2018-07-02 Council agenda packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Mj CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 2, 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 June 19, 2018 City Council Minutes
b. Approve Orchard Place Boulevard Repair
c. Approve Resolution 2018-48 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Lexington Highlands
& Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements
d. Approve Part-time Communication Coordinator Hire
e. Authorization to Receive Price Quotes for Replacement and Purchase of Par 3 Equipment
f. Authorization to Place Officer Scott Patrick Memorial in Market Square Park
g. Acknowledge Building Activity Report from May 2018
h. Approval of May 2018 Treasurer's Report
i. Approval of Claims List
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
*See guidelines below
7. Public Hearing
a. Resolution 2018-50 Preliminary Approval of Issuance of Fire Station Capital Improvement
Bonds
8. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2018-44 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for property located at 1133
Delaware Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-12)
b. Resolution 2018-45 Approving a Lot Split and Lot Combination for properties located at
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood Addition (Planning Case No. 2018-14)
c. Resolution 2018-46 Approving a Critical Area Permit for property located at 1680 Mayfield
Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2018-15)
d. Resolution 2018-47 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment with Variances and Lot Split - Lot
Combination for property located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive and part of
Wentworth Park land properties (Planning Case No. 2018-16)
e. Consideration and Direction to Planning Staff in preparing a proposed Ordinance Amending
Chapter 12 – Zoning to possibly allow Dog Training and/or Pet Care Facilities in the I-
Industrial District
9. Community Announcements
10. Council Comments
11. 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, June 19, 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 Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel
were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented a revised agenda for adoption. Councilor Duggan moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
RECOGNITIONS
A) RECOGNITION OF CITY ATTORNEY TOM LEHMANN
Mayor Garlock presented a proclamation recognizing and honoring Thomas Lehmann for services as City
Attorney. Mayor Garlock and the current councilors, along with previous Mayor Krebsbach, and previous
Councilors Steve Norton and Mike Povolny expressed their appreciation to Mr. Lehmann for his services
to the city and congratulated him on his appointment to District Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial District.
B) SWEARING IN – POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy introduced the newest members of the Police Department; Captain Wayne
Wegener, Officer Ryan Yauch, and Officer Thomas Albindia. Mayor Garlock presided over the swearing
in ceremony.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent items as presented and authorized execution of the
necessary documents, pulling items a) Approval of May 30, 2018 Special City Council Minutes, e)
Approve the Change of Certain Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting Dates or Times, j) Approval
of Resolution 2018-41, Accepting Donations for City Events, and k) Request Intersection Improvement
be Added to Dakota County CIP.
page 3
a. Approval of May 30, 2018 City Council Special Meeting Minutes
b. Approval of May 30, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Approval of June 5, 2018 City Council Minutes
d. Acknowledge April 10, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
e. Approve the Change of Certain Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting Dates or Times
f. Acknowledge Par 3 May Update and Financial Report
g. Approval of Resolution 2018-42, Appointing Election Judges
h. Approve Out of State Travel Request-City Administrator
i. Approve Out of State Travel Request- Fire Chief
j. Approval of Resolution 2018-41, Accepting Donations for City Events
k. Request Intersection Improvement be Added to Dakota County CIP
l. Approve Purchase Order for Playground Surfacing Material
m. Approval of Resolution 2018-43, Authorizing the Donation of Bicycles to Rick's Bike Sale
n. Approve April 2018 Treasurer's Report
o. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
A) APPROVAL OF MAY 30, 2018 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilor Paper suggested a change, explaining that on page 5 of the Council packet, the school
identified should have been the University of St. Thomas; not St. Thomas Academy.
Councilor Petschel moved to approve the May 30, 2018 Special City Council Minutes with the
recommended edit.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
E) APPROVE THE CHANGE OF CERTAIN REGULARLY SCHEDULED
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES OR TIMES
Councilor Duggan requested that these dates and times be posted on the website for the public.
Councilor Duggan moved to approve changing the date and time of the regularly scheduled meetings as:
July 3rd meeting moved to Monday, July 2, 2018, start time of 7:00 pm
August 7th meeting start time moved to 8:00 pm
September 18th meeting moved to Monday, September 17, 2018, start time 7:00 pm.
November 6th meeting moved to Wednesday, November 7, 2018, start time of 7:00 pm
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 4
J) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2018-41, ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR CITY EVENTS
Councilor Duggan stated that our city receives a lot of support from the community. When reviewing
the list of donors, it is indicative of the love that people in the community have for our city. It is exciting
to see the growth and participation of all of the businesses and families. The staff, Mayor, and many
other people need to be congratulated for keeping this place running well.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-41 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE
RECEIPT OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY FOR THE OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK MEMORIAL 5K
RACE, CITY PARKS CELEBRATION, AND CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
K) REQUEST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT BE ADDED TO DAKOTA COUNTY CIP
Councilor Duggan, referencing the budget impact, noted that it contained a discretionary county road
and a state highway and a mobility study in a range of $375,000. However, just above that it states that
county funding for this project would be 55% county and 45% city. He requested a breakdown of the
$375,000, where is it coming from, and why the city is paying a portion of it.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the 45% of the $375,000 was not included in the report.
Staff has submitted a letter of request to Dakota County to ask them to include this project in the Dakota
County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). If the County approves, they will include it in the CIP. Staff is
requesting that this project be placed in their 2022 CIP.
Mr. Ruzek also noted that the Street Improvement Plan 2019-2023 included in the Council packet has
not been approved at this time. If the County approves this request, then it would be added to the 2019-
2023 plan, which would be up for review and approval sometime in September 2018.
Councilor Duggan moved to authorize the Public Works Director to send a letter to Dakota County
requesting an intersection improvement at Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road be included in the Dakota
County CIP for 2022.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Jonathan Zagel, 2230 Copperfield Drive, requested that additional financial information be posted on
the City’s website. He requested that the city post the results of the audit, and preferably, quarterly
financials in the spirit of transparency.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, said that he and his wife have reviewed the Mendota Heights
2040 Comprehensive Plan. The most striking thing he noticed was the rate at which certain elements in
the plan are influenced by the Metropolitan Council agenda. The Met Council agenda is contained in what
is called the Thrive 2040 Plan. The prevailing element of that agenda is encouraging redevelopment and
infill development.
page 5
He said that the link between the Mendota Heights Comp Plan and Thrive 2040 Plan is explicit, and that
the existing Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan is a sell-out to the Met Council. Mr. Smith pointed out
that the contractor for the Comprehensive Plan is Stantec, who has contracts with many municipalities
around the region. Most of these municipalities have their land planning use that conforms to the Met
Council agenda.
Mr. Smith pointed out that favoring density development in the community does not make sense. The
Council’s role is to serve the interests of the city residents – not the interests of the Metropolitan Council.
Councilor Duggan noted that the Henry Sibley High School Marching Band has been invited to go to
Washington DC and perform on July 4th, representing the state of Minnesota. They have been looking for
some financial help and he encouraged the City to support this effort.
PRESENTATIONS
A) PRESENTATION OF THE 2017 AUDIT – MATT MAYER, BERGANKDV
Mr. Matt Mayer of BerganKDV presented the results of the 2017 audit. The Independent Auditor’s
Report stated the following: management is responsible for the financial statements; the auditor is
responsible to express an opinion on the financial statements; Unmodified Opinion – best opinion an
auditor is able to offer, provides assurance that the financial statements are fairly presented in all
material respects, Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit – No Findings, Internal Control Findings – Lack
of Segregation of Accounting Duties (perennial finding), reasonable mitigating controls have been put in
place based on the size of the staff the city has and mid-level finding.
Mr. Mayer briefly reviewed the General Fund Budget, General Fund Revenues, General Fund
Expenditures, Par 3 Golf Course Fund, Sewer Fund, and the Storm Water Fund. He encouraged the
Council to keep an eye on the Par 3 Golf Course, Sewer, and Storm Water funds to ensure they are
operating up to expectations.
Councilor Duggan recognized Finance Director Kristen Schabacker for all of her, and her team’s hard
work, patience, and dedication.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ORDINANCE NO. 527 & 528 RENAMING FREEWAY ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that staff has received a petition from the residents along
South Freeway Road, requesting a street name change.
Since the petition was confirmed to be signed a majority of the residents, staff felt they should give the
residents on North Freeway Road the same opportunity. A letter was mailed to those residents asking if
they would consider a street name change. Currently Linden Street lines up with North Freeway Road.
There were 7 votes in favor, 2 votes opposed, and 4 no responses.
Mr. Ruzek suggested South Freeway Road be changed to Mulberry Lane and North Freeway Road be
changed to Linden Street.
page 6
Councilor Paper asked how long the post office would recognize the current, soon to be former, street
names. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff usually sends a letter to the post office and they can make
instantaneous changes. The post office has granted the city access to their online system, which would
enable expedition of the request. As for the length of time the post office would recognize the former
name, he was unsure of the details. He suggested all of the property owners file a standard ‘change of
address’ form. There are opportunities that the post office has to extend that change of address form.
Councilor Duggan moved to adopt ORDINANCE 527, “PROVIDING FOR THE NAME CHANGE OF
SOUTH FREEWAY ROAD (LOCATED BETWEEN OAK STREET AND SOUTH LANE) TO
MULBERRY LANE” AND ORDINANCE 528, “PROVIDING FOR THE NAME CHANGE OF
NORTH FREEWAY ROAD (LOCATED BETWEEN OAK STREET AND SOUTH LANE) TO
LINDEN STREET”.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mr. Dan Wills, 679 South Freeway Road, expressed his appreciation as he has been getting 679 North
Freeway Road mail for 40 years. He asked when they could expect the street signs to be changed? Mr.
Ruzek replied that signs would be ordered and they would be installed as soon as possible.
Councilor Duggan asked if there were any considerations for the residents to get reimbursed for any
address signage they may have to replace; or stationery or cards with the now old address. He believed it
would be a reasonable gesture.
B) ORDINANCE NO. 526 SEXUAL PREDATOR AND OFFENDERS RESIDENCY
RESTRICTIONS
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy explained that on April 26, 2018, a community meeting was held
regarding a level two sex offender that moved into the city. As a result of that meeting, the Council
requested staff to research residency restrictions for sex offenders and bring forward a proposal.
She noted that this is a particularly difficult task as there is no data to support that residency restrictions
do anything to positively affect public safety. However, the restrictions do tend to give people peace of
mind and make residents feel better about their community, which can be a double edged sword.
However, what staff came up with they feel is an ethical and reasonable ordinance.
Basically, it covers level 2 and level 3 sex offenders and it restricts them from residing within 1,200 feet
of where children might congregate. It also restricts the offenders from living within 1,200 feet from one
another; it also restricts them from dressing up in costumes for holidays for the purpose of enticing
children.
A presentation was given by Dakota County Corrections, Mr. Mark Mehl, Supervisor and Mr. Jim
Scovil, Deputy Director. They reported that:
National Sex Offender Statistics
• 90% of those convicted of a sex offense do not commit another sex offense
• 90% of sex offense convictions are committed by a person without a prior sex offense conviction
• 90% of the victims of all sex offenses know their abuser
page 7
Sentencing Options
• Probation with treatment and other conditions
• Prison with supervised release following incarceration
• All sex offenders exiting prison also are evaluated and assigned a sex offender risk level
Sex Offender Notifications
• Level I Sex Offenders – lower risk of re-offense; notification to law enforcement, victims, and
witnesses
• Level II Sex Offenders – moderate risk of re-offense; notification also includes day cares,
schools, or others likely to be victimized by the offender
• Level III Sex Offenders – Higher risk of re-offense; community notification
Sex Offenders in Dakota County
• Approximately 110 new sex offenders are placed on probation supervision each year
• Approximately 80 sex offenders are discharged successfully each year
• 980 individuals placed on probation in the last ten years in Dakota County for a sex offense
Current Status of Offenders
• Total estimated number of Minnesota sex offenders is 316 per 100,000 people
• An estimated 1,268 sex offenders reside in Dakota County from this statewide rate
Sex Offender Status (estimates)
• 3% Civilly Committed
• 5% Supervised Release
• 14% Post-supervision Still Registered
• 24% Probation
• 54% Post-supervision and Registration
Dakota Sex Offender Recidivism
• 85 sex offenders were released from supervision in 2009
• One offender had a new sex offense within the six years following release from supervision – not
related to proximity of schools or day care
Minnesota Prison Re-entry
• 3,166 sex offenders released over 13 years
• 8.4 years average follow up
• Sexual re-offense conviction started at 17% and fell to 3%
Minnesota DOC Recidivism
• DOC 2012 study evaluated sex offenders for 4 years post release from prison and found a
reconviction for a sex offenses was 4%
• 2008 study, sexual offense reconviction rate of:
o 3.9% for Level I
o 6.0% for Level II
o 3.2% for Level III
page 8
Residential Restrictions
• MN DOC analyzed 224 recidivistic sex offenses (out of the 3,166 total sex offenders released
from prison)
• Not one of the 224 cases was associated with residential proximity to a school, park, or day care
Evidence from Duluth
• In June 2010, Duluth enacted residency restrictions for Level 3 sex offenders
• At the time of enactment, there were 9 Level 3’s living in Duluth
o None of them were homeless
• In October 2016, there were 12 Level 3’s living in Duluth
o 8 were in transitional housing or unstable
o 4 were in private residences/apartments
Offenses were committed by:
• Level 1, 2, or 3 – 0 (0%)
• Registered offender – 1 (2%)
• Not previously registered – 50 (98%)
• Family member or acquaintance – 44 (86%)
• Someone who traveled 2,500 feet or less to establish contact with victim near school, park, or
daycare – 1 (2%) – he was not previously registered
Integrated Approaches Work
• Treatment
• Community/Family Support
• Intensive Supervision
• Employment and Prosocial Activities
• Community Residence
Reintegration Challenges
• Most could afford to pay rent but landlords were unwilling to approve their applications
• Transportation needed to treatment programs, as most are out-of-county
• Sense of hopelessness contributed to public safety issues
Dakota County Approach
• Partner with communities to develop housing options for sex offenders
• Support landlord outreach and educational activities
o Actual vs. perceived risks in renting to sex offenders
o Level of supervision provided by Corrections
Results of Residence Restrictions
• Increases in homeless sex offenders
• Sex offenders unable to return to their home after release and/or unable to live with family
members
• Increase the number of sex offenders who falsely report where they are living
• No reduction in sex crime rates / recidivism
page 9
Improve Public Safety
• Unhoused Unemployed
• Unhoused Untreated
• Unhoused Unstable
• Unhoused Unsafe
Councilor Duggan asked if released sex offenders are permitted to be in shelters, such as Dorothy Day,
Jeremiah Program, Mary’s Place, or the like. Mr. Mehl replied that Level I sex offenders can stay in
some shelters; Level II and III’s are restricted and some places restrict all sex offenders.
Councilor Duggan asked if the DOC has any authority in relation to assessing a private residence or
housing unit who wishes to open their living space to sex offenders. Mr. Mehl replied that if someone
was to propose a residence, a probation officer would go into the home, review it, see if there is anything
present that would increase risk (such as chemical use is a factor for a large majority of their
population), look to see if it is a stable residence, and then approve or deny the residence based on risk
factors.
Councilor Paper asked if the number of the Level II and III sex offenders is increasing. Mr. Scovil
replied that the numbers have remained relatively flat. There are some who have been successfully
discharged from probation and there are new ones coming in; however, there are other ways to get off
caseloads; prison and moving are the two ways that typically happens.
Councilor Paper asked where he could find the map that shows the number of offenders living close to
his home. Mr. Scovil replied that the DOC is not permitted to give out the addresses of sex offenders.
Mr. Scovil replied that their position would be that this individual moving in, even next door, does not
increase the risk to your children. The unknown sex offenders are the ones that are riskier than the ones
known about. The ones known about, the recidivism rate is very low. They are being supervised, sent to
treatment, and are being watched and intervened upon early should their behavior start to go awry.
Councilor Petschel commented that Mendota Heights has a unique situation, with the Level II sex
offender who moved into the city with no supervision requirements. Mr. Mehl replied that this is a very
unique situation. It is very unusual for someone to come out of Minnesota Sex Offender Program
(MSOP) with no supervision of any kind. He added that although the offender received intense treatment
for years and then was phased out; they do not usually move someone to the point they would be free in
the community until their risk factors are reduced. Mr. Scovil stated he believed there was now a
legislative fix on that.
Mayor Garlock asked if most of the larger communities in Dakota County have residency restrictions in
place. Mr. Mehl replied that he believes there are eight cities with residency restrictions of varying
degrees. Dakota County Corrections also provided this same presentation and discussion with Burnsville
when they were considering restrictions (Burnsville does not have a residence restriction).
Councilor Duggan asked for an understanding of the DESIGNATED OFFENDER definition that reads
“Any person who (1) is required to register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, (2) is
assigned at Risk Level II or Risk Level III under Minn. Stat. § 244.052, subd. 3, and (3) has been
convicted of a designated sexual offense, regardless of whether the adjudication has been withheld”.
City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that certain plea negotiations can be had with the prosecutor, and
one of them is called a ‘stay of adjudication’, which basically means that the person admits that they
committed the designated offense; however, the court would not accept the conviction for a period of
page 10
time. Therefore, they may ‘stay’ it for a period of a year and then they would set certain conditions
during that period of time. If the defendant met all of those conditions, at the end of that period of time
the conviction would go away. As if it had never happened. He said what this is trying to do is to make
sure that people who received that kind of plea bargain basically are also included.
Councilor Duggan asked about the “primary address” being the mailing address of the person’s
dwelling. The response was that if the mailing address is different from the actual location of the
dwelling, primary address also includes the physical location of the dwelling described with as much
specificity as possible”, Councilor Duggan asked if it shouldn’t read “. . . dwelling, the primary
address shall also include the physical location . . .” Chief McCarthy that adding ‘the primary’ would
make it easier to read but would not change the meaning so she would be agreeable to add that. As to the
other suggestion, she deferred to the author to determine if it would change the legality of the sentence.
Counsel Lehmann noted that it could be added if they so wish.
Councilor Duggan then referred to “secondary address” . . .the location of a supervised publicly or
privately-operated shelter or facility designated to provide temporary living accommodations for
homeless individuals . . .” asked if this should read ‘non-predatory homeless individuals’. Chief
McCarthy replied that she believes this is referring to a place that is not just predatory offenders that are
homeless.
Councilor Duggan, under § 4-7-3 (B) Prohibited activity that reads “Holiday events in which the
offender is the parent or guardian of the children involved, and no non-familial children are present, are
exempt from this division” asked if this meant children other than those who were family. Chief
McCarthy replied in the affirmative.
Councilor Duggan asked if they needed to notify people in relation to all of these different addresses or
anybody else about this addition or change in our ordinance language, particularly in relation to
addresses. Mr. Mehl replied that they can have a primary address and multiple secondary addresses.
Then they are required to register all of those with DOC and with the BCA.
Councilor Duggan asked how soon after acquiring the secondary address would they need to notify the
Police Department or the DOC. Mr. Mehl replied that they would need to register the address. If they are
under supervision they would typically do that through the DOC, if they are off of supervision they
would go to the local law enforcement agency. The rule states that this should be done five business
days prior to actually making the move.
Councilor Miller moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 526 “ADDING CITY CODE SECTION 4-7
REGARDING PREDATORY OFFENDERS”.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements made.
page 11
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Duggan reiterated his comments regarding the Henry Sibley Band going to Washington DC
and encouraged the residents to tune in as it would be worth watching. He also expressed congratulations
to the Police Department and Police Chief Kelly McCarthy on the three new officers hired.
Councilor Duggan noted that he was impressed by the At Home apartments. He said that the apartments
were bright and pleasant.
Councilor Duggan congratulated Tom Lehmann.
Councilor Paper expressed good luck to the Henry Sibley Marching Band at Nationals.
Councilor Miller noted the two open houses at the fire department scheduled for June 26 and July 9, to
present the proposed Fire Station addition and remodel.
Mayor Garlock thanked Tom Lehmann for his service to the City.
Councilor Petschel echoed the sentiments made regarding Tom Lehmann; the City will miss him.
She also mentioned the work she did on the Noise Oversight Committee with Mr. Chad Leqve, who has
just been named Vice President of Management and Operations at the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded everyone that the July 4th fireworks are coming up. The
Northern Lighters is a private, non-profit who is seeking assistance from the residents.
Mr. McNeil added that in his long career in various cities, Mr. Lehmann is the one of the finest city
attorneys with whom he has had the pleasure to work.
ADJOURN
Councilor Paper moved to adjourn.
Councilor Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
ATTEST: Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 12
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 2 , 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approve Orchard Place Boulevard Repairs
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to Nice Yard for repairs to the boulevard of
Orchard Place.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights reconstructed Orchard Place in 2013 as part of the Hunter & Orchard
Neighborhood Improvement Project.
DISCUSSION
In the fall of 2016, staff was notified by a home owner that the boulevard area that was disturbed
and sodded was showing signs of distress. Staff then assessed the boulevards in the spring of
2017 and documented the west boulevard of Orchard Place between Orchard Circle & Lexington
Avenue having a near complete sod die-off. Soils samples were then collected and sent to the
University of Minnesota for analysis. Results from the soil tests showed that the soil is high in
phosphorous, alkaline pH Levels, low potassium levels and satisfactory soluble salt levels (issue
not from deicing chemicals).
The proposed treatment for this boulevard is to kill off all the existing vegetation with city
personnel. Once the vegetation has died off, the contractor will remove the loose vegetation and
the boulevard will be roto-tilled and treated with nitrogen and potash as recommended by the
University of Minnesota. Once this work is complete, the contractor will hydro-seed a salt
tolerant lawn seed mix.
BUDGET IMPACT
The original sod that was installed survived the warranty period for the project. The project has
be finalized so an alternate funding source will need to be utilized for this repair. Due to the
boulevard having some exposed soil areas, staff is proposing to fund this project using the Storm
Water Utility Fund. Staff did receive a second quote from another company for $6,780.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the purchase order for the Orchard Place Boulevard
Repairs.
page 13
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve a motion authorizing the Public Works Director to issue a ‘not-to-exceed’ Purchase
Order in the amount of $4,920 to Nice Yard from Cologne, MN.
page 14
page 15
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 2 , 2018
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-48 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Lexington
Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2018-48 accepting bids and awarding a contract for
the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
Council ordered the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements at their
February 7, 2018 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street
reconstruction project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the June 5, 2018
meeting.
DISCUSSION
Six bids (see below) were received and opened on Wednesday, June 27, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. for
the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements.
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC $1,068,235.00
Park Construction Company $1,078,463.30
McNamara Contracting, Inc. $1,085,399.00
Hardrives, Inc. $1,229,234.92
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,249,364.50
Max Steininger, Inc. $1,281,209.58
Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC submitted the lowest responsible bid of $1,068,235. Their bid
was less than the Engineer's Estimate of $2,533,877. Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC is a
contractor with many years of experience with an office in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Staff
recommends them for this contract.
The substantial completion date for the project is November 2, 2018. We expect Midwest
Asphalt Services, LLC, serving in the capacity of General Contractor, is capable of meeting the
page 16
completion dates and installing the proposed improvements in accordance with the plans and
specifications given their experience and the amount of equipment and manpower they have at
their disposal.
Staff will mail out a general notice to the residents about the project if Council awards the
contract, including information regarding the construction schedule.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements are proposed to be
financed by Special Assessments, Municipal Bonds, and Utility Funds. The total cost for the
Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements is $1,068,235.00, not
including indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the construction contract to
Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC for their bid in the amount of $1,068,235.00.
ACTION REQUIRED
If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS AND MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a super majority vote.
page 17
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-48
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS AND MENDAKOTA HEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed construction of storm
sewer, street paving and related appurtenant work of rehabilitating Mendakota Drive from
Mendakota Court to Dodd Road, South Plaza Drive from Dodd Road to the end, and rehabilitating
the Lexington Highland Neighborhood including Avanti Drive, Bwana Court, Faro Lane, Summit
Lane, Twin Circle Drive, Vail Drive, West Circle Court referred to as the Lexington Highlands and
Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to
law and the following bids were received complying with said advertisement:
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC $1,068,235.00
Park Construction Company $1,078,463.30
McNamara Contracting, Inc. $1,085,399.00
Hardrives, Inc. $1,229,234.92
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,249,364.50
Max Steininger, Inc. $1,281,209.58
and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the lowest responsible bid
submitted by Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the bids for the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement
project are hereby received and accepted.
2. That the bid of Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, submitted for the
construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any
and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of July, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST
___________________________ _____________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor
page 18
June 27, 2018
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: 2018 Street Improvements
City Project No. MH201706
City of Mendota Heights, MN
WSB Project No. R-010779-000
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Bids were received for the above-referenced project on Wednesday, June 27, 2018, and were opened
and read aloud. Six bids were received. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and
tabulated. Please find enclosed the bid tabulation indicating Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC, Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as the low bidder with a grand total bid amount of $1,068,235.00.
We recommend that the City Council consider these bids and award a contract for the grand total bid in
the amount of $1,068,235.00 to Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC based on the results of the bids received.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (763) 512-5243.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Brad A. Reifsteck, PE
Sr. Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Ryan Ruzek, City of Mendota Heights
srb
page 19
PROJECT:
2018 Street Improvements
City Project No. MH201706
OWNER:
City of Mendota Heights, MN
WSB PROJECT NO.:
R-010779-000
BIDS OPENED: Wednesday, June 27, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Local Time
Contractor Bid Bond (5%)Addendum
Received Grand Total Bid
1 Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC X N/A $1,068,235.00
2 Park Construction Company X N/A $1,078,463.30
3 McNamara Contracting, Inc.X N/A $1,085,399.00
4 Hardrives, Inc.X N/A $1,229,234.92
5 Bituminous Roadways, Inc.X N/A $1,249,364.50
6 Max Steininger, Inc.X N/A $1,281,209.58
Denotes corrected figure
Brad A. Reifsteck, PE, Project Manager
BID TABULATION SUMMARY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on June 27, 2018.
page 20
6/27/2018 WSBProject Bid AbstractProject Name: 2018 STREETIMPROVEMENTSContract No.: Client: City of Mendota HeightsProject No.: R-010779-000Bid Opening: 06/27/2018 10:00 AMOwner: MinneapolisProject: R-010779-000 - 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC (EdnPrie) Park Construction Company - Mpls McNamara Contracting, Inc. Hardrives, Inc. (Rogers) Line No. Item Units QuantityUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal PriceSCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1$40,000.00$40,000.00$52,000.00$52,000.00$50,014.00$50,014.00$42,404.47$42,404.472 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 5$200.00$1,000.00$181.00$905.00$185.00$925.00$219.61$1,098.053 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 5$200.00$1,000.00$207.00$1,035.00$210.00$1,050.00$155.93$779.654 2104.501 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER L F 1780$6.00$10,680.00$9.33$16,607.40$13.00$23,140.00$3.62$6,443.605 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK S F 2110$2.00$4,220.00$1.36$2,869.60$2.00$4,220.00$0.55$1,160.506 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250$14.00$3,500.00$17.65$4,412.50$15.00$3,750.00$6.04$1,510.007 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 150$8.00$1,200.00$15.25$2,287.50$30.00$4,500.00$3.29$493.508 2104.509 REMOVE CASTING EACH 2$175.00$350.00$170.93$341.86$600.00$1,200.00$106.52$213.049 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN EACH 29$50.00$1,450.00$36.20$1,049.80$36.00$1,044.00$26.35$764.1510 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 550$5.00$2,750.00$4.65$2,557.50$1.00$550.00$3.57$1,963.5011 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT L F 750$3.00$2,250.00$1.90$1,425.00$1.00$750.00$2.64$1,980.0012 2104.523 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 77$120.00$9,240.00$114.00$8,778.00$115.00$8,855.00$120.79$9,300.8313 2104.601 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES LS 1$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.0014 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 20$125.00$2,500.00$124.00$2,480.00$100.00$2,000.00$164.71$3,294.2015 2130.501 WATER MGAL 50$30.00$1,500.00$24.80$1,240.00$100.00$5,000.00$38.43$1,921.5016 2215.501 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 31460$3.00$94,380.00$3.40$106,964.00$7.50$235,950.00$4.77$150,064.2017 2331.603 JOINT ADHESIVE L F 2250$1.00$2,250.00$0.84$1,890.00$1.00$2,250.00$0.49$1,102.5018 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1650$2.00$3,300.00$1.83$3,019.50$1.00$1,650.00$1.54$2,541.0019 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) TON 2790$56.00$156,240.00$57.86$161,429.40$55.00$153,450.00$71.96$200,768.4020 2360.501 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) (3.0" THICK)-BIT D/W S Y 60$40.00$2,400.00$27.69$1,661.40$55.00$3,300.00$42.54$2,552.4021 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) TON 4640$57.00$264,480.00$60.76$281,926.40$40.00$185,600.00$70.45$326,888.0022 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 33$350.00$11,550.00$376.45$12,422.85$200.00$6,600.00$527.08$17,393.6423 2504.602 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR LS 1$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.0024 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 5$995.00$4,975.00$899.00$4,495.00$400.00$2,000.00$752.18$3,760.90Page 1DENOTES CORRECTED FIGUREpage 21
Project: R-010779-000 - 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Midwest Asphalt Services, LLC (EdnPrie) Park Construction Company - Mpls McNamara Contracting, Inc. Hardrives, Inc. (Rogers) Line No. Item Units QuantityUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal Price25 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH 47$800.00$37,600.00$174.97$8,223.59$1.00$47.00$557.82$26,217.5426 2506.522 SALVAGE & REINSTALL CASTING EACH 80$700.00$56,000.00$779.27$62,341.60$600.00$48,000.00$411.78$32,942.4027 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEALS EACH 80$1.00$80.00$312.24$24,979.20$160.00$12,800.00$398.60$31,888.0028 2506.602 CONSTRUCT RAIN GARDEN S Y 575$100.00$57,500.00$83.10$47,782.50$60.00$34,500.00$169.10$97,232.5029 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 2110$6.00$12,660.00$5.00$10,550.00$10.00$21,100.00$6.15$12,976.5030 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 1780$34.00$60,520.00$23.60$42,008.00$25.00$44,500.00$26.46$47,098.8031 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250$70.00$17,500.00$62.90$15,725.00$50.00$12,500.00$75.71$18,927.5032 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1$11,000.00$11,000.00$24,000.00$24,000.00$20,000.00$20,000.00$9,827.77$9,827.7733 2564.602 SIGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL EACH 44$200.00$8,800.00$191.00$8,404.00$190.00$8,360.00$203.14$8,938.1634 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY L F 3980$1.00$3,980.00$0.83$3,303.40$0.80$3,184.00$0.88$3,502.4035 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 40$150.00$6,000.00$152.00$6,080.00$178.00$7,120.00$109.81$4,392.4036 2573.533 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 570$5.00$2,850.00$3.10$1,767.00$3.50$1,995.00$5.49$3,129.3037 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT EACH 1$1,600.00$1,600.00$1,300.00$1,300.00$2,000.00$2,000.00$625.90$625.9038 2574.525 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 780$35.00$27,300.00$0.01$7.80$30.00$23,400.00$21.41$16,699.8039 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 1460$10.00$14,600.00$18.00$26,280.00$6.00$8,760.00$9.88$14,424.8040 2575.535 WATER (TURF ESTABLISHMENT) MGAL 50$37.00$1,850.00$31.10$1,555.00$100.00$5,000.00$32.94$1,647.0041 2582.501 PAVT MSSG (TURN ARROW) - EPOXY EACH 2$320.00$640.00$311.00$622.00$315.00$630.00$329.42$658.8442 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE EPOXY L F 1600$1.00$1,600.00$0.83$1,328.00$0.80$1,280.00$0.88$1,408.0043 2582.502 24" SOLID LINE EPOXY L F 40$17.00$680.00$16.60$664.00$17.00$680.00$17.57$702.8044 2582.503 CROSSWALK EPOXY S F 330$10.00$3,300.00$9.85$3,250.50$10.00$3,300.00$10.43$3,441.90Total SCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: $957,275.00 $971,969.30 $966,954.00 $1,125,080.34 SCHEDULE B - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 45 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 2$485.00$970.00$1,280.00$2,560.00$850.00$1,700.00$557.82$1,115.6446 2503.503 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V L F 930$48.00$44,640.00$52.80$49,104.00$54.00$50,220.00$52.71$49,020.3047 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 10$970.00$9,700.00$1,050.00$10,500.00$1,600.00$16,000.00$1,367.10$13,671.0048 2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G EACH 2$2,600.00$5,200.00$2,050.00$4,100.00$2,200.00$4,400.00$2,187.37$4,374.7449 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL (2'X3') EACH 10$2,800.00$28,000.00$1,950.00$19,500.00$2,725.00$27,250.00$1,956.77$19,567.7050 2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 EACH 5$2,500.00$12,500.00$3,080.00$15,400.00$2,975.00$14,875.00$2,347.68$11,738.4051 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 10$995.00$9,950.00$533.00$5,330.00$400.00$4,000.00$466.68$4,666.80Total SCHEDULE B - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: $110,960.00 $106,494.00 $118,445.00 $104,154.58 Total SCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: $957,275.00 $971,969.30 $966,954.00 $1,125,080.34 Total SCHEDULE B - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: $110,960.00 $106,494.00 $118,445.00 $104,154.58 Totals for Project R-010779-000 $1,068,235.00 $1,078,463.30 $1,085,399.00 $1,229,234.92Page 2page 22
Project: R-010779-000 - 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Max Steininger, Inc. Line No. Item Units QuantityUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal PriceSCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1$27,353.00$27,353.00$60,000.00$60,000.002 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 5$185.00$925.00$480.76$2,403.803 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 5$211.00$1,055.00$480.76$2,403.804 2104.501 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER L F 1780$7.50$13,350.00$7.62$13,563.605 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK S F 2110$1.70$3,587.00$2.07$4,367.706 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250$16.00$4,000.00$28.26$7,065.007 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 150$5.70$855.00$25.74$3,861.008 2104.509 REMOVE CASTING EACH 2$94.50$189.00$162.40$324.809 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN EACH 29$36.00$1,044.00$37.39$1,084.3110 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 550$5.80$3,190.00$6.36$3,498.0011 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT L F 750$2.40$1,800.00$2.62$1,965.0012 2104.523 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 77$113.00$8,701.00$117.52$9,049.0413 2104.601 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES LS 1$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.0014 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 20$154.00$3,080.00$75.00$1,500.0015 2130.501 WATER MGAL 50$125.00$6,250.00$39.12$1,956.0016 2215.501 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 31460$3.90$122,694.00$6.71$211,096.6017 2331.603 JOINT ADHESIVE L F 2250$0.85$1,912.50$0.87$1,957.5018 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1650$3.20$5,280.00$3.56$5,874.0019 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) TON 2790$56.50$157,635.00$63.34$176,718.6020 2360.501 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) (3.0" THICK)-BIT D/W S Y 60$26.00$1,560.00$29.23$1,753.8021 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) TON 4640$56.00$259,840.00$62.77$291,252.8022 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 33$304.00$10,032.00$270.66$8,931.7823 2504.602 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR LS 1$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.0024 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 5$783.00$3,915.00$541.31$2,706.5525 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH 47$578.00$27,166.00$703.70$33,073.9026 2506.522 SALVAGE & REINSTALL CASTING EACH 80$636.00$50,880.00$541.31$43,304.8027 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEALS EACH 80$193.00$15,440.00$243.59$19,487.2028 2506.602 CONSTRUCT RAIN GARDEN S Y 575$345.00$198,375.00$159.53$91,729.7529 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 2110$8.50$17,935.00$5.42$11,436.2030 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 1780$37.50$66,750.00$25.41$45,229.8031 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250$85.00$21,250.00$67.86$16,965.0032 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1$15,566.00$15,566.00$40,000.00$40,000.0033 2564.602 SIGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL EACH 44$190.00$8,360.00$197.65$8,696.6034 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY L F 3980$0.50$1,990.00$1.00$3,980.00Page 3page 23
Project: R-010779-000 - 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Max Steininger, Inc. Line No. Item Units QuantityUnit PriceTotal PriceUnit PriceTotal Price35 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 40$154.00$6,160.00$125.00$5,000.0036 2573.533 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 570$4.10$2,337.00$3.00$1,710.0037 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT EACH 1$924.00$924.00$1,000.00$1,000.0038 2574.525 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 780$44.50$34,710.00$22.00$17,160.0039 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 1460$10.50$15,330.00$8.78$12,818.8040 2575.535 WATER (TURF ESTABLISHMENT) MGAL 50$154.00$7,700.00$71.31$3,565.5041 2582.501 PAVT MSSG (TURN ARROW) - EPOXY EACH 2$259.00$518.00$352.11$704.2242 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE EPOXY L F 1600$0.50$800.00$0.71$1,136.0043 2582.502 24" SOLID LINE EPOXY L F 40$11.00$440.00$14.90$596.0044 2582.503 CROSSWALK EPOXY S F 330$7.10$2,343.00$9.71$3,204.30Total SCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: $1,143,221.50 $1,184,131.75 SCHEDULE B - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 45 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 2$550.00$1,100.00$490.86$981.7246 2503.503 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V L F 930$49.50$46,035.00$44.06$40,975.8047 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 10$1,100.00$11,000.00$981.71$9,817.1048 2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G EACH 2$1,884.00$3,768.00$1,681.08$3,362.1649 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL (2'X3') EACH 10$2,119.00$21,190.00$1,891.33$18,913.3050 2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 EACH 5$2,734.00$13,670.00$2,440.33$12,201.6551 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 10$938.00$9,380.00$1,082.61$10,826.10Total SCHEDULE B - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: $106,143.00 $97,077.83 Total SCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: $1,143,221.50 $1,184,131.75 Total SCHEDULE B - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: $106,143.00 $97,077.83 Totals for Project R-010779-000 $1,249,364.50 $1,281,209.58I hereby certify that this is an exact reproduction of bids received.Certified By: License No. 47930Date: June 27, 2018Page 4page 24
BWANA CTOVERLOOK LNSUMMITLNORCHARD PL
TWIN CIRCLE DRORCHARD HL
LEXINGTON AVECIRCLE CT W
VAIL DR
AVANTI DR FAROLNMARIE AVE
WALSHLNProject Location
0 250
Feet¯Exhibit A - Project Location
Lexington Highlands
Mendota Heights, MN Document Path: K:\010779-000\GIS\Maps\ExhibitA_ProjectLocationMap.mxd Date Saved: 9/22/2017 11:02:57 AM1 inch = 250 feet
page 25
ALICELNMENDAKOTADRAZTECLNAPACHE STSWANCTMENDAKOTACTDODDRDCHEYENNELNCREEK AVEHOKAH AVEF O XPLSOUTH PLAZA DR1 inch = 400 feetDocument Path: K:\010779-000\GIS\Maps\ExhibitB_ProjectLocationMap.mxd Date Saved: 9/22/2017 1:05:10 PM
Mendakota NeighborhoodMendota Heights, MNProject LocationExhibit B - Project Location0400Feet¯page 26
Request for City Council Action
DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approve Part-Time Communications Coordinator Hire
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Sharon Deziel for the position of part-time
Communications Coordinator.
Background
Staff has completed the recruitment process to fill the part-time Communications Coordinator position and
recommends the hiring of Sharon Deziel for the position.
Ms. Deziel’s background includes experience as the Director of Marketing for an industrial manufacturer
where she led marketing and communications efforts for 39 US and Canadian distributors. Sharon is the
owner of Shine Communications and has a versatile background in communications including print, social
media, website management and event planning. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration with an emphasis in Marketing from the University of Wisconsin River Falls.
A conditional offer has been extended, contingent upon the successful completion of a background check,
pre-employment drug screen and approval of the City Council. At this time Ms. Deziel’s anticipated start
date has yet to be determined.
Budget Impact
The part-time Communications Coordinator position is a budgeted position.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the hiring of Sharon Deziel as a part-time Communications
Coordinator with an hourly salary of $26.80, which is step 1 of pay grade 7 of the City’s Compensation
Plan.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Sharon Deziel as Communications
Coordinator, with the pay provisions listed above.
page 27
Request for City Council Action
DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Par 3 Mowing Equipment
INTRODUCTION
Staff is seeking authorization to receive price quotes for the replacement of the rough mower and
for purchase of a debris blower for the Par 3.
BACKGROUND
To properly mow the golf course, Par 3 maintenance staff uses three primary pieces of mowing
equipment—a rough mower, a fairway mower and a greens/tee mower. The equipment is owned
and maintained by the City.
The current rough mower is a 2002 Toro Groundsmaster 3500D with a 65” mowing deck and has
approximately 4,200 hours on it (or the equivalent of approximately 250,000 miles). In a typical
season, the rough mower is used around 12 hours per week to cut the rough. However, with the
high amount of rain received in May and June, the rough is needing to be mowed more often to
minimize clumping of cut grass. It is now being used 24-36 hours per week.
Before the start of each season, Par 3 equipment is assessed by the City’s Mechanic and Toro.
The rough mower had about $2,000 in needed repairs made to it at the beginning of the 2018
season. Staff is aware that additional improvements are recommended to the mower, but these
have been deferred due to the cost of the suggested improvements. The estimated value of the
rough mower is $3,000.
With the unusually wet season, in addition to mowing the course rough more frequently, staff
has tried other ways to reduce the clumping of wet grass. One solution is to disperse the grass
over the course using a debris blower. Staff tested a debris blower on the course and the
appearance of the rough was improved. For many courses a debris blower is a standard piece of
equipment and is used for grass and leaves.
page 28
It is recommended that this equipment be purchased as soon as possible.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Par 3 budget does not include funding for the replacement of mowing equipment or the
purchase of new/additional equipment. Depending on model and specifications, the cost of a
replacement rough mower ranges from $30,000 (used) to $60,000 (new). A debris blower is
approximately $8,000.
In consultation with the Finance Director, a transfer from the General Fund balance to the Par 3
Golf Course Fund is recommended as the source of funding. This option is available because of
the favorable increase in the general fund balance as a result of 2017 fund performance. While
the equipment could be used as necessary in the City’s parks system, assigning the proposed new
equipment to the Par 3 will account for the equipment by the function that will be the primary
user.
The actual transfer would be made at such time as the equipment is authorized for purchase.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that Council authorize staff to obtain price quotes for the replacement of
the Par 3 rough mower and for the purchase of a debris blower.
ACTION REQUESTED
If the Council agrees, it should, by motion authorize staff to obtain quotes for the replacement of
the Par 3 Rough Mower and the purchase of a debris blower.
The staff will then report back to the Council with recommendations for possible purchases.
page 29
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Authorization to Place Officer Scott Patrick Memorial
Date: July 2, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council is asked to grant permission to the Scott Patrick Memorial Committee to place
a permanent memorial stone and commemorative plaque for Officer Scott Patrick at Market
Square Park, at the Villages of Mendota Heights.
BACKGROUND:
For several years, the Scott Patrick Memorial Committee has been working to create and place a
memorial for Officer Patrick, who lost his life in the line of duty on July 30, 2014. Within the
past few months, a stone has been designed and fabricated. Delivery of the monument was made
on June 26th.
The memorial stone itself is a piece of polished granite, measuring 24 X 28 inches, and is 50
inches tall. Attached to it is a plaque which describes the incident, and the sacrifice made by
Officer Patrick and his family.
For several months, the Committee had been working to place the stone at the site of the
shooting, which was in the 1000 block of Dodd Road in West St. Paul. That was the site which
was preferred by the Patrick family. However, last month is became apparent that the West St.
Paul site would not be a permanent location. With the concurrence of the widow of Officer
Patrick, a secondary location in the southeastern corner of Market Square Park was chosen. It
was felt that a location in a public park would be more accessible, and would provide for viewing
and contemplation by members of the community that would be superior to a less-visited
location, such as at City Hall or the Police Department.
The specific location is shown in the attached photograph. It would be in the currently grassed
area outside of the landscaping behind the fountain. The turf area would be paved with concrete,
much of which is being donated by a local construction company. A flag pole would also be
installed for the display of a police-related “thin blue line” flag.
page 30
DISCUSSION:
Any placement of a permanent object in a public park in Mendota Heights should be considered,
and approved by the City Council.
Even if approved at this location, there remains a desire to place a permanent marker at the site
of the shooting. That might be a in the form of a memorial tree, a marker than might be flush
with the ground, or something similar. The Committee would work with the City of West St.
Park and MNDOT to find a suitable location for a such a memorial, once final redevelopment
plans for the site are known in that city.
BUDGET IMPACT:
All costs related to the creation of the monument, the flagpole, preparation of the monument site,
and any necessary on-going maintenance of the site will be by the Scott Patrick Memorial
Committee, and the Mendota Heights Police Officers Benevolence Association.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Council is asked to grant permission to place the monument and flag pole at the described
location.
It is asked that this be considered now, so that installation can be completed in time for the 4th
anniversary of the passing of Officer Patrick on July 30th.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion approve the request of the Scott Patrick Memorial
Committee to place the memorial stone and plaque, and flag pole at the southeastern corner
location of Market Square Park.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 31
page 32
6/18/2018 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official
May 1, 2018 thru May 31, 2018 January 1, 2018 thru May 31, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru May 31, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru May 31, 2016
Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 2 1,000,000.00$ $11,407.28 SFD 5 2,717,925.00$ $30,263.90 SFD 4 1,920,000.00$ $21,337.81 SFD 3 1,422,850.00$ 16,258.17$
Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 4,523,000.00$ $33,080.62 Apartment 0 -$ -$
Townhouse 6 1,422,365.00$ $14,099.62 Townhouse 12 2,568,365.00$ $27,537.75 Townhouse 2 450,000.00$ $4,516.88 Townhouse 12 2,805,000.00$ 29,642.93$
Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$
Misc 68 578,204.22$ 10,065.15$ Misc 197 2,936,108.69$ 42,862.87$ Misc 227 2,729,289.16$ 41,247.30$ Misc 240 3,223,199.31$ 44,955.91$
Commercial 4 1,108,500.00$ $6,948.75 Commercial 6 6,359,460.00$ $45,235.89 Commercial 11 1,872,880.00$ $21,762.95 Commercial 12 1,396,255.00$ 15,038.59$
Sub Total 80 4,109,069.22$ 42,520.80$ Sub Total 220 14,581,858.69$ 145,900.41$ Sub Total 245 11,495,169.16$ 121,945.56$ Sub Total 267 8,847,304.31$ 105,895.60$
Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected
Plumbing 22 $6,963.24 Plumbing 108 $15,126.46 Plumbing 63 $5,143.13 Plumbing 101 9,088.00$
Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 1 10.00$
Sewer 9 $675.00 Sewer 26 $1,950.00 Sewer 15 $1,138.00 Sewer 17 1,275.00$
Mechanical 34 $4,975.04 Mechanical 216 397.00$ $22,304.43 Mechanical 130 $22,179.45 Mechanical 142 12,464.92$
Sub Total 65 12,613.28$ Sub Total 350 39,380.89$ Sub Total 208 $28,460.58 Sub Total 261 22,837.92$
License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected
Contractor 27 $1,350.00 Contractor 224 $11,200.00 Contractor 227 $11,350.00 Contractor 231 11,550.00$
Total 172 4,109,069.22$ 56,484.08$ Total 794 14,581,858.69$ 196,481.30$ Total 680 11,495,169.16$ 161,756.14$ Total 759 8,847,304.31$ 140,283.52$
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Public Hearing—Fire Station Capital Improvement Bonds
Date: July 2, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
At its meeting of July 2nd, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider a preliminary
approval of the issuance of General Obligation Bonds, and the adoption of a Capital
Improvements Plan, which would provide for the remodeling of the current Fire Station and an
addition to that building.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has been advised in previous meetings of a pressing need to remodel and
expand the Fire Station, which is located at 2121 Dodd Road. The current station was
constructed in 1984, and is lacking many safety and technology features which would provide
the City’s firefighters, residents, and property owners with the protections needed in a modern
suburban community.
The attached memorandum dated June 5, 2018 describes a summary of the process for this
method of issuing the bonds needed to finance the project, and the financial impact on property
taxpayers. This proposes to issue the bonds without a referendum, which is permitted under state
law if certain guidelines are followed. Included in that is an opportunity for a reverse
referendum petition to be circulated. If, within 30 days following the Council’s adoption of the
enabling preliminary resolution, a petition calling for a referendum is submitted which contains
the names of at least 5% of the number of voters in the last general election (in this case, 401
signatures), the Council would either need to call for a referendum, or withdraw the proposal for
at least one year.
Other attached information was prepared by the City’s Financial Consultant, Ehlers and
Associates, and the City, and describes in more detail the process and finances.
page 44
Note that the CNH architectural information in the Ehlers information is from a February 7th
presentation. It contains a start date which was anticipated earlier this year, and so the dates on
the Project timeline should all be delayed by six months. It also anticipated the use of a
construction manager, but the use of that methodology has not yet been determined. Finally, the
CNH presentation notes that the finishing of crew sleeping rooms are to be future construction;
the current recommendation is that those areas be finished during initial construction, in view of
the cost efficiencies of doing that up front.
If no valid petition calling for a referendum is received, and the Council desires to issue the
bonds to construct the improvements, the Council would make the final decision at its meeting of
August 7th.
At the Public Hearing, the Fire Chief, Ehlers representative, and City Administrator will review
the attached information and will stand for questions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
It should also be noted that estimated property tax impacts were prepared by Ehlers, using a bond
sale amount of $6,125,000. However, the Public Hearing Notice calls for bonds to be issued up
to the amount of $7,000,000. That higher amount was recommended as a safeguard, in the event
that higher than anticipated construction bids would be received. If the amount needed to do the
project would have exceeded an advertised $6.125 million figure for this Public Hearing, the
project would have to have been pared down, or the Public Hearing process restarted. Therefore,
using $7 million as the amount in the notification process has provided for the greatest amount of
flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council wishes to proceed with the process which would ultimately provide for the
improvements to the fire station, it should pass the attached resolution.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council wants to move forward with the next step in the process to consider the issuance of
bonds for the construction of the fire station improvements, it should adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2018
THROUGH 2022
Dave Dreelan Mark McNeill
Fire Chief City Administrator
page 45
Mendota Heights Fire Station Costs and Process
July, 2018
Project Financing and Estimated Tax Impact
Bond Amounts. The Mendota Heights City Council is considering funding the proposed Fire
Station improvements by a form of borrowing, which involves the issuance of $6.125 million in
Capital Improvement Bonds. The working estimate of the project is $6 million; an additional
$125,000 has been included for bond issuance costs.
For the purposes of providing estimates for the July 2nd Public Hearing to be held by the City
Council, $7 million has been used. This is the maximum amount of bonds which could be issued,
although it is unlikely that that figure will be reached.
The final structure and term of the Capital Improvement Bonds have yet to be determined. The
City Council may consider a 15 or 20 year term of repayment—a 20 year bond reduces the annual
impact on Mendota Heights taxpayers, but a 15 year term reduces the overall cost of borrowing.
Based on a 15 -year term of repayment, the estimated property tax impact on a Mendota Heights
home with a valuation of $356,000 (median home value) would be $90.76 per year. This assumes
current (June, 2018) rates of interest, and a continuation of the City's current AAA bond rating.
That same home with a 20 -year term of repayment would see an annual property tax increase of
$74.58.
The structure of the financing would be decided by the City Council later this summer, after it is
determined whether or not the project will proceed. For more information on the financial impact
of this project, please see the chart on the opposite side of this document.
The Bond Issuance Process
State Law permits Minnesota cities to issue Capital Improvement Bonds for the acquisition or
betterment of certain public lands, buildings, or other improvements, without a voter approved
referendum. This process is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521.
Prior to the issuance of Bonds, the affected City must provide notice of the proposed project. This
has been done through a notice published in the St. Paul Pioneer -Press, the City's legal
newspaper. In addition, so as to provide a maximum amount of notification, postcards were also
mailed to all property owners in the City.
A Public Hearing has been called by the City Council to be held on July 2nd at 7:00 PM in the City
Council Chambers at City Hall, to consider this project and method of financing. Assuming the
City Council then chooses to proceed, a "reverse referendum" provision would then commence.
In that, if by August 1st, a petition is received which requests a referendum on the issuance of the
bonds that is signed by a minimum of 5 percent of the number of voters in the last general election,
the City Council will either need to call for the referendum, or withdraw the proposal. In Mendota
Heights, 5% of the number of voters in the 2016 general election is 401. If the proposal is
withdrawn as a result of the petition, the question cannot be reconsidered for at least one year.
If no petition is received calling for a referendum, the City Council may issue the Bonds.
Construction Schedule
If the fire station improvements do proceed, the architectural design would take place this fall,
with bids to be sought and opened in December. A contract would be awarded in February, 2019,
with construction to commence in Spring, 2019. Project completion would be expected 12 to 13
months after the start of construction.
Fire Station Timeline
June 5:
June 15:
June 26:
July 2:
July 3:
July 9:
August 1:
August 7:
September 4:
End of September:
Financial Impact
City Council Calls for public hearing on Capital Improvement plan and
issuance of bonds
Public Hearing notice published in official City newspaper (Pioneer Press)
Informational Session - Fire Station Open House 6:30-8:30 PM
City Council Meeting - Public Hearing on Capital Improvement Plan
30 -day petition for referendum period begins
Informational Session - Fire Station Open House 6:30-8:30 PM
30 -day petition for referendum period ends
City Council calls for sale of bonds
Sale of Bonds
Bond Sale Closing
TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Property
Estimated
---- -
Market Value
Market Value
-----------------------
Exclusion
Taxable
Market Value
--Net Tax
Capacity
Current
City Tax
Proposed
Tax Increase'
Proposed
City Tax
$ 100,000
$ 28;240
$ 71,760
$ 718
$ 284.51
$ 18.57
$ 303.07
150,000
23,740
126,260
1,263
500-58
32.67
533.25
200,000
19,240
180,760
1,808
716.66
46.77
763.43
237;200
15,892
221,308
2,213
877.42
57.26
934.68
Residential
250,000
14,740
235260
2,353
932.74
60.87
993.60
Homestead
300,000
10,240
289,760
2,898
1,148.81
74.97
1,223.78
356,000
5,200
350,800
3,508
1,390.82
90.76
1,481.58
400,000
1,240
398,760
3,988
1,580.96
103.17
1,684.13
500,000
-
500;000
5,400
1;982.35
129.36
2,111.71
1,000,000
1;000,000
11,250
4,460.29
291.07
4,751.36
$ 100:000
$-----$
100,000
$ 944
$ 374.10
$ ___--24.41
$ 398.51
250,000
__ _
250.000
2.673
.. 1,059.95
69.17.
1.129.12_,
Commercial/Industrial
300,000
_
300.000
3.303
1,309.36
85.45
______1.394.80
400,000
400.000
4.561
1_808.16
118.00
1,926.15
500-000
_--- -
-500.000----------------5.819------------2_306_96
------------150.55
------ 2-457.51
_
1,000,000
-
1,000,000
12,109
4.800.97
313.30
5,114.27
Apartments
$ 250;000
$ -
$ 250,000
$ 3;125
$ 1;238.97
$ 80.85
$ 1,319.82
(4 or more units)
500,000
-
500,000
6,250
2;477.94
161.70
2,639.64
1,000;000
1,000,000
12;500
4;955.88
323.41
5,279.28
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA
HELD: JULY 2, 2018
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall in Mendota
Heights, Minnesota on July 2, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose, in part, of giving preliminary
approval to the issuance of general obligation capital improvement plan bonds and adopting the
capital improvement plan.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member _____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-50
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2018 THROUGH
2022
A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the
"City") proposes to issue its general obligation capital improvement plan bonds (the "Bonds") and
adopt the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, Capital Improvement Plan for the Years 2018
Through 2022 the "Plan"); and
B. WHEREAS, the City has caused notice of the public hearing on the intention to
issue the Bonds and on the proposed adoption of the Plan to be published pursuant to and in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521; and
C. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the intention to issue the Bonds and on the
proposed Plan has been held on this date, following published notice of the public hearing as
required by law; and
D. WHEREAS, in approving the Plan, the City Council considered for each project and
for the overall Plan:
1. The condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected
need for repair and replacement;
2. The likely demand for the improvement;
3. The estimated cost of the improvement;
page 46
4. The available public resources;
5. The level of overlapping debt in the City;
6. The relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds;
7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements; and
8. Alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared facilities
with other local governmental units; and
E. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the issuance of general obligation
capital improvement plan bonds in the aggregate principal amount of up to $7,000,000 is the best
way to finance the capital improvements identified in the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, that the City hereby adopts the Plan and authorizes the issuance of up to
$7,000,000 aggregate principal amount of general obligation capital improvement plan bonds.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
` Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
____________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
page 47
[Bonds must be approved by at least a three-fifths vote of the membership.]
[Issuance of Bonds is subject to a 30-day reverse referendum after the public hearing.]
page 48
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of
minutes with the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council, duly called and held on the date
therein indicated, which are on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and
complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to a resolution giving preliminary
approval to the issuance of the City's general obligation capital improvement plan bonds and
adopting the City's capital improvement plan therefor.
WITNESS my hand on ______________, 2018.
_______________________________________
City Clerk
page 49
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Fire Station Construction/Bond Issuance
Date: June 5, 2018
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
At its June 5th meeting, the City Council, the City Council will be asked to call for a Public
Hearing to consider the issuance of City-issued General Obligation Capital Improvements
Bonds, which would be used to finance a substantial remodeling of, and an addition to, the
current Mendota Heights fire station.
BACKGROUND:
In December, the City Council hired CNH Architects to do concept plans and preliminary
budgets for proposed improvements to the existing 1984-era fire station building. It would be a
combination of an addition and a remodeling, so that the station could continue to operate while
construction was taking place.
On February 7th, the Council met at the Fire Station to review the preliminary plans and possible
budget. The decision made at that time was to table any further consideration of this issue until
after the results of the ISD 197 bond issue were known. That referendum was held May 8th, and
was approved by School District voters.
A review of the current status and an update of the financial impact was held with the City
Council on May 30th.
BOND ISSUANCE
Discussed at the February meeting was the possible issuance of bonds to fund this project. State
law allows for City Councils to follow a process to directly issue General Obligation Capital
page 50
Improvements bonds for such improvements, without a referendum. For a description of this
process, see the attached memorandum of May 30 from City Attorney Andy Pratt.
It should be noted that in Mendota Heights, the 5% threshold would mean signatures of at least
401 voters.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City’s financial consultant, Ehlers and Associates, was asked to project what the impact of
the issuance of the Fire Station General Obligation Capital Improvements Bonds would be on
local tax payers, and to combine that with the approved impact of the ISD 197 referendum, and a
proposed 5% levy increase to the City’s FY 2019 operating levy.
Projections assumed a $6 million construction budget. The related issuance costs would bring
the overall amount of the CIP bonds to be issued to the $6.125 million. Note that the
information from the City Attorney calls for $6.3 million; however, that is the maximum, and
can be reduced once actual costs are known. However, the costs cited in the notices can’t be
increased, which is the reason for the “worst case” cost number.
The preliminary information from Ehlers was reviewed by Council at the workshop on May 30th.
At that time, it was projected that the fire bonds themselves would increase the City levy by
6.6%, or $91 annually on a Mendota Heights median-valued home of $356,000. This assumes a
15 year repayment. Should a 20 year bond term be used, the annual impact would be somewhat
less—an increase of 5.5%, and adding instead about $70 annually.
The approved school district taxes will add $138 per year, which is 18.5% increased on the
school district portion of the property taxes.
A 5% increase to the City’s 2019 operating levy increases by $70 annually. Note that 5% is
being used for estimating purposes—the actual amount will be set by the City Council later this
summer.
It is important to note that taxpayers’ overall tax increase in this scenario is NOT the sum total of
the each of the percent increases—6.6% + 5%+18.5%. As shown on the attached projections
sheet from Ehlers, the overall increase in property taxes for 2019 would be 7.85%, for the
median-valued home in Mendota Heights of $356,000. Overall, the City’s operating budget
increase accounts for an overall increase in property taxes of about 1.8%; and the Fire Bonds
would be an additional 2.4%
Put another way, if all three increases are put in place, the monthly increase in property taxes
would be about $26 per month.
The Council should be aware that since the above estimates were made, interest rates have
edged up slightly, and so the financial impacts would be slightly higher as well.
page 51
Note that these numbers assume no increase in property values. While the overall rate typically
goes up, the rate of increase in property taxes would proportionately go down, assuming that the
same amount of taxes are to be generated.
Finally, it should be made clear that these Ehler’s projections do not include operating levy
increases for ISD 197, Dakota County, and any other special taxing jurisdictions. With those, it
could increase the overall property tax rate increase to double digits.
At the May 30th meeting, the City Council asked for variations of those projections, to include a
redirection of the levy currently used to pay off the Par 3 Bonds which are otherwise due to
expire in 2023 to this project; to retain a portion of the levy for the Par 3 Bonds to go to the Parks
system; and 15 and 20 year terms for each of the above.
The actual decision on how to structure the bonds, should this proceed, would not need to be
made until August 7th. Before that time, the Council should meet to fully discuss the variations.
To put the overall variables into perspective in regards to the amount of interest to be paid, the
difference between 15 and 20 years bond terms, and factoring in supplemental payments from
the Par 3 Bonds, would look like this:
Anticipated Schedules:
Bond Sale:
The following dates assume the Public Hearing is to be held at the City Council meeting of July
2nd:
CC Calls for hearing on CIP and issuance of bonds June 5
Send Public Hearing Notice to Newspaper June 11
Public Hearing Notice Published June 15*
Public Hearing on CIP July 2
Reverse Referendum date on CIP Period Expires August 1
Call for Sale of Bonds August 7
Rating Call Week of August 27
Sale of Bonds September 4
Closing on Bond Sales Last week of September
*At least 14 days, but not more than 28 days (16 days prior and on a weekday--Friday)
page 52
Design and Bid Schedule:
If the project proceeds with the non-referendum issuance of bonds, the plan preparation and bid
schedule would be as follows (dates are approximate):
August 7—The architect is directed to proceed with design and bid documents
November 7—Adoption of Plans and Specifications, and solicitation of bids ordered
December 18—Bids opened
February 5, 2019—Contract awarded
April 22—Construction Starts
Construction of the addition is estimated to take 9 months. Following that completion, the
remodeling of the existing building should take an additional four months.
NOTIFICATIONS:
If approved by Council to take the next step and call for a Public Hearing, it will be important to
share related information with the public. A website page with a description of the
improvements and needs; the costs, and the process to be followed will be established. Postcards
will be mailed out to the addresses which receive the Heights Highlights in mid-June, and at least
two Open Houses at the Fire Station will be scheduled—one before, and one after the July 2nd
Public Hearing.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council chooses to call for a Public Hearing to consider the issuance of CIP Bonds in an
amount not to exceed $6.3 million to finance the construction of improvements and an addition
to the Fire Station located at 2121 Dodd Avenue, it should, by motion approve the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-40
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS THEREUNDER
Dave Dreelan Mark McNeill
Fire Chief City Administrator
page 53
2018-2022
Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for the
City of Mendota Heights Minnesota
July 2018
Prepared by:
City of Mendota Heights
and
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
page 54
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 2
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 3
II. PURPOSE ............................................................................................... 4
III. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROCESS ................ 5
IV. PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................................................... 6
V. FINANCING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................... 9
FIRE STATION FEASIBILITY AND
PROGRAMMING STUDY ............................................. APPENDIX A
REMODEL & EXPANSION SCENARIO WITH
ESTIMATED COSTS ...................................................... APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CIP BOND ISSUES ................................... APPENDIX C
PRE-SALE SCHEDULE ................................................. APPENDIX D
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ................................... APPENDIX E
page 55
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 3
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
2018-2022
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2003, the Minnesota State Legislature adopted a statute (Section 475.521, referred to
herein as the “CIP Act”) that allows cities to issue municipal bonds under a capital
improvement plan without the usual referendum requirement (except for the so-called
“reverse referendum” described below). The CIP Act applies to capital improvements
consisting of city halls, public works, and public safety facilities. The 2005 Legislature
added towns to the meaning of a municipality and town halls and libraries to the meaning
of a capital improvement under the CIP Act.
Throughout this plan, the term “capital improvement” refers only to those improvements
identified in the CIP Act, as summarized above. Capital expenditures for other public
improvements in the City will be financed through other means, and are not governed by
this plan.
page 56
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 4
II. PURPOSE
A capital improvement is a major expenditure of municipal funds for the acquisition or
betterment to public lands, buildings, or other improvements used as a city hall, town
hall, library, public safety, or public works facility, which has a useful life of 5 years or
more. For the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521, capital improvements
do not include light rail transit or related activities, parks, road/bridges, administrative
buildings other than city or town hall, or land for those facilities. However, this plan
includes certain additional capital improvements beyond the scope of that statute. A
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a document designed to anticipate Capital
Improvement expenditures and schedule them over a five-year period so that they may
be purchased in the most efficient and cost effective method possible. A CIP allows the
matching of expenditures with anticipated income. As potential expenditures are
reviewed, the municipality considers the benefits, costs, alternatives and impact on
operating expenditures.
The City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the “City”) believes the capital improvement
process is an important element of responsible fiscal management. Major capital
expenditures can be anticipated and coordinated so as to minimize potentially adverse
financial impacts caused by the timing and magnitude of capital outlays. This
coordination of capital expenditures is important to the City in achieving its goals of
adequate physical assets and sound fiscal management. Good planning is essential for
the wise use of limited financial resources.
The Capital Improvement Plan is designed to be updated on an annual basis. In this
manner, it becomes an ongoing fiscal planning tool that continually includes anticipated
future capital expenditures and funding sources.
page 57
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 5
III. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
The process begins with analysis of the City’s five-year capital improvement needs and
funding sources. The City may solicit input from citizens and other governmental units
at an early stage, if desired.
The City Council then directs staff or consultants to prepare a plan that sets forth the
estimated schedule, timing and details of specific capital improvements by year, together
with the estimated cost, the need for the improvement, and the sources of revenue for the
improvement. The City Council then holds a public hearing on the CIP, with notice
published not more than 30 days and not less than seven days for the hearing (except as
described below). The Council may either approve the CIP immediately after the
hearing, or based on input may make revisions and approve the CIP at a later meeting.
If the CIP calls for general obligation bonds to finance certain improvements, the City
Council must follow an additional set of procedures. The Council must hold a public
hearing regarding issuance of the bonds. Notice of such hearing must be published in
the official newspaper of the municipality at least 14, but not more than 28 days prior to
the date of the public hearing. In addition, the notice may be posted on the City’s official
web site. (The public hearings on the CIP and the bonds may be combined into a single
hearing, in which case the notice requirements for bonds must be followed.)
The Council must approve the sale of CIP bonds by a 3/5ths vote of its membership.
However, the bonds are subject to a so-called “reverse referendum:” if a petition signed
by voters equal to at least five percent of the votes cast in the City in last general election
is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing regarding the bonds,
the bonds may not be issued unless approved by the voters (by a majority of those voting
on the question). Further, the maximum debt service in any year on all outstanding CIP
Bonds is .16% of the estimated market value of property in the city, using the market
value for the taxes-payable year in which the bonds are issued.
After the CIP has been approved and bonds have been authorized, the City works with
its municipal advisor to prepare a bond sale and repayment schedule. Assuming no
petition for a referendum is filed, the bonds are sold, and when proceeds from the sale of
the bonds (and any other identified revenue sources) become available, the expenditures
for specified capital improvements can be made.
In subsequent years, the process is repeated as expenditures are completed and as new
needs arise. Capital improvement planning looks five or more years into the future from
the date of the CIP.
page 58
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 6
IV. PROJECT SUMMARY
The expenditures to be undertaken with this Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are limited
to those listed below. All other foreseeable capital expenditures within the municipal
government, not funded through Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, will come through
other means. The following expenditures have been submitted for inclusion in this CIP:
2018 Expenditures
Remodel and Expand Fire Station
2019 Expenditures
Remodel and Expand Fire Station
2020 Expenditures
Remodel and Expand Fire Station
2021 Expenditures
None contemplated at this time
2022 Expenditures
None contemplated at this time
page 59
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 7
The CIP Act requires the City Council to consider eight factors when preparing the CIP:
1. Condition of the municipality’s infrastructure, including the project need for repair
and replacement,
2. Likely demand for the improvement,
3. Estimated cost of the improvement,
4. Available public resources,
5. Level of overlapping debt of the municipality,
6. Relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds,
7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements; and,
8. Alternatives for providing services most efficiently through shared facilities with
other cities or local governments.
The City has considered the eight points as they relate to the fire station project through
the issuance of CIP Bonds. Their findings are as follows:
PROJECTS
Conditions of City Infrastructure and Need for the Projects
The existing Fire Station building was constructed in 1984. The Fire Department has
since outgrown the building, and upgrades are necessary to bring the building up to
current building codes and address growth in the community. In 2015, the City reviewed
a Fire Station Feasibility and Programming Study prepared by Buetow 2 Architects
(Appendix A). That study evaluated four options that involved various levels of
remodeling or constructing a new facility. In December 2017 and February 2018, the
City reviewed an additional scenario from CNH Architects for a complete remodel and
expansion of the existing fire station (Appendix B).
Based on growth in the community; the condition of the existing facility; unused land
that is already owned by the City and is available to expand the facility; and, the ability
to maintain operations during the project, the Fire Station Committee and City Council
determined that remodeling the existing facility and constructing an addition is the most
efficient scenario to meet the community’s needs.
Demand for the Project
The City has a responsibility to deliver services that provide for the safety, health, and
welfare of residents and their property. To serve residents and to do their jobs efficiently
and safely, City employees need adequate facilities. Mendota Height’s existing Fire Hall
is deficient and unable to meet current and future operational needs.
The demand for the new facility is in response to the desire to continue providing a level
of service necessary for residents. The Fire Station Committee and the City Council
determined that remodeling and expanding the facility is necessary to meet these needs.
page 60
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 8
Estimated Cost of the Projects
The estimated cost of the remodeled and expanded facility is up to $7,000,000. See
Appendix B of this document for additional detail.
Availability of Public Resources
The City plans to fund the project through the issuance of up to $7,000,000 in General
Obligation Bonds.
Level of Overlapping Debt
The overlapping debt calculation is as of June 5, 2018. The I.S.D. No 197 debt includes
the anticipated issuance of $116,410,000 of General Obligation Building Bonds, Series
2018A.
Relative Costs and Benefits of Alternative Uses of the Funds
The CNH Architects analysis indicated that the remodel and expansion scenario would
be less cost than the cost to demolish and rebuild the facility. Moreover, it would allow
the fire department to continue operations at that location while construction is underway.
Operating Costs of the Proposed Improvements
The physical dimensions of the fire station expansion will be larger than the existing
facility, which means the operational costs may be higher than they currently are, but are
being budgeted for accordingly. However, increased energy efficiency throughout the
new building, coupled with the energy efficiency improvements to existing facilities and
reduced repair and maintenance expenses of the existing building, will mitigate some of
the operational costs increases
Options for Shared Facilities with Other Cities or Local Government
Sharing a fire station with another community is not an option since firefighters and
employees would have to drive outside of their community to have access to their
vehicles and equipment. This would increase drive time and fire response time in
providing public safety services to residents and businesses.
Taxing District
2017/2018
Taxable Net
Tax Capacity
% in City Total
G.O. Debt
City's
Proportionate
Share
Dakota County 455,146,423$ 4.6272% 17,255,000$ 2 798,423$
I.S.D. No 197 63,213,217$ 33.3166% 148,535,000$ 3 49,486,812$
Metropolitan Council 3,971,779,581$ 0.5303% 148,045,000$ 4 785,083$
City's Share of Total Overlapping Debt 51,070,318$
page 61
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 9
V. FINANCING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The total principal amount of requested expenditures under this Capital Improvement
Plan is $7,000,000. This amount represents the maximum principal amount of CIP Bonds
that may be issued to finance the costs associated with remodeling and expanding the fire
station. Principal and interest on the CIP Bonds will be paid through a tax levy over the
term of the CIP Bonds, further described in Appendix C.
In the financing of the Capital Improvement Plan, two significant statutory limitations
apply.
1. Under Chapter 475, with few exceptions, municipalities cannot incur debt in
excess of 3% of the assessor’s estimated market value for the municipality. The
City’s estimated market value is $1,985,476,693. The total amount of
outstanding property tax supporting debt cannot exceed $59,564,301. These
values are for 2017/18 tax year. As of June 12, 2018, the City has $1,345,000
subject to the legal debt limit (this amount does not include the 2018A CIP
Bonds). As such, issuance of the CIP Bonds will be within the overall statutory
debt limit for the City.
2. A separate limitation under the CIP Act is that, without referendum, the total
amount of principal and interest in any one year on all CIP Bonds issued by the
City debt cannot exceed 0.16% of the total estimated market value in the
municipality. The City’s maximum annual debt service amount is $3,176,763 for
the 2017/18 tax year ($1,985,476,693 x .0016). The annual principal and interest
payments on the CIP Bonds proposed to be issued under this CIP will average
approximately $621,018 for a 15-year term or $510,855 for a 20-year term. As
such, debt service on the CIP Bonds will be well within the annual limits under
the CIP Act for both the 15-year and 20-year term scenarios.
Details regarding the proposed terms of the CIP Bonds under this CIP are shown in
Appendix B. A schedule of events for approval of the CIP and issuance of the CIP Bonds
is shown in Appendix C; and the form of the public hearing notice and resolution
approving the CIP are shown in Appendix D.
Continuation of the Capital Improvement Plan
This Capital Improvement Plan should be reviewed annually by the City Council using
the process outlined in this Plan. It should review proposed expenditures, make priority
decisions, and seek funding for those expenditures it deems necessary for the City. If
deemed appropriate, the Council should prepare an update to this Plan.
page 62
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 10
APPENDIX A
Fire Station Feasibility and Programming Study
BUETOW 2 Architects, Inc.
page 63
I' `` ..
rt ' ..
a _ " .: ;.
ilFlj ; ^
Y
e
1 .'
y
s ' y ,
E
1 -s ,_
r '-' '.' -
9 -
r`a
4_ _
i ,,
T
I'
I -
I
n
P
e
j 7 , '... ,
I f_ _ ,...`'
i ` '`'
i . :
I ., . ..
X '
F:
i i - - ' - -- == -- _ '
i
I
BUETOW 2 ARCHITECTS, INC. AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVI
2905 DEAN PARI<WAY SUITE C MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55416 TELEPHONE (
piW.
St Y
Report
AA n lofi 9 ig&fs
F9re S ation
Fe sibality nd
P grara min tudy
omrnission #14 9
June 30, 2015
CES COMPANY '
i12) 455-2626 ;4:."
3 ' page 64
p c ,^- 3 , . r,".:.
i, i
June 30, 2015
City Council
City of Mendo a Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendoia -leights, Minn2sota 55118
RE: Mendota Heights Fire Station F2asibi(ity and Programming Study
BA#1419
Nonorabie Members oi the Ciiy Council:
Aitached is our fr1enclota Neights ire Statson Feasibility and Program+ring Sfiud, (dated June 30, 2015) iar eeview and
comment.
The firm of Buezow 2 Architects, Inc. was retained io develop and to siudy various options each of which would he oriented
totr ard !ong-terrr impr vemen f th? ?XlStlno Mend ta He ghTs Fire Je artment's f c lity n its site 2t 2121 odd Road.
Thanl< you for your assistance as we preparecl and developed this Study by allowing our Architectural Firm ro obtain
relevant data and pertineni bacl<ground information aboui the existing Fire Station and ics site. We believe that the
participaiion of City Council Members Steve Norton and Mike Povolny in Projecfi Committee Meetings was insirumental in
guiding the outcome of this Study with advice on overail project scope, possible funding opportunities and the Report
approvals process. Also, please convey our gratitude to Fire Chief John Maczl<o, Deputy Fire Chief Dave Dreelan and to all
other participating City of Mendota Heights firefigh•ters for their critical comments and insights. Their assistance was quite
invaluable.
The primary objectives of this Feasibility and Programming 5tudy are as Tollows:
1) To acquire current iniormation regarding Mendota Heighis Fire Department operations as well as the specific uses
ofi interior spaces and physical conditions oz the existing Mendota Heights Fire Station.
2) To establish a program of spaces, to examine alternative space use concepts and to identify facility operational
methods that would lead to the conceptual development oi a twenty-first century municipal fire szation.
3) To successruliy join the positive a tributes of the existing site and building that are present io the essential and
proper functional operations of a municipal iire facility.
4) To identify probable common uses, systems and spaces as wel( as joint operational aspects that could be shared by
the Mendota Neights Fire Department wiih the Health East Ambulance service in he interest of construction cost
savings a id operational savEngs.
5) To present concepzual site layouts and building floor plan layouzs that could address the aforementioned issues on
the existing Fi-e SiaTion's site.
6) To formulate a probable project budget and impfementation schedule that would reflect the proposed operational,
programmatic and physical concepts that are presented in this Study.
We believe that, after reviewing the attached document, you will agree that those primary objectives have been achieved.
Thank you for allowing Buetow 2 Architects, Inc. to serve the City of Mendota Heighis.
Sincerely,,
lE`iOVl/ PsR H1iEC7"S, If>1 0 _
F
Randy L. Engel, RA, AS Modris M. Feders, AIA, CID
Principal Principal
BUETOW 2#RCHITECi"S, 1h C. AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES COMPANY
29D5 EAN P`RI WAY SUITE C MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 85416 TELEPHONE (612) 455-2626 '
page 65
Mendota Heights Fire Siation Feasibility and Programming Study • June 30, 2015
Nlendota Heights Fire Department Buetow 7_ Architects, Inc.
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 5511$ 2905 Dean Parkway Suite C
BA 1419 Minneapolis, MN 55416
Sources, Findin s and Recommenda iorts ________ _____ _ _ _Page 1
Sourc s, inr ir s nd c m,atioras
B c!cgrQus7d
The City oi Mendota Heights retained Buetow 2 Archiiecis, Inc. io pre are a Feasibili y and Prograrnming 5tudy of
iis mid-1980's era Fire Siation ihat is located az 2121 Dodd Road.
The Archiiecis ini iaied ris pr ojeci by consulting closely with Fire Chief Maczko and Assisiant Fire Chief Dreelan in
order: to develop a study process, identify probable outcomes and to organize a striall Project Committee of Fire
Depariment, Ambulance and City Council Members
At the same iime, Buetow 2 Architecis, Inc. commenced with onsite reviews of zhe existing physical c ndiiions,
iunctional a tributes and operating systems of the Mendota Heights Fire Siation. The resufts oi ihose actions are
identified in this Study.
bject"svFs
The primary objectives oi this Feasibiliiy and Programming Study are as follows:
1) To acquire curreni iiiiormation re arding Mendota Neights Fire Department operazions as well as the specific
uses of interior spaces and physical conditions of ihe ex9sti g Mendota Heights Fire Station.
2) To establish a program ofi spaces, to examine alternative space use concepts and to identiiy facility operational
meihods that would lead to the conceptual development of a twenty-first ceniury municipa! fire s ation.
3) To successfully join the positive aitributes of the existing siie and building ihat are present to the essential and
proper functional operations oi a municipal Tire facility.
4) To identify probable common uses, systems and spaces as well as joint operational aspects that could he
sh red by the Mendota Neights Fire Departrrient with the Health East Ambulance service in the interest of
construction cost savings and operational savings. '
5) To present conceptuaf site layouts and building floor plan layouts thai could address he aforementioned
issues on the existing Fire Station's site.
6) To formulate a probable project budget and implemenfiation schedule that would reflect the p-oposed
operational, programmatic and physical concepts that are presented in this Study.
Process
The Architects toured the existing Fire Staiion and reviewed a printed set of the 1984 Mendoia Heights Fire Station
Construction Drawings in order to familiarize themselves with the facility's physica! conditions, functional
attributes and operatii g systems.
Concurrently, the Architecis, with recommendations firom the Project Committee, developed and issued individual
Questionnaires io the Fire Department and to Nealih East Ambulance Service personnel. The Architects also
conduc ed a nutnber of onsiie meetings with the Project Commiitee in order to: review Quesiionnaire resnonses,
gaiher data regarding fiaciliiy o erations, inquire as to essential operational needs of the Fire Department and also
to acquire krowledge regarding both shor comings and positive features that characierize the existing Fire Siation
and iis site.
Results of iha rocess are found in this Study and include: a Space Progr•am; evaluations ofi Site conditions,
Building condi ions and Mechanical/ ElectricalJPlumbing Sys ems; Proposed Action Plans, Concepival Site Plans and
Conceptual Floor Plans that illusirate those Acfion Plans; Projecied Cost Estimates; and a aroject Schedule.
ihis document will first be submitied to the Project Committee for review, comment and approval and
subsequen ly, suhmitted to the Mendota Heights City Councif fo• review, comment and approval.
continued}
page 66
r'
Mendota Heights Fire Station Feasibi{ity and Arogramn ing Study June 30, 2015
Niendota Heights Fire Department Buetow 2 Architects, Inc,
Niendota Heighfs, Minnesota 55118 Z905 Dean Park vay 5uite C
BA #1419 Minneapolis, MN 55416
Sources, Findings and Recommendatians _ ___ __ _ p Z
Findings
Four Proposed Action Plans were deve[oped with three of those Proposed Action Plans emerging as most lil<ely
candidates for consideration. Those three Proposed Action Plans individually reiain the existing Mendota Heights
ire Station Building in place ard desc•ibe capital improvemenis in the forms of: Repairs and Replacements,
variable BuildingAddition options, interior Build-Outs and interior Renovations.
Conceptual Siie Pfan and Floor Plan Drawings v ere pre ared for each of these three Pra osed Action Plans. Also,
Project Cost Esiimazes (Calendar Year 2015) and a Project Schedule (Stari in 5pring 2016) are proposed.
The fourth oi the Proposed Action Plans describes a new Fire Sta ion to replace the existing Mendota Heights Fire
Sfiaiion on ihe current siie. A Projeci Cosi Eszimate was prepared for this fourth Proposed Aciion Plan but
conceptual site and floor plans were not prepared as thaC would be outside the scope of this Sfiudy.
A reduced cost - but incomplefie - approach is one in which only repairs and replacements are achieved. That
approach would not provide esseniial and necessary long-term improvements io the facility such as: Space
Program Enhancements, Disability Person Accessibilifij, Gender Equity Provisions, Firefighter Training Facilities,
Safeiy Improvements, Security Enhancements nor would it pi•ovide an Ambulance Service Suite.
Ti e our (4) ?raposed Actioa Plans are d srri r as fo(Perws:
Prop65ed ac ion P1an Edepairs artd R pfaceli G f:s (txistina Buildin On-Sita Footprint is Left in Place};
ftePairs a d Eieplacemen s 5 ace Program Ur brades
Estiinated Construction Cosis: $1,320,000 '
Estimated Soft Costs: 230,000
Estimated Project Cost: 1,550,000 Cos struction Start 5pring of 2016 fior io 10 monih period
roposed c ian fa FaUR (uild:n On-Si e =cotprint is Replaced):
chieves Twertiy-First Cent y ire Statian Sta us as k Jew Fire s'tation on E,cisting Site tatalirtg ZO,QO SqE are ; eei
Estimated Construction Costs; $6,000,000
Estimated Soft Costs: $1,200,000
Esiimated Project Cost: $7,200,000 iemtsorary Space+ Demolitiorv: 5tart 5prin 2016 for 3 io 4 IVlonths
New C nstructiora 5tart 5ummer of 2016 far S to 10 mo ath peri d
Propose i Aetion Plan FIVE a 4Exis ing Buildin Cn-Site Footprint is Expardzd vith 4 Bays}:
Achieves Twenty-First Century Fire Station StateFs - Giepairs and Replacements -:-
Added S ace Pragram Upgrades + Enterior B itd-Ouis + Suilding ditio
ddi iottal 3uilding ddition otalino 20,626 Sguar Feet
Expansion includes: Apparatus Bay Addition + Firefiighter Addition T Training Addition + Ambulance Suite)
Renovaiions lnclude space infill within 2 existing Apparatus Bays + Mezzanines)
Estimated Construction Costs: $5,130,000
Estima ed Sofi Costs: $ 870,000
EsEirna ed Projec Cost: 6,000,000 onsdruction 5tart 5prin of 20.7 for 8 io 1 rx onth er6od
Peopased Accic n 21an 5f1C A(Existin S!ildin On-Sit2 Faotprint Is E;cpanded vvith 3 Ba:
lchieves Twertiy-First Cenrury Fire 'sgaiion Sta us -r epairs and Replacerrfents •
Added Space Program Upgrades t- fnterior BuiE i-13ufs • Building Addition
ldditional Buifding Rci ition totaling ,3Q4 quare FeeY
Expansion includes: Apparatus Bay Addition + FirefighterAddition + I raining Addition +Ambu(ance 5uite)
Renovations include space infill within 2 existing Apparatus Bays + Mezzanines)
Estimated Construction Cosfis: $4,440,000
Estimated Soft Costs: 760,000
Estimated Projec Cosi: $5,200,0(30 Construciion 5tari Sprin of 2016 for 8 010 manth peraoa
Recommendaiions
The Architect's recommendation will await Project Committee's selection of long-term development goals for Fire
Station faci ity followed by discussion and selection of a mosc preierred Action Plan iollowed by a recommenda ion
of the most preferred Action Plan io Ciiy Council.
page 67
Pro'ect PrioritiesJ
Maintain continuity of operations
Overcrowding in apparatus bay
Operational
Safety
Overcrowding in all administrative and storage areas
Add infrastructure to meet current and future
Safety needs
Operational needs
Training needs
Update or repair current infrastructure
Address ALS operational issues
Mendota Heights Fire Department
page 68
6 w' 4 I nuetosa sp
1.5 million - Remodel
5.2 million — Ex ansion Remodelp
6.0 m i I I ion — Ex a nsion Remodelp
7.2 million - New Station
ri " i'
1
d;' ' 1 ° imH
nrt;,` 4a s i''s?fa i s M N a,. K,o' !
i, !
f;
12/12/2017 Mendota Heights Fire Department 2
page 69
6 w' ueto s
i-
4 lansp
Only meets 1 or 2 of the project priorities
5.2 M i I I ion - Expa nsion
6.0 M i I I ion — Expa nsion
Itt' 'I J L''t li l_L J__I
r
m? s, i,u ,. ,
Complete loss of continuity
Mendota Heights Fire Department
page 70
6 w' ueto s
5.2 million expansion
Pla n SA
Meets most objectives
s } ;, Concerns a, Y
I-+I° .-o ; `
i,
S i
Va I u e w r, ,,, ,
4
Operational continuity
Health East
y`' y`' "" y"
Mendota Heights Fire Department
page 71
6 w' P I n Auetosa5
1 _ L1_ B „
I
w rrin,: -
I ae e i t_i
i ''"- G 1l ,
I r
I "'i.,'M" i "') ,. i .;
wa i ar I
n
M ' IJPRy '.._... AI+.E. ,
C[ IQ4 ;;.• __' 6_f1 OOi.1, V /--
TORRGEi ``".,a`
f pi i
1 J
y . ' «
57 .G _ . l'fiF INIIWGI
r.1T g _ \ _ ..1.' —
g _ _. _ __ _ n. . M• F . - „....
w,.«
Z
r
Y.i 4}, v ' C1 d
gpi _ Bi2 _.+ ._ '._ ' .
ti : .-
UIa1..,CF.
t -
EOiL: d_
c_.' . _
CMAIR `'-' •
J1Us
HAt +I I l t7'1 i .
STURAGF. ^"
B20 p ' T, I 1v1E27 rE 3v
C 2 J ' n
i
r.
HDMIN I I ^. ... . D '
I G11
UFFE GE J . i
III • '.»' `' EE35ER
C I - ` .,":,:"_
i....
cl
u.
Y
Li2. Bt i c ' l), iO
I ` B f 0 ` . , . i d r'i , '°" c
i
i i . I y E};
ii i
I _. . .-.' +
B 6 ' i `-G - ., la ' r , .
I `
I I , -,
ri
1lJPNui17 iaE:.R 1 l { I "..,,,;:'i .a iU _
i .
I ' 6
Inr rryux. . .
41 .
iONS (
u . i
NE FIGMTER i = G ppp, '" uiRANCE / C9) ' " . " I
C C
I _ -_
f
1
B3 BF B93 619 i ', ' _ 1i'
BI.E)
925 _ _ _ . ._
1 t . .. .
I I
i ..:
3 u .I
y Rn.GE . i . 1, ,' I E . .
i . ,` I ' . i .
lrQ . _ i " i p
ii
VIES C G1 ._. "' f , .) .
y
i `. .,.r_,
o-n.w __rcea. [
y
J
AENI$ TiAT a1aE :,Tq7 ON-VIIIDE ZL____.._--Y -__.....'___ ' __-_-___ ^ ________'
H93. Bl9 —
e tiI' r..f' ` M I OR AREeA5 Y
NCE SUITE ADGITION: 0 0 SF
ARE4 AOOITION: 1.690 SF
12/12/2017 Mendota Heights Fire Department 5
page 72
6 w' ueto s
6 million expansion
Meets most objectives
Concerns
Pla n 6A
a.
I 1 # ' •s
4 ` + i' a
h I
Value and NEED i f' s`
Operational continuity
Health East
iL/ iL/ LV 1/ V
page 73
6 w' P I n Auetosa6
12/12/2017 Mendota Heights Fire Department 7
page 74
CN H Pla n
CNH Architects
New Eagan Station ( 5 million )
Identified "missing option"
Meets all project priorities
4.3 Million Expansion/Remodel (Estimate)
350,000 option
Better Dynamic
iL/iL/LV1, Mendota Heights Fire Department „
page 75
a7
C
I
1
II '_
I I I I 1_ .I. _ I I. I. I 1.. ..._
I
I --- - ... I
I
i , I i
iI
I ' — , -
ti i
l_I . ,
T ; !
r r .,, ,
a
fi
f
1 N
w. -
y
I
0
p I . I
i r i" i
r
i ' I Ih
I - " I- __-__' _
I
I
r ` ' 1
I. —!— -- -- -- -- - — — A—
iL/iL/LV1/ Mendota Heights Fire Department
page 76
Pro'ect Ti mel i neJ
Detailed design and cost study
Design finalization and construction docs
Bid and Contract process
Phase I- exterior addition
Phase II interior addition
Phase III — remodel
Phase IV- interior and exterior finishes
Mendota Heights Fire Department
8 weeks
6 weeks
6 weeks
20 weeks
10 weeks
16 weeks
4 weeks
18 months
page 77
uestions
12/12/2017 Mendota Heights Fire Department 11
page 78
il' - i 1 i' : rt'M-,
L.
111 JfllUl
3.Jrr•;:•d-ii.
1:. .1»
PI J r;;. ,; C hS I:Uti I I W N
11 .,.." ..
f
1._ '
r, -
r !
o
1-
C]
f/J
page 79
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 11
APPENDIX B
Remodel & Expansion Scenario with Estimated Costs
CNH Architects
page 80
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Mendota Heights
City Council
MHFD Fire Station
February 7, 2018
page 81
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Agenda
Lexington Avenue
Programming
Preliminary Site Plan & Floor Plans
Preliminary Exterior Images
Critical Elements
In-Station Training Features
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Project Delivery Methods
Project Timeline
Questions
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 82
Programming
Programming –Space Needs
Lexington Avenue
New:
Public Access: 2,085 SF
Admin Spaces: 2,278 SF
Living Spaces: 3,563 SF
Apparatus Bays: 2,639 SF
Training: 2,577 SF
HealthEast Garage: 1,351 SF
Mech/Elec: 250 SF
Subtotal: 14,743 SF
Existing:
Apparatus Bays: 7,860 SF
Support: 3,358 SF
HealthEast Space: 935 SF
Mech/Elec: 244 SF
Subtotal: 12,397 SF
Total: 27,140 SF
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Increase from
Preliminary
plan: 5,363 SF
page 83
Preliminary Site Plan
Overall Site Plan
Lexington Avenue
Private Property
Agricultural)
City Property
Future Use)
City Property
Future Use)
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 84
Preliminary Floor Plans
First Floor –Overall
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 85
Preliminary Floor Plans
First Floor –Admin
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 86
Preliminary Floor Plans
First Floor –Dorms/Fitness
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 87
Preliminary Floor Plans
First Floor –Apparatus Bays
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 88
Preliminary Floor Plans
First Floor -Support Areas
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 89
Preliminary Floor Plans
First Floor -HealthEast
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 90
Preliminary Floor Plans
Second & Third Floors
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 91
Preliminary Exterior Image
Northeast Perspective
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 92
Preliminary Exterior Image
Southeast Perspective
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 93
Preliminary Exterior Image
Northwest Perspective
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 94
Preliminary Exterior Image
Digital Signage Perspective
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 95
Critical Elements
Classroom/EOC & Conference
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Design to allow for public
use and other City training
needs
Seating for 40
Ability to split room into two
rooms with operable partition
Storage space for EOC
equipment
Conference Room large
enough for Command and
Department meetings
New furniture with flexibility
to use for two EOC rooms
New phones and monitors
needed to handle
EOC/Command areas
page 96
Critical Elements
Admin Offices
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Six offices to meet
department needs
Captains have a defined office
with their own storage
Operational groups have
defined offices with their
own storage
Provides supervision and
security of public entrance
Centralized Work Room for
printers and office supplies
New computer Training Room
for simulation training
New furniture is needed for
new and additional offices
New phones and monitors
page 97
Critical Elements
Fitness Room
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Allows firefighters to
exercise within the fire
station with ability to
respond if needed
Large enough to accommodate
various equipment to be
beneficial
Designed for potential use by
City employees
New fitness equipment
New card access, phone and
monitor
page 98
Critical Elements
Training Tower
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Allows firefighters to train
safely in well lit, slip
resistant designed spaces in
a permanent facility
Ability to simulate commercial
and residential fire attack
through tower
Ability to simulate ladder
truck rescue drills
Allows for exterior as well
as interior rope rescue
training
Allows for interior year
round training due to heated
space with drainage for hose
drills
page 99
In-Station Training Features
Interior Training Examples
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Provides safe, well lit areas for firefighters to train
Potential to share training elements with police or
other fire departments
More efficient use of volunteer time
Better trained firefighters
Recruitment and retention benefits
Eliminate rental training cost for department
Firefighters remain on site and available to respond
Many elements use existing space with minimal added
cost
page 100
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate -Preliminary
Preliminary Estimate presented at
December Council Study Session
4,300,000 Hard & Soft Cost
360,000 Dorm Addition
4,660,000 Combined Total Cost
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 101
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate -Schematic
Scope changes between Preliminary
Diagram and Schematic Plans
Based on input from in-depth design
committee meetings
Incorporate some critical elements
not in earlier architect’s designs
Response to further investigation and
discovery of certain existing facility
and equipment’s aging condition
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 102
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate -Schematic
Fitness Room and Equipment
Not included in previous designs, but
Critical for Firefighter health
Includes both larger building area,
fitness flooring, and cost of a
reasonable mix of fitness equipment
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 103
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate -Schematic
Expanded Office and EOC Needs
Evaluated the office needs for
departmental leadership
Provided public entrance lobby to
meet NFPA and DHS requirements
Upgraded training room and
conference room to meet EOC needs –
furniture, technology, Flexibility
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 104
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate -Schematic
Existing Equipment & Facility Upgrades
Detailed review of existing systems
found elements that did not meet the
long term needs of the station
Existing HVAC Rooftop Units
Existing Radiant Heat in Apparatus Bays
Replace existing generator with new generator
with capacity to handle the new facility
Telephone and Computers outdated or not
expandable
Trash enclosure required (not existing)
Pavement replacement expanded
Existing exterior façade improvements
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 105
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate -Schematic
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Preliminary Cost Estimate
4,660,000 Hard & Soft Cost
Additional Costs
130,000 Fitness Room & Equip
330,000 Expanded Office/EOC
260,000 Exsting Improvements
5,380,000 Combined Total Cost
Contingency Recommendation (10%)
538,000
page 106
Cost Estimate
Cost Comparisons
MHFS Building Costs – Schematic
Estimate
Gross Area = 27,140 sf
Cost / SF = $192
All New Fire Station Buildings
Cost / SF = $295 (Eagan, 2016)
Cost / SF = $315 (1/18 Dollars)
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 107
Construction Delivery Method
CM vs GC Comparison
Benefits of Construction Manager
Selected by quality, not public bid
Site Superintendent – Daily quality /
schedule representing City
Represent the City along with
Architect, part of Team – cost control
Involved during construction
documents phase – minor cost
Benefits of General Contractor
Single contract with City
Can include small subcontractors (?)
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 108
Project Timeline
Schedule
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Completion of design
Accurate final budget
Critical construction phasing start date
Drawings can be used immediately or in 2019
2018 construction start saves money over 2019 start
page 109
Questions
Mendota Heights Fire Station
page 110
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 12
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED 2018 CIP BOND ISSUE
15 Year Term Scenario
page 111
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 13
page 112
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 14
20 Year Term Scenario
page 113
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 15
page 114
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 16
APPENDIX D
Pre-Sale Schedule dated June 15, 2018
5-Year City Capital Improvement Plan Bond Issuance
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
The City Council must take the following actions before Bonds can be issued:
City Council directs preparation of a 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
City Council conducts a Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan.
City Council approves Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan by at least a 3/5ths vote of the governing body
membership.
The table below lists the anticipated steps in the issuing process:
06/05/18 City Council adopts Resolution calling for Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital
Improvement Plan.
06/11/18 Close date to get Notice of Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan
to official newspaper for publication.
06/15/18 Publish Notice of Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan
(publication no more than 28 days and no less than 14 days prior to hearing date). Additionally,
notice may be posted on the City’s official web site, if any.
07/02/18 City Council holds Public Hearing on Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan and adopts
Resolution giving preliminary approval for their issuance and approving Capital Improvement Plan
by at least a 3/5ths vote of the governing body membership.
08/02/18 Reverse referendum period ends (within 30 days of the public hearing).
Assessor's Taxable Market Value (Pay 2018) $1,985,476,693
Multiply by 3% 0.03
Statutory Debt Limit $59,564,301
Less: Debt Paid Solely from Taxes (as of 6/12/18)*$8,345,000
Unused Debt Limit (as of 6/5/18) $51,219,301
*Includes $7 million CIP Bonds
Net Debt Limit
Assessor's Market Value (Pay 2018) $1,985,476,693 Assessor's Market Value (Pay 2018) $1,985,476,693
Multiply by .16% 0.0016 Multiply by .16% 0.0016
Statutory Levy Limit $3,176,763 Statutory Levy Limit $3,176,763
Less: Annual levy under CIP*$621,018 Less: Annual levy under CIP*$510,855
Unused Levy Limit $2,555,745 Unused Levy Limit $2,665,908
Annual Levy Limit ‐ 15 Year Term Annual Levy Limit ‐ 20 Year Term
*Assumes $7 million CIP Bonds
page 115
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Page 17
APPENDIX E
FORM OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
2018-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota (the “City”) will meet on Monday, July 2, 2018, at or after 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall,
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, in part to hold a public hearing concerning (1)
the issuance of general obligation bonds (the “Bonds”) in a principal amount not to exceed
$7,000,000 to finance the renovation and addition to the Fire Station within the City; and (2) the
proposal to adopt a Capital Improvement Plan for 2018 through 2022 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.521.
If a qualifying petition requesting a vote on the issuance of the Bonds, signed by voters equal
to five percent of the votes cast in the City in the last general election, is filed with the City Clerk
within 30 days after the public hearing, the City may issue the Bonds only after obtaining approval
of a majority of voters voting on the question at an election.
A copy of the plan is available for inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 1101
Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Question or comments may be directed to the City
Administrator’s Office at 651-255-1153.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the public hearing either orally or in
writing, or may file written comments with the City Clerk before the hearing.
Dated: June 15, 2018
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
_/s/ _____
City Clerk
page 116
Mendota Heights Fire Station Costs and Process
July, 2018
Project Financing and Estimated Tax Impact
Bond Amounts. The Mendota Heights City Council is considering funding the proposed Fire
Station improvements by a form of borrowing, which involves the issuance of $6.125 million in
Capital Improvement Bonds. The working estimate of the project is $6 million; an additional
$125,000 has been included for bond issuance costs.
For the purposes of providing estimates for the July 2nd Public Hearing to be held by the City
Council, $7 million has been used. This is the maximum amount of bonds which could be issued,
although it is unlikely that that figure will be reached.
The final structure and term of the Capital Improvement Bonds have yet to be determined. The
City Council may consider a 15 or 20 year term of repayment—a 20 year bond reduces the annual
impact on Mendota Heights taxpayers, but a 15 year term reduces the overall cost of borrowing.
Based on a 15-year term of repayment, the estimated property tax impact on a Mendota Heights
home with a valuation of $356,000 (median home value) would be $90.76 per year. This assumes
current (June, 2018) rates of interest, and a continuation of the City's current AAA bond rating.
That same home with a 20-year term of repayment would see an annual property tax increase of
$74.58.
The structure of the financing would be decided by the City Council later this summer, after it is
determined whether or not the project will proceed. For more information on the financial impact
of this project, please see the chart on the opposite side of this document.
The Bond Issuance Process
State Law permits Minnesota cities to issue Capital Improvement Bonds for the acquisition or
betterment of certain public lands, buildings, or other improvements, without a voter approved
referendum. This process is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521.
Prior to the issuance of Bonds, the affected City must provide notice of the proposed project. This
has been done through a notice published in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, the City’s legal
newspaper. In addition, so as to provide a maximum amount of notification, postcards were also
mailed to all property owners in the City.
A Public Hearing has been called by the City Council to be held on July 2nd at 7:00 PM in the City
Council Chambers at City Hall, to consider this project and method of financing. Assuming the
City Council then chooses to proceed, a “reverse referendum” provision would then commence.
In that, if by August 1st, a petition is received which requests a referendum on the issuance of the
bonds that is signed by a minimum of 5 percent of the number of voters in the last general election,
the City Council will either need to call for the referendum, or withdraw the proposal. In Mendota
Heights, 5% of the number of voters in the 2016 general election is 401. If the proposal is
withdrawn as a result of the petition, the question cannot be reconsidered for at least one year.
If no petition is received calling for a referendum, the City Council may issue the Bonds.
Construction Schedule
If the fire station improvements do proceed, the architectural design would take place this fall,
with bids to be sought and opened in December. A contract would be awarded in February, 2019,
with construction to commence in Spring, 2019. Project completion would be expected 12 to 13
months after the start of construction.
page 117
Fire Station Timeline
June 5: City Council Calls for public hearing on Capital Improvement plan and
issuance of bonds
June 15: Public Hearing notice published in official City newspaper (Pioneer Press)
June 26: Informational Session - Fire Station Open House 6:30-8:30 PM
July 2: City Council Meeting - Public Hearing on Capital Improvement Plan
July 3: 30-day petition for referendum period begins
July 9: Informational Session - Fire Station Open House 6:30-8:30 PM
August 1: 30-day petition for referendum period ends
August 7: City Council calls for sale of bonds
September 4: Sale of Bonds
End of September: Bond Sale Closing
Financial Impact
page 118
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Oversized Detached Garage
Erick Schmidt - 1133 Delaware Avenue [Planning Case No. 2018-12]
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Conditional Use Permit for
an oversized detached garage in the R-1 One Family Distrcit, to Erick Schmidt and property located at 1133
Delaware Avenue.
Background
Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2: “Single-family residential parcels
that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one detached garage up to seven hundred fifty (750)
square feet as a permitted structure, or up to one thousand (1,000) square feet upon approval of a
conditional use permit.”
The Applicant intends to remove an existing two-car (560-sf.) detached garage, and construct a new 26’ x
40’ (992-sf.) three car detached garage in its place.
At the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a
public hearing was conducted. There were no comments or objections from neighboring residents. A copy
of the 06/26/18 planning report, along with the planning commission meeting minutes related to this item
are appended to this memo.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a Conditional Use Permit, and has
broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way
related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (6-0) of the Conditional Use Permit with
certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this
recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-44 APPROVING THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 119
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-44
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW OVERSIZED DETACHED GARAGE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-12)
WHEREAS, Erick Schmidt (the "Applicant") has applied for a conditional use permit
to allow an oversized detached garage in the R-1 District, as proposed under Planning Case No.
2018-12, and for the property located at 1133 Delaware Avenue, described in the attached
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2:
“Single-family residential parcels that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one
detached garage up to seven hundred fifty (750) square feet as a permitted structure, or up to
one thousand (1,000) square feet upon approval of a conditional use permit.”; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to remove an existing 20 x 28 two car detached
garage and reconstruct a new 26’ x 40’ (992 sq. ft.) three-car detached garage on the property; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting of June 26, 2018, whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up
discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval (by 4-1 vote) of the
conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowed size of a detached garage in the R-1
District, and a variance to allow a reduced setback for said accessory structure, with certain
findings of fact and conditions noted herein.
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
planning item at the regular meeting of June 26, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was
presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were
received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended unanimous approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for the property located
at 1133 Delaware Avenue, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council
that the conditional use permit to allow an oversized detached garage in the R-1 District, as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-12, and for the property located at 1133 Delaware
Avenue, can be approved based on the following findings of fact:
A. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is
consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
page 120
B. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered
a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
C. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor
hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use
appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
the comprehensive plan.
D. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included
in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
E. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit to allow an oversized detached garage in the R-1 District, as proposed
under Planning Case No. 2018-12, and for the property located at 1133 Delaware Avenue, is
hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all
applicable City Code standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or
construction of the new garage addition.
3. 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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
` Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 121
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 1023 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights MN
PID: 27-71150-02-011
Legal Description: The North 110-ft. of the East 150-ft. of Lot 1, Block 2, Somerset View
Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota.
[Abstract Property]
page 122
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-12
Conditional Use Permit (Larger Garage in the R-1 Zone)
APPLICANT: Erick Schmidt
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1133 Delaware Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 27, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the replacement of an older, smaller (560-sq.
ft.) detached garage with a new 26’ x 40’ (footprint) detached garage structure.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The subject site is rectangular in shape; with frontage along Delaware at 100-ft. and lot depth of 150-ft. or
0.34 acres in area. This is an interior lot, and is bordered on the east by Delaware Avenue. The property
contains a single-wide entrance off Delaware, with a driveway leading to the garage in the rear yard. The
site contains two structures: a 1-1/4 story single-family dwelling with 1,922 sf. of finished floor area, and
an approx. 20-ft. wide x 20-ft. deep (400 sf.) two car detached garage, with a small 8’ x 18’ covered/storage
space on the back side (see image below).
PICTOMETRY IMAGE (LOOKING WEST FROM DELAWARE)
page 123
LOOKING WEST – FROM DELAWARE AVE.
REAR SIDE OF GARAGE
The existing garage is setback almost 34-ft. from the south (side) lot line, and 24-ft. from the rear lot line.
The driveway also contains a turn-around or parking tab located along the south side of the driveway, which
is scheduled to remain in place as part of this project.
All properties adjacent to the site and in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The lots in this
neighborhood vary in width and shape, but remain consistent as a typical older single-family neighborhood.
There are a number of neighboring residences that have similar styled detached garages comparable with
the subject property; or some with smaller attached garages due to limited lot sizes in this area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to remove the existing 28’ x 20’ detached garage, and reconstruct a larger, three-
car detached garage near the same location. The new garage will be 26-ft. deep by approx. 40-ft. in width,
but due to an off-set of the 3rd stall building line, the overall footprint area of the new garage will be set at
992-sq. ft.
As indicated earlier, the existing garage is set back 34-ft. from the south side lot line, and 24-ft. from the
rear yard line. The setbacks for the new garage will be set at 18’-2” from the south (side) line, and 30-ft.
from the west (rear) lot line.
The new garage will provide the homeowners a much larger structure to park and store their personal
vehicles and trailers. The garage will contain one, double-wide overhead doors, and a single-wide overhead
door for the third stall space.
page 124
ANALYSIS
1) This new garage requires a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowed size of a detached
garage in the R-1 District.
• Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2: “Single-family residential
parcels that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one detached garage up to seven
hundred fifty (750) square feet as a permitted structure, or up to one thousand (1,000) square feet
upon approval of a conditional use permit.”
This provision only comes into play when a single-family residential property does not contain an attached
garage structure. As indicated previously, the new garage under this consideration is 992 square feet, so
the conditional use permit application is required for this particular review.
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request,
with the following principles to be taken into consideration:
The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands;
existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met:
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
City staff has personally inspected the existing garage, and agrees it is in rough shape and can be removed
and replaced with a new garage structure. The new garage proposed by the Applicants appears to be a nice
design, and should easily accommodate the needs of parking larger personal vehicles and storage desired
by the homeowners. All setbacks would be easily met under this plan; and no existing trees, screening or
major vegetation will be removed to accommodate this new structure.
City staff believes the new, larger garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the neighborhood or the community; or cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate
surrounding property values. For all intents and purposes, this proposed garage use appears to be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan; and the CUP
as presented herein is easily supported and can be approved.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit based on the attached findings of fact; or
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, either whole or separately based on certain
findings of fact; or
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others; and direct staff to extend the
application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
page 125
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the conditional use permit to allow the new detached garage not to exceed 992 sq. ft. as
presented herein is acceptable, and may be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code
standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the
new garage addition.
3. 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location/Aerial site map
2. Survey/Site Plan
3. New Garage Elevation Plans
page 126
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for Larger Detached Garage
1133 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable
request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code
that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
page 127
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667
6
9
15
1170
11
13
1160
1134
10
1147
4
576
584
1111
568
1105
502
1112
521
571
1177
1119
560
1063
592
1057
506
1101
11161099
1117
1194
1070
1153
1119
1040
1056
1057
1100
548
1
1133
1051 1085
1076
1068
1091
1181
1062
1055
546
10641061
1116
1096
1130
1134
1197
547
1156
1150
543 539 535 525
1044
1103
1186
1140
1206
1143
1054
1178
1160
10801038
1144
1193
1085
1102
1149
1141
1050
1133
1203
1180
1171
1167
1163
1159
1155
1147
1106
1209
1119
1115
1125
1109
1101109510931089
1135
1155
1161
1167
11331131
1129
1176
1123
600
10521060
1060
1054 1041
1210
574
1035
1211
564
DODD RDDELAWARE AVEBE
E
B
E
A
V
E
AS
H
L
E
Y
L
NCHIPPEWA AVEJOHN ST
ESTHER
LN
BUTLER AVE
NORMA LNSPRING ST
ORME ST W
BUTLER AVE W'347'40
1
.
5
'399.7'349.9'301.6'27
7
.
8
'
27
1
.
3
'261.9'247.5'242.5'235.7'155'301'
14
4
'161.1'101'252.1'1
4
1
.
6
'125.1'99.1'12
3
.
1
'
119
.
6
'111.9'261''Dakota County GIS
City ofMendotaHeights0200
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/22/2018
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
1133 Delaware Ave.(E. Schmidt)Planning Case No. 2018-12
page 128
ADJACENTRESIDENCEADJACENTGARAGEADJACENTGARAGE
DELAWARE AVENUE
10'-0"SETBACK 10'-0"SETBACK
30'-0"SETBACK30'-0"SETBACKEXISTING2-STORYHOMENEWDETACHEDGARAGEHOMEADDITIONADDEE30'-5"ALIGN WITH REAR OFEXISTING GARAGE18'-2"10'-0"FFFHGABCBC2'-0"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"SCALE: 1"=20'-0"SITE PLAN1AS1THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-20181. ALL SITE PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND CONTINGENT ON A SURVEY2. NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN DARKER LINES.3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE GRADED TO SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING. NEWGRADING TO TIE INTO EXISTING GRADES.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE FINAL GRADED WITH 4" MIN. BLACK DIRT CONTAININGNO MORE THAN 35% SAND. SOD/SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS.SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTESEXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN.REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AS REQ'D FOR NEW WORK.REINFORCED CONC. DRIVEWAY.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE.BUILDING SETBACKS.EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN.EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY.EXISTING CONCRETE PAD TO REMAIN.ASITE KEYNOTESBCDEFGLOCATION MAPMUNICIPALITY:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSITE ZONING:RESIDENTIAL (R-2)SETBACKS: BUILDING FRONT30'-0"SIDE10'-0"REAR30'-0"SITE AREA:14,925 SFHOUSE FOOTPRINT: 1,190 SFGARAGE FOOTPRINT: 992 SFFAR14.6%SITE INFORMATIONAS1.0 SITE PLANA1.0 FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT/ FOUNDATIONA1.1 ROOF PLANA2.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSHEET INDEX10' 20'040'Hpage 129
OVEN40'-0"3'-0"23'-0"3'-0"16'-0"GIRDER
TRUSS(3)-2X6(2)-2X6 JACKS(2)-2X6 KINGS(
3
)
-
2
X
6
4
X
64X6 (3)-2X6 JACKS(
3
)
-
2
X
6
J
A
C
K
S
(3)-1 3 4 X 14 LVL
EXTEND TO CORNER
(2)-1 3 4 X 11 7 8 LVL
26'-0"24'-0"18'-0"3'-0"3'-0"10'-0"3'-0"GARAGESLAB ONGRADEEXISTING2-STORY HOMEWITH BASEMENT(3) 3256D
3'-2"22'-10"26'-0"
11'-6"11'-6"A1.0FLOOR PLANS - FIRST FLOOR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLAN1THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-2018FLOOR PLAN GEN. NOTES1. PROTECT ALL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS TO REMAIN DURINGCONSTRUCTION PROCESS.2. NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN DARKER LINES.3. ALL SELECTIONS FOR FIXTURES, HARDWARE, FINISHES,ETC. BY OWNER.4. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE THE DEMOLITIONWORK WITH THE NEW WORK PROPOSED. VERIFY LOCATIONOF ALL NEW WALLS, OPENING, ETC. WITH PROPOSED PLAN.5. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBTRADES ARERESPONSIBLE FOR A THROUGH ON SITE ANALYSIS OFEXIST. CONDITIONS TO ASCERTAIN THE FULL SCOPE OFTHE DEMO.6. ALL HEIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFYAND MODIFY AS REQUIRED.7. ALL TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR.8. EXTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALLS TO BE 2x6 STUDCONSTRUCTION AT 16" O.C. WITH BATT INSULATION ANDHOUSE WRAP.9. INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2x4 STUD CONSTRUCTION AT 16"O.C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4' 8'016'WALL SHT'G.:12" PLYWOODCONNECT W/ 8d (0.131x2 12") COMMON NAILS.6" C/C AT PANEL EDGES (3" C/C AT MAIN GARAGE PORTAL),12"C/C IN FIELD.NOTES:ROOF TRUSS INFO., SEE SHEET A1.3SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION.page 130
ROOFTRUSSESROOF
TRUSSES EXISTING ROOFSLOPE
8:12 +/-
SLOPE
8:12 +/-SLOPE8:12 +/-SLOPE8:12 +/-A1.1ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"ROOF PLAN11. ALL ROOF SLOPES APPROXIMATE ADDITION TO MATCH SLOPE OFEXISTING. GARAGE FINAL DESIGN BY TRUSS MANUFACTURER.2. ALL ROOFS TO GET PREFINISHED METAL GUTTERS TO MATCHEXISTING.3. ALL ROOF SOFFITS TO BE VENTED.4. CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT TYP.
THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-2018ROOF PLAN GEN. NOTES4' 8'016'PREFABRICATED MTL. PLATEDWOOD ROOF TRUSSES AT 24" O/CDESIGN BY OTHERS FOR THE FOLLOWING SUPERIMPOSED LOADS:TOP CHORD: SNOW LOAD = 35 PSFDEAD LOAD = 13 PSFBOTT CHORD: DEAD LOAD = 7 PSFATTACH TO ALL BRG. POINTS WITH H2.5A TIES (AT SINGLE NAILERPLATES W/ H3) TWIST STRAP HTCS AT GIRDER TRUSSES.ROOF SHT'G.:58" PLYWOODCONNECT W/ 8d (0.131x2 12") COMMON NAILS.6" C/C AT PANEL EDGES, 12"C/C IN FIELD.WALL SHT'G.:12" PLYWOODCONNECT W/ 8d (0.131x2 12") COMMON NAILS.6" C/C AT PANEL EDGES, 12"C/C IN FIELD.NOTES:SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION.page 131
T.O.SLAB98'-10" +/-1197775558T.O. ROOF118'-1 1/2"199528A2.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1 8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - FRONT1SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - LEFT2THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-20184' 8'016'4' 8'016'STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING.18 X 30 DECORATIVE VENT.CONCRETE STOOPNOT USED.BRICK WATER TABLE, COLOR AND LAYOUT TO MATCHEXISTING.PROVIDE LEDGER FOR DECK.WALL SCONCE LIGHT.RAFTER RETURN DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTING DETAIL.ASPHALT SHINGLES WITH (2) LAYERS BUILDING PAPER. ICEAND WATER SHIELD AS REQUIRED.1. ALL SELECTIONS FOR FIXTURES, HARDWARE, FINISHES, ETC.BY OWNER.2. ALL TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR.3. PREFINISHED METAL VENTED SOFFIT TO MATCH EXISTING4. WINDOW TRIM PROFILES TO MATCH EXISTINGEXT. ELEV. GEN. NOTES1EXT. ELEV. KEYNOTES23456789page 132
1958195A2.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1 8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - REAR1SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - RIGHT2THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-20184' 8'016'4' 8'016'STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING.18 X 30 DECORATIVE VENT.CONCRETE STOOPNOT USED.BRICK WATER TABLE, COLOR AND LAYOUT TO MATCHEXISTING.PROVIDE LEDGER FOR DECK.WALL SCONCE LIGHT.RAFTER RETURN DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTING DETAIL.ASPHALT SHINGLES WITH (2) LAYERS BUILDING PAPER. ICEAND WATER SHIELD AS REQUIRED.1. ALL SELECTIONS FOR FIXTURES, HARDWARE, FINISHES, ETC.BY OWNER.2. ALL TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR.3. PREFINISHED METAL VENTED SOFFIT TO MATCH EXISTING4. WINDOW TRIM PROFILES TO MATCH EXISTINGEXT. ELEV. GEN. NOTES1EXT. ELEV. KEYNOTES23456789page 133
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26,
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, and Michael Toth. Those absent:
Commissioner Brian Petschel
Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Magnuson requested that item 5b be moved to the bottom of the agenda. The
Commission agreed. The revised agenda was approved.
Approval of May 22, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2018.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for some editing of language or clarification be added to the
second bullet point under Mr. Dave Kemp’s comments on page 3 of 5 in the minutes. Also, the
sentence immediately before the bullet points should be past tense.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-12
ERICK SCHMIDT, 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (LARGE GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE)
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Erick Schmidt was requesting to build a new
26’ x 40’ detached garage. City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2 allows for
one detached structure up to 1,000 square feet with an approved conditional use permit.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No objections or other
comments were received as a result of those notices.
page 134
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location in relation to surrounding homes and streets.
The lot is 100’ x 150’, or 0.34 acres in size. The site currently contains a 1,922 square foot, 1.25
story single-family home and a 400 square foot detached garage with a 8’ x 18’ covered/storage
space. Mr. Benetti then shared images of the current garage and covered space.
The current driveway access off of Delaware Avenue will remain as is, as will the remainder of
the driveway and turn-around area. The new garage will be 26 feet by approximately 40 feet, but
due to an off-set of the 3rd stall building line, the overall footprint area of the new garage will be
set at 992 square feet; under the 1,000 square foot limitation.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a conditional use permit and explained how this
request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit request
with conditions.
Mr. Erick Schmidt, 1133 Delaware Avenue, came forward to address any questions from the
Commission, of which there were none. He also had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s presentation
as it felt it was complete and accurate.
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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR LARGER DETACHED GARAGE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent
with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered a
reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the
City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
page 135
1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City
Code standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or
construction of the new garage addition.
3. 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.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
page 136
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split (Subdivision) & Combination Request
Mike & Michelle Bader – 1673 Delaware Avenue [Planning Case 2018-14]
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Lot Split and Lot
Combination request from Mike & Michelle Bader, for the property located at 1673 Delaware Avenue.
Background
Mike & Michelle Bader are requesting approval to subdivide their property located at 1673 Delaware
Avenue into two (2) separate parcels; one of which keeps the existing dwelling and will be sold to a third
party; while the remaining parcel will be retained by the Baders and combined with a lot on Foxwood Lane.
Pursuant to Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations), individuals may request the simple
subdivision of parcels provided the resulting lots are compliant with the underlying zoning district. The
subject property is located in the R-1A One Family Residential district. The westerly parcel created by this
split would normally not meet the R-1A zoning standards; however, as part of this subdivision request, the
Owners have agreed to combine the west parcel with their Lot 3, Foxwood property they own to the north.
At the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a
public hearing was conducted. A number of comments were made by adjacent property owners, primarily
concerned with future use or development plans of the new [combined] parcel - by Bader or others; and
comments related to homeowner covenant restrictions in the Foxwood development. A copy of the
01/23/18 planning report, along with the Planning Commission meeting minutes related to this item are
appended to this memo.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative and quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision requests
and has limited discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (6-0) of the Lot Split/Combination request
with amended conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm
this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-45 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT
AND COMBINATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 137
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-45
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) AND LOT
COMBINATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-14)
WHEREAS, Mike and Michelle Bader (the “Applicants”) have applied for a Lot Split
(Subdivision) and Lot Combination as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-14, for the
property located at 1673 Delaware Avenue, and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the
“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1A One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision
of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking to subdivide the existing 10.05 acre Subject
Property into two parcels, with a proposed “East Parcel” consisting of 4.0 acres and a proposed
“West Parcel” consisting of 5.82 acres, along with new drainage and utility easements on said
East and West Parcels, all legally described and illustrated in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants intend to sell the easterly 4.0 acre parcel containing the
existing single-family dwelling to a third-party buyer, while the westerly 5.42 acre parcel will be
combined and legally joined to Lot 3, Foxwood Addition, owned by the Applicants, and which is
legally described and illustrated on attached Exhibit B: and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up
discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot
Split and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-14, with certain
findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Lot Split and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-14, and for the
property located at 1673 Delaware Avenue (generally Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood), can be approved
based on the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City
Code under Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to
the surrounding uses or neighborhood.
page 138
C. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified
herein as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any
nonconforming issue or status of the newly created parcel.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split
and Lot Combination request as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-14, and for the property
located at 1673 Delaware Avenue (generally Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood), is hereby approved with
the following conditions:
1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the
attached survey drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be
combined with the existing Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood. No development of the
combined west parcel will be allowed until the aforementioned lot combination is
recorded with Dakota County.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility
easement over the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and
utility easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet
(including 30-feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the “East
Parcel”, and all must be denoted on the certificate of survey or recordable document
approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be
used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner
receives full consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under
separate application(s), per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own
action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in
any way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any
future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or adjacent lands), to have this area
subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to the existing
Foxwood Lane right-of-way.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 139
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions
Existing Parcel - PID No. 27-02400-76-010:
The North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23
W., Dakota County, Minnesota.
Proposed East Parcel
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24,
T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying east of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of said
North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly,
at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees 22
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line of said North Half and there
terminating.
Proposed West Parcel
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24,
T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of said
North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly,
at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees 22
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line of said North Half and there
terminating.
Proposed Drainage and Utility Easements over East Parcel
Drainage and Utility easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40 feet and the westerly
10.00 feet of the following described parcel:
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24,
T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying east of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of said
North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly,
at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees 22
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line of said North Half and there
terminating.
Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement over West Parcel
A Drainage and Utility easement over that part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following
described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said North Half; thence easterly, along the north line of said
North Half a distance of 300.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
southwesterly, deflecting to the right, 97 degrees, 20 minutes, 00 seconds, a distance of 331.94 feet,
more or less, to the south line of said North Half and there terminating.
page 140
EXHIBIT A
page 141
EXHIBIT B
Legal Descriptions
Parcel Combination Request
Existing North Parcel
Lot 3, Block 1, FOXWOOD, Dakota County, MN
Existing South Parcel
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24,
T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of said
North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly,
at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees 22
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line of said North Half and there
terminating.
Combined Legal Description
Lot 3, Block 1, FOXWOOD, Dakota County, MN
together with
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24,
T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of said
North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly,
at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees 22
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line of said North Half and there
terminating.
page 142
EXHIBIT B
page 143
Planning Report
DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-14
Lot Split Subdivision (Lot Combination)
APPLICANT: Mike and Michelle Bader
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1673 Delaware Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1A One Family Residential/RR Rural Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 5, 2018 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mike & Michelle Bader are requesting approval to subdivide their homestead parcel located at 1673
Delaware Avenue into two (2) separate parcels; one of which contains the existing residential dwelling will
be sold-off to a third party; while the remaining parcel will be retained by the Baders. This type of request
requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels.
BACKGROUND
Mike & Michelle Bader own approximately 10.05 acres of land on the east edge of Mendota Heights off
Delaware Avenue, just south of Wentworth Avenue. The property measures approx. 330-ft. in width and
707-ft. in depth. The property contains a 3,265 sq. ft. two story house fronting on Delaware Avenue. The
Bader’s also own the adjacent 2.5-acre lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood) located at the end of Foxwood Lane.
This lot abuts the back one-half of the subject property. Foxwood plat was approved in 1993.
The property is situated in the R-1A One Family Residential and guided RR-Rural Residential. Single
family homes are permitted on lots with a minimum width of 125-ft. and a minimum lot size of 30,000 sq.
ft. in area. The subject property easily meets these two lot standards.
The property is located inside the geographical area of the city referred to as the “Super-Block” or large lot
neighborhood, an area generally bounded by Delaware Avenue to the east, Wentworth Avenue to the north,
Dodd Road to the west and Marie Avenue to the south (see image below- following page). The property is
bordered to the north, south and west by similar large, single-family acreage style properties, and on the
east (across Delaware Ave.) by Dodge Foundation/Dodge Nature properties in West St. Paul.
page 144
ANALYSIS
Lot Split
The Applicants propose to split the existing 10.05 acre property into two separate legal parcels; an east and
a west parcel. The “East Parcel” measures out to 4.23 [gross] total acres, with 0.23 acres assigned to the
segment of Delaware Avenue (Dakota County) right-of-way, resulting in a new net parcel of 4.00 acres.
This east parcel will retain the existing single-family dwelling, which will be sold-off by the Bader’s.
The “West Parcel” will be separated and consists of 5.82 net acres after the split. When reviewing the
survey illustrations and descriptions, the Commission will note the west parcel does not or will not have
any direct access on to Delaware Avenue or any other nearby public road system. Normally, a lot split of
this type (and on its own) would not be allowed, as City Code Sect. 11-3-2.D requires all lots to have a
minimum frontage as required by the underlying zoning district standards. In this case, the west parcel
would need to provide a minimum 125-feet of street frontage along Delaware Avenue or an abutting
roadway (if one existed).
page 145
By approving this lot split, the new parcel would technically be considered a non-conforming parcel, due
to its lack of frontage on any public street. A lot split/subdivision of this nature would normally not be
allowed or supported; however, the division of such parcels raises only the concern that property owners
understand that no new building rights are granted as a result of the subdivision, unless the parcel has some
form of legal street frontage for access. To help ensure that this is made clear, it will be a requirement and
condition of approval that the new parcel created by this subdivision action is immediately combined with
other adjoining property.
In this particular case, the Applicants intend to attach or combine this 5.82 acre parcel with the platted lot
to the north (Lot 3, Foxwood), which they currently own and control. As Lot 3 does have legal road frontage
off Foxwood Lane, by combing this unplatted west parcel with platted Lot 3, it will provide the roadway
frontage the parcel requires by City Code and eliminates the non-conforming status of this parcel. The
combined areas of Lot 3 with the west parcel (also identified as the “South Parcel”) will result in an 8.32
acre parcel.
Combination Process
The Subdivision Ordinance permits the approval of such subdivisions by metes and bounds descriptions as
proposed, rather than full plat. Where no new building site is being specifically created, the minor
subdivision can be considered provided it is consistent with the requirements of the City’s subdivision and
development regulations.
Appended to this report are two documents provided by Dakota County Recorder’s office, indicating the
process of when or how a combination of tax parcels is allowed by the county; along with a “Request to
Combine” form. Dakota County has indicated to city staff that they would accept the combination of
unplatted land (“West Parcel”) with the platted Lot 3 of Foxwood Addition, subject to any approval granted
by the city.
Wetlands & Easements
As noted on the Wetlands Map of this area, a section of the back portion of this unplatted West Parcel is
shown with established wetland feature. As part of the city’s preliminary review with the Applicant, staff
requested the owner provide a new drainage and utility easement over the back 1/3 of the West Parcel,
which is illustrated and described on the attached survey and descriptions.
The owners have also agreed to provide drainage and utility easements along the outer perimeter of the
both the East and West parcels, as per city code standards. New drainage and utility easements will be
page 146
granted to the public over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30 feet of
Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the East Parcel.
Additional Background & Future Development Opportunities
As some commissioners are aware, and new commissioners should be made aware of, Mr. Bader has sought
to develop or made previous applications for new residential development plans on all or parts of his lands
behind 1673 Delaware Avenue property, including the Lot 3 – Foxwood lot.
When Foxwood was approved in 1993, the city approved a reduced right-of-way width for Foxwood Lane
from a 60-ft. standard down to 50-feet. In 2012, Mr. Bader requested a variance to allow Foxwood Lane
to be upgraded (assuming with new utilities) within the existing 50-foot wide ROW. This variance would
set the stage for Mr. Bader to submit a future subdivision of his unplatted lands and allow the continuation
of a reduced 50-foot wide ROW standard as well into the “planned” subdivision. The variance was denied
due to Mr. Bader did not present or offer a new subdivision at that time.
In 2014, Mr. Bader presented an application for PUD Concept Review, whereby two concepts were
submitted to the city for review, with one design calling for a through-street connection/extension from
Foxwood Lane southward, running east and connecting over to Delaware Avenue; while another concept
illustrated an extended cul-de-sac from Foxwood Lane (approx. 800-feet in total length). The
recommendation at that time was the through-street design, with no support or recommendation for the
longer cul-de-sac extension of Foxwood Lane. No follow-up plan or plat was submitted by Mr. Bader.
Under this lot split proposal, Mr. Bader has not provided to the city any new concept plan or indicated his
intentions or future plans at this time for this newly created 8.32 acre (combined) parcel. As a result of this
split, it is highly unlikely that any new future roadway connection from or to Delaware Avenue would be
allowed through the “East Parcel”, since he is forfeiting this right once he sells off the east parcel. In all
likelihood, access would need to come from Foxwood Lane, with future utilities extended from Wentworth
Avenue to the north and down through Foxwood Lane; or extended from Ridgewood Drive to the south
(approx. 1,100-1,200 feet).
Nevertheless, due to the unusual nature of this lot split, the City of Mendota Heights would like to express
that since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to his own action and preference,
that any approval of this lot split (and lot combination) does not in any way provide a future hardship or
automatic allowance to the Applicant, or any future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or any other adjacent
lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to the existing
Foxwood Lane right-of-way. By combing these properties, the Applicants will be restricted from
subdividing the combined properties in the future without full consideration and approval by City of
Mendota Heights.
Furthermore, in conjunction with City Code Section 12-1D-12, Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems, it is the
general policy of the city that there be no future development in the city that is not served by the municipal
sanitary sewer and water distribution systems. In this case, any future development of this area would
requires utilities be extended or served from Wentworth Avenue to the north; Ridgewood Drive to the south,
or possibly Delaware Avenue to the east.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the lot split (and lot combination) based on the attached findings of fact
and conditions of approval as noted herein; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; or
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant.
page 147
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot split as submitted by Mike & Michelle Bader of 1673 Delaware Avenue,
with the following conditions:
1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the attached survey
drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be combined with the existing Lot 3, Block
1, Foxwood.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility easement over
the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and utility easements over the north
5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30-feet of Delaware Avenue) and the
westerly 10.00 feet of the “East Parcel”, and all must be denoted on the certificate of survey or
recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for one (1)
single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full consideration and
approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City Code Title 11 –
Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and
preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide a future
hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or
adjacent lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to
the existing Foxwood Lane right-of-way.
page 148
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Split (Subdivision) and Lot Combination Request
for
1673 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under Title
11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding
uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified herein as Lot 3,
Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any nonconforming issue or status of
the newly created parcel.
page 149
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(((((((((((?
?
?
???
?
?
???
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.6666666666666666""*
"
*
*
**
**
*
*
*³
!
³
³*66666666666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
1416
1707
1695
1673
610 600
614
1668
548
554
679
540 1625
1771
1737
620
1611
1769
1651
524
1770
1720
1775
1759 1760
1770
1588
1708
1750
1570
1767 1794
1668
1611
625
1588610
1707
1695
1673
1770
1720
600
1708
1750
1570
1737
1771
630 179417751778DELAWARE AVEWENTWORTH AVE W
FOXWOOD LN300'375.7'179.7'190'2
5
9
'16''30''8''6''''
6''6''6''6''6''8''16''6''6''16''6''6''Dakota County GIS
1673 DELAWARE AVENUE(Michael & Michelle Bader res.)City ofMendotaHeights0200
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/11/2018
page 150
Michael and Michelle Bader
Minor Subdivision Request
May 29, 2018
Project Narrative
MIchael and Michelle Bader live at 1673 Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights. Their home
sits on a 10.05 acre parcel with 329 feet of frontage on Delaware Avenue. That parcel is
PID No. 27-02400-76-010.
The Baders are requesting a Minor Subdivision approval to split their 10 acre parcel into an
East Parcel and West Parcel.
The Baders have a buyer for their home a long with the east 4.23 acres of the site. This
includes Delaware Avenue which is a right-of -way over the east 30 feet of the site. The
net acreage i n the East Parcel, minus Delaware Avenue, is 4.00 acres.
The West Parcel, which is vacant, would be 5.82 acres.
The line splitting the 10 acres has been set at 107.0 feet from the house and 109.2 feet
from the deck. The required rea r yard setback, at one fifth of the average depth of the East
Parcel, is 107 feet.
As a condition of approval of this split, city staff has advised (and the Baders agree) that
the West Parcel resulting from the split would d need to be combined with Lot 3,
FOXWOOD, which the Baders also own, and which lies adjacent to and immediately north
of the proposed West Parcel. Lot 3 is PI D No. 27-27620-01-030. These two parcels
(proposed West Parcel and Lot 3) would d be combined as one tax parcel by the Dakota
County Auditor's office. By doing so the Baders would be restricted from subdividing that
combined property i n any way i n the future without approval of the City of Mendota Heights.
The West Parcel consists of 5.82 acres and Lot 3 consists of 2.50 acres therefore their
combined acreage would be 8.32 acres. Access to this combined parcel would be via
Foxwood Lane to the north.
That proposed Parcel Combination is also shown on the "Parcel Combination” sheet of the
plans provided with this application.
As advised by staff, city code requires that the Baders grant drainage and utility easements
to the public over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including
30 feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the East Parcel, to which they
agree. Staff has also requested that the Baders grant a north-south drainage and utility
easement over the West Parcel as shown on the Minor Subdivision map.
page 151
East Parcel
Gross: 184,113± SF or 4.23± Ac
ROW: 9,875± SF or 0.23± Ac
Net: 174,238± SF or 4.00± Ac
West Parcel
253,572± SF or 5.82± Ac
LOUCKS
W:\2008\08032A\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S08032A-MasterPlotted: 05 /30 / 2018 1:31 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
Mendota Heights, MN
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-287-2028
Michael &
Michelle Bader
Bader Property
Minor
Subdivision
1 of 2
SCALE IN FEET
0 100
N
5/24/18 DRAWING ISSUED
5/30/18 SETBACKS/EASEMENTS
Existing Parcel
The North Half of the South Half of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N.,
R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota.
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
Minnesota.
08-032A
PJM
SFM
PJM
N/A
05-24-18
REQUIRED SETBACKS (ZONE R1-A):
Front: 40 feet
Side: 15 feet or 1/2 height of structure
Rear: 30 feet or 1/5 of average lot
depth, whichever is greater
EAST PARCEL:
Average Lot Depth = 535 Ft.
(Excluding Street R.O.W.)
Required Rear Setback = 107 Ft.
Proposed West Parcel
(May 24, 2018)
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying
west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly, at a right angle, a
distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees
22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line
of said North Half and there terminating.
Proposed East Parcel
(May 24, 2018)
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying
east of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly, at a right angle, a
distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees
22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line
of said North Half and there terminating.
Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement over West Parcel
(May 29, 2018)
A Drainage and Utility easement over that part of the North Half of the South Half of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W.,
Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said North Half; thence easterly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 300.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the
right, 97 degrees, 20 minutes, 00 seconds, a distance of 331.94 feet, more or
less, to the south line of said North Half and there terminating.
Proposed Drainage and Utility Easements over East Parcel
(May 29, 2018)
Drainage and Utility easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east
40 feet and the westerly 10.00 feet of the following described parcel:
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota
lying east of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly, at a right angle, a
distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees
22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line
of said North Half and there terminating.
page 152
LOUCKS
W:\2008\08032A\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S08032A-MasterPlotted: 05 /30 / 2018 1:31 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
Mendota Heights, MN
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-287-2028
Michael &
Michelle Bader
Bader Property
Minor
Subdivision
2 of 2SCALE IN FEET
0 100
N
5/24/18 DRAWING ISSUED
5/30/18 SETBACKS/EASEMENTS
REQUIRED SETBACKS (ZONE R1-A):
Front: 40 feet
Side: 15 feet or 1/2 height of structure
Rear: 30 feet or 1/5 of average lot depth, whichever is greater
EAST PARCEL:
Average Lot Depth = 535 Ft. (Excluding Street R.O.W.)
Required Rear Setback = 107 Ft.
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
Minnesota.
08-032A
PJM
SFM
PJM
N/A
05-24-18
EAST PARCEL
WEST PARCEL
LOT 3
page 153
South Parcel
253,572± SF or 5.82± Ac
Lot 3
108,897± SF or 2.50± Ac
LOUCKS
W:\2008\08032A\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S08032A-MasterPlotted: 05 /25 / 2018 9:25 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
Mendota Heights, MN
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-287-2028
Michael &
Michelle Bader
Bader Property
Parcel
Combination
1 of 1
SCALE IN FEET
0 100
N
5/24/18 DRAWING ISSUED
Existing North Parcel
Lot 3, Block 1, FOXWOOD, Dakota County, MN
Existing South Parcel
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of
said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence southerly, at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to
the right 24 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south
line of said North Half and there terminating.
Combined Legal Description
Lot 3, Block 1, FOXWOOD, Dakota County, MN
together with
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of
said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence southerly, at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to
the right 24 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south
line of said North Half and there terminating.
NOTE: Parenthetical bearings on Lot 3,
Block 1, FOXWOOD are per plat and
not same datum as West Parcel.
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
Minnesota.
08-032A
PJM
SFM
PJM
N/A
05-24-18
page 154
Dakota County – Combination of Tax Parcels by Simple Request to the Property
Records Office.
June 1, 2018
Per Kim Lemons 651-438-4381
Kimberly.Lemons@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US
Going forward Dakota County will approve the following tax parcel combinations:
1. A platted lot and a metes-and-bounds (M&B) parcel in the same section.
The new PID number will be the one that was on the platted lot.
2. Two M&B parcels in same section.
They will not allow the following:
1. Two lots in two different plats.
2. Parcels in different sections.
3. Parcels in different municipalities.
To do a combination you have to do:
1. Complete a Parcel Combination Form (from the county)
2. Pay the current-year taxes (full year) on both, or several parcels involved.
3. The Municipality does not have to approve the combination but they will
be sent a report explaining the combination and giving the city the new PID
number.
page 155
Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Hwy. 55, Hastings, MN 55033
651.438.4381 Fax 651.438.8176 www.dakotacounty.us
DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY TAXATION & RECORDS
TO PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT:
DATE:______________________
Please combine the following tax parcels into one parcel for tax purposes: (List parcel ID’s below)
I understand that delinquent and current year taxes must be paid to combine.
Title to parcels to be combined must be the same; ex: same fee owners or contract purchasers shown on
all parcels. (Can not be fee owner on one parcel and contract purchaser on others.)
Signed:___________________________________(owner)
page 156
((((((((????
?
?
??
??
?
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
""*
*
*
**
**6666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
1707
1695
1673
600
1668
548
554
610
540
614
1625
679
1737
1720
1611
1651
524
1708
1750
1769 1770
1668
1707
1695
1673
1720
1708
1750
1611
1737
1770DELAWARE AVEFOXWOOD LN16''0''16''Dakota County GIS
WETLANDS MAP1673 Delaware Ave. (Bader)City ofMendotaHeights0240
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/19/2018
page 157
C) PLANNING CASE #2018-14
MIKE AND MICHELLE BADER, 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE
LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION (LOT COMBINATION)
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mike and Michelle Bader were requesting
approval to subdivide their homestead parcel located at 1673 Delaware Avenue into two separate
parcels. One parcel would retain the existing dwelling and be sold while the remaining vacant
parcel would be retained by the Baders.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. Staff received two
phone calls from concerned neighbors on what was happening.
The subject property is located east of Delaware Avenue, between Wentworth Avenue to the north
and Marie Avenue to the south. The property is located in the R-1A One Family Residential district
and is currently guided RR-Rural Residential. There are no plan to changes to this area. The lot is
just over 10 acres in size, 330’ x 700’. There is currently a 3,265 square foot, two story home on
the property.
The subject property is located inside a geographical area identified as the “Super-Block” or large
lot neighborhood. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the super-block area, bordered by Delaware
Avenue, Wentworth Avenue, part of Dodd and Marie Avenue. Under the R-1A, all single family
lots have to be a minimum of 125’ width and 30,000 square feet.
The report indicated that the parcel would be split between an east parcel and a west parcel. The
east parcel would equate to 4.23 gross acres with 0.23 of that acreage would be assigned to
Delaware Avenue for the right-of-way, resulting in a net acreage of 4.00. The current residence
would remain on the east parcel. The west parcel is to be split off and would create a net parcel of
5.82 acres.
City code requires that all lots have a minimum street frontage of 125 feet. With this split, there
would be no frontage on the west parcel. As part of this request, the applicants are proposing to
attach this to Lot 3, which does contain the frontage off of Foxwood Lane; therefore, the 5.82 acres
being combined with Lot 3 would result in a 8.32 acre parcel. As part of this lot split, the city is
requiring that the applicant combine these parcels; which is allowed by Dakota County.
Staff determined that this lot split could be approved as once the west parcel is combined with the
third lot, it would no longer be a non-conforming lot. Staff recommended approval of this lot split
with conditions.
Commissioner Noonan requested clarification in that in the beginning of his report, Mr. Benetti
used the term ‘later adjoined to an adjacent lot’; however, he subsequently said that the lot split
and the lot combination would be advanced together and recorded appropriately at Dakota County.
So that there would be a combination and recording if the lot split is approved. Mr. Benetti
confirmed.
page 158
Commissioner Noonan then noted that there was mention of a dedication coming off of the east
parcel for Delaware Avenue. He asked if this was a condition of approval. Mr. Benetti replied that
it is part of the easement dedications that they are providing in the documentations. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek could answer more accurately. Mr. Ruzek replied that the County is already
showing an easement line back at that point – the 30-foot mark. The city is requesting an additional
10-foot easement over and above that. However, the County would be able to take prescriptive
rights on that land due to their county road being through the property. The reason the city is
requiring this additional 10 feet is because that is their standard drainage and utility easement per
subdivision requirements.
Commissioner Noonan, in relation to the west parcel, asked for confirmation that this would be a
new lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be a new parcel until it gets combined with the other lot.
Commissioner Noonan then noted that in previous lot splits there was a condition of payment in
lieu of park land. He asked for confirmation that, in this case, they would not be required because
of the addition the west parcel to an existing lot on record. Mr. Benetti confirmed that there would
be no park dedication allowed since this is not a buildable lot. If this was a lot being created with
frontage as a buildable lot, it would require a park dedication and access fees.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this ‘super block’ does not have municipal sanitary sewer so
all of the homes are on septic systems. He asked if it was known if there was enough room on the
east parcel to accommodate the existing system and the installation of a new one should it need to
be upgraded. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant as the septic system was not indicated on the
survey.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were utilities currently running to Lot 3, Foxwood. Mr.
Benetti replied that there is only water at this time; no sewer. She then asked what would happen
with sanitary sewer if a home wants to be built on that particular lot. Mr. Benetti replied that they
would have to provide their own septic. Staff did inform them that, per city policy, if they or
someone else decided to build on that 8.32 acre parcel that they would responsible to bring in
sewer and water services.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification; if they were to build a single family residence
the city would not require utilities – only a septic system. However, if they were to build multiple
homes then the city would require full expansion of the utilities. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Mr. Paul McGinley, principle surveyor and vice-president of Loucks Associates, came forward to
address any questions from the Commission. He noted that, per Mr. and Mrs. Bader, the septic is
just off of the pool area in the rear yard and that there was plenty of room for additional system to
the north, if necessary and to the southwest as well.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was any intent to build on the property at the present time.
Mr. McGinley replied that the Baders have not expressed to him any interest in building on it at
this time. They have a buyer for the current residence and they have put money down on another
home elsewhere.
page 159
Mr. Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated that the reason for the application is because they
have an offer on the current residence. All three offers received for this property had no desire to
purchase the entire 10 acres, they wanted something smaller. This is something that all of the
neighboring property owners would like to see done. As far as building on the new parcel, they
have no intention of doing so.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted that there are three lots as part of the Foxwood Plat.
She is on Lot 1, the lot that borders Wentworth Avenue. As mentioned earlier, they have been
down this road before about developing. It is worth noticing that there are restrictive covenants on
the lots, which have physical descriptions of each one of the lots. Changing the plat of Lot 3 would
change an existing contract that is on file with the County. If the Baders are wanting to append
that parcel to Lot 3 and agree that it will remain a single family residence, it would not change the
nature. If they find that having a bare lot makes it more desirable for selling and building, etc. then
the other residents would have no objections as long as it stays a single family lot. They would
also ask for an opportunity to come have an agreement to set change to the plat with the covenants
being amended to allow for that parcel but keep it a single family home with no changes to
Foxwood Lane.
She also noted that she lives within 350 feet of Lot 3, Foxwood; however, she was not provided
with a mailed notice of this hearing. She requested that if any hearings on this property were to
occur in the future, that all of the residents on Foxwood Lane to be notified.
For clarity, Chair Field summarized Ms. Lutz comments as wanting an acknowledgment of a
private agreement, which the city, county, and state are not a party to, relating to the third lot in
Foxwood. He then informed Ms. Lutz that the city is not a party to this private agreement and was
in no position to acknowledge or indicate support of said agreement. Ms. Lutz stated that she
understood this but wanted it to be understood that changing the legal description of said lot would
be essentially changing a signed contract. The Commission noted that if the property were to be
developed in a way inconsistent with the signed agreement, then the covenant holders would have
other recourses they could follow to get satisfaction.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested that someone check with the County to ensure that, if there is
a restrictive covenant that runs with the land that does not pose an impediment to the combination
of Lot 3 with the west parcel. It the city were to impose that as a condition of this subdivision and
it cannot happen, then the subdivision would have to fail. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
replied that the new legal description would still have Lot 3 of the Foxwood Plat as part of the
legal description. It would only add the means and bounds from this adjacent un-platted property.
If they are comfortable with it as far as amending their existing covenants, it sounds like everything
would proceed easily. Mr. Benetti replied that he would check into this.
Mr. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, stated that he was unopposed to the proposed lot split and
annexation of the west parcel of Lot 3, Foxwood provided the following occurs:
• Current and any future owners of Lot 3 would be prohibited from claiming any kind of
hardship on any variance application going forward from the date of approval
page 160
• The plat of Foxwood, as well as any records or documents on file with Dakota County, be
updated and amended to reflect the new legal description
• He was not inferring in any way, shape, or form enforcement, he was only inferring
propagation of the information – the County is notified that Foxwood has been replatted
and this is now Lot 3. Any materials in their possession should reflect that new plat
Commissioner Noonan and Commission Mazzitello both noted that this lot is not being ‘replatted’.
What is happening is a lot split and a lot addition, which is a lot less than re-platting. Mr. Benetti
replied that typically when there is a lot combination like this, the County will simply discard the
old PID on Lot 3 and create a new one because it has a new legal description. A new PID will be
assigned to this new parcel. The description would not put Lot 3 in the un-platted area; it will be a
combined legal description with a new PID typically.
Mr. Aune asked if he was correct in assuming that when that happens, the city would communicate
with the County. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would bring the surveys to the County and
they would record them as part of the recordable documents that go with it, including the lot split
combination forms. Also, they bring over the city’s resolution – if the Council approves – to
confirm that the city reviewed and approved. The city would then a copy back from the county.
The city gives the required materials to the applicant and it is their responsibility to have it
recorded. The city does not do that.
In an attempt to further clarify the answer to Mr. Aune, Commissioner Noonan stated that once
the lot split, if approved, and the combination takes place and the materials are presented to Dakota
County for recording, there will be a new title certificate prepared. The new title certificate will
bring forward anything that is currently recorded against any of the pieces of property that are then
combined into the one lot. Mr. Aune stated that he believes this answered his question.
Mr. Aune then stated that it was his wish that, exclusive of the commission as private parties, they
could get unanimous agreement to amend the document themselves to provide clarify and
ambiguity. He understood that the city has no responsibility, let alone interest, in documents
between private parties.
Ms. Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, stated that her property borders both the west portion of
the Baders property and Foxwood Lot 3. In the past, the Baders have always been looking to
develop the property into three or more lots, which she has objected to. She believes that it would
go against the essential nature of the neighborhood, which is really important to them who live
there.
To the extent that they intend to split the lot and append it to Lot 3; to the extent that the intent to
do that is to just have a single family dwelling with respect to Lot 3 – she has no objection.
However, they will continue to object to any development that is past a single family home. They
would request that the record reflect the recommendations of the staff as they are very important
to maintaining the viability of that single family neighborhood. They also asked that it be
specifically noted that the Baders have stated that they have no plans to develop the property at
page 161
this point and that the record reflect that they would have no hardship or practical difficulties as
an argument if somebody in the future wanted to develop that.
Mr. Paul McGinley returned and noted that Lot 3 would remain Lot 3, all of the covenants that
relate to Lot 3 will pass down. If someone were to purchase the now 8.3 acre parcel, they would
receive all of the title information and all of the covenants that go with Lot 3 – that would carry
through with the property so there is no risk of any of those covenants being lost in this process.
Lot 3 and the south parcel would just be combined into one tax parcel, which cannot be subdivided
in the future without full approval. Lot 3 still exists as it is not being re-platted.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the intent at this point is simply to split the lots
that fronts onto Delaware Avenue in two, and then to combine the west parcel with Lot 3, Foxwood
to create one PID and one parcel. Mr. McGinley confirmed.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-14 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION)
AND LOT COMBINATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under
Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified herein
as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any nonconforming
issue or status of the newly created parcel.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the attached
survey drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be combined with the
existing Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility
easement over the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and utility
easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30-
feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the “East Parcel”, and all must be
denoted on the certificate of survey or recordable document approved by the city and filed
with Dakota County.
3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for
one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full
consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s),
per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations.
page 162
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and
preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide
a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any future owners of the 8.32
acre parcel (or adjacent lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced
roadway design equal to the existing Foxwood Lane right-of-way.
Commissioner Magnuson asked that the motion be changed from ‘the four recommendations’ to
‘the four conditions’. Commissioner Noonan agreed.
Commissioner Noonan requested the applicant to pay particular attention to Condition #3 and
Condition #4. These clearly states that there is no future consideration or entitlements by virtue of
this application. Commissioner Noonan was very clear in asking the question of the surveyor to
make sure that it was clearly understood for all of those in attendance, that strictly what the
Commission was doing was to split and combine; not providing any further entitlements or rights.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that, if not for the proposed combination of the west parcel and
Lot 3, Foxwood, the lot split would require variances for not having proper frontage and right-of-
way access. Therefore, the west parcel on its own could not be developed. There could not be a
building on the west parcel at all if not for the lot combination. He offered a friendly amendment
to Condition #1 by adding a second sentence stating “No development of the west parcel will be
allowed until the aforementioned lot combination is recorded with Dakota County”.
Commissioner Noonan accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Magnuson.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
page 163
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit for New Swimming Pool
Jackie & Mike Chase – 1680 Mayfield Heights Road [Planning Case 2018-15]
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Critical Area Permit
to allow the construction of a new swimming pool and patio/deck, to Jackie and Mike Chase and property
located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road.
Background
The subject parcel is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area; and subject to City Code
Section 12-3-1. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities
requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals.
Homeowners wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete patio/deck around
the perimeter of the pool. Plans also call for new integrated boulder-type retaining walls along the outer
edges of the pool patio/deck.
At the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a
public hearing was conducted. There were no comments or objections from neighboring residents. A copy
of the 06/26/18 planning report, along with the planning commission meeting minutes related to this item
are appended to this memo.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on land use requests such as this, and has
broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way
related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. A determination regarding whether
or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (6-0) of the Critical Area Permit request
with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm
this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-46 APPROVING CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 164
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-46
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-15)
WHEREAS, Jackie and Mike Chase (the “Applicants”) have applied for a Critical Area
Permit to allow certain construction activities within the Critical Area Overlay District, as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-15, located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, and legally
described in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a
critical area permit for all new development activities necessitating a building permit or special
zoning approval, and the Applicants are seeking permission to construct a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground
swimming pool with a concrete patio/deck around the perimeter of the pool, including new
boulder-style retaining walls, and all subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district
and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
planning item at the regular meeting of June 26, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was
presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were
received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended unanimous approval of the critical area permit request for the property located at
1680 Mayfield Heights Road, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Critical Area Permit to allow certain construction activities within the Critical Area Overlay
District, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-15, and located at 1680 Mayfield Heights
Road, can be approved based on the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are
reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and
meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks)
of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
B. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and
the proposed design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative
effects upon the critical area; nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected
or altered.
page 165
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical
Area Permit to allow certain construction activities within the Critical Area Overlay District, as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-15, and located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road is hereby
approved with the following conditions:
1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work
commencing on the swimming pools or wall structures.
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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 166
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description – 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD
PID No. 27-02300-52-070
[PER DAKOTA COUNTY WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 3176279.]
That part of Government Lot 5, Section 23, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 52
minutes 24 seconds West, assumed basis of bearings, along the South line of said Government
Lot 5, a distance of 337.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 07 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance
of 100.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue North 0 degrees 07 minutes 36 seconds
East, a distance of 188.18 feet; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance
of 337 .28 feet to the East line of said Government Lot 5; thence South 0 degrees 09 minutes 38
seconds West along the East line of said Government Lot 5, a distance of 179.26 feet to the North
line of the South 100 feet of said Government Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 24
seconds West, a distance of 337 .06 feet to the point of beginning.
Abstract Property.
page 167
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-15
Critical Area Permit for New Swimming Pool and Patio/Deck
APPLICANT: Jackie Chase
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 24, 2018
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Jackie and Mike Chase, is seeking a critical area permit for construction of a new swimming pool and
patio/deck for her personal property, located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. The subject parcel is located
within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area; and subject to City Code Section 12-3-1, all new
construction or significant improvements require Planning Commission review and recommendation and
City Council approval prior to any issuance of a building permit.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments or objections have been received by the city.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 1.42 acres (61,934 square feet), zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for
low density residential development.
On March 3, 2015, as part of Planning Case No. 2015-01, the city council adopted Resolution No. 2015-
16, which approved a critical area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in
order to demolish an old dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel. The
site now contains a 3,400 sq. ft. single family dwelling.
The Chase’s now wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete patio/deck
around the perimeter of the pool. The pool is scheduled to have a new fence around the outer areas, as
required by City Code. The site plan also calls for some integrated boulder-type retaining walls along the
outer edges of the pool patio/deck. The survey appears to illustrates these walls ranging from 1-ft. in height
to one outer wall approximately 4-ft. in height.
page 168
ANALYSIS
Critical Area Permit
The following standards and provisions are noted per Title 12-Zoning, Ch. 3 Critical Area Overlay District:
Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
• Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource
• Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public
areas; and
• Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential
element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements:
No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for
any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared
and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
There does not appear to be much grade change(s) necessary to install the new swimming pool and deck.
Most of the new elevations or grades from the pool area appear to be matching up or very close (slightly
higher) than the existing ground elevations, so the changes will be negligible or minimal.
Retaining walls in the Critical Area must be constructed of native stone or wood [12-3-9-A(2)(d)(2)]. Plans
call for new walls around the outer perimeter of the pool deck, primarily along the longer dimensions of
the pool; and a new wall sitting away from the outer edge of the pool to provide slope stabilization and
maintain positive drainage in this rear yard area.
The site currently contains existing boulder style walls that were installed under the new home permit in
2015. Although the new site plan does not provide specific details, it appears the new walls are “boulder
shaped” in design, and the city assumes the contractor will be installing a native looking stone wall similar
to the existing walls. The proposed boulder wall is compliant with this standard and no additional
vegetation will be removed as part of the proposed project.
Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed retaining wall and found the proposal to be reasonable given
the constraints of the site. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant/contractor will provide
design drawings of any retaining wall that require design and signature of a registered Professional Engineer
(PE) in the State of Minnesota.
Interagency Review
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review
and comment. Ms. Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with MN-DNR replied they have no comments or
issues with this application or proposed improvements.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the critical area permit to construct the new pool and patio/deck and other
related improvements, based on the attached findings of fact, with certain conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the critical area permit, based on certain (amended) findings of fact that the
application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District; or
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others; and direct staff to extend the
application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
page 169
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit to allow the construction of a new swimming pool
and related retaining wall structures for 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, based on the attached findings of
fact, with the following general conditions: (Alternative #1).
1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work commencing on
the swimming pools or wall structures.
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.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Location/Aerial Site Map
2. Site Plan/Site Survey
3. Pool Plan Layout
4. Site Photos
page 170
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit Application
1680 Mayfield Heights Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and
generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and
intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the proposed
design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative effects upon the critical area;
nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected or altered.
page 171
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!((((((??
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
*6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66
66666666 66 6 6
66
66
66
66
66666666666666666666666666
6 6
6666
"
"
*
!!
!
!
*
"
"
*
!
!
!
""
!
³
"
"
"
!!
*
!
!!
*
"
"
"
³
³
"
""
³
""
"
!"
"
!
³
!
"
"
*
*³
³
³
³*
"
*
!
³³³"
*
*
*
*
6
6
6
6
6 666666666 6
6666666 6
6 6
666666666666666666
6
6
6
6
6
666666!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!.
!.
!.92290 95261255260270413333
118 211221
2
1
9
216
210
105208206 203200100198187179175169161
160159152
15099148145 97140 93139138137
90
135 8913096127
126125124111
122
121
11578 7679104
687063191
5655775249
4847
71
4342
39
35
9
33823029
113195
14223
21
2
0
163
17
228
262
297
10
13
5
4
3
115
1
4
8
125105 138121104125
148 111160210
210
10
216
12
5
10
121
142140
15049
142111
140
5
10
100148576195
100221160 10521
105
140
10
210
9995140
150118 10015016913870
140
13814210010099145137
138150150
126
99
140
76 1001041010
1680
10411670
1020
1054
1666
1011
1693
1012
1034
1040
1015
1661
1701
1032
1673
1016
1646
1049
1037
1650
1030
1028
103110411045
1011
1008
1687
1655
10511055
1005
1665
1704
1016105010301046104410401056
1657
1670
1651
1696
1645
1639
1631
1673
1666
992
1690
DOUGLAS RD JAMES RDMAYFIELD HEIGHTS RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL H
WY
MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN
JAMES
C
T
315'284'295'285'354'251.6'159'
164'142'97'91'183.7'227.3'149.5'290'125.1'121.9'121.5'250'51'98.3'12''8''6''
''6''6''
6''
6''6''6''6''6''
6''
6''12''6''Dakota County GIS
1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD.(Jaqueline & Mike Chase)City ofMendotaHeights0100
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/15/2018
page 172
Site Photos – 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
REAR YARD AREA – FUTURE POOL SPACE
REAR YARD AREA – TOWARDS BLUFF EDGE
REAR YARD – BLUFF EDGE
page 173
page 174
STAIRS AND
RAIL
3 L.E.D. LIGHTS
(2) SEATS
T.O. POOL 4'-2 1/2"
T.O.W. 4'-5"
B.O.W. 6'-0" - 6'-5"
WALL
EDGING
ROCK &
POLY
EDGING WOODDECO
DRAIN
4'-4"
T.O.W. 2'-6"
B.O.W. 4'-4"
4'-4 1/2"+
COLORED CONCRETE POOL DECK WITH TOOL CUTS
COVER
MOTOR
POOL DECK
POOL DECK
ROCK & POLY
EDGING
FENCE
3'-8 1/2"
PLANTS,
T.B.D.
IRREGULAR
FLAGSTONE
WALK
4'-3 1/2" TOP
OF EDGE
ROCK IN FRONT
OF WALL
SOD
3 SLEEVES
UNDER WALK - STEPS
SEE RED LINES
DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE
BOX
DRAINAGE
BOX
3'8"
POOL COVER
SWITCH
EXISTING
BURNING
BUSH
EXISTING
PINE
EXISTING
PINE
SOD
STEPPERS
GATE
T.O.W. 2'-5"
B.O.W. 4'-5"
MULCH
MULCH
T.O.W. 0'-0"
B.O.W. 4'-0"15'-0"DRAINAGE
WALL
+4'-3 1/2"SCREENEDPORCHChalkboardAreaMulchMulch2 1/2" RockNo PolyRock/Concrete SlabFabricSumpX 0'0"X 2'5"X 2'4"X 3'6"X 4'0"X 4'9"X 5'1"X 4'1"X -1'11"Ex. ConcreteDrivewayX 3'4"4'2" XX 4'7"4'8" XX 4'11"4'8" X4'3" X5'0" XX 4'6"X 4'8"X 5'3"X 4'6"X 5'6"X 7'0"X 10'9"Garage X 4'2"RockEx. FenceEx. Pachy.GroundcoverExisting OakExisting OakPachy.GroundcoverAdd (2) Outcroppings864.0GAR.=+2'-0"
GATE
POOL
EQUIP.
(2) SLEEVES FOR
GAS & ELECTRIC
+2'-1"JACKIE & MIKE CHASE1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNPOOL
16'X38'
POOL
EQUIPMENT
WOOD STROAGE
RACK, BY OWNER
4" DECO
DRAIN
POOL PLAN
L1
page 175
D) PLANNING CASE #2018-15
JACKIE AND MIKE CHASE, 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Jackie and Mike Chase were requesting a
Critical Area Permit to construct a new swimming pool and patio/deck. The property is located in
the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area Permit.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or
objections have been received.
The property is located at the tail end of Mayfield Heights Road, which T’s off of Sibley Memorial
Highway, is a 1.42 acres in size, zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for low density
residential development. In March 2015 the city adopted Resolution 2015-16 approving a critical
area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in order to demolish
an old dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling. The site now contains a 3,400 square
foot single family home.
The proposed location of the pool is a very flat surface area and no part of the boundary or bluff
line would be affected by the construction of said pool. The pool would sit a considerable distance
away from that and would not affect any of that landscaping or tree area; there is also no loss of
trees or vegetation with this construction.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the layout of the existing home, garage, and proposed pool and
patio/deck areas. They wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete
patio-deck around the perimeter and have a new fence around the outer areas. There would be
some new retaining walls along the outer perimeter and a new retention wall to provide for positive
drainage.
The city also invited the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources representatives to review
this application and they had no comments or objections.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a critical area permit and explained how this
request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area Permit request
with conditions.
Ms. Jackie Chase, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission, which there were none. She 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.
page 176
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-15 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable
and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general
purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining
wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the
proposed design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative effects upon
the critical area; nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected or altered.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work
commencing on the swimming pools or wall structures.
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.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that under STAFF RECOMMENDATION the first line reads
“Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit and variance requests for the proposed
retaining wall structure . . .” Mr. Benetti replied that his cut/paste skills are not very good and this
was from a previous notation. There is NOT a variance and it is not a proposed retaining wall. It
should read “. . . critical area permit for a proposed swimming pool and patio/deck and fence and
retaining walls.” There are no variances. The conditions are accurate and reflective.
Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Noonan.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
page 177
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Line Adjustment with Variances – AND
Lot Split and Combination of City-Owned Lands
Jason & Sarah Barrett of 754 Upper Colonial Drive and John & Deanne Bennett
of 760 Upper Colonial Drive [Planning Case No. 2018-16]
Introduction
City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Lot Line Adjustment with
Variances between the two subject properties; along with a Lot Split and Combination of city-owned lands
located behind both properties. The properties are located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive and also
includes part of city-owned Wentworth Park land property.
Background
The subject properties are located at the end of Upper Colonial Drive, just west of the tennis courts in
Wentworth Park.
Last September 2017, staff investigated and discovered a shed was being built in the rear yard area of 754
Upper Colonial Drive (the Barrett’s), which was later determined to be city-owned park land. Further
investigation revealed the neighboring property at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have also
installed a fence, garden and yard space on the park lands as well.
Staff met with the homeowners, and they requested staff explore the possibility of having the city deed or
transfer small areas of the “wedge-shaped” park land behind their properties, in order to keep the shed,
fence and gardens in place.
When a preliminary survey was later submitted, staff discovered that the shared lot line between 760 and
754 appeared to be encroaching over the Bennett’s dwelling. In order to eliminate this encroachment and
avoid any unnecessary impacts on future property titles, staff suggested they submit a lot line adjustment
(and variances) to resolve this issue.
In the 06/26/2018 planning report, staff noted that this lot line encroachment issue appears to have affected
the last four houses on the end of Upper Colonial Drive. In 2008, the owners of 766 Upper Colonial
received a lot line adjustment and variance to correct a similar encroachment; and in 2015 the owners of
750 and 754 Upper Colonial also filed a similar lot line adjustment, variance – and lot split/combination
request to acquire a small adjacent piece of Wentworth park property next to 750 Upper Colonial.
Discussion
• Lot Line Adjustment and Variances
At the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a
public hearing was conducted. A number of comments were made by adjacent property owners, primarily
page 178
concerned with city giving up park land to private uses, and loss of access to said park. A copy of the
01/23/18 planning report, along with the Planning Commission meeting minutes related to this item are
appended to this memo.
The Lot Line Adjustment presented herein is very similar to the previous adjustment made by neighboring
residents, and provides immediate relief for removing a lot line encroachment over the edge of the dwelling
at 760 Upper Colonial. The only draw-back is that despite the proposed adjustment, the subject property
will not meet required side-yard setbacks (10-feet) or minimum lot size standards (15,000 sf.), which must
be acknowledged and processed under the related variance review. The planning report provides the
analysis and support for approving the variances to these R-1 Zone standards.
• Lot Split/Combination & Variance:
The Lot Split creates two separate legal parcels from the city-owned park land, consisting of 5,792 sq. ft.
and 7,242 sq. ft., respectively. The two parcels are intended to be combined with the two main parcels and
continued to be used for rear yard space.
As was noted in the report and publicly stated at the hearing, city staff determined this “wedge-shaped”
area of Wentworth Park has never been used for true park purposes; is not needed for any park needs; and
appears to have been maintained by the adjacent homeowners for quite some time. The benefit to this split
is that the existing encroachments can remain in place; and the smaller parcels will provide added yard
space for the two properties; and add taxable land value to the city assessments.
It should also be noted that the Planning Commission determined the proposed Lot Split did not require the
need for the variance to the under-sized areas of each parcel (as noted in the planning report). The
commission felt that since the two parcels will be combined immediately into the adjacent principal parcels,
there was no need for any variance.
• Value of Land
The city did not have the park land property appraised, nor any value determined on each parcel, as staff
anticipated that the cost of the appraisal would likely to have exceeded the value of the property. The
Barrett’s and Bennett’s however, submitted a letter of intent declaring each would pay $500 for each parcel
– or $1,000 total to the city’s general park fund.
Under the previous Planning Case No. 2015-41, the report and minutes from the Planning Commission and
City Council meeting notes the owners of 750 Upper Colonial purchased the 4,400 sf. parcel of city park
land next to their own property for $100 - plus legal fees. There is no record of how this value or offer
was determined. It appears to have been a negotiated offer made by the applicants; which was eventually
deemed acceptable or approved by the city.
Both the Parks & Rec Commission and Planning Commission did not make any recommendations on the
Applicant’s offer or determined the “fair-value” of the park parcels; and deferred this determination and
decision to the city council.
Since the June 26th Planning Commission meeting, staff researched Dakota County GIS records for
dollar/sq. ft. valuations of neighboring properties, and discovered that the city park land has an established
value on it as well. The Dakota Co. GIS Map image (below) notes the 2019 assessed land values for
the lots in this area, including park property.
The total land values (lot only) for the single-family properties range from $111,500 to $125,100, which equates to a price/sf. between $5.35/sf. to $8.68/sf. ( based on the low to high valued lot area size). The park land parcel value of $146,000 @ 81,207 sf. equates to $1.80/sf.
page 179
By applying a mean SF lot value of $7.00/sf. -OR - $1.80/sf. to each proposed park land parcel, the parcels
theoretically have an average "assessed value" of the following:
Parcel A: 5,792 sq. ft. @ $7.00/sf. = $40,544 5,792 sq. ft. @$1.80/sf. = $10,425
Parcel B: 7,242 sq. ft. @ $7.00/sf. = $50,694 7,242 sq. ft. @ $1.80/sf. = $13,035
It should be noted these "assessed values" do not necessarily represent the true “market value” of the park
land parcels in question; as these values are made or determined on ad valorem basis in relation to the
neighborhood values. This per square foot value assumes that the lot is buildable; these would not be the
value of these if these were remnant parcels being marketed to the public.
The overall lot values of the other properties along Upper Colonial (to the west) do not change much -
averaging approx. $124,000 in land values. These lots are also larger in size than what the subject properties
exist today; so when the two park parcels are added to the subject properties (754 and 760 Upper Colonial),
the overall "assessed value" will probably not change very much - since they will now be equal to or very
comparable in size to the neighboring lots.
Staff will assume that if this park parcel split and combination takes place, the county assessors are not
going to adjust the land values of these two properties by much. In fact, the values will probably remain
the same or fluctuate nominally.
Applying the price per square foot market rate value against these park parcels would probably make this
Lot Split deal too expensive for the Applicants, and they would likely withdraw the requests for the park
land properties (which could make the existing fence/garden and shed encroachment issues difficult to
resolve).
page 180
For all intents and purposes, the offer of $500 for each parcel seems a fair value; the benefit of adding
additional taxable lands to the city rolls is reasonable; and therefore the city council should give serious
consideration and acceptance of this offer by the Applicants.
Recommendation
• Parks and Recreation Commission:
At the June 12, 2018 Parks & Rec Commission meeting, staff presented the lot split request before the
commission. Upon close of the presentation, a number of comments and questions were raised by the Parks
Commissioners, whereby two primary concerns were raised and noted for consideration:
1. Are the properties valued properly; and
2. Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land.
The Parks Commission elected to recommend approval (3-2 vote) of allowing the lot split and sale/transfer
of park land properties to proceed; and let the City Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine
value of the land (minutes from that meeting are appended to the planning report).
As part of this discussion and recommendation, city staff has inserted an additional findings of fact (similar
to what was formulated by the Planning Commission under Planning Case No. 2015-41) into the proposed
Resolution No. 2018-47, which is up for consideration under this action item:
J. Approval of this lot split request of city-owned lands is not intended to establish a policy or set a
precedent of selling city park land to private property owners.
• Planning Commission:
At the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was conducted, and a number of
comments from neighboring property owners were noted for the record (minutes appended to this memo).
One neighbor submitted a petition signed by 10 residents requesting the Applicants limit their request for
park lands, and acquire only that space needed to keep the fence and shed structures. Another neighbor
indicated they access the Wentworth Park properties by walking behind the Bennett’s fence.
In response to these comments, city staff is recommending the council consider a new condition, whereby
the Applicants agree to dedicate a 20-foot wide “public access easement” or similar, to ensure neighboring
properties will have perpetual access to the park via the new easement (see image below). The fence/garden
area on Lot 8 and the new shed on Lot 9 will not be affected by this easement.
page 181
Upon the close of the public hearing and discussion, the PC recommended approval (5-1 vote) of the Lot
Line Adjustment with Variances; along with approval of the proposed Lot Split/Combination of the city-
owned park lands behind each property – but striking out any language or reference to a variance to
complete this process - as it was deemed unnecessary for this lot split application; with certain findings of
facts; and with amended conditions of approval.
If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO.
2018-47 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCES – AND – LOT SPLIT AND
COMBINATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 754 AND 760 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE AND
PART OF WENTWORTH PARK.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 182
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-47
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCES
AND LOT SPLIT AND LOT COMBINATION OF CITY-OWNED LANDS
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 754 AND 760 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE
AND PART OF WENTWORTH PARK
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-16)
WHEREAS, Jason & Sarah Barrett of 754 Upper Colonial Drive and John & Deanne
Bennett of 760 Upper Colonial Drive (collectively known as the “Applicants” herein) have applied
for a lot line adjustment with variances, along with a lot split, variance and lot combination of city-
owned lands, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-16, for the two properties located at 754
and 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the “Subject Properties”), with their respective legal descriptions
noted under “Property Descriptions” and illustrated on the Harry S. Johnson Co. survey, dated
March 8, 2018, attached as Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and are located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows lot splits
or the readjustment of lot lines between or within legal parcels of records, provided the resulting
lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable and underlying zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the council to grant
variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of City Code, and
impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and
WHEREAS, the Applicants seeks to adjust and realign the shared lot line between the
Subject Properties, which creates a new side-yard setback of 2.8 to 3.7 feet from the dwelling
located at 760 Upper Colonial Drive, and re-adjusts the lot width dimension for the two subject
properties, and also readjusts the legal descriptions of the Subject Properties, as described under
“Proposed Property Descriptions” and illustrated on the Harry S. Johnson Co. survey, dated March
8, 2018, attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants also seek to have the City of Mendota Heights approve a lot
split of city-owned park land property located immediately behind and adjacent to the Subject
Properties, whereby two (2) new small parcels would be created and legally combined with the
Subject Properties, as described and illustrated on the attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and
follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Lot
Line Adjustment with Variances request, and recommended approval of the Lot Split and
Combination of city-owned lands, and further deemed the original request for variance to lot size
page 183
standards was not necessary; with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted
herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Line Adjustment with Variances and Lot Split and Combination of city-owned lands, as proposed
under Planning Case No. 2018-16, ae all hereby approved with the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and
intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the
interior property boundary line.
C. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and
provides a reasonably relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty
in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width
standard in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment.
D. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of
the dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants,
which is deemed impractical.
E. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not
negatively impact the character of the neighborhood.
F. The proposed lot split subdivision of city-owned lands meets the general purpose
and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
G. The purpose of the lot split requests are to formalize the existing conditions and
address the non-conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned
property.
H. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be
eliminated once the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private
property owners.
I. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the
neighborhood.
J. Approval of this lot split request of city-owned lands is not intended to establish a
policy or set a precedent of selling city park land to private property owners.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot line
adjustment with variances and lot split and lot combination requests as proposed under Planning
Case No. 2018-16 are all hereby approved, with the following conditions:
1) The Applicants agree to pay an amount determined by the City Council for each of
the two (2) parcels created by the lot split of city-owned lands, with proceeds to be
paid to the city’s Park Reserve Fund.
page 184
2) The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split
to their own respective homestead parcels.
3) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line
adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
4) The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work
be done by them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal
documents, title work, and/or recording documents.
5) The Applicants agree to dedicate a 20-foot wide “Public Access and Tree
Preservation Easement” [or similar] across the south segment of the parcels created
by the lot split, to be prepared by the city attorney and recorded by the Applicants.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 185
EXHIBIT A
Existing Legal Description of 760 Upper Colonial Drive - PID No. 27-17150-07-081)
PARCEL A:
That part of Lot 8, Black 7, CHERRY HILL, Dakota County, Minnesota lying Easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence North 80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds East an assumed
bearing along the south line of said Lot 8 a distance of 3.50 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 5 degrees 49
minutes 56 seconds West 154.13 feet to the north line of said Lot 8 and there terminating. [Torrens property]
New Legal Description of 760 Upper Colonial Drive (as a result of lot line adjustment)
PARCEL 1:
That part of Lots 8 and 9, Block 7, CHERRY HILL, Dakota County, Minnesota lying Westerly of Line A and Easterly of
Line B, both being described as follows:
Line A:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 9; thence North 80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds East an assumed
bearing along the south line of said Lot 9 a distance of 2.26 feet to the point of beginning of Line A; thence North 8
degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds West 158.41 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Lot 9 and there terminating.
Line B:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 8; thence North 80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds East an assumed
bearing along the south line of said Lot 8 a distance of 3.50 feet to the point of beginning of Line B; thence North 5
degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West 154.13 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Lot 8 and there terminating.
PARCEL 1 Area = 15,157 square feet 0.348 acres.
Existing Legal Description for 754 Upper Colonial Drive - PID No. 27-17150-07-090 & 27-17150-07-102)
PARCEL B:
Lot 9, Block 7, and that part of Lot 10, lying westerly of the following described fine:
Beginning at an iron pipe on the North line of said Lot 10 distant 18.4 feet from the Northwest corner of said Lot 10;
thence Southerly to the Southwest corner of said Lot 10 and there terminating.
All in Block 7, CHERRY HILL ADDITION.
The Easterly and South boundary lines of the plat of CHERRY HILL ADDITION are marked by judicial landmarks set
pursuant to District Court Case No. 55627.
Subject to the encumbrances shown on Certificate of Title No. 35399. [Torrens property]
New Legal Description of 754 Upper Colonial Drive (as a result of lot line adjustment)
That part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, CHERRY HILL, Dakota County, Minnesota lying Westerly of Line 1 and Easterly of
Line 2, both being described as follows:
Line 1:
Commencing at an iron pipe on the North line of said Lot 10 distant 18.4 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of said
Lot 10; thence Southerly to the Southwest corner of said Lot 10 and there terminating.
Line 2:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 9; thence North 80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds East an assumed
bearing along the south line of said Lot 9 a distance of 2.26 feet to the point of beginning of Line A; thence North 8
degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds West 158.41 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Lot 9 and there terminating.
PARCEL 2 Area = 16,995 square feet = 0.390 acres.
page 186
EXHIBIT A
page 187
EXHIBIT B
OUTLOT B – CITY OWNED LANDS
PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS TO BE CREATED BY LOT SPLIT
PARCEL 1A:
That part of Outlot B, CHERRY HILL ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota lying westerly of a line described as
commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, Block 7, CHERRY HILL ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota; thence North
80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds East an assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 9 a distance of 2.26 feet;
thence North 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds West 158.41 feet, more or less, to a point on the north line of said Lot 9,
said point being 8.25 feet easterly of the northwest corner of said Lot 9 and also the point of beginning; thence returning
South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East along the last described line 221.71 feet, more or less, to the south line of
Outlot B, Cherry Hill Addition and there terminating.
Area = 5,792 square feet = 0.133 acres.
PARCEL 2A:
That part of Outlot B, CHERRY HILL ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota lying westerly of a line described as
commencing at a point on the North line of Lot 10, Block 7, CHERRY HILL ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota distant
18.4 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of said Lot 10 to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
Southerly along a line that passes through the Southwest corner of said Lot 10 and continues to the south line of Outlot B,
Cherry Hill Addition and there terminating.
AND
Lying easterly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, Block 7, CHERRY HILL ADDITION,
Dakota County, Minnesota; thence North 80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds East an assumed bearing along the south line
of said Lot 9 a distance of 2.26 feet; thence North 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds West 158.41 feet, more or less, to a
point on the north line of said Lot 9, said point being 8.25 feet easterly of the northwest corner of said Lot 9 and also the
point of beginning; thence returning South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East along the last described line 221.71 feet,
more or less, to the south line of Outlot B, Cherry Hill Addition and there terminating.
Area = 7,242 square feet = 0.166 acres.
page 188
EXHIBIT B
OUTLOT B – CITY OWNED LANDS
PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS TO BE CREATED BY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, LOT SPLIT & COMBINATION
New Legal Description of 760 Upper Colonial Drive (as a result of Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Split & Combination)
PARCEL 1:
That part of Outlot B and Lots 8 and 9, Block 7, CHERRY HILL ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota lying westerly of a
line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 9; thence North 80 degrees 35 minutes 21 seconds
East an assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 9 a distance of 2.26 feet; thence North 8 degrees 24 minutes 41
seconds West 158.41 feet, more or less, to a point on the north line of said Lot 9, said point being 8.25 feet easterly of the
northwest corner of said Lot 9 and also the point of beginning; thence returning South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds
East along the last described line 221.71 feet, more or less, to the south line of Outlot B, Cherry Hill Addition and there
terminating.
AND
Lying easterly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence North 80 degrees 35
minutes 21 seconds East an assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 8 a distance of 3.50 feet to the point of
beginning; thence North 5 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West 154.13 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Lot 8
and there terminating.
PARCEL 1 Area = 20,949 square feet = 0.481 acres.
New Legal Description of 754 Upper Colonial Drive (as a result of Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Split & Combination)
PARCEL 2:
That part of Outlot B and Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, CHERRY HILL ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota lying westerly of a
line described as commencing at a point on the North line of said Lot 10 distant 18.4 feet Easterly from the Northwest
corner of said Lot 10 to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southerly along a line that passes
through the Southwest corner of said Lot 10 and continues to the south line of Outlot B, Cherry Hill Addition and there
terminating.
AND
Lying easterly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 9; thence North 80 degrees 35
minutes 21 seconds East an assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 9 a distance of 2.26 feet; thence North 8
degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds West 158.41 feet, more or less, to a point on the north line of said Lot 9, said point being
8.25 feet easterly of the northwest corner of said Lot 9 and also the point of beginning; thence returning South 8 degrees
24 minutes 41 seconds East along the last described line 221.71 feet, more or less, to the south line of Outlot B, Cherry
Hill Addition and there terminating.
PARCEL 2 Area = 24,237 square feet = 0.556 acres.
page 189
EXHIBIT B
page 190
Planning Report
DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-16
Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Split/Combination and Variances
APPLICANT: Sarah & Jason Barrett / John & Deanne Bennett
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: September 28, 2018 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358) for
subdivision actions - AND - July 30, 2018 for variance actions
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The property owners of both parcels are seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line between their
respective properties, to resolve an existing encroachment, and which requires consideration of a variance
to the required side-yard setback and lot width standards. The application also includes a lot split/lot
combination request by both parties, to acquire small portions of unused park land parcels located in the
immediate rear-yards of both properties.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties are located at the end of Upper Colonial Drive, just west of the tennis courts in
Wentworth Park (see aerial image below):
page 191
The two properties were originally platted in 1960 as Lots 8 and 9, Block 7, Cherry Hill Addition. Lot 8 is
addressed as 760 Upper Colonial Drive and Lot 9 is 760 Upper Colonial. Both lots were platted as 97-ft.
wide by approx. 157-ft. deep lots (refer to plat map image below).
When Cherry Hill was approved, the plat included an Outlot A and Outlot B (see image above), which were
created presumably for the “low wet ground” areas of this plat. In January 1963, the Village of Mendota
Heights was granted two separate certificates of title that passed ownership of these two parcels to the
Village (later – the City). Eventually, the city incorporated these two parcels into Wentworth Park.
Last September [2017], planning staff was notified by a neighboring resident that a new shed was being
built in the rear yard area of 754 Upper Colonial Drive (the Barrett’s), and stated the shed appeared to be
located on city-owned park lands. Upon investigation, it was determined that the shed was indeed being
built on city owned lands, and a “stop-work” order was issued. It was also determined during the inspection
that the neighboring property at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have installed a fence and
garden outside their legal property boundary as well, which encroaches into the same area of park property.
Staff later met with the Barrett and Bennett family representatives, and the residents stated they thought
their back-yards extended farther back than what Dakota County GIS records indicated; and were unaware
they were encroaching on city-owned park land. Nevertheless, the owners requested the city consider an
official request to deed or transfer a small area of the “wedge-shaped” park land behind their properties, in
order to keep the shed, fence and gardens in place.
Although there are three properties (750, 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Dr.) immediately adjacent to this
wedge shaped park space, only 754 and 760 Upper Colonial elected to participate, while the owners of 750
Upper Colonial declined.
When a preliminary survey was later submitted by the Applicants, staff discovered that the shared lot line
between 760 and 754 appeared to be encroaching over the dwelling structure of 760 UCD (Bennett’s); and
in order to eliminate this encroachment and avoid any unnecessary future cloud on property title, staff
suggested they submit a lot line adjustment and variance to resolve this issue.
This encroachment issue is a shared condition with the last four houses (766, 760, 754 and 750) along Upper
Colonial Drive. It appears the original developer/contractor mistakenly set the foundations of the homes
on these platted lots in the 1960’s, and created these encroachment issues, which were discovered later.
In 2008, the owners of 766 Upper Colonial corrected their lot line encroachment issue by receiving approval
of a similar lot line adjustment and variance to lot width standards (Res. No. 08-20, adopted 04/01/08).
page 192
In 2015, the city also approved a similar lot line adjustment and variances to 754 and 750 Upper Colonial
(Res. No. 2015-94, adopted 12/01/15). Related to this 2015 application, the owners of 750 Upper Colonial
requested the city split off a small, wedge-shaped parcel of Wentworth Pak land (parts of Outlots A and B
–survey image below), located next to their lot, thereby eliminating a possible non-conformity with R-1
zoned lot width and side setback standards.
This 4,401 sq. ft. wedge-shaped parcel was agreed to be sold off by the city for a price of $100.00, and the
owners were required to pay legal and title fees to complete said transaction.
ANALYSIS
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
City Code Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations, Section 11-1-5 allows the subdivision of parcels through a
lot line adjustment, provided the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and
the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with
this title or the zoning ordinance.
The existing lot line between 760 and 754 is noted by the green dashed line in the image above; with the
blue line representing the new adjusted lot line between both properties. The adjusted line will shift to the
east by 8.25 feet (from the existing and original northeast lot corner of Lot 8). The proposed lot line
adjustment will help resolve the existing non-conformity created on Lot 8 by the encroaching platted lot
line over the residential structure.
page 193
The following table outlines the required lot area and setback requirements in R-1, One Family Residential,
as well as the areas and setbacks for the newly-created parcels:
R-1 Zoning District Lot 8
760 Upper Colonial
Lot 9
754 Upper Colonial
Standard Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area 15,000 SF 14,406 sf. 15,157 sf. 17,839 sf. 16,995 sf.
Lot Width 100 ft. 85.77 ft. 94.02 ft. 115.4 ft. 107.15 ft.
Side Yard
Setback
10 ft. (min.) or
½ height of dwelling 0 ft. 2.8 to 3.7 ft. 18.4 to 23.6 ft. 15.44 to 19.9 ft.
Although the lot line adjustment will eliminate the encroachment over the 760 UCD residence, the
minimum side yard setback standard of 10-feet will not be attained; nor will the adjustment make the lot
compliant with the 100-foot width standard for R-1 zoned properties; and thus the need for a variance.
VARIANCE
There are two variances related to the overall consideration of this lot line adjustment. The first is to allow
a reduced side-yard setback for Lot 8 / 760 Upper Colonial Drive from the 10-foot minimu m standard to a
reduced setback of 2.8 to 3.7 feet. The second variance is related to the lot size.
As noted above, when new lots are created (or adjusted), they must comply with established standards of
the underlying zoning district, which is 100-ft. for R-1 zoned properties. In this case, the Lot 8 width
increases from 85.77 feet up to 94.02 feet, which is still under the 100-ft. threshold. Lot 9 / 754 Upper
Colonial does not need any variances for reduced setbacks or other standards.
When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The request to adjust an interior property boundary line to address an existing encroachment is
reasonable and meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. Even
under the old standards or findings for variances, where applicants had to show that there is condition
of the property that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use under the standards of
the ordinance, there may be clear arguments that a hardship is present and this lot line adjustment helps
resolve this issue.
In this case, the conditions that constitute the variance are long-standing survey mistakes that resulted
in the construction of buildings which encroach into the required setback or over the property lines. To
correct this situation, the only alternatives are relocation of the lot lines or removal of portions of the
buildings. The latter option would be an extraordinary and unnecessary remedy. The only affected
property owners are those that are party to this application. Since the relocation of the lot lines is a
solution which the affected parties agree to, staff believe the variances should be approved to resolve
these issues.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
It is assumed that long-standing surveying mistakes caused the construction of dwellings which
encroach into the required side yard setbacks or over the property boundary lines on several properties
in the immediate area. In order to resolve the situation in this case and satisfy additional conditions for
the future sale/transfer of properties, , the most reasonable solution is adjustment of the interior property
boundary line in conformance with the required side yard setback standard as agreed upon by the
affected property owners.
page 194
Although the adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 still does not attain a required 10-ft. side-yard setback
needed for Lot 8 (only 2.8 to 3.7 feet), the adjustment does provide some physical and tangible relief
of moving and eliminating the lot line from running across the footprint of the building, which can
prove to be quite a difficult cloud on title or encumbrances affecting properties, especially when selling
real estate.
Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling on Lot 9
or requiring the owners of Lot 10 to acquire additional property are not practical.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicants have established a practical difficulty in adjusting the
interior property boundary line in compliance with the applicable zoning standards. Furthermore, the
existing condition of both properties is a unique circumstance not created by the applicants.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result in the adjustment of lines on a map.
Therefore, no changes will be visible to either property and no negative impacts are anticipated to the
character of the neighborhood.
LOT SPLIT
Background
As noted previously, when city staff investigated a complaint on the shed being built on city park lands
behind 754 Upper Colonial, it was soon discovered that a fence and garden area were also installed on city
park land behind 760 Upper Colonial.
After meeting up with the owners, it was decided internally to have the city process a lot split application
(along with the planned lot line adjustment and variance), whereby the city would give consideration to
transfer over two, small unused (unneeded) parcels of park land behind each residence. In that way, the
garden, fence and shed encroachments could remain in place, subject to city council approval.
The portion of Wentworth Park in this area was platted as Outlots A and B of Cherry Hill Addition. A
large portion of these two outlot now contain the Wentworth Park tennis court and a walking trail (see
aerial image – below):
page 195
Description of Request
The area in-question – or the wedged-shape piece located behind the three residences, does not contain any
public or park improvements. City staff determined this wedge-shaped area of Wentworth Park has never
been used for true park purposes; is not needed for any short-term or long-term park needs in this area; and
acknowledges the land behind the Barrett’s/Bennett’s properties appears to have been maintained by the
homeowners for quite some time, without issues or enforcement by the city.
Should the city approve the lot split to create these two parcels, both property owners would be required to
combine the parcels to their own homesteaded properties. The two parcels to be split and potentially
transferred are noted in the gold and green highlighted areas below:
The parcel to be created behind 760 Upper Colonial Drive (Lot 8) consists of 5,792 sq. ft., or 0.133 acres.
The parcel behind 754 Upper Colonial (Lot 9) is 7,242 sf., or 0.166 acres. Should this split and
transfer/combination be approved, the new adjusted lot sizes would be as follows:
• 760 Upper Colonial Drive: Adjusted Lot 8 @ 15,157 sf.+ park parcel @ 5,792 sf. = 20,949 sf. (.48 ac.)
• 754 Upper Colonial Drive: Adjusted Lot 9 @ 16,995 sf.+ park parcel @ 7,242 sf. = 24,237 sf. (.57 ac.)
Since the park land properties are currently zoned R-1 One Family Residence, there will be no need to
rezone the created parcels. However, the city-owned park property (and this back area) are guided P -
Parks in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Should this subdivision and combination be approved by the city,
staff will make the necessary changes in the upcoming 2040 Comprehensive Plan by changing this land use
guidance from P Parks to LR-Low Density Residential (or similar) to ensure the single-family residential
zoning complies with an underlying land use.
page 196
Variance
As part of the previous lot line adjustment and variance approvals granted to 750 and 754 Upper Colonial
under Planning Case No. 2015-40, the city also approved (under Planning Case No. 2015-41) a lot split
and variances for the city-owned property next to 750 Upper Colonial, in order to provide relief of lot size,
lot widths and setbacks that were created by the line adjustment between their neighbors.
The planning report for that particular case indicated that under Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision
Regulations) any new lots created by a lot split must be compliant with the requirements of the applicable
zoning district. If not compliant, a variance would be in order.
In this particular case, the two parcels are 5,792 sq. ft. (0.133 ac.) and 7,242 sf. (0.166 ac.) in size. The lots
measure out to approx. 104 +/- feet along the back parcel line of Lot 8, and 103 +/- feet along the back
parcel lone of Lot 9 (see image below):
The two new parcels meet the minimum 100-foot wide lot width standard; but will not meet the minimum
15,000 sq. ft. area for newly created lots under the Subdivision Regulations. Even though they are planned
to be combined with the two homestead lots, this lot split request may still need to have a variance applied
to under this action request item as well.
When considering variances for the proposed subdivision request, the City is required to find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The request to subdivide a portion of city-owned property containing pre-existing encroachments
in order to be combined and dissolved into the adjacent private property is a reasonable use of both
properties. While the request will create several temporary non-conformities, the end result
essentially formalizes the existing conditions and will bring both properties into compliance with
the applicable zoning standards.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
The current owners of 754 Upper Colonial Drive purchased the property with the belief that they
owned the rear yard area of their property, and were unaware that this land actually belonged to the
city or was part of Wentworth Park. The owners of 760 Upper Colonial Dr. also mentioned the
same thing regarding their back yard space, and installed the fence and gardens a number of years
ago, without any complaints or action by the city.
page 197
In order to address the issues, it was determined that a purchase of the property in-question from
the City was the best alternative. While the proposed lot split will create temporary non-
conformities, the intent is not to create a new buildable parcel.
Based on the existing conditions, a practical difficulty in subdividing the property in-question in
order to combine and dissolve into the adjacent private property compliant with the applicable
zoning standards is demonstrated. Furthermore, the existing conditions can be considered
somewhat of a unique circumstance not entitle created by the current property owners.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. The private property owners
already uses and maintains the property in-question, therefore no negative impacts are anticipated
to the park or the character of the neighborhood.
In order to ensure the non-conformities created by the proposed lot split are eliminated, a condition of
approval is included requiring the private property owner to combine and incorporate the newly-created
parcels into their own homesteaded parcels.
Value of Land
The city did not have the park land property appraised, nor any land value officially been determined. As
part of their planning application, the Barrett’s and Bennett’s submitted a letter of intent, whereby each
homeowner is offering to pay $500.00 – or $1,000.00 total to the city’s general park fund as payment of
these parcels.
As was noted previously, the owners of 750 Upper Colonial purchased the small parcel of city land for
$100.00, plus legal fees to process the agreement and transfer documents.
Staff will acknowledge the two owners have contributed a considerable amount of time, energy and expense
in preparing the survey documents of these properties, and have also agreed to pay for any legal and title
fees to complete the transactions of transferring ownership of these parcels.
The Planning Commission is allowed to make any recommendation on the offer presented by the
Applicants; or suggest a fair-offer price or value to the city council.
Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendation
On June 12, 2018, city staff presented this lot split/request proposal before the City’s Parks and Recreation
Commission. City staff explained the reasoning for this lot split and the possible transfer of park land to
private property owners; the value of each parcel offered by the homeowners, and the process before the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Upon close of the presentation, a number of comments and questions were raised by the Parks
Commissioners, whereby two primary concerns were raised and noted for consideration:
1. Are the properties valued properly; and
2. Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land.
In the end, the Parks Commission elected to recommend approval of allowing the lot split and sale/transfer
of park land properties to proceed; and let the City Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine
value of the land. The recommendation was approved on a split 3-2 vote [minutes from this meeting are
appended to this report].
page 198
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, variance and lot split requests, based on the
attached findings of fact with conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, variance and lot split requests based on amended
findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code, Comprehensive
Plan or other justifiable and stated reasons: or
3. Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment, variances and lot split requests, based on
the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), and with the following conditions:
1) The Applicants agree to pay $500.00 to the city’s Park Reserve Fund as payment for each parcel to
be transferred to them as part of the lot split approval on the city-owned park land.
2) The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split to their own
respective homestead parcels.
3) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
4) The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work be done by
them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal documents, title work, and/or
recording documents.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Location/Site Map
2. Site photos
3. Letter of Intent from Homeowners
4. Planning Application w/ Variance Responses (from homeowners)
5. Surveys with Legal Descriptions
page 199
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment, Variance and Lot Split/Combination
754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance requests:
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 interior property
boundary line.
3. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and provides a reasonably
relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property
boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard in order to address the non-conformities
created by the encroachment.
4. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling or
acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants, which is deemed impractical.
5. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split/Lot Combination
and related Variance requests:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the
property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood.
page 200
?
?
G!.
G!.66666666*66666
6
66666666666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
(]
755
723
766
750
751
770
754
769
757763
760
1480
768 762774
773
14721465
776
UPPER COLONIA
L
D
R CHERRY H
ILL
RD
260'
248'
2
0
1
.
6
'
187.3'291.6'
6''0'
'6''0''
City ofMendotaHeights0100
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/8/2018
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
754 - 760 Upper Colonial Dr.(Barrett's & Bennett's)
page 201
Jason & Sarah Barrett
754 Upper Colonial Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
28 May 2018
Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Benetti:
Please accept this letter of our intent to adjust the boundaries of our property. In addition to
agreement with our neighbors and positive response from you, enclosed please find the following
documents in support of the proposed adjustments:
1. Signed Statement Explaining Escrow Fee Payment;
2. A completed Planning Application;
3. A completed Lot Line Adjustment Application;
4. A completed Lot Split Application;
Also enclosed, as per the requirements of the applications listed above, please find the following
documents:
5. A certified land survey showing the proposed lot line adjustment and accompanying
property descriptions;
6. A certified land survey showing the proposed lot split. and accompanying property
descriptions.
As the supporting documents indicate, two adjustments are being proposed.
A. The first is the adjustment of the lot line between our property (754 Upper Colonial Dr.) and
that of our neighbors, the Bennetts (760 Upper Colonial Dr.).
B. The second adjustment is the splitting and conveyance of the existing City of Mendota
Heights’ Outlot B.
The lot line adjustment (A) is a correction of a surveying error committed at the time of the original
development by simply shifting the property line between 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive such
that the line no longer cuts through the easterly part of the house at 760.
page 202
Recipient Name
28 May 2018
Page 2
The lot split (B), as we understand it, would add to 754 and 760 by splitting that portion of the
existing City Outlot B lying south of 754 and 760 by extending southerly both the lot line that is to
be adjusted (A), and the lot line separating 750 and 754, through the Outlot to the boundary of the
property to the south. In a sense, this adjustment would be conveying property that has been cared
for and maintained by the residents of 754 and 760 since the homes were first built.
After conversations both with you and our neighbors, we propose a donation to the City Parks &
Recreation Department in the amount of $1,000.00 ($500.00 each from 754 and 760) as fair
consideration for the split.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jason & Sarah Barrett
Enclosures (6)
page 203
page 204
page 205
page 206
Site Pictures – 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
LOOKING SOUTHWARD – between residences
LOOKING EAST – towards park
LOOKING WEST- toward Bennett’s property/fence
REAR YARD AREA of Bennett’s
REAR YARD AREA –Barrett’s
Barrett’s unfinished shed
page 207
page 208
page 209
page 210
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
June 12, 2018
The October meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
1. Call to Order – Chair Pat Hinderschied called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Pat Hinderschied,
Commissioners Steve Goldade, Ira Kipp, David Miller, and Nissa Tupper. Commissioner Bob
Klepperich was absent; and Commission Stephanie Levine arrived late. Staff present: Recreation
Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public
Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and Community Development Director Tim Benetti.
5. Unfinished and New Business
5.a Recommendation of Proposed Lot Split Request of a Portion of Wentworth Park Land
(Behind 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the city has received an application
from Jason and Sarah Barrett, owners of 754 Upper Colonial Drive; and John and Deanne
Bennett, owners of 760 Upper Colonial Drive to split portions of Wentworth Park located
immediately behind each property.
As part of this application, Mr. and Mrs. Barrett are also requesting a lot line adjustment as a
correction of a surveying error committed at the time of the original development by shifting the
property line between 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive.
In 1960, when the Cherry Hill Addition was platted, they created two outlots (Outlot A and B),
which were subsequently acquired by the city and incorporated into the Wentworth Park property.
These wedge-shaped parcels are located immediately behind the Barrett and Bennett properties.
Last September, planning staff was notified that each property owner was encroaching on the
city-owned land. Staff met with the property owners, who stated that they thought their backyards
extended farther back and were unaware that the land belonged to the city. The owners have
requested the city to consider transferring or selling a small area of the “wedge-shaped” park land
behind their properties, in order to keep the shed, fence and gardens in place, and legally acquire
this city-owned property for additional yard space.
There are three properties affected by the two outlots; however, the property owner at 750 Upper
Colonial Drive has declined to participate in this request and that piece of property would remain
as city-owned park land.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject properties and noted that the splits would not affect the
tennis court areas in Wedgewood Park.
Chair Hinderschied asked for confirmation that the city really has no useful purpose as far as park
land for these two parcels. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Chair Hinderschied indicated that he was
agreeable; however, he wanted to hear from the other commissioners.
page 211
Commissioner Miller referenced the monies offered for each parcel and asked if it wasn’t the city’s
normal procedure to have an appraisal done on the parcels and then selling them to the
applicants. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this would be the normal procedure if the land had some
development value or added value. In this case, it is evident that the property owners have been
mowing and maintaining the land for many years and the encroachments has existed for so long,
staff felt that it would be better to just ask them to provide a value or offer to purchase. The
property owners have already spent quite a bit for surveys and title work. They have offered to
pay $500 each, or $1,000 total, to the city’s general park fund as payment for these parcels.
Once the parcels were acquired, the property values would increase slightly but is considered to
be a nominal amount.
Commissioner Goldade asked if there were any other situations where the city sold off portions
of park land. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unaware of any such situation.
Commissioner Kipp stated that it was his belief that when the city passed the bond issue to
purchase park land, it included these parcels. He did not believe it was their intent to sell or give
a portion of that park land to anyone else at a later point in time; therefore, he was against vacating
any park land owned by the city. Mr. Benetti noted that he could not find any record or
establishment of when the city acquired this parcel; it may have just been deeded over at one
point in time. There is no record of a bond or bond issue. Commissioner Kipp asked if the land
was unequivocally owned by the city for park land. Mr. Benetti replied that it is owned by the city;
however, it was not dedicated for park land. It was dedicated as an outlot under the original Cherry
Hill Addition.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that technically it is noted as a park on the city’s park
and trail map; however, this underlying plat is Outlot B. It was not purchased via referendum so
that is not an issue. At the time of the platting, the city did not have an established park dedication
program; however, the city would accept land. It is a very wet area so public works mows it very
minimally as they would cause more damage than good. Park staff is very much in favor of this
process.
Commissioner Kipp stated that if the Planning Commission and the Council allows this sale they
would be setting up a strong precedence for future sales of park land.
Commissioner Tupper echoed the comments made about the future precedence and noted that
the third property owner declined to participate at this time. She questioned what would prevent
any future owner of the third parcel from coming back and saying they wished to purchase the
outlot from the city as well.
Mr. Ruzek replied that property that had declined just acquired 10 feet from the city up near the
tennis courts a few years ago as part of the lot line adjustment to correct the same surveying error
noted in this application. They did all of the title work and survey work and the city granted them
that property.
Commissioner Kipp questioned the value of the properties being added as it appears that the land
size would increase by one-third to one-fourth. He reiterated his opposition to selling any park
land to any citizen of the city, no matter the price.
Commissioner Tupper stated that part of her concern is that there are no active programs on this
spot because it is wet; however, there is a pond there and she wondered if the city could or would
page 212
consider or start looking at that parcel as a piece of natural resource to add to the park context.
She reiterated her concerns about setting up a precedence that could come back down the road.
Commissioner Goldade asked if the residents were to purchase these parcels if there was
anything they could do on that land that could change any sort of value to the park. Once they are
the owner of the land is there anything they could do to negatively impact the city’s park. Mr.
Benetti replied that in his professional opinion there is nothing they could do to negatively impact
the park land. The property owners are currently using the land as part of their backyards and
garden space and he does not foresee them doing anything out of the ordinary.
Commissioner Kipp asked if there were other residential properties adjacent to city park land and
what would stop those individuals from asking for the same considerations. Mr. Benetti replied
that the city could object whenever they want to. This is a very rare and unique situation that does
not come across the city’s desks very often. It is unique because of a situation that was
investigated and determined that they have been mowing and maintaining the land for their own
purposes. If the city has not used or missed it at the point it makes sense to deed it off.
Chair Hinderschied asked if the parcels, according to the public works departments, were a
nuisance to maintain. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and added the homeowners would keep
their existing fence in the area. The appearance of the parcels would not lead anyone walking by
to think that they are part of the park.
Chair Hinderschied asked if there were any other similar situations around the city’s parks where
someone could use this example to purchase city park land. Mr. Ruzek replied that he was
unaware of any other situation similar to this. Actually, it would be just the opposite – where the
city may be looking to acquire some outlot properties.
Chair Henderscheid summarized the two concerns as:
1. Are the properties valued properly; and
2. Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land
Mr. Benetti stated that he would encourage the Commission not to worry about setting a
precedence, as this is a very unique and very isolated situation. He reminded them that as owners
of the park land, the city can always say no to other requests. This is a situation where the city
offered the land to the homeowners and they accepted the chance to acquire additional lands,
with the understanding that they would pay for the title work. The city requested they make the
fair value offer, which they did.
Motion Miller /second Goldade to recommend approval and let the City Council wrestle with the
two stated concerns.
Commissioner Kipp expressed his thoughts that, by approving this motion, the Commission would
be suggesting to the City Council that the Commission approves of this lot split. He reiterated that
he believes this would be detrimental to the city and he would be against it.
AYES 3 (GOLDADE / MILLER / HENDERSCHIED): NAYS 2 (KIPP / TUPPER)
page 213
E) PLANNING CASE #2018-16
SARAH & JASON BARRETT / JOHN & DEANNE BENNETT, 754 AND 760 UPPER
COLONIAL DRIVE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION AND VARIANCES
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Sarah & Jason Barrett and John & Deanne
Bennett were requesting a lot line adjustment, lot split-combination and variances for their
properties located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or
objections have been received.
Lot Line Adjustment
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the two properties in relation to the location along Upper Colonial
Drive and Wentworth Park. He noted that when the Cherry Hill Addition was approved back in
1960, they created these Outlot A and B. In 1963 the Village of Mendota Heights was granted two
separate certificates of title for Outlot A and B; which were eventually incorporated into what is
now referred to as Wentworth Park.
In 2008 a neighboring parcel asked for a very similar parcel lot line adjustment and received that
approval. In 2015 the Council also approved a similar lot line adjustment between 750 and 754
Upper Colonial Drive. To make this lot conform to requirements, the owners requested that the
city sell off or deed off a part of Wentworth Park. This almost 4,000 square foot parcel was deeded
off to accommodate and ensure this parcel met the area requirements and, more importantly, met
the setback requirement.
The last four houses along Upper Colonial Drive’s foundations were laid in, they were not laid in
properly – probably due to a surveying error in the 1960’s. All of these houses had this lot line
requirement.
This request would move the lot line between the two properties (754 and 760 Upper Colonial
Drive) over by 8.25 feet to eliminate the encroachment on the existing building. Even with the
adjustment, the Bennett lot becomes a little bit bigger but it still does not meet site area setbacks
of 10 feet, would still remain a non-conforming situation; therefore, a variance is required.
To solve the encroachment and to meet the purpose and intent of the city code, even though it is
not fully meeting, it still provides a big relief for homeowners. Under the variance process, if the
Commission were to accept that it still provides a general relief for the current owners and any
future owners.
In September 2017, planning staff was notified by a neighboring resident that a new shed was
being built in the rear yard area of 754 Upper Colonial Drive; owned by the Barrett’s, and appeared
to be located on city-owned park lands. Upon investigation it was determined that this was true
page 214
and a “stop-work” order was issued. During this inspection, staff also discovered that the property
at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have had a fence and garden installed outside
their legal property boundary.
The applicants stated that they believed that park land area to be part of their rear yards and were
unaware of the ownership by the city. Since these areas were essentially being unused by the city,
they asked that the city consider deeding over these two wedge-shaped parcels to them. That way,
the garden, fence, and shed encroachments could remain in place, subject to city council approval.
The parcel to be created behind 760 Upper Colonial Drive consists of 5,792 square feet, or 0.133
acres. The parcel behind 754 Upper Colonial Drive is 7,242 square feet, or 0.166 acres. If this part
of the application were approved, staff would make the necessary changes to the upcoming 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has no objections to this request and noted that no portion of these properties being separated
from the park would be buildable on its own or separated. It has to be combined or joined in the
two subject parcels as part of this approval.
Staff did not have the park land appraised nor any land value determined. The Barrett’s and
Bennett’s submitted a letter of intent, whereby each homeowner offered to pay $500.00 (total of
$1,000) to the city’s general park fund as payment of these parcels. Previously, the owners of 750
Upper Colonial purchased the small parcel of city land for $100.00 plus legal fees.
Staff acknowledges the two owners as having contributed a considerable amount of time, energy,
and expense in preparing the survey documents of these properties and that they have also agreed
to pay for any legal and title fees to complete the transactions. Also, they have maintained that
area of the park land on their own, having believed it to be a portion of their yard. Very little
maintenance, if any, has been provided by the public works department.
The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on June 12, 2018,
listened to staff explanations and reasoning for this lot split and possible transfer of park land to
private property owners, the value of which had not been determined. Two primary concerns were
raised by the Parks and Recreation Commission:
• Are the properties valued properly
• Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land
In the end, the Parks & Recreation Commission elected to recommend approval and let the City
Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine value of the land, by a vote of 3-2.
Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that there was no way to place the lot line between
the two structures that would allow for two compliant setbacks. Mr. Benetti confirmed. The
proposed adjustment would be the minimum needed to get the current lot line off of the structure.
page 215
Commissioner Corbett asked what had been investigated with respect to privately handling the
rear lot line issues versus involving the city. Mr. Benetti replied that the private property owner
could fix the encroachments onto the city-owned property. The other alternative would be for the
city to impose upon them a code enforcement action to remove the fencing, garden, and partially
built shed, and then the city would take it over again. However, for all intents and purposes, the
city has not been maintaining or taking care of it.
Commissioner Noonan asked if staff considered the city’s need for the park land parcels; do they
serve any city need. Mr. Benetti replied that at this point, the answer is no. Public Works Director
Ryan Ruzek noted that park staff is highly supportive of this application being approved and this
land being transferred over to the private land owners. It is a wet area so park staff rarely maintains
it. It is not large enough for any recreational uses.
Commissioner Toth asked if the property owner, who installed the fencing, had come to the city
for a permit. Mr. Benetti replied that he has no record of any permit request.
Commissioner Magnuson recollected that in 2015, when they did the Nordin property, they
discussed much on how that problem occurred and what likely happened; fully recognizing that it
would not be the only lot that would be nonconforming.
Upon being asked by Commissioner Noonan, Mr. Benetti replied that the reason for the variance
request in this situation, rather than a new PID request as in the Bader application, was for
consistency. Since a variance was issued on the neighboring lot in 2015, then a variance was
requested here for setback requirements. The variance could be eliminated as the conditions still
cover the attachment of the Outlots to the parcels.
Commissioner Toth asked if $500 each from the property owners is a fair price because the
addition of these parcels increases their lot size and potentially raise their resell value. Mr. Benetti
replied that he did not know where the $100 value came from in 2015. According to the Council
that $100 value was fair. These property owners are offering five times as much, will pay the legal
fees associated with the transfer of ownership, and have maintained the land as part of their rear
yards. However, it would be better for the Council to determine fair value because they are ones
who did accept the $100 value previously.
Mr. Jason Barrett, 754 Upper Colonial, apologized for not doing his homework to determine if he
was able to build his shed in the location that it is in. Since has no defense, he would be willing to
pay double the fee to obtain a building permit for his shed.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Carol Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, came forward to address the issue of the unused park
land. She stated that Wentworth Park has existed since she moved into Mendota Heights in 1977.
Both of the parcels in question have structures already located on them – the fence being built
approximately 12 years ago. There is a stand of older beautiful trees in the area and the neighbors
do use that area to walk their dogs and the kids play in the woods. It may be unused by the city but
it is used by the neighborhood. The park adds to the serene quiet atmosphere that everyone in
page 216
Mendota Heights enjoys. The city does maintain the property adjacent to these two parcels and she
does not understand why they don’t maintain these areas as well. When she walks through there it
does not appear to be a ‘wetland’. Her concern is that deeding these parcels to the private property
owners would be setting a bad precedence within Mendota Heights.
She and her neighbors compiled some recommendations, which she shared with the Commission:
• The neighbors support the Bennett’s and the Barrett’s in their mission to get everything
resolved; however, they should only purchase the park land that is necessary to maintain
their fence, garden, and shed. Leave the rest as open space for the neighborhood to use.
• They would like to ensure that the purchase price is of fair market value
• She had signatures from 10 people who live on Upper Colonial Drive and Wentworth that
support coming up with some compromise agreement
Chair Field requested that the signed petition be left with staff for the public record.
Commissioner Toth asked if public works was taking care of the property around that area and
included mowing the trail, why were these parcels located on the backside of these homes not
maintained as well. Mr. Ruzek replied that he spoke with the parks lead staff person and he felt
that this part of the property was not usable park land. It could be used as open space; however,
the city would not be maintaining this area. Staff has been looking at, as part of the pollinator
friendly initiative, looking at not maintaining certain areas.
Commissioner Toth expressed his appreciation to the property owners for taking the initiative upon
themselves for taking care of these two parcels.
Ms. Susan Anzion, 766 Upper Colonial Drive, echoed the suggestion made earlier about the desire
to let the property owners keep the pieces they have already been maintaining, just leave the
wooded areas behind as park land. She also recommended that the Commissioners come out and
take a look at the land.
Mr. Stan Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, noted that there is a stream very close to the property
under consideration. The stream runs all of the way through the wetlands, through the
neighborhood, over the hill, and all of the way down to the river. It is nice to have a barrier property
around this that is not being treated by chemicals, there is a lot of wildlife there and he has used it
himself lots of times to walk his dogs. It is a delightful little space.
Mr. Jason Barrett returned and expressed his appreciation for the feedback from the neighbors and
stated that he too value the strip of trees and has no wish to touch them at all. He has no wish to
stop the neighbors from walking their dogs back there.
He did not that the little stream did not appear to be a part of the land under consideration. It is
close; however, it is not on the properties. He has a lot of respect, commitment, and love for the
nature and wildlife, which is why they like this property so much. He would not want to prevent
anyone from using the land as it exists now.
page 217
There is a path behind the Bennett’s fence and what he mows as his yard, however, it is not a trail
or anything. He has only seen the Anzion’s using it. He has seen some deer back there as well. It
seems to him that keeping the access to the park would be a good thing.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-16 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,
VARIANCE, AND LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
OF FACT, SUBJECT TO THE DELETION OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE VARIANCE:
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance requests:
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 interior
property boundary line.
3. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and provides a
reasonably relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty in adjusting the
interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard in order to
address the non-conformities created by the encroachment.
4. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the
dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants, which is
deemed impractical.
5. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not
negatively impact the character of the neighborhood.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split/Lot
Combination and related Variance requests:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the
nonconformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once
the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the
neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONDITION
#1, AND THE INSERTION OF THE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE COMMISSION
page 218
WOULD DEFER TO CITY COUNCIL THE DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO
BE ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANTS:
1. The Applicants agree to pay $500.00 to the city’s Park Reserve Fund as payment for each
parcel to be transferred to them as part of the lot split approval on the city-owned park land.
2. The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split to their
own respective homestead parcels.
3. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line
adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
4. The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work be done
by them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal documents, title
work, and/or recording documents.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he listened very carefully to the recommendation and the notion
of bifurcating that park land, the surplus land and the back of the Bennett’s to the fence line, just
narrows it even more and makes less usable. He also wanted to defer to the Parks & Recreation
Commission because they are the stewards of park land within the city. If they have made the
decision that it’s not needed for city purposes and it could be declared surplus, and a conveyance
to the adjoining owners can be made, he would defer to that decision. However, ultimately Council
will have to weigh the recommendations of both the Park & Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 1 (CORBETT)
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting.
page 219
page 220
page 221
page 222
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration & Direction to Staff of Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to
Allow Dog or Pet Training Facilities in the I-Industrial Distrcit
Kristin Elmquist – For the Love of Dogs – Applicant
[Planning Case No. 2018-13]
Introduction
The City Council is being asked to give consideration and direction in the preparation of new ordinance
that may amend certain sections of Chapter 12 – Zoning, to allow “Dog or Pet Training Facility” (or similar)
type use in the I-Industrial district.
The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of ‘For the Love of Dogs’ in Hudson, WI.
Background
Ms. Elmquist is seeking the ability to provide professional on-site (indoor only) dog training service for
owners. The site Ms. Elmquist has tentatively chosen is 1415 Mendota Heights Road, which is located in
the Industrial Zone district.
As the 06/26/18 Planning Report notes, the current City Code is somewhat silent on providing specific
standards related to dog or animal training, boarding or similar activities. City Code does however, provides
the following definitions related to animals:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
VETERINARY: Those uses concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, medical care of animals, as well as
storage and disposal of dead animals, including animal or pet hospitals.
The report also indicates “Cat Clinic” is allowed by CUP in the B-1 Zone and “Animal Hospital” is
allowed by CUP in the B-2 and B-3 zones. The only animal related use that staff is aware of in the city is
the Mendakota Animal Hospital, located in The Village at 1938 Dodd Road.
Discussion
The June 26th planning report provides a suggestion the city could easily modify the existing “Animal
Kennel;” definition in city code by simply adding “…cared for, trained….” under this definition, and place
“Animal Kennel” use(s) under the I-Industrial or other commercial districts, as either a permitted use or
conditional use.
The report further provides sample language for “Animal Kennel” or “Dog Training Facility” with a list of
related standards that could be incorporated as a permitted use or conditional use.
page 223
The report also contains information on other cities that allow similar animal related type uses in certain
zones; and also some example of zoning code language that addresses this proposed use. The “dog-training
facility” language from City of West St. Paul stands out as the one Ms. Elmquist is likely seeking.
At the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners began the discussion of this item
and focused on three talking (question) points:
1. Should the proposed use or activities be a conditional use or a permitted use?
2. Should the city limit use to the I-Industrial District or allow into one or more of the Business
Districts?
3. Should the city limit it to a dog training facility and just add one more narrow use in the code? (If
so- the city needs to take this opportunity to clean-up the current Code language, follow
Bloomington’s lead and change the name to “Pet Care or Pet Service Facility” - as opposed to a
kennel; and incorporate veterinary clinic and animal hospital under these new defined uses).
The planning commission was receptive to allowing some form of pet care facility, which could include
general pet care, veterinary care/clinic, boarding and training (for dogs or other pets) in the city. However,
they were not ready to approve anything that night – as they were not reviewing any draft ordinance
language; and asked staff to bring this back to them at next month’s meeting (July 24th).
Recommendation
After continued discussion, including direct communication with the Applicant, the commission was
undecided on how the City Council would even accept or agree to this type of new use, and suggested city
staff needs to present this preliminary information to them, and have them recommend or direct the next
action(s) on this zoning code amendment item.
The Commission eventually identified three items or recommendations for the City Council to consider:
1) Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed];
2) Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require
a conditional use permit; and
3) Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only.
The Commission requested feedback and direction from the City Council. The minutes (excerpts) of the
June 26th meeting on this item are appended to the attached planning report.
Action Required
The City Council needs to give consideration of this matter; and provide direction to city staff of the
proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow Dog or Pet Training Facilities (or similar) in the I-Industrial
Distrcit.
page 224
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-13
Zoning Code Amendment – Dog Training in the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “dog training” or similar uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district.
The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility
currently located in Hudson, WI.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Elmquist originally approached city planning staff a number of months ago, seeking to provide dog
training services in the old Laser-Tech building, located at 2500 Lexington Avenue. Negotiations for that
site fell through, and they have tentatively secured a tenant-lease space for the property located at 1415
Mendota Heights Road.
Prior to (and after) Ms. Elmquist’s inquiries, staff received a number of similar requests or met with various
interested parties requesting to provide doggie-day-care or pet boarding uses within the city, particularly
within the industrial and commercial zoned areas of the city.
Ms. Elmquist is seeking the ability to provide personalized and professional on-site training for dogs only;
which will include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy
services. The facility will also contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition events. The
site Ms. Elmquist has chosen is located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, which is a multi-tenant industrial
use building located within the Industrial zone district.
The Applicant provided a list of businesses and cities that allow or permit such uses similar to her own
request; and city staff found a list of other similar businesses in other cities as well (attached Exhibit –A).
page 225
ANALYSIS
According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA), a National Pet Survey conducted from 2017-
2018 found that over 68% of U.S. households, or about 85 million families, own a pet. This is up from
56% of U.S. households in 1988, the first year the survey was conducted (source: Insurance Information
Institute). Of the approximate 145 million households that own pets (i.e. dogs, cats, fish, birds, horses and
reptiles), almost 61 million or 42% are dogs, followed by 47 million (or 32.5%) with cats. Another statistic
depicts that the number of dogs in the United States from 2000 to 2017 jumped from 68 million to almost
90 million in 2017, a 32% increase (source: Statista). The total pet industry expenditures has increased
from $41.2 billion in 2007 to almost $70 billion in 2017, nearly a 70% increase in 10 years.
As a testament to these increased numbers/percentages of pets or dog ownership statistics, city staff will
acknowledge and attest to the numerous calls or personal inquiries from residents, realtors, property
managers and business owners seeking to provide some form of animal use activity, such as doggie-day-
care, kennels, or in this case, a dog training use within the City of Mendota Heights.
City Code however, is somewhat silent on identifying or providing specific standards related to dog
[animal] training, boarding or similar activities. City Code Title 12-1B-2 [Definitions] provides the
following definitions related to animals:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
VETERINARY: Those uses concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, medical care of animals, as well as
storage and disposal of dead animals, including animal or pet hospitals.
The B-1 Limited Business District also provides the following as a conditional use:
CAT CLINIC:
1. As used hereunder, the term "cat clinic" shall be deemed to mean a facility for the diagnosis,
treatment and medical care of domestic cats only, in which all professional services are conducted
within an enclosed building and which includes the temporary boarding of such animals while they
are under treatment.
2. Any conditional use permit for a cat clinic shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries
of the lot on which the use is conducted.
b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may be
required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash.
c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage and
disposal of dead animals in accordance with professional standards.
d. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and
landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the
R district.
e. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving
and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
f. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio required
for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading: "Office
page 226
building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space for each
two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building.
The B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow the following as conditional
use:
ANIMAL HOSPITAL (VETERINARY CLINIC).
1. A s used hereunder, the term "animal hospital or veterinary clinic" shall be deemed to mean a
facility for the diagnosis, treatment and medical care of small animals, in which all
professional services are conducted within an enclosed building and which includes the
kenneling of such animals.
2. Any conditional use permit for an animal hospital (veterinary clinic) shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the
boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility
shall be of masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and
with a precast concrete roof.
b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may
be required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash.
c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage
and disposal of dead animals off the premises.
d. Large Dog Facilities: Large dog facilities for indoor exercise of such animals shall be
provided. No outside pens shall be permitted.
e. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening
and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that
abut the R district.
f. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the
receiving and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
g. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio
required for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading
"Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space
for each two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building.
h. Live In Facility: An animal hospital may include a live in facility to permit a staff member
to be on the premises twenty four (24) hours per day. Such facility shall be limited to six
hundred twenty (620) square feet of floor space and shall not be designed to serve as a
single-family residence as hereinbefore defined in this chapter.
At this time, there is only one animal [care] type use in the city, the Mendakota Animal Hospital located in
The Village at 1938 Dodd Road. There is also the Parkview Cat Clinic located at 837 Sibley Memorial
Hwy. (River Bluffs Center) in Lilydale (which we assume will be closing as part of the expected
redevelopment of this commercial site).
Interestingly, even though the city defines “Animal Kennels” under the Title 12 – Zoning, there are no
allowances or provisions for such use in any of the various zoning districts. In fact, going back to the 1991
Zoning Code and other updates since that time, the use was identified/defined as well, but not allowed or
provided for in any zoning distrcit. Staff was unable to find if “kennels” were ever allowed in certain
zoning districts; or when or why they were removed from Zoning Code.
page 227
The term “kennel” does appear in a few places under Title 5 – Police Regulations, Ch. 3 Domestic Animals
section of City Code. However, most of these terms are related to impoundment of animals due to specific
instances or conditions.
In researching other metro community ordinances, there appears to be a number of cities that allow for
various animal use activities, such as kennels, vet clinics, pet care (boarding) centers, and some training
facilities. In some cases, cities that allow or permit “kennel” type uses also include the term “training” as
part of an allowed activity under such uses (refer to attached Exhibit – B)
The Applicant stated they are only interested in offering training services for dogs (with massage therapy),
and are not interested in providing boarding, grooming, vet clinic care or other services.
The City of West Saint Paul provides the most descriptive definition and standards for a “Dog Training
Facility”, along with a related “Pet Care Facility” for their community. The definition and standards are
noted below:
DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of
domestic dogs.
Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met.
(1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property
line of residentially zoned property.
(2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
(3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a
fence that is at least four feet in height.
(4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste
material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
(6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
(7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
(9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area.
(10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time.
If the city were to accept the Applicant’s request to provide only a new dog training use, then this definition
and standards of West St. Paul are clearly the ones to use or apply in this zoning code amendment case.
When cities view or consider any new use within the community (or zoning districts), there is nothing that
prohibits the allowance of other uses or activities as part of the overall review of a single-use. In this case,
the Planning Commission may wish to consider allowing “Animal Kennels” as either a permitted or
conditional use in the city; and consider “[dog] training” as an identified or allowable activity under the
general kennel use definition/description; or provide a new definition and allowance specifically for “Dog-
Training Facility” similar to West St. Paul’s ordinance.
In other words, since the City already has Animal Kennel defined under Sect. 12-1B-2, a suggestion would
be to simply modify this definition:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred, cared-for, trained or offered for sale.
page 228
In this case, the amended (definition) use would provide or allow for training activities, but the city still
must decide or determine which zoning district(s) to place the “Animal Kennel” use; and whether or not
the use should be a permitted use or conditional use under said district. The commission should note that
by placing this stand-alone use inside a district, say the I-Industrial district, there would be no standards
affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended otherwise.
For example, the Animal Hospital (veterinary clinic) use as noted above are listed as a conditional use in
the B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business district, with certain standards noted underneath
the use heading. If the city applied the same concept to Animal Kennel, or allowed Animal/Dog Training
Facilities, the amended text could be presented as follows:
12-1F-3: B-2 Neighborhood Business District
12-1F-4: B-3 General Business District
B. Conditional Uses: Within any B-2 neighborhood business district/ B-3 general business district, no
structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Animal Kennel / Animal-Dog Training Facility.
1. Any conditional use permit for an animal kennel / animal training facility shall be subject to the
following conditions:
A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and
landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the
R district.
B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries
of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility shall be of
masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and with a precast
concrete roof.
C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning
or specialized ventilation system may be required.
D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving
and pick-up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate
outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, including
any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height.
No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all
times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated waste
containers and in a sanitary manner.
H. Lighting. Any outdoor lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
I. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator.
As the Commission can see, Staff slightly modified the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of
the same standards associated with Vet Clinics from our own Code. The Planning Commission should
page 229
review, discuss and determine if these standards are appropriate, amendable and acceptable for this Zoning
Code Amendment request; determine the appropriate zoning district for such uses; and discern if the use
should be listed as a either a Permitted Use or Conditional Use.
Please note if the city wanted to make one or both of these activities a straight-on permitted use, there is
nothing that would prohibit the addition of standards below the use, similar to those noted above.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of only amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2
(Definitions) and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in the one or more of
the commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or
2. Recommend approval of only adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific
standards, and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in one or more of the
commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or
3. Recommend approval of amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2
(Definitions) and adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific standards,
and allow such uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the commercial-business and/or
industrial district(s); or
4. Recommend denial of the Applicant’s request to amend the City Zoning Code with “Dog Training”
or any similar/related uses, with certain findings; or
5. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggest the Commission discuss and determine if this type of use, either the “Animal Kennel” or
“Animal/Dog Training Facility” (or both) would fit better in the industrial, commercial or both zoning
districts.
In examining other communities, it appears the industrial zones are where kennels or dog training facilities
are primarily located. To be consistent with other metro cities ordinances, staff suggests the Planning
Commission consider allowing “Animal Kennel”- [amended] and/or “Animal Training Facility” - [new]
uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone only.
The Commission should also discuss on whether or not one or both of these uses should be allowed in the
commercial B-2 Neighborhood Business and/or B-3 General Business districts as well.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Planning application, including supporting materials
2. Exhibit – A List of Animal Kennel/Animal Training Businesses throughout Metro Area
3. Exhibit – B List of Metro Cities Definitions/Standards/Allowed Zones related to Animal Uses
page 230
Company Overview: For the Love of Dogs is based out of Hudson, WI and is doing business as
an LLC, owned by Kristin Elmquist since 2005. Kristin has 32 years of dog training and showing
experience. She is a mentor trainer for the Animal Behavioral Collage, a Canine Sports Message
Therapist (CSMT), a Certified K9 Nose Work Instructor (CNWI) a Canine Good Citizen Evaluator
and a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) and the International Association
of Animal Message & Bodywork (IAAMA). This company has a partnership with The Dog Tank,
LLC to provide dog dock diving in the Twin Cities area.
Target Market: Our core market is the family dog owner/ dog enthusiast looking for fun
activates to do with their dog in a positive training environment. Our programs specializes in
training for owners that are struggling with their dog training due to time constraints and other
outside commitments.
Services: For the Love of Dogs offers weekday and weekend classes in dog training and
weekend trials. At no time are dogs left at our facility. We do not provide boarding or day care
service.
Dog training discipline includes the following class roster.
• Manners class
• K9 Nose Work
• AKC Scent Work
• Agility
• AKC Tricks
• WAGS Dog Sports
• ABC Nose work games
• Rally Obedience
• Barn Hunt
• Tracking
• Dog Ball
• Dock Diving
Canine Sports massage is an ancillary offering, currently conducted at various locations in the
metro area. This service would be moved to the new location in Mendota Heights.
This location would allow us to host weekend trials that bring in competitors from around the
country. This in turn supports the other local business since they utilize gas stations, hotels and
restaurants.
page 231
We feel that a new building in Mendota Heights would give us a permanent access facility. This
location offers great access to the freeway and the twin cities airport and the industrial zoning
is perfect for a dog training business.
The Market: The ASPCA estimates that 48% of all households in the US have a dog and more
and more of these households treat their dogs like a family member. American pet spending
has continued to rise every single year since 1994 – even during the 2007-2009 recession –
reaching an estimated $69.36 billion in 2017.
Specifically, the pet services arena, dog training and pet care expenditures have been increasing
with double-digit year-over-year growth.
https://vimeo.com/orangetreeps/review/214716969/38f274fe6d
Competitive Advantages: There are several dog training schools in the Twin Cities Metro area,
with three competitive schools in the east metro offering some but not all of the same services.
Many of our instructors are certified in their area of specialty, which is not commonly found in
most dog training schools. We currently offer more, and different types, of K9 Nosework classes
than any other schools in the arena. For the Love of Dogs is the only school in the east and
south metro area to offer doggie boot camp, AKC tricks class, WAGS dog sports, Barn Hunt,
tracking, Dog ball and ABC Nose work games.
For the Love of Dogs has exclusive rights to hold NADD dock diving trials and K9 ABC games
within 100 miles’ radius.
page 232
page 233
page 234
page 235
page 236
LIST OF DOG/PET TRAINING or BOARDING BUSINESSES
LIST PROVIDED by APPLICANT LIST COMPILED by CITY STAFF
Think Pawsitive
2485 S Commerce Dr
New Berlin, WI 53151
SwimDog Wellness Center
5530 Neubert Rd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
The Paw
1741 Premier Dr
Mankato, MN 56001
Twin Cities Obedience Training Club
2101 Broadway St. NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
St Paul Dog Training
219 13th Avenue South
South St. Paul, Minnesota, 55075
On The Run Dog Training
13835 Aberdeen St NE
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Fusion Pet Retreat
14901 Minnetonka Industrial Rd
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Animal Inn Training
8633 34th St N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Canine Coach (multiple Locations)
6500 W Lake St
St Louis Park, MN 55426
and
1700 Marthaler Ln
West St Paul, MN 55118
Woof Dah! Inc.
12250 Portland Ave.
Burnsville, MN 55337
Tails Up Dog Training
680 Travelers Trail East
Burnsville, MN
American Boarding Kennels
1102 Highway 13 East
Burnsville, MN 55337
Four Paws Pet Resort
4020 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy.
Eagan, Dakota, Minnesota 55122
Wagging Tails Pet Resort
3275 Sun Drive
Eagan, MN 55121
Lucky Dog Pet Lodge
1067 American Boulevard East
Bloomington, MN 55420
Bloomington Obedience Training Club
8127 Pleasant Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Crystal Clear Canine Training
209 N Main Street
River Falls WI 54022
A New Leash Dog Training Ctr.
7393 Bush Lake Rd,
Edina, MN 55439
page 237
The following includes a list of metro-wide community definitions related to various levels or types of
animal care uses; and identifies certain zoning districts that allow said uses (either as permitted or
conditional use), along with some specific standards associated with said uses:
MANKATO
Def. Kennel. An establishment licensed to operate a facility housing dogs, cats or other
household pets and where grooming, breeding, boarding, training, or selling of animals is
conducted as a business or commercial use.
• B-1 Community Business and B-2 General Business – (Permitted Use)
MINNEAPOLIS
Use: Animal Boarding and Vet Clinics
• All Commercial Districts and I-2 Medium Industrial District – (Permitted Use)
HAM LAKE
Def. Public Dog Kennels: A “public dog kennel” means a kennel where dogs owned by others are
boarded for a fee.
• CD-2 Commercial Development 2 District –(Permitted Use)
• R-A Residential-Agriculture - (CUP)
Standard of Operation
a. Health and Safety Standards All public dog kennels must conform to the statutes and regulations
of any State or County agency having jurisdiction over such matters as fire control, cleanliness,
temperature control, waste disposal, diet and animal treatment. Waste shall not be permitted
to accumulate so as to create any odor detectable by adjoining property owners.
b. Noise Control all public dog kennels shall be housed in masonry buildings, constructed in such a
manner that animal noise cannot be heard from adjoining properties.
c. Lot Size and Setback No public dog kennel shall be permitted on any lot containing less than 10
acres. All buildings and runways comprising the public dog kennel shall be constructed at a
distance of at least 300 feet from adjoining property owners’ dwellings or occupied business
structures.
d. Outside Runways Outside runways must be completely screened by an attractive solid fence at
least six feet in height. The kennel operator shall not permit noise to be emitted from outside
runways which can be heard by adjoining property owners.
page 238
WEST ST. PAUL
Def. PET CARE FACILITY. Any premises where four or more domestic animals over four months of age
are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
• I-1 Light Industrial District – (CUP)
Def. DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of
domestic dogs.
• I-1 Light Industrial & I-2 General Industrial – (CUP)
Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met.
(1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property
line of residentially zoned property.
(2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
(3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a
fence that is at least four feet in height.
(4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste
material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
(6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
(7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
(9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area.
(10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time.
ST. LOUIS PARK
Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows:
a. No animals shall be kept outside the building, or be otherwise located, which cause
offensive odor discernible at the property line of the lot on which the activity is conducted.
b. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied
institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and
community centers.
• C-2 General Commercial - (CUP)
• I-G General Industrial (Permitted with Conditions – Not CUP)
page 239
Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows:
a. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an
occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions,
and community centers.
BURNSVILLE
Def. KENNEL, COMMERCIAL: Any place where six (6) or more dogs over four (4) months of age, or
more than ten (10) cats over four (4) months of age, or more than ten (10) ferrets over four (4) months of
age, or any combination thereof, not including offspring under seven (7) months of age, are commercially
kept, boarded, trained or offered for sale except when located in a pet shop or veterinary clinic/hospital.
A kennel may include secured outdoor runs and/or play areas.
Standards: Commercial kennels are subject to the following standards:
1. Related ancillary services including training, grooming and food and accessory sales
may be conducted or provided at the facility. When located in an industrial district,
these services are subject to section 10-23-2 of this code.
2. An enclosed exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising
of animals boarded at the facility. Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced to a
minimum height of four feet (4'), must have a three foot (3') vegetative buffer, must
be cleaned regularly, and animal waste shall not be allowed to enter a stormwater
pond or storm sewer.
3. In a multi-tenant building, the kennel facility must have a ventilation system that
prohibits the transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays. The
ventilation system must be capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of
1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space per area dedicated for the keeping of animals
exclusive of offices pursuant to chapter 1346 of the Minnesota state building code,
as may be amended, these requirements can be met by the submission of an air
exchange analysis, acceptable to the city from a Minnesota licensed contractor or
engineer confirming compliance with said standards, otherwise, the facility
ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant
space within the building. Facility air temperature must be maintained between
sixty degrees (60°) and eighty degrees Fahrenheit (80°F).
4. A sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the facility areas shall be provided to
adequately separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals.
5. Wall finish materials below forty eight inches (48") in height shall be impervious,
washable materials such as sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glass board, or marlite.
Floor finish shall be sealed concrete or other approved impervious surface. Liquid
tight curbing, at least six inches (6") high, shall be installed along shared walls for
sanitary confinement and water wash down cleaning.
6. Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned up with solid wastes being enclosed in
a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and organisms.
• B-3 General Business District - CUP
• B-4 Highway Commercial Dist. - (Permitted Use)
• I-1 Industrial Park District - CUP
page 240
EAGAN
Def. Kennel: means any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon a total
of four or more dogs or cats or combination, over six months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or
boarded.
Standards: Kennel premises and facilities. All licensed kennels must meet the following
requirements:
A. All animal housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair.
B. All animals must be housed in an indoor facility maintained at a temperature of not less than
50 degrees Fahrenheit. Animals may be provided temporary access to outdoor runs and
exercise areas when appropriate for the species, breed, and weather conditions.
C. All housing facilities must have at least eight hours of illumination, either natural or artificial,
sufficient to permit routine inspection and cleaning.
D. All housing facilities must be adequately ventilated. Drafts, odors, and moisture
condensation must be minimized. Auxiliary ventilation, such as exhaust fans, vents, and air
conditioning, must be used when the ambient temperature exceeds 85 degrees Fahrenheit
at the floor level.
E. Carcass and garbage disposal facilities must be provided and managed to minimize vermin
infestation, odors, and disease hazards.
F. Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided and managed to protect food supplies
against contamination and deterioration. Open bags of food must be stored in vermin-proof
containers.
G. The premises, housing facilities, exercise areas, and confinement areas must be cleaned and
disinfected as often as necessary to maintain a clean and sanitary condition. Animal
confinement areas must be cleaned at least once daily. Measures must be taken to protect
animals from being splattered with water or feces and from exposure to harmful chemicals
during cleaning. Bedding, if used, must be kept clean and dry. Outdoor runs and exercise
areas must be kept clean and soiled base material must be replaced as necessary.
H. Confinement areas must be of sufficient size to allow each dog or cat to turn about fully and to
stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable, normal position. The confinement area must be
constructed so as to prevent injury to the dog or cat. Interior surfaces of indoor confinement
areas must be constructed and maintained so that they are substantially impervious to
moisture, provide for rapid drainage, and may be readily cleaned.
• GB-General Business District – (CUP for Kennels)
• I-1 Limited Industrial Dist. – (CUP – Kennels with outside runs and subject to regulations
in chapter 6.
page 241
BLOOMINGTON
PET SERVICES FACILITY. A business establishment that provides any of the following services or retail
activity either individually or in combination, for pets and domestic animals as defined in § 12.91: sales,
animal sales, veterinary care, animal hospital, short-term daily care, training classes, boarding and
grooming.
• B-2 Gen Business, B-4 Neighborhood Commercial; C-2 Freeway Comm; and C-3 Freeway Comm
Center; I-3 General Industry CUP in the
HUDSON, WI
Animals, Commercial Training
Kennels, Commercial
• AR Ag-Residential Zone –(CUP)
• B-4 Central Business Zone – (CUP)
• PS Plan Study Zone – (CUP)
page 242
B) PLANNING CASE #2018-13
KRISTIN ELMQUIST (OWNER – FOR THE LOVE OF DOGS)
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – DOG TRAINING IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was being asked to consider a
request from Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs located in Hudson, WI, for an
amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 which would allow dog training or similar uses as a
permitted or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone.
A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or
objections have been received.
Mr. Benetti stated that since has been working for the city, he has received a number of calls from
various groups, individuals, and businesses wanting to provide a ‘doggie daycare’ service or
business. Almost 90% of them have been looking at the old Laser-Tech building on Lexington
Avenue. Ms. Elmquist also looked at this particular site; however, the deal fell through. She has
tentatively secured a tenant-lease space at 1415 Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Benetti also noted that he has spoken with his colleagues in other communities and attended a
planning seminar; he discovered that doggie daycare type facilities have become very popular with
many trying to incorporate them into their ordinances.
Ms. Elmquist provides for very professional, on-site dog training only, which would include
manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy services.
Also, the facility would contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition.
Mr. Benetti noted that the city code is somewhat silent on what could be allowed for animal care
or animals per se. There are currently two definitions in the city code: Animal Kennel and
Veterinary. Currently, the B-1 Limited Business District allows for a cat clinic as a Conditional
Use. The B-w Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow Animal Hospital
(Veterinary Clinic) as Conditional Use.
Even though the city identifies animal kennels under the Title 12 Zoning, there are no allowances
for them. Mr. Benetti researched this as far back as 1991 and discovered that it has always been
defined, but it was never listed as a permitted or conditional use under any part of the city’s updated
zoning ordinances.
The City of West St. Paul probably has one of the best description of what a dog training facility
is. Mr. Benetti spoke with their city planner and the use or activity over there is very successful
and it has generated zero complaints.
If the city were to accept this zoning ordinance, they could simply amend Animal Kennels
definition as, “A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal are owned,
boarded, bred, cared-for, trained, or offered for sale”. The intent would be that if anyone wanted
page 243
to have a doggie daycare use in the Industrial Zoning or a training facility, it could come under as
a dog kennel and this would cover it.
If the city decided to amend the definition to allow for training activities, then they would need to
decide or determine which zoning district it would be placed in and if it would be a permitted use
or a conditional use. He reminded the commission that by placing this stand-alone use inside a
district, there would be no standards affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended
otherwise.
Mr. Benetti took the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of the same standards
associated with Vet Clinics, and presented his suggestion for the Animal Kennel ordinance
language.
Staff recommended the Commission discuss Animal Kennels or Animal/Dog Training Facility; or
simply amend Animal Kennel or provide Animal Training Facility as a new use, and where that
use should be allowed.
Commissioner Noonan noted that if the city were to keep it as a conditional use it provide the city
with additional flexibility to be more responsive to specific applications. He would be inclined to
go with the conditional use.
Chair Field agreed that this should be a conditional use.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested that the Commission answer the three major questions:
1. Should the proposed use or activities be a conditional use or a permitted use?
2. Should the city limit use to the I-Industrial District or allow into one or more of the
Business Districts?
3. Should the city limit it to a dog training facility and just add one more narrow use in the
code? (If so- the city needs to take this opportunity to clean-up the current Code language,
follow Bloomington’s lead and change the name to “Pet Care or Pet Service Facility” - as
opposed to a kennel; and incorporate veterinary clinic and animal hospital under these
new defined uses).
Commissioner Magnuson also agreed that it should be a conditional use but she would be agreeable
to having it in the Industrial District or the Business District, or both.
Commissioner Noonan commented that having it in the Industrial District would allow for much
larger facilities than would be permitted in the Business Districts. Chair Field agreed.
Chair Field opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs based out of Hudson, WI, stated that she is
trying to open an additional facility in the Twin Cities Metro area to try and expand her business.
page 244
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she has no problem with what is being planned; however, this
gives the commission an opportunity to clean up their code a little bit. If this were to take a month
or more, would that have any negative effect upon their application or schedule?
Ms. Elmquist replied that it would kill the deal they have on a potential location. If she is not able
to move on the lease quickly, then the landlord will look elsewhere and they would have to
withdraw their application.
Commissioner Noonan reiterated the comments and ideas made by the commission; however, they
do not have an ordinance in front of them to consider. Ms. Elmquist understood but again,
explained her dilemma of needing to move quickly to obtain the space.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she is not ready to vote on this document at this time; it is not
ready. The commission would probably be looking at reviewing the ordinance at next month’s
meeting at the soonest.
Ms. Elmquist stated that the landlord would like to see them open their doors by September 1,
2018. Much after that then the landlord would pull the plug on the deal. She asked if the
review/adoption of the ordinance and her application for a conditional use permit could happen
simultaneously.
Commissioner Toth noted that tracking and hunting training typically requires overnight stays for
the dogs; however, Ms. Elmquist states that this particular facility would not be kenneling any
dogs. Ms. Elmquist responded that any type of overnight training would take place at the Hudson
facility and not at this facility. This facility would only be for classes where the owner would also
attend and when finished, they would all leave and go home with their owner.
Commissioner Noonan stated that if the city were to consider this amendment, then they would
want to provide broad definitions and not only tailor it to her specific request. He also agreed that
the commission was not in any position to pass an ordinance at this time because they do not have
an ordinance to act upon. The best they could do would be to make a strong recommendation to
staff, have them bring it back with the necessary homework having been done, and act upon it at
that time.
In response to Ms. Elmquist’s question about submitting her conditional use permit application at
the same time the ordinance was under consideration, Chair Field responded that her application
could be submitted but it would have to be contingent upon the ordinance being passed and her
application being in compliance with that ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that in order to
apply standards to a conditional use permit, he would need to have an ordinance to provide those
standards.
In the interest of brainstorming, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that the commission have
staff craft an ordinance for the July meeting that had a very specific list of permitted uses, and then
they could have the insularly uses as conditional. There would be no secondary process for the
applicants, but the commission could still have a number the varying uses that have been
deliberated under the CUP process.
page 245
Commissioner Magnuson asked, that since the commission only makes recommendations, if there
was any reason why the commission could not entertain a conditional use permit application at the
same meeting that they are entertaining an ordinance. In other words, hear and decide on the
ordinance and then hear and decide on the conditional use permit. One of the conditions of the
CUP would be that the ordinance be adopted by the City Council.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the risk of that suggestion would be that the ordinance may
change, making the CUP application void. However, if the applicant were willing help craft the
ordinance, the risk would be less.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he believed either of those options was a good idea, he was just
unsure which one to pursue.
Additional discussions took place regarding an outdoor fenced relief area, kenneling, owners being
present with their dogs at all times, length of time for the classes, and sanitation measures.
Chair Field brought all back to the task at hand, which was to consider an amendment to the City
Code and after listening to everything it appears that the Commission would be in favor. The issue
is on what basis and how and how fast can they make it in respect to Ms. Elmquist’s needs and
balance the city’s needs.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested a recommendation and guidance. It appeared that the
commission had settled on three of the big items; however, they do not know if the City Council
would agree to that. If the Commissioner were to put forth a recommendation saying this is what
they want the ordinance to look like, then they would not have to waste their time crafting an
ordinance that the city council would not ultimately agree with.
Commissioner Noonan, in an attempt to clarify, said the Commission would:
1) Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed];
2) Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require
a conditional use permit; and
3) Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only.
The Commission requested feedback and direction from the City Council.
Chair Field left the public hearing open.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
MAKE THE ABOVE MENTIONED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
page 246
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
Community Development Director provided the following updates:
Planning Case 2018-11, Wetlands Permit to Sherburne Construction & Hugh Cullen for property
located 1179 Centre Point Circle as passed as Resolution 2018-38.
No decision has been received on the Michael Development case.
The At Home Apartments hosted a tour of their facility with the City Council and other staff
members, along with former Mayor Krebsbach and former Councilmember Norton, which
everyone enjoyed and were impressed with the facility. It is a very nice, well designed project.
There are two items already planned for next month’s Planning Commission meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
page 247