution reaffirming its previous
approvals in this matter and addressing whether the proposed PUD meets the standards for a PUD
development of less than 10 acres.
On January 2, 2018, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-01, which reaffirmed and adopted
additional findings relating to the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Conditional Use Permit, and Preliminary/Final Plat for the new Mendota Heights Apartment
Planned Unit Development. In the resolution, the City Council adopted specific findings setting
forth the basis for its decision to allow the PUD on a parcel of land less than ten acres in size. The
page 91
resolution also confirmed that the site did not need or require a Wetlands Permit, due to changes
made by the developer on the Grading and Utility Plans proposed on the site.
On February 16, 2018, the City and plaintiffs appeared and presented arguments before the Dakota
County District Court. One question raised during those proceedings was whether the Planning
Commission was required to review and comment on the matters addressed in Resolution No.
2018-01, particularly the “10-acre findings”, before the City Council adopted said findings. Even
though city staff and the attorney representing the City do not believe that Planning Commission
consideration of those matters is required, the City nevertheless elected to forward to the Planning
Commission a request to review and comment on the matters addressed by the City Council in
Resolution No. 2018-01.
On March 27, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
this Amended PUD Plan item . It gave full consideration of this item, whereby a planning staff
report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Developer and
general public were received and noted for the record. Upon closing the hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended unanimous (6-0 vote) approval of the Amendment to the Final
Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-09. It was adopted with the following three (3) separate
recommendation for City Council’s consideration:
1) The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments
Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-ft.
separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27
spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable
and recommended for approval.
2) The Planning Commission agrees and finds that the proposed planned unit development
meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land
less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City
Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01.
3) The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of
the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density
Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain
in effect and unchanged.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is asked to consider and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-29, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – AND - ACCEPT ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD).
ACTION REQUIRED
The action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote.
page 92
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-29
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
WITH REGARDS TO THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
(PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2160 AND 2180 HIGHWAY 13)
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1K-1, a planned unit development may be
created as a base zoning district, and the purpose of the planned unit development district is to
encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land in order to promote its appropriate
use, to facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural
and scenic qualities for open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given
development and within the community as a whole, and to limit development to a scale appropriate
to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses, and for such PUD districts, the ten (10) acre
minimum area requirement may be waived at the discretion of the city; and
WHEREAS, Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC (the “Developer”) originally
applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat,
Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for the Mendota Heights Apartment planned unit
development, a new 140 unit market rat e residential apartment development (the “Project”) as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-19, and located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13 (the
“Subject Property”), and legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is eligible for a Planned Unit Development because the
Project consists of residential uses that would not otherwise be permitted uses in the B-3 zoning
district in which the Subject Property is located; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-43, which
approved an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the Subject Property’s future
land use from existing “B-Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit
Development”; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-69,
which approved the rezoning of the Subject Property from “B-3 General Business District ” to a
new “HR-PUD High Density Residential – Planned Unit Development”, a Preliminary Plat titled
“Mendota Heights Apartments,” a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of the new
planned unit development district and its related development plan of the new multi-family
apartment buildings, and a Wetlands Permit; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-95,
which approved a Final Plat for the Subject Property; and
page 93
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-01,
whereby the Council stated new findings of fact and approved a determination that the Subject
Property qualified and met all the criteria established under Title 12-1K-2 of the City Code for the
City to allow a planned unit development of less than ten (10) acres, but to no less than five (5)
acres; and the City Council further determined they acted in a conservative manner when
exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development of less than ten (10) acres pursuant
to Title 12 -1K-2 of the City C ode; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12-1K-6.G of the City Code, the Developer submitted an
application to consider a proposed Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota
Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development , as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-09,
to allow a 60-ft. separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot s
by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was also asked to: (1) Provide comments and
recommendations to the City Council regarding City Council Resolution 2018-01, particularly
with respect to the City Council’s findings as to whether the proposed development meets the
criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres
in size; and (2) Reaffirm its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the
subject site from B -3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit
Development; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on this Amended Final Development Plan it em, and gave full consideration of the
two follow -up requests noted above, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received
by the commission, comments from the Developer and general public were received and noted for
the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous (6-
0 vote) approval of the Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights
Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-09,
and adopted the following three (3) separate recommendation for City Council ’s consideration:
1) The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights
Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed
to provide a 60-ft. separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the
surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking”
plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval.
2) The Planning Commission agrees and finds that the proposed planned unit
development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit
development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the
findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution
No. 2018-01.
3) The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for
approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD
page 94
H igh-Density Resident ial Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions
of approval to remain in effect and unchanged.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
three (3) recommendations from the Planning Commission as noted above are hereby accepted
and adopted for approval under this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that its decision
to approve an Amendment to the Final PUD Plan, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-09,
along with the original Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-
08, and the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat , Conditional Use Permit , and Final Plat for the new
Mendota Heights Apartment Planned Unit Development, as proposed under Planning Case No.
2017-19, located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13, is re-affirmed pursuant to the original and
previously adopted findings of facts and conditions of approval listed in Resolution 2017-43,
Resolution 2017-69, Resolution 2017-95, and Resolution No. 2018-01.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of April, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_______________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 95
EXHIBIT A
Lots Eight (8), Nine (9), Ten ( 10), Eleven ( 11); the South Sixty- five (65) feet of Lots Thirty-nine
(39), Forty (40), Forty-one (41) and Forty- Two (42), all in Block Five (5) of ADELIA TAYLOR'S
ADDITION to the City of St. Paul.
AND
Lots Twelve (12), Thirteen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15), Sixteen (16); and the South Sixty-
five (65) feet of Lots Thirty-four (34), Thirty-five (35), Thirty-six (36), Thirty-seven (37) and
Thirty-eight (38), all in Block Five (5) of ADELIA TAYLOR'S ADDITION to the City of St. Paul,
except that part thereof shown as Parcel 269A on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right
of Way Plat No, 19-98.
AND
Lots 1 through 7 inclusive, and Lots 34 through 42 inclusive, except the South 65 feet of said Lots
34 through 42, all in Block 5, ADELIA TAYLOR'S ADDITION to the City of St. Paul, except
that part thereof shown as Parcel 269 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way
Plat No. 19 -98.
AND
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, FURLONG ADDITION, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property
AND
That portion of Hilltop Avenue, as dedicated on the plats of ADELIA TAYLOR'S ADDITION
and FURLONG ADDITION, according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota,
which lies easterly of the easterly line of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 19- 98 and lies westerly of the westerly line
of Thomas Street.
page 96
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March
27, 2018 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, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
Patrick Corbett
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of February 27, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Corbett)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-09
MICHAEL SWENSON, MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MINNESOTA, LLC
2160 & 2180 HIGHWAY 13
AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to this meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development
of Minnesota, LLC has requested an amendment to a final development plan pursuant to Section
12-1K-6.G of the City Code. The Commission was also asked to provide additional comments and
recommendations to the City Council regarding the previous City Council resolution of 2018-01
with respect to certain findings regarding the PUD allowing for a PUD of less than 10 acres. The
Commission was also asked to reaffirm its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the
rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential
Planned Unit Development.
page 97
Background
November 2015 - The developer sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70-
unit apartment complex, that application was later withdrawn
February 2017 - The developer informed the city he had secured the rights to the Mendota
Motel site and shortly afterwards he secured the development rights to the
Larson Garden Center site
May 11, 2017 - Developer hosted an Open House-Neighborhood Meeting in which notices
were mailed to all property owners within one-quarter mile of the site
May 23, 2017 - Planning Commission recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from “B – Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential
Planned Unit Development
June 6, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-43, approving the aforementioned
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
June 20, 2017 - City Council approves the creation of TIF District No. 2
August 22, 2017 - The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval to rezone the
properties from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD – High Density
Residential Planned Unit Development; Preliminary Plat of “Mendota
Heights Apartments”; Conditional Use Permit; and a Wetlands Permit (vote
6-0)
September 5, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-69 approving the Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, and Wetlands Permit (vote 3-2)
November 2017 - Several city residents initiated a lawsuit against the city relating to the City
Council’s approval of the development
- Attorneys representing the city recommended the City Council adopt an
additional resolution reaffirming its previous approvals and whether the
proposed PUD meets the standards for a PUD development of less than 10
acres
January 2, 2018 - City Council adopted Resolution 2018-01, which:
1) Reaffirmed and adopted additional findings relating to the approval of
a Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning, CUP, and
Preliminary/Final Plat
2) Adopted specific findings setting for the basis for the decision
3) Confirmed that the site no longer needed or required a Wetlands Permit
due to the changes made by the developer
February 16, 2018 - Both sides appeared before Dakota County District Court Judge Michael
Baxter and presented their arguments in the case
- Judge Baster asked if the Planning Commission was required to review and
comment on the matters addressed in Resolution 2018-01, particularly the
“10-acre” findings, before the City Council adopted them – City Staff and
City Attorneys do not believe that the Planning Commission consideration
of those matters was required. However, because Mr. Swenson is requesting
an amendment to the Final PUD Plan, staff asked the Planning Commission
to review and comment on the matters addressed by the City Council in
Resolution 2018-01.
page 98
The subject parcel is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, Acacia Boulevard to the north, Augusta
Shores and Lemay Lake to the east, and Victoria Avenue / Furlong Addition to the south. The
combined Larson Greenhouse / Mendota Motel sites are 5.45 acres.
The site plan approved in August 2017 included two 70-unit apartment buildings to be built in two
phases; 270 parking spaces, both underground and surface; and a single, divided access driveway
accessed by a right-hand turn lane from Highway 13 as required by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT).
Amended Final Planned Unit Development
The previous plan showed the apartment complexes as having a 47-foot distance between the two.
At the request of a Councilmember, Mr. Swenson has agreed to increase that separation to 60.7
feet. This resulted in the Phase Two development to be reduced by 14 square feet, or 1,000+ square
foot footprint.
As part of the request to add more green space or to reduce the impervious surfacing, Mr. Swenson
has agreed to take out 13 parking spaces in the Phase One section from the original 270 and put
them into a ‘proof of parking’, meaning if there is ever a need for additional parking or the site
stops meeting its parking demands, these parking spaces could go back in. They are taking out the
closest access point and re-establishing all of the curb-gutter sections around that new parking
area.
In the Phase Two section, 14 surface parking spaces and 4 underground parking spaces will be
removed and they will re-establish the curb-gutter sections.
RESULTS: possible loss of two to six units on the north (Phase Two) section; however, the
developer is still working on reconfiguring his interior floor plans. He believes he can get up to 6-
8 units even with the reduction. He is accomplishing this by taking some of the larger two-bedroom
units and decreasing them to one-bedroom units. The building footprint will remain as is – less the
14 feet. The net result is 239 parking spaces, reducing the ratio to 1.73/unit from the original
1.98/unit ratio.
Section 12-1K-2.B
Mr. Benetti explained the determining standards that must be met for a PUD under 10 acres but
more than 5 acres:
• Determined to be an “infill type development”
• Will not require any wetlands permit
• Will not require any critical area variance
• Will not increase traffic or parking estimates above the level reasonably estimated for a
permitted use for the project area’s size in the zoning district in which it is situated [B-3
General Business]
• Provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area unless
expressly waived by the Council
He also noted that Council was required to be ‘conservative in exercising its discretion’ to permit
a PUD of less than 10 acres.
page 99
During his explanation of the above referenced standards, Mr. Benetti stated the recommendations
of staff in each section:
• City staff recommends the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject
property meets the definition of an “infill-type development” standard as set forth in
Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code
• City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the
subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require a Wetlands Permit; and therefore the
PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code
• City staff recommends the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the
subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require any critical area permit or any critical
area variance; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B
of City Code
• City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the
impacts due to increase traffic or parking estimates for the Project area would b less than
those estimated for a typical permitted use under the original B-3 General Business District
zoning standards, and therefore the subject property (PUD Project Area) meets this
standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code
• City staff recommends that the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the
proposed and updated landscape and buffer plan for the subject property (PUD Project
Area) are hereby acceptable; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in
Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code
• City staff recommends the Commission also determines and affirms that the City Council
acted conservatively in exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development of
less than ten (10) acres on the Subject Property; and therefore the PUD meets this criteria
as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code
Staff also asked that the Planning Commission to:
• Reaffirm the August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject
site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit
Development
Staff Recommendations
1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments
Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot
separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27
spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable
and recommended for approval
2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development
meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land
less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City
Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01
3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of
the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density
Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain
in effect and unchanged
page 100
Public Hearing
Chair Field explained the purpose of the public hearing and the public hearing rules. He then
opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan,
MN stated that he believed Mr. Benetti covered everything and most of that had already been
presented numerous times. He listened to the comments made about the distance between the two
buildings and made that correction. He reduced the size of the Phase Two building by six apartment
units; thereby, helping the density. He addressed the concern about water run-off by having a flat
roof with inside drains that would drain all of the rainwater into the holding ponds, which when
full, would then go into the sewer system. The other water that would fall within the parking lot
or the grass is also pitched and designed to run into the holding ponds and then into the sewer
system. In regards to the number of trips coming in and out of the development, a study was done
by engineers who found that the amount of trips would be less than other uses that the property
could have. The issue of visibility of people turning north or south onto Highway 13 was addressed
by the landscape plan; there would be blockage of view on either side. His plans are to create an
open market building. He has applications that must be filled out by potential residents to ensure
that only good people are accepted.
Mr. Robert Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive in Augusta Shores, is a member of the homeowners
association. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. While they agree that these
sites are in need of redevelopment, they have significant concerns about the size and scope of what
is being planned.
When he and his wife moved to Mendota Heights they were attracted to Augusta Shores because
of its low density, peaceful surroundings. They never considered the possibility of a high density
apartment complex because the property would not support it and it wasn’t zoned for anything like
that at the time. His purchase came at a higher cost as a result; the rezoning and expected negative
property value impact feels like a ‘bait and switch’; like a broken social contract between the city
and the residents of Augusta Shores.
This community is unique in character due to its resistance to unchecked growth and high density
urban development. Mendota Heights attracts families looking for peaceful attractive
neighborhoods with open green space. A number of citizens have written or called to express these
concerns, some of which is in the packet of information the Commission received. Many have
attended previous meetings – Planning and Council – to voice these concerns and while many have
expressed a desire to redevelop the properties, he has yet to hear any citizens’ approval for anything
the size and scope of this project. Any new development should seek to harmonize with adjacent
properties and neighborhoods and this is codified in the city’s ordinances. Not only does this
development not harmonize; it will stick out like a sore thumb in what is currently a low density,
low traffic, and single-family owner occupied neighborhood. There is no structure of one story as
far as the eye can see and these two hulking three-story rental units will loom large over the
neighborhood while providing traffic density that will overwhelm the already limited roadways.
Nothing about these proposed buildings is in harmony with the surrounding townhomes, single-
family homes, and two cemeteries. There was a lot of police activity at the motel site with 20 units
– this new development will have 138 units; seven times the number of units occupied by 30-40
page 101
year olds with no ownership interest. When this demographic is stacked on top of each other it
creates a recipe for more altercations, domestic disputes, and fire and police services – not less.
During a number of occasions since the first introduction of this project, citizens have expressed
their concerns regarding the increase in traffic flow on Highway 13 between Highway 55 and
Highway 110.
At this point, Chair Field reminded Mr. Diedrich of the 3-minute limit.
Mr. Diedrich continued by explaining that on two occasions this winter there were snow events
and traffic was backed up all of the way from Highway 110 to Acacia Drive – the only ingress and
egress to Augusta Shores. On those two occasions if there had been an apartment building next
door with over 200 vehicles, traffic between Highway 55 and Highway 110 would have been
completely gridlocked. There would have been no way to enter or exit their neighborhood. This
situation also makes it difficult for services to get in and out. Most of the residents are elderly and
it is difficult for them to navigate the traffic already. The developer has suggested that there would
be landscaping to improve the sight lines; however, anyone who has driven that property knows
that no landscaping is going to fix this problem. There is a curve to the left exiting Acacia Drive
and there is a dip going towards Highway 110. Traffic is already on a driver in seconds; no
landscaping on the property behind it is going to impact that. It is a road issue – an infrastructure
issue. The road currently does not support this large of a development with the kind of traffic it
will generate.
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 29 years.
She wished to share the declining property values that will be cause by this proposed development.
She reviewed her credentials that would allow her to discuss this matter:
• Senior specialist in the 3M Corporation Real Estate Department for 19 years
• Served on the Mendota Heights City Council for 8 years
• Currently on the Dakota County Planning Commission
• Served on several related committees prior to this
• Masters Degree in Business from the University of Wisconsin with a major in Real Estate
Appraisal and Urban Land Development
• Master of Public Affairs Degree from the University of Minnesota with concentrations in
Land Use and Transportation
She continued by explaining that Mr. Richard Kelly, a realtor, has provided an affidavit stating, in
his professional opinion, that the property values in the surrounding area would be adversely
impacted if this development proceeds as proposed. She then started to provide Mr. Kelly’s
experience in forming his opinions.
At this point, Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr. Kelly was in attendance. Ms. Smith replied that
he was not able to attend. Commissioner Noonan then stated that he had a written report from Mr.
Kelly and he would rather hear from Mr. Kelly. Ms. Smith stated that she had his affidavit.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the affidavit could speak for itself. Ms. Smith then handed out
copies of the affidavit to the Commission.
page 102
When Ms. Smith continued in her efforts to share Mr. Kelly’s experience, Commissioner Noonan
asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann to weigh in. Ms. Smith argued that it was her prerogative to
continue; however Chair Field stated that he sets the rules and since the question was asked, he
wanted to hear from Mr. Lehmann. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was his understanding that this
affidavit is part of the court records and did not know, other than re-reading it, what purpose it
would serve. Ms. Smith stated that she would not re-read it but would like to add her own
comments to it.
Commissioner Noonan asked if she would be adding to the realtor’s opinion. Ms. Smith replied
that she would adding to . . . just let me finish. Commissioner Noonan asked for an answer to his
question. Ms. Smith replied that she would be adding other comments independent of his opinion.
Ms. Smith continued by stating that Mr. Kelly was a licensed realtor, has been with Edina Realty,
has participated in hundreds of real estate sales and is familiar with the factors that affect the value
of the real estate – including all residential, he is familiar with Mendota Heights, and has visited
the site. Mr. Kelly brought forward the following criteria in support of his conclusion:
• Traffic – the development would generate over 1,000 estimated vehicles trips per day onto
Highway 13 at a point approximately 200 feet from Acacia Drive and the only access point
to Augusta Shores. The Furlong neighborhood would experience a similar situation.
• Since any services are a distance away from the development and residents would have to
drive to any destination and vehicles trips are likely to be higher than those estimated by
MnDOT at 1,000
• Traffic Visibility – had already been covered so Ms. Smith did not discuss that
• Design Factors – the design, use, and dimension of the large 3-story structure is
incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Augusta Shores, Furlong, and
Lemay Shores are all primarily single-family one-story structures. The dimension factor
also refers to the intensity of the development over the 5.45 acre site. Multiple variances
have been requested to accommodate the size of the development, the underlying zoning
is HR-PUD which is R-3; which has been mentioned with the 60-foot separation between
buildings. That would allow 46 units rather than the 140 proposed number of units.
Ms. Smith commented that from her experience on the City Council and on many other public
commissions, boards, and committees she believes that the responsibility of the Planning
Commission and the City Council is primarily to the current and future residents over that of the
developer. The proposed development does not serve either residential and citizen constituencies.
Commissioner Noonan commented that Ms. Smith stated that there were many variances granted
for this application; the record will stand that there were not any variances granted. This was done
under a PUD and the PUD provided the necessary approvals. The Planning Commission did not
grant any variances. Ms. Smith argued that the R-3 district is the standard that the PUD should be
judged. Commissioner Noonan replied that was not true.
Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that the land was zoned as a B-3 General Business
before the PUD. Confirmation was given.
page 103
Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, has been a resident of the community for approximately 60
years. He is a retired lawyer and served 12 years on the Planning Commission. He wished to make
it clear that, in his view, this was a public hearing and the Commission has no right to limit his
time to 3-minutes or that of anyone else. Those are the rules that apply to public hearings in the
State of Minnesota and suggested that the Commission confirm with the City Attorney. Mr.
Lehmann stated that it was not uncommon for municipalities to limit public speaking; in fact it is
not unlawful to set a time limit for people to present their testimony. In fact, it is common that
there is limited time. After the three minutes are up a person certainly can present other information
at the end. The Commission allows other people to present their testimony and then a person can
return after everyone has been given an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Friel expressed his desire to discuss the matters adopted by the City Council in Resolution No.
2018-01 and which the Commission is now being asked to reaffirm. None of those issues had the
benefit of a public hearing at any time before. Not in the Commission’s August meeting and not
in the Council meeting. He will address those later.
Currently, he wished the Commission to know that he is one of the seven plaintiffs in the litigation
now pending against the City of Mendota Heights challenging this project and why they are in the
litigation. They are not just a bunch of angry nimbi’s, some are here because they believe the
project creates serious dangers from traffic, some because it would affect the value of their homes,
and some because it is inconsistent with land uses. Those in the litigation are concerned with all
of those things, as well as being appalled by the approval of this project by the Planning
Commission.
He also noted that out of the seven members in the lawsuit, five of them were former members of
the City Council, the Planning Commission, or members of the school board in this community.
He most recently watched the video of the 27th meeting and noted that one of the Commissioners
said that they – referring to the plaintiffs – did not have the common courtesy to come and share
their concerns [assuming the August 2017 meeting] and then they sued the city and that is a bit
troublesome. Mr. Friel replied to that comment by explaining that the reason they were not at the
Planning Commission meeting in August is because they did not know about it – they do not live
close enough to be entitled to a notice. They learned about it by watching the Council meeting on
September 5, 2017, about mid-October, after they were advised that they ought to take a look at
the meeting.
The City Council, at that time, recommended approval pursuant to the Commission’s
recommendations of a PUD and granting a Conditional Use Permit. They were all appalled because
the ordinance under which they authorized Planned Unit Developments for areas less than 10 acres
has got a whole bunch of hoops to go through. One of the hoops is that it would not require a
Wetlands Permit. Not only did this one get approved without paying any attention to that provision,
the Commission and the Council approved a PUD and at the same time approved a Wetlands
Permit; notwithstanding that the ordinance prohibits that. More troubling to them was the fact that
your staff told the Council that this violated the ordinance; however, it was a minor matter so they
should go ahead anyway. He did not believe that violating any ordinance, any provision of any
page 104
ordinance, by the governmental body that is responsible to the citizens is a good idea. The language
of the ordinance is very clear and unequivocal.
Two members of the lawsuit went to city staff and were told that this was discretionary with the
Council. Later they had a similar conversation with a couple of the Councilmembers and they
received the same response.
Mr. Friel asked to come back after others had an opportunity to speak to continue with his
comments.
Ms. Belina Reisman, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, noticed while sitting here listening to the
evaluations that have occurred she has not heard about Lemay Shores development being included,
like with the traffic.
It is a concern of those that live in the area that they not be impacted in terms of what the
development would look like. They like to have all of those natural settings. This is also in the
Comprehensive Plan that the city had and she knows that the city is concerned with adding
affordable housing and increasing the density; however, she does not believe that growth has to
include the size of what is being considered; with the destruction that is there already; and what
the residents want to have. A three-story building will be visible across Lemay Lake and Augusta
Lake and that will change the environment.
They are also concerned, and have heard, that the building and the site development is not in
keeping with the existing buildings in the Furlong area. If this is so, they would also be changing
the way it looks. She has heard that it would be closer to Highway 13 than it should be. She and
her husband walked around there and saw the steep hill going down into the wetlands. She was
amazed that anyone would want to put something there, even if they were to move it back. She has
not seen a picture of what the building would look like. She would like to have something to see
that really shows it to her and not have to go to an architect to interpret.
Ms. Reisman also raised concerns about the drainage. She does not know how anyone can take a
building on the property for the motel and have it not impact the area that is to the south because
there is nothing there. There are no trees. She questioned what the developer was going to put there
that is going to make that development fit in with the rest of the community.
Ms. Reisman asked the Commissioners if they have been to the site and walked the paths from
Lemay Shores to Augusta Shores and then down Lemay Lake Road and looked at what that
community is like so that they are knowledgeable of what is going to affect all of them.
Mr. Al Fautsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, has lived in the area for 15 years and was one of the
original owners in Augusta Shores. He lived in St. Paul for 36 years and served for a number of
years on their Planning Commission and had lots of speakers and they never limited anyone
speaking at any of their meetings.
He wished to speak as an individual in a community. One of the things they always look at is what
is the feeling of the community around a particular development. That has a meaning; they are a
page 105
community. He was not in attendance to support of any particular development; he is part of a
community. He then asked for a show of hands of how many people oppose this development. He
stated that this large show of hands gives an indication of what the community wants. It is the duty
of the Planning Commission to hear all of the testimonies regardless of how long it takes and to
make a decision that is beneficial to the community.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, noted that he is on the faculty of the University of
Minnesota. He stated that since Commissioner Noonan rudely interrupted his wife [Ms. Jill Smith
who spoke earlier] within her three minutes he wished to repay the favor and make a few blunt
remarks.
He pointed out that every Planning Commission and every Council in this city, in the past, has
supported careful, prudent development of the city. This Planning Commission and three members
of the Council have abandoned that record and that tradition. One reason that this city enjoys its
special character, of all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities, and is considered an oasis of careful
prudent development. This Commission has abandoned that tradition; have abandoned that record
and he does not understand why. One could say that they are no longer a Planning Commission
but they are a degradation commission. Chair Field stated that he took offense since he was not
present at the previous meeting and there are three new planning commission members since that
occurrence.
Mr. Smith asked if he could continue. Commissioner Noonan replied that he could as long as he
states the facts and not personal opinions. Mr. Smith continued by stating that this is a public
hearing and they should be allowed to express their opinion and they have 1st Amendment Rights.
Commissioner Noonan agreed as long as slanderous remarks are not made.
Addressing Chair Field, Mr. Smith said that Chair Field had a positive reputation in the
community; however, he is squandering that now, and the rest of the Planning Commission by
supporting this development.
Mr. Smith concluded by saying that the original plan was flawed. The remaining two resolutions;
one this evening and the one in February; are like putting lipstick on a pig. The pig hasn’t changed
– think about it.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he is receptive to any comments, especially any emotional
comments about this development. No one likes new development near them but the first time that
this was before the Commission he did not remember most of the audience being in attendance.
He also did not remember many negative comments. The room became noisy, Commissioner
Petschel withdrew his comment and said he was sorry. Chair Field called the meeting back to
order.
Mr. Smith responded by saying that there has been a consistent lack of transparency on the part of
the city regarding consulting the residents of what is going on.
Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that when he and his family moved here in 1974 he
started on the first Park Board and raised $600,000 to have some parks in the city. He then moved
page 106
onto the City Council for 12 years and was part of the original first personnel team who did the
first Comprehensive Plan. He remembers they were sweating bullets because the Metropolitan
Council (Met Council) was on them for all kinds of different things that the Council did not want
to do. The mayor at the time, Don Huber, said that they were living in the next best development
community in the Twin City area; 15 minutes from downtown Minneapolis, 12 minutes to
downtown St. Paul, the airport is only 5-6 miles away; we do not have to give anything away.
When the developers starting coming in and building he was concerned about adding streets and
how they were going to be paid for. Again, Mr. Huber sat him down and stated ‘we do not have to
give away anything’. They will come to us because we are the next hot spot. With the drainage
center on Eagan, this is another hot spot time and please do not give anything away.
He concluded by saying that if the Council and the Commission feels that the high density
development is necessary for Mendota Heights, that case should be made to the citizens and
presented along with a revised Comprehensive Plan that includes properly designed zoning and
ordinances to allow the growth of the community in a fashion that they have decided they want.
This Commission is not representing what the people want. The developers will come no matter
what happens because of where the city is located. He would like for Mendota Heights to stay
‘spacious and gracious’.
Ms. Dawn Caruso, 629 Hampshire Drive, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 30 years and
was one of the original Centex people; if anyone was around at that time this is like déjà vu. They
had a density problem and had Centex the developer wanting to put multiple, multiple, multi-
family living. The community and the people who moved into the area at that time did not know
that was coming; they fought and fought and fought and they were heard. They worked with the
Planning Commission and the City Council and eventually they worked with the developer to find
a solution, a compromise where density was decreased and everyone was very happy. The people
that live in that community now, across from Mendota Heights Road, has a beautiful community
with multi-family and single-family that blends in very nicely. They do not have the issues with
traffic and the school density and everything they were looking at.
She stated that she was appalled at the communication going back and forth between the Planning
Commission and the people from this community that have done their homework and the question
about when people decided to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in this. That is a moot
point; it does not matter when people became aware – it matters as when people are here because
this impacting their lives, their families, and the way they live in this community. The Commission
needs to be more respectful of that.
This does not impact her as much because she does not use Highway 55 as much, she has other
routes. However, the people that are living right in that community on Acacia; this is important to
them. The developer does not live here; a developer comes in and builds his homes and gets his
money and then he leaves. The community is left to deal with this year after year, after year, after
year. She begged the Commission to look at this and see if there isn’t a compromise; some way
that either density could go down or the side of the building can be maintained so it flows into the
community that has already been approved, people have bought into, and are raising their families
there.
page 107
Mr. Floyd Knight, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, commented that he just noticed a new apartment
development on Highway 110 and Dodd Road. As he looks at that it looks like a huge development
and he just found out in the last couple of weeks that it is going to be approximately 150 units. As
he visualizes that building it will probably be comparable to what is planned right now to replace
the Larsen Garden Center and the Mendota Motel. If it is anything close to what is being built
already, it is going to be an eyesore. It is going to stick out like a sore thumb. It is not going to
blend into the neighborhood. He is unaware of what the façade is going to be but he could not
imagine that it would be attractive, someplace that people are going to want enjoy, and that the
people in the neighborhood are going to feel comfortable. He also noted that the reason he was not
in attendance at the beginning was because he just found out about this in the last few months.
Ms. Kathy Geier, 1309 Kendon Lane, has lived in the Furlong addition for 62 years. When she
was a child there was open fields and woods where she played and ran wild; then her dad decided
to build some homes in the neighborhood and he filled up four of the empty lots. That changed the
status quo. They went along for a number of decades and then Augusta Shores came in; that upset
the status quo and they got riled up, had all of these discussions and meetings – and now that
became the new status quo. Then Lemay Lake Shores came in and upset the status quo – they all
got riled up again because what they knew was changing; however, it became the new status quo.
This is yet another change in the neighborhood and it will become, yet again, the new status quo.
Her concern was that with adding that additional housing, the police presence needs to be
increased. Currently they do not see very many police cruisers in the Furlong area and they do
have issues with cars being broken into, etc. She hopes the police presence will be more noticeable.
She also expressed her concern about the traffic and hoped there is a Plan B in the back pocket to
address the expansion of the frontage road to accommodate the traffic in the future.
Ms. Linnea Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, noted that she had been a previous meeting and
brought up the same concern she brings up now, that being the traffic. There is way too much
traffic and the density is too large. She is also concerned about the wetlands no matter what kind
of holding ponds the developer installs. She lives right across the lake from this development and
she sees trees and turkeys in the trees every evening; that is not going to happen now. She is going
to lose some of those trees and she is certainly not just going to see turkeys in the remaining trees;
she is going to be seeing a building. She would like to see that building cut down to two stories.
They are grateful that the motel is gone and Larsen’s is an eyesore. But, cut the development down
to two stories; cut it down to 100 units.
Ms. Mike Pilney, 2154 Theresa Street, lives in the Curley Addition. He raised his concerns about
the unintended consequences of traffic. Coming down Lexington it is very difficult to get in and
out of his neighborhood; due to weather or road maintenance, they seem to get unintended traffic.
Having additional traffic potentially coming down CenterPoint Drive or Court – due to weather or
road conditions or whatever – potentially adds more congestion in that area. He would like to know
what traffic would like from a worst case scenario.
Mr. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vickie Lane, came forward to talk about Lemay Lake. Fifty or more years
ago Augusta Lake was a fishable lake. Now, the Met Council has given that lake a grade of F;
page 108
cannot get any worse than that. She has a friend who lives on Lemay Lake and every two weeks
she goes out in a canoe and measure the water quality because she is concerned that it is coming
to her lake soon. Augusta Lake is a deep lake and Lemay Lake is a shallow lake. She knows that
there are plans and buffer zones, etc. Storm sewer could be Lemay Lake. When someone says
‘storm sewer’ it does not go off to be cleaned up. Overflow from a holding pond goes to a lake –
either to Augusta Lake or to Lemay Lake. She would really like for this Commission to fully assure
this community that Lemay Lake is going to be protected with a the very best of practices. She
does not know what happened with Augusta Lake, it is a mystery; however, she knows that public
Works Director Ryan Ruzek is trying to figure that out and she is grateful for that. However, they
are fearful about Lemay Lake itself with this kind of a development.
She also noted that pervious surfaces soon become impervious without maintenance. They become
filled with debris and they need to be cleaned up. She again asked for assurances that Lemay Lake
will remain the nice lake that it is right now.
Mr. Daniel Bogg, 809 Hazel Court, expressed his concerns regarding future development in
Mendota Heights in general; Lemay Lake, Highway 110, and now proposed across Dodd Road.
All of these high density complexes are a concern to him. If there is any notice by the people and
the Commission – he is a member of the younger generation. Everyone he has seen come up to
speak has been here 30 years or more. He and his wife were fortunate enough to move into the city
in 2011. They felt it was an absolute blessing at the time and they continue to feel that way as this
is the place they want to raise their family; not because of what it does not offer but because of
what it does for the future. That being that this is an oasis; this is a different development than the
first ring suburbs and the rest of the seven county metro. There is a special holding here in the city.
They feel that this Commission and this City Council are foregoing the past – the very important
past that has been stood on – to maintain and preserve Mendota Heights for what it is for us – not
only the current residents but for the future generations.
Seeing no one else to come forward, Chair Field allowed Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane,
tor return. Mr. Friel stated that they probably would not be here tonight but for the fact that the
Wetlands Permit and the Planned Unit Development were approved at the same time. When they
started looking at the action the Council had taken and the Planning Commission had taken, there
were more infirmities from their point of view and he wished to address those.
One of the things that disturbs him is that in a normal process, a public hearing happens and it is
referred to the Council and the Council makes the decision. In this case, the Council apparently
has made the decision and referred their decision back to the Commission for its blessing. That is
not the way it is supposed to work. He suggested that the Commission had no recommending
authority at this time because the recommendation has already been determined.
He was surprised to see in the staff report that there is a plat change before the Commission. He
knows that there is no notice required for that but, under the circumstances, it would have been
beneficial to learn that was the case in the notice of the hearing.
The underlying zoning classification for this piece of property is R-3 and the basic standards of R-
3 is where the Commission starts. Mr. Benetti informed the Commission of that in their August
page 109
2017 meeting and the Council at their June 2017 meeting. He made it clear to the Commission that
for purposes of this site, they could not do more than 46 units, which is the permitted number in
an R-3, without a PUD.
INFILL – keeping the maximum of 46 units in mind, Mr. Friel spoke about ‘infill’. The ordinances
the city contain a definition of infill in the aviation section and it deals with sound. The definition
of an infill, whether it is in the sound section or anyplace else, is the same. The Michael property
is not infill. It had a development on it when the Commission decided to go forward with this and,
in fact, no piece of property that has buildings on it that have to be torn down can ever become
infill. Infill by definition is ‘property that is vacant in the city because it has been built around’ and
the infill property in this community was all identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the
map. By definition infill is filling in – it is not refilling. There is a difference. Redevelopment of
infill property is what was done some years ago with the Super Block. There was a property that
was largely undeveloped and owned by one or two people. That was infill and was identified as
such. He himself has a piece of property identified as infill. It is vacant except for his house on it
and it is subdivided. A property that has buildings on it cannot be called infill just because you tear
the buildings down.
TRAFFIC & PARKING – there is a threshold in the ordinance for traffic and parking. The traffic
and parking in the new PUD cannot exceed the reasonable estimates for parking in the permitted
use in that district. The permitted use in this district is R-3, not B-3. And the comparison with B-
3 is ridiculous for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is Mr. Benetti compared the size of
the density using the R-3 – the 46 units – and its appropriate to use it for the traffic estimates as
well. The traffic estimates for this property for the permitted use – 46 units – would be
approximately 470 vehicle trips per day using the eight trips per day per unit under the Institute of
Traffic Engineers Transportation Manual. The 138 to 136 units will give 1,000 to 1,400 trips per
day. MnDOT sent to staff a note that said their view was that they would generate on this site, with
this development, over 1,000 trips per day with 140 units. Unfortunately, that information was
never disclosed at your public hearing last August, nor did they make the estimates that the
Council, because of the lawsuit, saw fit to finally make. He stated that the Council used the wrong
basis, they used a comparison with what would be permitted in a B-3. There is another reason why
the B-3 is not applicable; go back to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that took care of in June
– under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission created a HR-PUD Comprehensive
Plan Characteristic for this property. Once the Commission did that, under Minnesota Statues,
nothing can be put on that property that isn’t consistent with HR-PUD. B-3 certainly is not
consistent with anything that could be put in an R-3 zone. Mr. Friel referenced Minnesota Statute
473.58.
The parking estimates cannot exceed those for a permitted use. In this case, for 140 units the
parking space required is 2.5 per unit. That has been cut down to 1.7 per unit, a 30% decrease.
Staff compared the ordinance provisions with the ordinance provisions of other municipalities and
suggested to the Commission that the city was different than the rest of them. He believed that
there had been enough testimony to this point about the residents liking to be different from
everybody else. If the city wants to change their parking, they would need to change the ordinance
– after a hearing and consideration – and not doing it on an ad-hoc basis as was done in this case
page 110
and sometimes that results in a problem, as the city knows from the results of a different lawsuit
that has come down just in the last few weeks involving this community.
LANDSCAPE PLAN – He did not have much to say on the landscape plan except to say that staff
keeps saying that this is not the sort of plan that would ordinarily be had at this stage of the
proceedings and that the Planning Commission never sees it and the Council rarely sees it. This
isn’t any other plan, this is an ordinance that has a provision in it that requires the Commission
have the plan at the time of making the decision; otherwise they cannot determine that they met
the requirements of the ordinance. He has not yet seen a landscape plan that meets those provisions,
although he has heard repeatedly that one exists.
CONSERVATIVE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – he was interested in the city’s analysis of
that. The provision reads ‘the Council shall be conservative in exercising it discretion to permit a
Planned Unit Development of less than 10 acres’. The word ‘shall’, under the provisions of this
ordinance, is mandatory. It is not a suggestion. It is disingenuous to suggest that tripling the number
of units from what was permitted – 46 to 140 or 136 – is conservative. They are also permitting at
least 2.5 times what is permitted in parking; although there is a little bait and switch there because
he wants to reduce the parking required normally for a 140 units down to 235 spaces.
Commissioner Noonan suggested that the variance was the wrong term to use and he was correct.
All of those setbacks from what is normally required were provided for under the Conditional Use
Permit. They may be there but they do vary significantly from the standards by as much as 17 to
50 feet set back on one side and 25% setback on two other sides, and at least a 25% barrier setback
in the parking area from the street.
For the record, conservative is not a political term, it is not a noun; it’s an adverb and it modifies
exercise – conservative exercise of discretion to create the district. He submitted that what was
done was not a conservative exercise of discretion of the city in this case.
The planning staff report indicated that the plan is down to 45.5% impervious surface – down from
49.7%. He stated that this is really an inconsequential difference, particularly in view of the fact
that the ordinance says ‘furthermore, in order to qualify under this subsection of a residential
planned unit development, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, the
ratio of impervious surface to the total project area shall not be more than 25:100 – 2,500 square
feet of impervious surface to 10,000 square feet of project area. So this plan is still approximately
two times what it should be with impervious surface.
When dealing with a lot of Planned Unit Developments it is learned that PUD’s of less than 5 acres
get a little bit different treatment. The ordinance provides a lot of hoops and the reason those hoops
are required to be jumped through is because it is not a good idea to have high density on small
tracts of land; it is not a good idea to have high density on small tract in a critical area; it is not a
good idea to have high density on property that is near a wetland, let alone be encroaching on it,
because of the problems that high density creates in a small tract. He suggested that the Council
has not treated those hoops properly or this matter would not be under discussion.
page 111
He has practiced law for a while, for approximately 60 years. Most of that has been in the municipal
area and he stated that to have the proceeding with a case pending, in which all of the decisions
being made tonight are already pending before a judge in Dakota County, is, at best, really bizarre.
Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, returned and noted again that he had been on the City Council
for 12 years when Mendota Heights was 4,500 to 5,000 people. He has been through a lot of
development and went through some really heated ones. Mr. Don Huber, afterwards, would always
say that he did not like what took place at the meeting and he would wait and get this settled. He
would put everyone in a room and they would settle it together. That is why everyone is here. He
is part of the lawsuit – they are not the party of new – if he wasn’t living next door he would be
here begging the Commission to clean that mess up. But let’s do it with the favor of all of the
people that can accept it.
Chair Field asked the applicant if he would like to comment. In response, Mr. Ben Delwiche,
architect with Kaas Wilson Architects came forward. He said that he realizes that he would be
unable to change a lot of opinions so he would be as fact-based as possible.
It appears that the number one issue is traffic, he could not speak to that as he does not live in the
area but he has driven down into the Augusta Shores area and understands the current concerns.
There are trees that overhang that parking lot; he assured the residents that if they take a look at
the current landscape plan the situation would be greatly improved.
Additionally, the traffic report that was listed as part of the lawsuit was impartial reports by a third
party and he could not speak to the expertise of that report, but that is the one fact-based object
available to look at and judge this plat.
In regards to police calls being similar in regards to the motel, while he could not say unequivocally
yes or no, in his experience in the last five or six years dealing with multi-family housing that a lot
of the product is going to go to empty nesters, people who are 55 to 60 and want to downsize a
little bit, do not want to deal with the yard – that is a huge component of who would be renting
here. Not to mention the Phase 2 building, although they do not want to classify it just yet based
on how it rents out, is potentially going to be a 55+ building. Mr. Swenson rents to a high quality
resident, he puts all potential renters through a thorough vetting process and Mr. Delwiche could
guarantee that if asked he would come back and say how many police visits he’s had at his
buildings. Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that it would not be anywhere near what the motel was
rumored to create.
In regards to the building, he has heard comments that the building has not been seen or that it
does not fit into the context of the existing neighborhood, he did not disagree altogether. He would
say that it was looked at from a different angle. He has been in the neighborhood and found it to
be completely separate off of Highway 55 and he did not believe any of the residents would
identify as living off of Highway 55. The apartment buildings being proposed are designed to be
more reflective of what would be on a busy street, such as what is across the street – the restaurant
technologies warehouse building.
page 112
Similarly, Mr. Swenson chose a more expensive roof product – a flat roof versus a pitched roof –
to deal with some of the height issues. Mr. Delwiche and Mr. Borgan – also from Kass Wilson
Architects – did a handful of studies that show that during the summer time the 3-story building
would not be seen or would not even be close. They have computer generated images that would
show how that process was determined.
They are trying to be consistent with a bridge from the restaurant technologies flat roof building
industrial to a flat roof high-density residential to what is down the hill – a single-family twin-
home development.
Mr. Delwiche is not an engineer but he knows the requirements they have to meet. Currently this
site is not up to current codes for stormwater retention. There are no provisions to keep the water
on the site, the rain falls and hits the motel site or green house site and rolls on down the hill. When
this building is complete, that site will be brought up to current code; all of the water that is
generated or that lands on the site will be handled internally within that site and then drain to the
proper stormwater facilities. As part of that, during construction there is a SWIPP that plan that
evaluates erosion control and has procedures in place during construction to ensure that no
pollution from that construction will be getting outside of that property boundary.
Mr. Delwiche stated that Mr. Swenson is an owner/operator of all of the buildings that he has. It
is a family-owned business that he intends to hand down to his sons. This is not a building he plans
to build and then uproot and leave – make his money and get out. That is not his philosophy nor is
it his or his company’s objective with this property or their general philosophy of dealing with
business.
In conclusion, Mr. Delwiche said that where the proposed building is, the setbacks that were
maintained and designed to were consistent with where the existing building footprints were at
that time.
When this was started last fall there were a lot more supporters, which is a real shame because they
do not have the perspective of what was there to say – look at what we are putting there instead of
this motel. All he heard from residents the first time around was generally positive feedback about
how they could not wait for the motel and greenhouse to be removed. He wanted to remind
everyone what was there, what is being proposed, it is nowhere close – they plan to do a high-class
development.
Chair Field asked Mr. Swenson if he had anything else to add. Mr. Swenson stated that there were
a lot of comments on this building and what it was going to consist of. One gentleman says it is
going to be a monster like the one down by Mendakota. That building is six stories, four stories of
apartments and two stories of parking. This project would be nowhere near that. This is three
stories above grade and one story parking underneath grade. It is not going to be a monster, it is
not going to stand out like a sore thumb, and it is very well designed. Kass Wilson has been doing
apartment buildings for a long time. He himself has been building for 40 years and has 4,000 units
and he receives very few police calls. The crimes that took place at the hotel were not just domestic;
there was drug use, attempted murder, and all kinds of felonies. He vets all of the potential renters
and makes sure they can pay the rent so he can pay his mortgage. They also check to see if they
page 113
are people of character. They check their background, criminal records, check their credit, and if
they do not measure up to what is believed to be fair standards then they do not rent to them.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Corbett)
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON, TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO ALLOW THE ROOM TO CLEAR
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Corbett)
At 8:45 p.m. Chair Field reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Magnuson asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann, since the Commission has not been
apprised of the lawsuit situation, if the lawsuit was pending and if the issues that are being
discussed here this evening a part of what the judge is being asked to consider. Attorney Lehmann
replied that the matter was taken under advisement by Judge Baxter. By law he has 90 days in
which to issue an opinion. He indicated to the parties in court that he was going on a medical leave
and as a result he would probably need the full 90 days in which to issue his decision. The matter
of the lawsuit is still before the district court and under advisement and no opinion has been
rendered. The Commissions job now is solely limited to what Chair Field read with regards to the
proposed amendment regarding the separation of the buildings and then reaffirming the
Commission’s recommendation to the City Council and then their decision on January 2, 2018.
That is really all the Commission is being asked to do.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that the Commissions’ role is very limited at this
time. Mr. Lehmann confirmed.
Addressing Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Commissioner Magnuson stated that she too is
concerned about the quality of the lakes in this area. She asked if Mr. Ruzek had determined what
that problem might be and if there are some assurances that there would not be any degradation of
Lemay Lake as a result of this or any other development in the area. Mr. Ruzek replied that there
was actually a pollution control agency study a couple of years ago and they recommended alum
treatment to treat the excess phosphorus in the lake. The city, in conjunction with the Lower
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, did an alum treatment to Lake Augusta.
Unfortunately, they are not seeing high quality results. Last summer, city staff did some additional
investigative work and discovered some erosion on the east side of the lake. Now the city and the
watershed management organization are working on putting together a plan to take care of the
erosion. The brown color is being caused by suspended solids – fine clay takes a while to settle
page 114
out. Every rainstorm is washing a little bit of additional sediment into the lake. They are going to
work on a temporary solution in the early spring and then work on a more permanent solution.
The new development is being held to the watershed management organization’s water quality
standards. They are the most stringent plan that the city has at this time; which should require a
50% reduction from phosphorus levels from how the city’s current ordinance are established right
now. The city is in the process of updating its plan; however, that will not be complete until the
end of the year.
The systems being installed in this project do have mostly infiltration. The city does require one
inch of infiltration over all new impervious surface. He believes the calculations on this site far
exceed those requirements. They are infiltrating approximately 14 inches.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was confused about the underlying zone here – is it B-3
or R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the old zoning was B-3 General Business. The new zoning is now
HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. It is a new classification and new
zoning district that was created by the rezoning, which is consistent or compliant with the land use
change of HR-PUD as well.
Commissioner Magnuson requested confirmation that the traffic study that the Commission has,
which does a traffic study based upon what could have been developed in a B-3 zone, is accurate.
Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the zoning was never R-3. Mr. Benetti replied
that the zoning had never been R-3 on that site.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND
FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST
22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND REASSERTS
THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET
FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B
Commissioner Magnuson, for clarification sake, stated that the scope of what the Commission is
being asked to do is consistent with the motion and that does not include any opportunity or ability
on the Commission’s part to talk about density or size or structure or design or anything like that.
The Commission is simply being asked by the Council to do these three very limited things. Mr.
Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Toth asked for the items under consideration to be put back up on the screen and
that they be read by Mr. Benetti:
Staff Recommendations
page 115
1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments
Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot
separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27
spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable
and recommended for approval.
2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development
meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land
less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City
Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01.
3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of
the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density
Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain
in effect and unchanged.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that page one of the staff report states that the Commission was
being asked to provide comment and recommendations to City Council in respect to its findings
that this project meets the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B. However, on page 10 of the staff
report the Commission is being asked to specifically find that it meets the criteria. She would be
more comfortable saying that the Council had the authority and made a decision that was consistent
with the ordinance versus the Commission making an independent finding based on what has been
presented.
Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment to the motion made.
Commissioner Noonan explained that he was uncomfortable with the amended motion because to
simply to say that the Commission was agreeing that the decision was a reasonable decision with
respect to the findings to support the PUD. It was said that the Commission did not have enough
information to make their own independent and therefore to reassure the decision. He believed that
the staff report was very thorough in terms outlining what the criteria is of the ordinance and going
through the five elements would allow the Commission to make a determination that, yes the
Council made a decision on the PUD and the Commission has the information that they could
reassert that it was an appropriate decision. He would stand by the initial motion. He believed the
Commission could stand by it fairly strongly to say that the Commission does assert or reassert the
provisions of the PUD section, based upon the analysis contained in the staff report and the
discussions which took place.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission would be reasserting the decision the Council
made or the decision the Commission made. The Commission did not make a decision before. Mr.
Benetti replied that the Council had already made that decision by adopting Resolution 2018-01.
Commissioner Magnuson continued by stating that maybe that was her problem; she did not like
the word reassert because they did not make a decision that needed to be reasserted. The
Commissioner was being asked to state that they agree with the Council’s interpretation.
Commissioner Noonan agreed with that logic.
page 116
The motion was changed as follows:
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND
FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST
22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND AGREES AND
FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA
SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Corbett)
This item will be returned to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, April 3, 2018.
Staff and Commission Announcements
Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that a Planning Commission Workshop Meeting would be
held on Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. Chair Field did stated for the audience that this was
a workshop meeting, not a public hearing. However, the public is more than welcome to attend.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Corbett)
page 117
page 118
page 119
page 120
page 121
page 122
page 123
page 124
page 125
page 126
page 127
page 128
page 129
page 130
page 131
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
page 136
page 137
page 138
page 139
page 140
page 141
page 142
page 143
page 144
page 145
page 146
page 147
page 148
page 149
page 150
page 151
page 152
page 153
page 154
page 155
page 156
page 157
page 158
page 159
page 160
page 161
page 162
page 163
page 164
page 165
page 166
page 167
page 168
page 169
page 170
page 171
page 172
page 173
page 174
page 175
page 176
page 177
page 178
page 179
page 180
page 181