Loading...
2019-03-05 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 5, 2019 – 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 February 19, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgment of the January 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Accept Notice of Retirement from Cliff Kirchner and Authorize Filling of Public Works Maintenance Worker position d. Approve Solar Garden Subscription e. Approval of January 2019 Treasurer’s Report f. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Rogers Lake Water Quality Report by Saint Thomas Academy 8. Public Hearing - none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2019-18 Denying a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for property located at 1840 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2019-03) b. Resolution 2019-19 Approving a Lot Split and Lot Combination for property located at 963 Chippewa Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-04) c. Resolution 2019-17 Approving a Variance to Building Height Standards in the R-1 District for Friendly Hills Middle School (ISD #197) – property located at 701 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2019-02) d. Award of Contracts to Construct Fire Station Project 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 19, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Duggan was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda with the exception of item 7a) Representative Ruth Richardson Comments, which was removed. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item i.) Approval of Resolutions 2019-15 & 2019-16 Sponsoring an Outdoor Recreation Grant for Wentworth and Hagstrom- King Parks. a. Approval of February 5, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of January 15, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes - Park and Rec c. Approval of February 5, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes - Planning d. Acknowledgement of January 8, 2019 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes e. Approval of Community Service Officer Hire f. Approval of IT Server Storage and Backup Infrastructure Redesign g. Approval of Fire Department Training Assistant Appointment h. Acknowledgement of January 2019 Fire Synopsis i. Approval of Resolutions 2019-15 & 2019-16 Sponsoring an Outdoor Recreation Grant for Wentworth and Hagstrom-King Parks page 3 j. Approval of Professional Services Change Order of the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Street Improvements k. Approve Ideal Energy Solar Panel Additions to Fire Station and Public Works Buildings l. Acknowledgement of January 2019 Building Activity Report m. Approval of December 2018 Treasurer's Report n. Approval of Claims List Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS 2019-15 & 2019-16 SPONSORING AN OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT FOR WENTWORTH AND HAGSTROM-KING PARKS Councilor Miller asked if this was the first time the city had applied for the Outdoor Recreation Grant. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that, to his knowledge, this was the first time the city has applied for this grant program. Councilor Miller asked for confirmation that this is not a new grant program, which Mr. Ruzek confirmed. It was first implemented in 2012, which was successful, and the legislatures voted to maintain it and keep it going. Councilor Miller asked if there were stipulations regarding when the city could apply again for this grant. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city should be able to apply for this grant again. Each individual park would require its own application. This request is for two parks, requiring two separate resolutions and applications. Councilor Miller noted that the reason he pulled this from the Consent Agenda was due to the eligible projects listing including sports’ fields and courts. He was thinking about the shortage of court and field space and the possibility of using this grant application to help solve that issue. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city would first have to include a project in their Capital Improvement Plan and then the city would have to provide at least a 50% match on the grant; up to the $250,000 limit. The city could plan for a $500,000 project, and assuming they would obtain the grant, the city would be reimbursed $250,000. Councilor Paper, noting that eligible projects included park roads and parking areas, which may not exceed 40% of the total project cost, asked is that caveat was only for that item. Mr. Ruzek replied that is only on that item. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-15 SPONSORING AN OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT FOR WENTWORTH PARK, and adopt RESOLUTION 2019-16 SPONSORING AN OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT FOR HAGSTROM-KING PARK. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) page 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one wished to be heard. PRESENTATIONS A) REPRESENTATIVE RUTH RICHARDSON COMMENTS This presentation was removed from the agenda. B) SOLAR GARDEN SUBSCRIPTION PRESENTATION City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded the Council that they had just approved, in the Consent Agenda, the placement of two additional 20 Kw solar array units, one on the Public Works building and the other on the expanded Fire Station. Before the Council at this time is consideration for the city to become a subscriber to a community solar garden. He introduced Mr. Eric Jensen, Business Development Manager at ReneSola Ltd., to talk about the solar garden concept and what is being proposed. Mr. Jensen explained that ReneSola is a community solar developer; they do not do on-site projects, like Ideal Energies. They work nationwide and globally at the utility scale. In Minnesota, they work within Xcel’s Community Solar Program, which was created approximately five years ago. They created a program that would allow developers to go out and find sunny sights, in ideal spots near Xcel’s transmission grid, and build solar gardens. However, they had to work with the customers to make the gardens possible. So it is not a solar installation that they get paid for directly; the subscribers would then get the credit and they would get reimbursed as a pay-as-you-go sort of structure. Program Basic Rules: • Program was mandated by legislation 216B.1641, in September 2013 • Bill Credit amount changes annually, according to the Applicable Retail Rate (ARR) • Community Solar Garden (CSG) and subscribers must be in Xcel territory • Subscriber must be in the same or adjacent county as the CSG • No subscriber can have more than 40% of a single CSG • Allowed to subscribe up to 120% of 12 months average annual usage • CSG agreements with Xcel are for 25 years • No upfront costs to subscribers • No system maintenance costs for subscribers About ReneSola • A global company, US division based on the east coast; they have worked in countries around the world and have mega-watts of projects • This is their 3rd round of community solar gardens in Minnesota; have a new round coming up later this summer • Xcel has changed the rules so what Mendota Heights would get is a legacy project; higher savings, subscriber credit page 5 How Community Solar Works • Monthly Xcel Energy Bill Credit – based on actual production (KWh) of solar garden for that month • Monthly Invoice/Payment to solar garden – will match (KWh) production on Xcel Bill, but rate per KWh is less than credit • Savings – savings is captured by the Xcel ARR Credit (2019 rate $0.12405/Kwh for general service meters and $0.14509/KWh for small general) is greater than solar garden payment in Year 1 ($0.1128/KWh) Three-part Recipe • ReneSola & Partners – find the site, work with landowners, interconnect with Xcel, handle the project, make it come to life • Xcel – key partner; taking energy from solar gardens and putting into their grid • Subscribers – crux of the community solar program; the garden produces energy, the portion of a subscribers garden will be printed on their Xcel bill (no payment goes directly to ReneSola); in turn, as the subscriber is getting the credit, ReneSola covers the upfront costs and creates a pay- as-you-go structure; that is when they would get an invoice as a subscription; match it up in such a way that the credit is more than the subscription (saving money) Two options*: • Flat Rate Option: 25-year subscription at 12.4 cents and never changing – estimated savings over 25 years of $1,014,747.90. • Escalator Option: 11.28 cents the first year with an increase of 1% every year – estimated savings over 25 years of $953,515.46. *based on conservative reasonable estimation of Xcel rates increasing by 2.6% per year Rice County Garden Locations: • Northfield Site: 7281 – 115th Street E, Northfield, MN • Walcott Site: 24230 Albers Ave., Faribault, MN • Warsaw Site: 24950 Farwell Ave., Morristown, MN Project Status: • Xcel applications approved • Interconnection agreements in place • Site control, leases in place • Local permits in place • Construction Start Q1 2019 • Energization Q3 2019 Councilor Miller noted that Mr. Jensen had stated that the average energy consumption in Mendota Heights was calculated at roughly 700,000 Kw per year; shortly afterwards, he mentioned the subscription size of approximately 840,000 Kw per year. He questioned the difference. Mr. Jensen replied that the subscription size incorporating the existing solar, and then using the 120% rule. The current usage is approximately 700,000 Kw plus 20% on top of that equates to the 840,000 Kw subscription size. page 6 Councilor Petschel, noting that Xcel Energy is asking for funds from the legislature to continue their nuclear operations and they are trying to make a commitment to get to 10% solar, asked if Mr. Jensen sees the other trends being wind and natural gas. Mr. Jensen replied in the affirmative. She asked how that could affect Xcel’s future fees. Mr. Jensen referenced an article about Xcel’s carbon-free commitment; their goal is to go into 2050 carbon-free, which includes nuclear. Their wind power has exceeded the 30% target, and they have always mentioned natural gas being part of their off-setting plans for coal but they do not have coal to off-set any more. He would guess that they cannot have carbon-free with natural gas; so at some point that would have to scale out. He continued by saying that ReneSola, rather than a smooth 2.6% annual increase, took the historic data of the last 15-20 years and charted it out. It shows Xcel’s rates jumping a bit and then flattening slightly, and then jumping again. This is good for planning purposes and long-term estimates. Due to technology changes she sees coming in the future, Councilor Petschel stated she would be more comfortable with the flat-rate option rather than the escalator option. Mayor Garlock asked for confirmation that most city subscribers have chosen the flat-rate option. Mr. Jensen confirmed, indicating that Minneapolis, Rosemount, school districts, the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil), have all gone with the flat-rate option. Decision-makers who have opted for the escalator method tend to be businesses because they can make money on the funds they save earlier on. Cities want stability. Mr. McNeill noted for the Council’s consideration, that the solar panels onsite are really back loaded in terms of benefits financially to the city. There are some modest savings through the first 11 – 13 years, until those arrays are paid off; then the city would see the big savings. Going with ReneSola, the city would see savings of $12,000 in the first year versus $3,000. Over time, the flat rate would generate approximately 6% more but that is over 25 years. Councilor Paper asked for confirmation that ReneSola carries all of the paperwork on this. Mr. Jensen replied that ReneSola has three key partners – ReneSola, the developer; a financier who can take tax equity and depreciation and capitalize that; and a long-term operator that does nationwide renewable project management for long-term commitments who would provide daily monitoring. Together, they make the garden possible within Xcel’s program. Councilor Paper asked what would happen if there was a catastrophe in the garden that the city would subscribe to. Mr. Jensen replied that this is covered under the Force Majeure clause. If a tornado were to hit the solar garden and it goes out for three months, ReneSola works to get everything back up and running. Everything is insured, and meets Xcel’s re-establishment requirement timelines, etc. The city’s subscription portion of the garden does not produce energy while it is being repaired, so the city does not receive a credit on its Xcel bill and receives no subscription invoice. Councilor Paper asked what the expected useful life of a solar garden is. Mr. Jensen replied that these are 25 year power plants. They are cautiously optimistic that once they come close to being 25 years old, the solar panels themselves could probably run for approximately 40 years. It is possible that Xcel could allow the interaction to be extended. However, ReneSola would have the money set aside from the start to return the land to the state it was at the start; and they can recycle the panels and start with whatever Xcel has at that point for a community solar program. page 7 Councilor Paper asked how many kilowatts they anticipate this farm to generate. Mr. Jensen replied that Mendota Heights would be 4% of the total production; definitely not a small subscriber. Councilor Paper asked for confirmation that the projection is that the city would save approximately $1M with no up front costs from their own pocket. Consensus of the Council was to go with the flat rate option. Mr. McNeill informed the Council that staff would work with ReneSola and bring the contract back for consideration at the March 5, 2019 City Council meeting. Councilor Paper noted that the city would be saving approximately $1M with this subscription and also saving money on the solar panels already on their own buildings; he asked how much the city would be saving on the existing solar panels. Mr. McNeill replied that they would save approximately an additional $1M. This makes financial and environmental sense. Councilor Petschel stated that her preference would be that Mendota Heights become part of the Northfield site since it is located just down the highway. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) AUTHORIZE CONTRACT WITH TREE TRUST FOR RESIDENT TREE SALE Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter explained that there has been interest expressed in having a tree sale that would be offered to residents by the city. Some research has been done on options available and it was discovered that Tree Trust offers a good program. She introduced Ms. Karen Zumach, Director of Community Forestry with Tree Trust, to provide information about their program. Ms. Zumach explained that Tree Trust is a non-profit organization that has been working in the Twin Cities to restore the urban tree canopy since 1976. They worked to replant trees after the Dutch Elm disease came through in the 1970’s. They have been facilitating tree sales for cities since 2006 and have distributed nearly 20,000 trees to residents for planting on private property. Trees are important in communities, however, they do cost money to maintain. Increasing the canopy on private properties is one of the lowest cost ways to increase the canopy within the community. Tree Trust offers a variety of native and shade-tolerant trees, and can also provide fruit trees for communities if they are interested. They offer a website and a platform that facilitates payment by residents through PayPal. They have youth and young adults that can help with tree distribution. They can create news releases, contact the newspapers, and do a social media push. The trees that they offer tend to be anywhere from 6- feet to 8-feet tall and are in a container equivalent to a 5-gallon bucket. They would generally retail anywhere from $125 to $150; they are able to offer those trees at a subsidized cost. page 8 If this were to be done in Mendota Heights, they would be looking at an early promotion starting in the next month with news releases and social media posts. They would have the ordering platform set up around mid-March and the trees would be available for pick-up by residents in the month of May. Councilor Miller asked for specifics on what trees would be available. Ms. Zumach replied that she orders the majority of the trees through Bachmann’s; they can provide anything from Oaks to disease resistant Elms, but no Ash Trees. They do try to focus on shade trees so they are getting more bang for their buck in creating that canopy cover. They leave the decision of deciduous or other types of trees up to the cities; but they do encourage diversity. Councilor Paper asked if there was a limit per resident. Ms. Zumach replied that the limitation would be set by the city. Ms. Spreiter noted that the contract proposes 50 trees with an option to increase that number if sales are relatively good and they run out of trees available. Councilor Paper then asked where the trees would be delivered to. Ms. Zumach indicated that would be determined by the city. Councilor Petschel moved to authorize staff to enter into a contract with Tree Trust for the amount of $4,929.16, with the cost coming from the Parks Department Invasive Species Management budget. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Councilor Miller asked what this means for the city’s current projects regarding invasive species management. Ms. Spreiter replied that this is a way to accomplish that goal and compensate for the canopy loss by replanting. Other projects that are ongoing have already been funded. Councilor Miller stated that if they have a high level of success, it would be nice to dedicate monies for this on a yearly basis. B) REVIEW THE WENTWORTH WARMING HOUSE PRELIMINARY DESIGN Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared the Wentworth warming house layout with the Council. He explained that the city awarded a contract to CNH Architects in September 2018 and staff received the first layouts. The Parks and Recreation Commission made comments and suggestions, which included moving the restrooms to the parking lot side of the building, and asked for clarification as to what type of programming would be provided in the summer months in the space. Once that is clarified, they would then be able to more adequately comment on the size of the space. The proposed layout did not include any cost estimates; however, the project was proposed to be funded through the Special Parks Fund and was estimated to cost approximately $150,000. Councilor Petschel asked what the roof materials would be. Mr. Ruzek was unable to provide that information; but assumed it would be a standard asphalt shingle roof. However, they could look at other options. page 9 Councilor Miller liked the idea of moving the restrooms to the parking lot side of the building. He also liked the idea of having access to at least one of the restrooms on the inside. Councilor Paper asked what the current size of the new warming house would be, which Mr. Ruzek was unable to provide; however, the old warming house was smaller than the standards – approximately 10’ by 18’. The size of the two warming houses just built was unknown; but Mr. Ruzek guessed 16’ by 24’. This new one would not be smaller than the standard. Councilor Paper believed that the skylights in the roof were a great addition, bringing the natural light into the building. Councilor Petschel expressed her concern that the estimate for the cost of this was not included. She wanted to ensure that the building, the landscaping, and the utility costs does not exceed $150,000. Mr. Ruzek noted that this project has been included in the grant application discussed earlier in the evening. C) ESTABLISH COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING DATE City Administrator Mark McNeill expressed the need to do some follow-up on the 2019-2020 City Goals and Objectives and to review the Village lots RFP. He suggested the Council hold a work session on February 26, 2019, starting at 12:30 p.m. This date and time was confirmed by the Councilor’s present. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the bid opening for the Fire Station building has been delayed 24 hours due to a pending snow storm; it will instead be on Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. He also said that registrations for the Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K to be held on June 1, 2019 will open on March 4, 2019. Nominations for the Jerry Murphy Community Award are due on March 15, 2019. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock announced a snow emergency will be declared; schools are being cancelled already for the following day. He reminded residents to remove their parked cars from the streets so the streets can be cleared of snow. Councilor Miller extended congratulations to Firefighter Jay Taylor for winning the 2018 Firefighter of the Year Award. He also congratulated Mr. Dan Johnson who was just awarded the Assistant Training Officer position. Councilor Petschel reminded residents to shovel out the fire hydrants in their neighborhood. page 10 Councilor Paper expressed his appreciation to Public Works for their outstanding work these last few weeks with getting the roads, pedestrian ways, and the ice rinks cleared of snow. He has heard positive comments from many residents. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda Chair Field suggested that the agenda be revised by handing the Zoning Code Amendment first and then the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update last. The agenda was approved as revised. Approval of December 20, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01 METRO STORAGE LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission of the discussion that took place at their November 27, 2018 meeting regarding a national self-storage facility’s request to put in a new generation self-storage facility in the community. As the staff report indicated, the city currently has no allowances for self-storage facilities in either the commercial or industrial zones. The industrial zone calls it out as a specifically prohibited use for personal self-storage. Mr. Benetti shared the excerpt of the minutes regarding this topic from the November 27, 2018 meeting. Based on the comments made at the meeting, Metro Storage LLC has decided to pursue the seeking an amendment to City Code 12-1G-1, which would allow ‘personal self-storage facility’ uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district. They are looking to place a new 80,000 square foot, indoor only, self-storage facility in the community. page 12 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 18 Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Mr. Benetti shared excepts from industrial study titled “Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016”, which included a reduced list of trends and a partial list of recommendations. There are a number of surrounding communicates that do allow storage facilities as a permitted or conditional use: Eagan, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Burnsville, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Cottage Grove, St. Louis Park, Apple Valley, and Woodbury. Of these communities, Cottage Grove subject these uses to 12 additional conditions. These communities allow these types of uses in the commercial / business districts only, industrial districts only, or a combination of both business/industrial zones. Based on the Commissions expressed willingness to consider or support this use only in the I- Industrial district, with conditions, staff prepared a draft ordinance for consideration. This item was presented under a public hearing process and a notice of this hearing was published in the local Pioneer Press newspaper. Commissioner Magnuson asked, in his review of the surrounding area ordinances, if Mr. Benetti found any that limited the size of the facility. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Referencing the list of Cottage Grove conditions, she noticed that some of these conditions were not included in staff draft ordinance and asked why that was. Mr. Benetti replied that as far as the hours of operation, Mendota Heights does not limit hours currently but it could be added as part of a Conditional Use process if the Commission wishes. Most of the facilities do not typically have hours because of the limited use and people come and go as they choose; they use security cards or security keys to gain access whenever they need to. As far as screening goes, he was fearful that by putting up some kind of screening measures someone might take advantage of that and start storing items outside of their units, which is something the city is trying to avoid. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if staff found any other cities that explicitly prohibited self- storage facilities. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative and noted that Mendota Heights is one of the few that specifically prohibited self-storage uses. Commissioner Corbett noted that it seemed lacking to him that there is no information on why that decision was made in the past – to prohibit self-storage facilities. He then asked if there has been an attempt made to look back – or could an attempt be made. It seems to him that it would be prudent to look and see why the city explicitly said no. Mr. Benetti replied that he was also curious; however, a search of the city’s system was done without any results. Commissioner Noonan stated that the tape would provide a better record than just seeing the minutes. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unsure if they added to the list of prohibited uses or if it was a comprehensive list at one time. Staff may be able to go back and search something and do a much more diligent search. Chair Field opened the public hearing. page 13 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 18 Mr. John Riley of Condor Corporation, owners of Lexington Heights Apartments in Mendota Heights, noted that his family has done several real estate development projects in the area over last 40 years. He then introduced several others from his team: Steve Neilson, Dave Garland, and Bob Heilman of Metro Storage. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake Forest, IL provided a brief history of Metro Storage LLC and their proposal. Metro Storage LLC is a privately owned company with 142 storage facilities in 14 states, the third largest privately held storage company. They also have footprints in Latin America and Brazil. History  Privately owned company with 142 facilities in 14 states  Third largest privately held storage company  Has footprints in Latin America and Brazil Typical Metro Storage Facility  107,400 gross square foot building with 80,000 square feet of rentable space  Exterior would be precast or modular block concrete, metal panel, and anodized aluminum storefront and glazing  On-site leasing office where client would sign their lease, get the keys, and then proceed to the loading area  Typical weekdays hours are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., staff hours from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays would have even more curtailed hours  Music provided through the facility; light and bright facility with lots of natural light  Safety is important; there are security systems that monitor all public areas, both on-site and over the web  Customers would have a proprietary pin number to access the facility  Communication devices available throughout the facility for assistance  Typically have two interior truck bays that can hold a large box truck; Blaine and Burnsville both have drive-through truck bays  Exterior illumination – fully shielded LED, which go off when the facility closes at 10:00 p.m. – unless the municipality requests exterior lights to remain on for police patrols  Asphalt or concrete paving Industry  Approximately 50,000 self-storage facilities in the United States  10% owned by REITS; vast majority are privately operated o REITS: real estate investment trusts; companies that own or finance income- producing real estate in a range of property sectors  Nearly one in ten households use self-storage o Four major user groups: Residential, Commercial, Student, and Military  Drivers o Life changes (selling a home, moving long distances, parents, divorce, etc.)  Most self-storage facilities are over 90% occupied o Metro Storage has seven facilities in the metro-area; all are over 90% occupied page 14 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 18 Proposed Facility  Northland Drive and State Route 55  Natural shielding from the roadway due to the 8-foot berm already there and trees along a second side  Access off of Northland Drive via a private drive Chair Field reminded Mr. Heilman that the Commission has not been tasked with reviewing any site plans, but instead are reviewing the request for an ordinance amendment. He did not wish to give any sense of comfort that they are approving any of the site plans. Mr. Heilman stated that he was trying to give the Commission a sense of what the generation of development is these days. The current generation – generation #5 – is of this type of a storage facility. Typically a multi- story, fully conditioned store. Back some 20-30 years, the type of development was a one-story, ambient, non-conditioned facility with garage doors. That is not what these facilities are like these days; majority of them are the three story, drive-through, and no doors on the side that face the street. Both Blaine and Burnsville have conditions added to their uses that garage-type doors would not be facing the main arteries. The access door to the facility is a store-front type door that matches the rest of the façade; an aluminum and glass door that allows the client to drive into the facility and it opens/shuts right away. Mr. Heilman shared photographic images of the different types of facilities they develop. He also shared an example of a city that created an overlay district to allow commercial-type facilities – including storage facilities – in their industrial zone. In regards to size limitations, typically he has seen the only limitations being due to zoning codes related to the piece of property. Screening is typically done by landscaping buffering or berms. For some reason fences or walls are big in Florida so that is provided there. They may do attractive 8- foot high cedar fences in other areas. It depends on what the community desires. Commissioner Noonan noted even though they are not going to be speaking about a site there was a reference to a proposed square footage of 109,000 square feet. He then asked how many employees would be working there. Mr. Heilman replied that typically they have a property manager, a storage consultant, and a maintenance technician. They would rotate through a few different stores during the week. At any one point in time, they would average 1.5 employees during the week. From 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. there will always be at least one employee on-site; unless they are at lunch or going to the bank to make a deposit. Commissioner Magnuson asked if they do any screening of the customers in terms of what they are planning to store. Mr. Heilman replied that they have a very strict lease; no hazardous materials, no flammables, no ammunition, no propane tanks; basically nothing that could become a problem. She then asked if there had been any issues. Mr. Heilman replied that there has not been any issues with anything inappropriate. In his five years with the company there have been carelessness. They do not allow smoking on their properties; however, it is hard to control someone if they decide to light up and drop a cigarette. No major issues have been identified; they are very careful and the property managers are very well trained in that aspect. The manager does a walk-through of the facility twice per day – looking, listening, and seeing if they can smell anything out of the ordinary. page 15 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 18 Commissioner Toth asked why they chose Mendota Heights. Mr. Heilman replied that basically in their foot print in Minneapolis there is a large hole of storage on this side of the river; they feel that there is a market base in the area that is under served. Commissioner Toth then asked if the market base was for this type of facility or a general storage facility; the closest facility that has storage is approximately 3.5 miles from Mendota Heights. Mr. Heilman replied that they look at a 3-mile radius; their base marketing. Commissioner Toth asked about capacity. Mr. Heilman replied that there are two types of capacity; economic occupancy and physical occupancy. Currently, they are over 92% in all seven facilities in the metro area. This marketplace, right now, is at 90% or above. This particular market is so under served that even with the inclusion of this proposed site, the market would still be under served. Rather than closing the public hearing, COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TO TABLE ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FURTHER RESEARCH TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND FOR INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT THEIR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS WHY PROHIBITION WAS SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE; AND TO EXERCISE THE 60-DAY EXTENSION COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION Discussion When asked, Mr. Riley answered that the tabling of the Ordinance and adding the 60-day extension would be agreeable to the parties. Commissioner Magnuson suggested that if the Commission had any issues with the proposed language, in the interest of time and to not wordsmith during the meeting, they bring those issues to staff prior to the meeting. At that time, staff could re-draft the proposed Ordinance and bring it back to the next meeting. Staff agreed and it was clarified that these edits would not provide any indication of approval of the draft ordinance. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Chair Litton Field invited Planning Consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec to give his presentation. Planning Consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec opened by explaining that the update of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been a process of many months; there have been discussions with the community and with the Commission; public hearings; and the initial draft plan itself was prepared by Stantec. It was then discussed in Planning Commission meetings and page 16 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 18 amongst staff. At some point it was reformatted, reorganized, and some additional chapters created or revised to include Natural Resources and Resilience; which took on a life of its own with the citizen communities that helped significantly in putting that together. There have been a number of workshops and public hearings where the Commission provided comments; Stantec has tried to put all of those, or a sense of all of those, into the draft. Mr. Carlson extended his, and Stantec’s desire to provide a Comprehensive Plan that the Commission and the city deserves, that the Commission thinks represents the community, and that they want to forward to the City Council for action and adoption. This latest round incorporated a significant re-write of the Resilience chapter; there has been work on the Natural Resources chapter; updates to some of the maps in the Land Use chapter; however, they may be others. Commissioner Noonan expressed his preference in hearing of any comments or questions from the public and then address those as necessary. The Commission echoed those sentiments. Chair Field noted that the public hearing was still open and invited the public to comment or ask questions. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, expressed some generalities about the planning process and her concerns about where the city is going from here. She stated that the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan take precedence over zoning. What is in the plan must not go beyond general aspirations, and not details or changes in those details. Details for those aspirations or goals can be elaborated in zoning regulations, a management plan, or other documents approved by the Council. For this reason, no changes in land use should be made through the Comprehensive Plan, either in language or on maps, until such future time as an acceptable development proposal is made that warrants such a change. Another reason is that this method of individual land use and zoning changes allows for providing full information to the community and their input regarding the change at hearings for such individual change. What is being reviewed is a draft proposal and it is very difficult to track changes from the 2030 plan. Furthermore, the changes between each draft are unclear. She requested that each draft is read-lined to show current changes so that the reviewer does not have to keep comparing the entire document for changes. She identified numerous errors and inconsistencies in previous drafts. It is important to have the final version of this document be as accurate as possible, so there is no misunderstanding regarding the facts or meetings. She suggested that since this is a continued hearing regarding the plan and other changes may be made prior to submitting this to the City Council, that a vote on the draft be delayed until the next Planning Commission meeting. This would allow for the document to be considered in lieu of the comments at the hearing this evening, since this is a continued hearing, and before being forwarded to the City Council as a whole. page 17 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 18 She requested that before the next meeting a red-line version from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and subsequent changes from meetings and hearings, be provided to make it easier to review and to appropriately comment. Chair Field asked what particular land use changes she was referring to. Ms. Smith replied that she was referring to the various land use changes that have been part of the maps, changes from the existing Comprehensive Plan to different uses. As a follow up, Commissioner Noonan noted that one of those changes was probably the guidance of Augusta Shores; changed to medium density. That was reflecting what’s on the ground; he then asked if she would disagree with the re-guiding to reflect existing; as opposed to re-guiding a vacant site, which would have different development potential. Ms. Smith replied that she was less concerned about that [re-guiding to reflect existing] and she did not understand why that wasn’t changed initially. This is very difficult in the Twin Cities area, regarding the requirement that the Comprehensive Plan take precedence over zoning – because they have very little ability to plan ahead for proposed changes. On the other hand, if they make changes to the Comprehensive Plan, in today’s regulations, then there is really little opportunity to deny anything in the future, whether it is appropriate or not, in the proposed future of the city to amend that. It is very important that things are done sequentially. Do not change things from the way they are – and, if appropriate changes take place or are proposed and make sense within the city and have appropriate reasons and are consistent with the surrounding area, that is done at the time and not preempt those opportunities for the changes that are prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Smith continued by stating that frankly, in her experience, including these changes on maps is very important. Do not change designations on maps unless they are sure that they have something to go on. If something is changed in the Comprehensive Plan, there is little opportunity – they need to make sure they have the right proposal for this, and if they don’t then, if it is in the Comprehensive Plan, there is little opportunity to deny this. Chair Field asked Ms. Smith, since she had identified the category in a very broad form and then when given the example of Augusta Shores saying that was OK, he noted that they did some things with parks and open land as respects to golf courses – and he assumed she would say that was OK – asked that if the Commission decided to carry this forward maybe she could share with the Commission – assuming the public hearing remains open – her idea of what the changes are that should not be made. They have put in a lot of work to have a blanket indictment made, especially since there is some really good things here. Ms. Smith replied that she does not disagree with everything that has been proposed. Going forward with things in place, as they have been in the past, is not a problem. However, changing land use designations along Victoria, land use designations along Victoria and Highway 13, things that are really not in accordance with existing conditions. A Commissioner also noted that the proposed changes along Victoria and Highway 13 were removed and are not currently listed on the map. page 18 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 18 In an effort to move on, Chair Field requested that Ms. Smith return with examples of what she disagrees with and not generalizations. Commissioner Noonan also asked for examples of other items she disagreed with, other than land use. Ms. Smith replied that, to her, general aspirations included a number of things specified within the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. She is very much in favor of the Natural Resources program, and that many of the issues aspirations go beyond what should be in the Comprehensive Plan, and all are very important issues for the city. Beyond that there is a Tree Preservation Ordinance that could also be included. She believes that the aspirations for preserving the benefits of the community and the beauty of the community should be addressed more specifically in other areas; but should be addressed in general in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Noonan noted that this comment did not match up with what she initially said and asked again that if she were to return and have comments on changes in land use, she should be specific to point out where she suggested details in the Comprehensive Plan go too far. Ms. Smith noted that she intended her comments to be generalizations; however, she would be happy to provide specifics to the Commission via a memo. Chair Field replied that he would be delighted to receive her memo. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, expressed his appreciation for the Commission’s response to the concerns of the citizens with respect to changing some land use categories that were before them. He read in the plan today that the city would be limited to 15,000 square foot lots in the future. He did read all 187 pages of the Comprehensive Plan today. He did not read it critically, but he did go through it all. There are five lakes listed for the City of Mendota Heights; Rogers Lake was not among them, which is the largest body of water in the city. He wondered if it had been annexed by Lilydale or Mendota. He also noted, in the way of nits, that there is a section on Transportation dealing with the improved safety for pedestrian and vehicles as a consequence of the changes made on Dodd Road with the pedestrian island. He suggested that ought to be revisited in the view of the fact that in the last two weeks the signs on that island have twice been flattened. The way that intersection was configured before the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) got a hold of it worked perfectly well. He did go through and compare the land use of 2030 with the existing land use and with the proposed land use. The only way he could figure out what those changes were was by looking at and comparing the maps – not a very good idea. Unlike the customary process, there was no narrative or findings proposed by the Planning Commission with respect to each of those proposed land use amendments. Mr. Friel then itemized what he found because he was unsure if what he found was accurate:  The land between Lemay Lake and Augusta Lake was changed from Parks & Open Space to Medium Density Residential At this point, Commissioner Petschel interrupted and made a note to staff that he believed there to be a map that should be labeled Figure 2-6, which has all of the deltas – the last map in the Land page 19 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 18 Use section. He noted that it did not provide a narrative, but it is where one would go to find all of the deltas. Mr. Friel continued:  The parcel at Lexington and Highway 13 is proposed from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential o He reminded the Commission that this was proposed once before and it was voted down by the Council  Ivy Falls parcel from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Parcel at Wentworth and Dodd Road from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Parcel at Marie and Victoria from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Easterly Kensington parcel from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Westerly Kensington parcel from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Parcel at Dodd and Mendota Heights Road from Rural Residential to Medium Residential There is neither a written narrative nor findings to support a proposal to change any of these land use classifications. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Friel would like to keep the parcel of land south of Mendota Heights Road adjoining Delaware, as a Medium Density PUD. Mr. Friel replied that he was not proposing to keep it any use, he was just relating what he believed the map showed. Commissioner Petschel noted that there was plenty of public discussion as to simply reconciling what is on the land at these particular places, versus how they are currently guided. Mr. Friel explained that he is being misunderstood. In making his comments he had no intentions of dealing specifically with whether the changes should be made or not, his complaint is that there was no information to support the proposals that are in the maps. Therefore, he cannot tell why the changes are being done; what if there was a valid objection to its being done. In general, he would be opposed to changing park land to any other use; and he would be against changing low density residential to any other density residential, unless there were good and sufficient reasons. He concluded that perhaps, but for the Lexington and Highway 13 re-guiding proposal, all the re- guiding proposals are being instituted as the zoning code provides for it by the city through the action of the Planning Commission. He assumed that the Lexington and Highway 13 re-guiding proposal was in response to a second application by the property owner. Chair Field replied that nothing here is necessarily reflective of a specific application. Mr. Friel ended by stating that he objects to what he terms as ‘batch’ land use changes. It is inappropriate and it denies the people who live in each of those separate areas due process of law. The fact that the Commission has such a lack of attendance this evening, at this important public hearing, demonstrates the correctness of that statement. page 20 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 18 Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, expressed her appreciation to the Commission for allowing residents to speak and for all of the fabulous meetings held for quite some time. She mentioned that she also noticed in the Land Use Maps that there were some discrepancies:  The existing Land Use Map is incorrectly highlighting Highland Heights Development as High Density Residential when it is a Medium Density Residential  Eagle Ridge is incorrectly highlighted as High Density Residential, when only the apartments along the perimeter are High Density Residential; the rest are Medium Density Residential  The property that has the Dakota Communities for special needs adults – Victoria and close to Lexington – is highlighted also as High Density Residential and Dakota Communities an R-1 Residential and does not need to be listed as High Density Residential She too was trying to look back and forth and trying recall from the 2030 plan and noted that there were some discrepancies in what it was called before and what it is being changed to. Commissioner Petschel noted that the mistakes is one of the things the Commission is trying to correct. He then asked if she saw any issues with the proposed changes. She replied that she believed it to be correct in the final 2040 Planned Future Land Use for properties, the change from 2030 to 2040. Ms. Johnson then stated that she is one of the Master Gardeners that works collaboratively with the City of Mendota Heights and city staff, along with other Master Gardeners and Master Water Stewards, on Natural Resources and other projects. Other members of the community, along with the Master Gardeners and Master Water Stewards, were invited by staff several months ago to participate and collaborate in drafting the Natural Resources chapter, as is done by many cities. They appreciated that invitation and expressed thanks to Mr. Benetti and other staff members. As she reviewed the completed version of the Natural Resources chapter (Chapter 7) on the website, it is not the chapter that the Commissioners had stated they were to work from at the previous workshop – the version from Commissioner Mazzitello – which left the entire narrative in place prior to the goals and policies. She would like to see that portion returned. Since this is a completely outdated version, the Implementation chapter that is available on the website is also not correct. She has concerns as to how the priorities were vetted out – that was not something they had discussed in collaboration with city staff. It appeared to her that these did not coincide with the work they did in collaboration with the city. They were hoping to be able to take a look at Chapter 7 (Natural Resources) and say it was good to go; unfortunately, as the Comprehensive Plan is written now it is not anywhere near the correct version. She would proposed the corrected version be given to the community for review. Commissioner Noonan agreed with Ms. Johnson; in fact Commissioner Mazzitello and he said the exact same thing to staff. If there was a desire to push forward and discuss the Natural Resources page 21 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 18 section, the first recommendation he would have advanced was to delete all with respect with the goals and the policies, while not touching the narrative and to insert Commissioner Mazzitello’s work there and have that as the focus of the discussion. With respect to the implementation, she was 100% correct. If they are to have a meaningful discussion on implementation, then they need to make sure that the goals and policies are what was forming the basis for the implementation. Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, had a few specific comments:  Goal 2.4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community o 2.4.3 Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway use system  The word ‘equitable’ would be left up to so much interpretation and may not be to the good of Mendota Heights – she proposed a different word be used  Resiliency chapter o There are conflicting goals that need to be resolved (for instance, 8.1.4 Increase the tree canopy and 8.5.1 Protects the direct sunlight to rooftops and principal structures). She also thought there should be clarification on the intent so that, for instance, her neighbor cannot say that her tree is blocking his roof and so it has to go. o 8.5.2 Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems  Mendota Heights should carefully control the developers and should not put direction in the plan for developers Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, echoed the comments made by Ms. Johnson because she could not follow the bread crumbs from the last workshop to what was written by Commissioner Mazzitello to what was presented online. The Natural Resources narrative that was from the draft version of November 19, 2018 was the version that was not broken; it could be looked at as the introduction that goes back in. Also, she commented on the Critical Area – Chapter 9:  On the maps she was not really able to follow a lot of the gray dotted lines and black dotted lines o Something they might want to look at in a lot of these maps is the black solid line that defines city boundaries – it should be better defined what that line is  Chapter 9 also has a section titled Views Toward the River from Public Places o She believed that Picnic Island should to be included in that section – she had drafted some verbiage and provided the Commission a copy In light of the scope of revisions and discussion items from himself, Commissioner Noonan, and from the public, COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION page 22 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 18 MEETING, WHEN HOPEFULLY THE HEARING WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE DRAFT FINAL 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMISSIONER NOONAN SECONDED THE MOTION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Discussion Commissioner Mazzitello noted that Commissioner Noonan had an extensive list of comments and he himself had an extensive list of corrections in his plan. The initial thought was they would go through chapter by chapter and he and Commissioner Noonan would relay their observations and comments for Commission consideration. Commissioner Noonan stated that he knew that Commissioner Magnuson had some comments as well. Commissioner Magnuson agreed that she had a number of comments and suggested if there were policy comments or general comments, that they be discussed. If there were grammar, nits, wording, formatting – they be provided to staff for incorporation into the document. Commissioner Petschel asked if his assumption that Commissioner Mazzitello wanted to move onto Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 correct. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he would like to start with the Acknowledgements, before they even get to Chapter 1. Commissioner Petschel then asked if the questions and concerns regarding a lack of specificity or the opaqueness of the Land Use designation changes be a good place to start. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed this would be a good place to start. Commissioner Mazzitello made the following comments:  It would be appropriate in the Acknowledgements to recognize the volunteer resident input that went into the construction of this Plan as part of the list of individuals that contributed to its development as well; including, but not limited to: o Dakota County Master Gardeners o Volunteer Residents o Residents who testified at Public Hearings o Residents who reached out to Commissioners and Councilmembers with comments Some acknowledgement of that volunteer effort on part of the residents would be nice to see. There were no objections.  Referencing page 1-4, top paragraph, second to the last line, which read: Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City”, suggested that the word ‘progressive’ be removed. He did not necessarily object to the reason why that was included in the narrative; however, the word carries with it a political connotation that he did not believe has a place within the Plan. If agreed, the sentence would then read “Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional character of the City”. No objections were raised.  Chapter 2 Land Use: page layout format is inconsistent with the rest of the chapter. page 23 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 18 o Figure 2-2 Focus Areas: the properties on Victoria, just to the east of Lexington, are highlighted as a Focus Area – these are the large lots that contain the older structures and asked why they were included if they were specifically had those stricken from having Land Use changes. It was agreed to have that updated in the next version. It was noted here by some of the other Commissioners that the maps included in the Plan were inconsistently labeled; some were labeled as Figures, and some had no labels on them. Commissioner Magnuson noted that the color in the keys change for the designations from map to map. A color should be assigned to a designation and then carried through to each of the maps from the 2030 Plan and the 2040 Plan. Chair Field stated that his parcel, and his neighbors, in the section identified as Somerset Area on the Focus Areas map, particularly with the way they are isolated with Hidden Creek, believed that their land use does not qualify for redevelopment and the topography would take care it secondarily. He believed they should be removed from the Focus Area. Commissioner Noonan stated that in terms of transparency, these should be identified as areas they had discussions on and were focused on – they were talked about. The real operative piece is the 2040 Land Use Plan. Even though it is not as clear as it would like to be, it does provide the narrative that these are the areas the Commission looked at and ultimately, what was recommended is continued on the 2040 Plan and is summarized on the plan that follows the 2040. It should be left in as an item that was discussed, and then what was ultimately decided is what is on the 2040. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  In reference to page 2.4, he asked if verbiage was provided to Mr. Benetti from a workshop that was held with City Council in October. There should be a Goal 2.2.7 that says something to the effect of “Provide a mechanism to allow for maintenance to non- conforming properties to become less burdensome”. The rationale behind this is actually on page 2.6.  On page 2.5, as pointed out during the public testimony, Policy 2.4.3 advocating for an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic – he proposed that this policy be stricken from the Plan. The Commission agreed.  Page 2.6 Future Land Use Categories / Residential – there should be a statement at the end of the section something to the affect, and verbiage was provided to staff in October, ‘there exists in the city non-conforming properties developed smaller than lot size and with less frontage due to development prior to the establishment of the zoning code’ – this would drive the Goal 2.2.7 on the previous page. This would also address the whole LR-5, LR-9 issue. The intent for the proposal in the first place was to allow for work to take place on those properties without the burdensome of variances and other permits needed. Commissioner Noonan, commenting on Table 2-1, which lists the Existing Land Uses by Gross Acres and by Acres Net of Wetland, asked why the total of each column is equal. It was agreed page 24 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 18 that there should have been a subtotal row for each column, and then the total wetland added back into the Acres net of Wetland to come up with an equal total in each column. Staff agreed to correct this misconception. This same adjustment would be made to Table 2-2. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use – he assumed this map was to depict what is physically on the ground as land use. Staff concurred. He then indicated that he believed there to be a number of properties that are not correctly identified. For instance, Ivy Falls Townhome Development is identified as High Density Residential. He listed other examples as well.  2040 Planned Future Land Use map and 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with Planned Land use Changes from 2030 to 2040 – stated that everything that is changed within this Plan is very easily explainable, but one. He then asked what the Commission’s desire was for the property on Highway 13 and Lexington. Commissioner Petschel replied that it would be easily explained by simply saying yes or by changing the map – using a single narrative. However, there is not a consolidated list of the changes. It is probably redundant, but at least it would be less confusing. Commissioner Noonan clarified that the suggestion was to include a Summary Table explaining the property and the change or an index to the map.  Getting back to the Highway 13 and Lexington property, Commissioner Mazzitello reminded them that when the initial application came to the Planning Commission, the Commission recommended approval of the change in Land Use; however, the City Council denied the change in Land Use – the same City Council that is seated today. He then asked what the Commission’s desire to do with respect to designating that piece of property – given the public testimony and the Council’s previous action. After much discussion, the Commission decided to leave the designation as is. Commissioner Noonan, referencing Policy 3.2.2 that read “The City will seek county, regional, state or federal funding to expand transit services in and around the city” stated that he did not believe that the city seeks funding for transit services; he suggested that it say that the city would support the appropriate transit agencies in seeking funding of the county. That way the city is supportive but not leading the charge. Chair Field noted that this was agreed to during a workshop. Commissioner Noonan then referenced page 3-12 and noted that he commented at the workshop meeting and thought there had been an agreement made that instead of the language in the very last sentence under Delaware Avenue, which presupposes what would be built there, that similar language be put in that ‘if the interchange is no t built, long-term alternatives will need to be considered’. The Commission agreed to this edit. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  Pages 3-20 and 3-21: Airport-Related Goals and Policies #2 and Aircraft Noise Policy #3 – again used the term ‘equitable distribution’ and he suggested both be stricken. The Commission agreed. page 25 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 18 Commissioner Magnuson referred to page 3-22 and made some general comments to staff in that there were some things throughout the Plan that she believed were carried over from the 2030 Plan that could use some language updating and updated photos. She would hate for someone to think that they took the 2030 Plan and slapped on a 2040 Plan cover – especially after all of the hard work everyone has put in. Under Parks and Trails, Commissioner Noonan had one comment: there were numbers thrown out throughout this section – 771, 1,200, 598 – which he found very confusing. He requested that these be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent. Also, in regards to Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, he believed were reflected in the Mazzitello version of the Natural Resources section and do not need to be repeated here. He proposed that these two policies be deleted. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her disagreement in that if Goal 4.3, where these policies were listed, were considered as an environmental issue having these policies would create an environmental system. Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that this become one Policy, making reference to Chapter 7 and the Guidelines outlined therein. This was agreed upon. Commissioner Noonan then commented on Page 4-7, under Future Park needs and references the formula, he believed it was discussed at the workshop that it was not really necessary to reference the formula given the fact that the city provides parkland over and above it. Including the formula robs the city of some flexibility. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  Page 5-1, second paragraph, last two sentences – he suggested they be combined to read “Mendota Heights needs to provide housing options for current residents to stay in the city regardless of changes in family size, income, aging, or other issues, and be welcoming to everybody who wish to live in Mendota Heights”.  Page 6-4 under Economic Overview that makes reference to (see Appendix X), wanted to ensure that it is actually identified and attached to the Plan. o Commissioner Noonan also referenced Chapter 1 where it talks about Appendix material providing summaries of the feedback from open houses, which was not included in the copies provided and wanted to ensure they would also be included in the Plan.  Chapter 7 Natural Resources: since everyone has already received copies of Commissioner Noonan’s comments he suggested that, rather than editing Chapter 7 at this time, it be replaced with the entire narrative of the November 19, 2018 addition and the Goals and Policies as submitted by himself on December 5, 2018. This would then be a topic of discussion at the February 2019 meeting prior to acting on the Plan. He also noted that the formatting was incorrect.  Chapter 8 Resilience – again, the formatting is incorrect. Commissioner Noonan made a general comment on Page 8-2 in that it reference the Dakota County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Mendota Heights Emergency Operations Plan – as stated before, that it is incumbent upon the County and the City to communicate to the extent that it can, what are page 26 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 18 in the plans that should be actionable in case of an emergency taking place – something like “The city supports communication or education of the public as to what actions should be taken under these Plans, should an emergency situation take place”. Commissioner Mazzitello explained that that at the November 21, 2018 meeting he supplied five supplemental comments to this chapter he worked on with Mr. Carlson, and it was to add a Policy 8.3.5 that says “Review emergency communications procedures to ensure the public is adequately informed in the event of an emergency”. Commissioner Noonan suggested that an advance knowledge component or understanding be made available. In reference to Policy 8.2.3 – Conduct a Population Climate Vulnerability Assessment . . . Commissioner Noonan stated that he had no clue what that meant. He suggested that this be put in plainer language. He also referenced Ms. Christensen’s comments regarding Policy 8.1.4 and Policy 8.5.2 – the potential inconsistencies should be worked out. Commissioner Petschel also noted that every time they have reviewed this document they have voted to remove Policy 8.5.1 and yet it remains. Commissioner Magnuson asked if anyone else felt that the narrative on alternative transportation on page 8-8 appeared to be out of place. It is right after the topic of Gross and Rooftop Solar Resources and right before the 2040 Resilient Energy Generation and Consumption Goals and Policies. She suggested it be moved to right before Goal 8.6: Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independent goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or right after Goal 8.6. Commissioner Noonan referenced Policy 8.6.3 that talks about beginning the application process to the Minnesota Green Step Cities Program – again the Commission needs to understand what this program is so they know what is being asked. In reference to Policy 8.7.3 that reads “Consider housing options along transit corridors as a strategy for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels”, Commissioner Noonan asked what corridors were being referenced. He believed this to be misleading since there is no place to do this activity; it is meaningless to include it. The Commission agreed to delete this policy. Page 8-10, second paragraph that talks about ‘planning policies and reduce or reinforce structural barriers that prevent our food supply . . .’ is a general bold statement does not spell out what policies – it’s pretty light on the details. His final comment was on the paragraph on page 8-11 which talks about Access to Food Markets and suggests that reliance on the automobile can be problematic. The Plan should also recognize market realities; that had been intents to provide local food markets that have not been supported. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  There had been conversations regarding adding Policy 8.3.5 referencing Communications, Procedures, and Public Notifications. Mr. Benetti has the language on that.  Also, on Page 8-5 under Resilient Energy Generation and Consumption, in the second to last sentence that reads “Mendota Heights must set goals and policies that treat sustainable page 27 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 18 . . . “ – he suggested that the word ‘must’ be changed to ‘desires to’ so that it is not obligatory.  On Page 8-9 Policy 8.6.4, the word ‘Encouraging’ should be ‘Encourage’  On Page 8-11, Small Scale Food Production in Mendota Heights – he asked that a third bullet be added titled “Beekeeping” with the substantial language he sent to Mr. Benetti on December 21, 2018.  Policy 8.8.5 – should read “Support innovative practices such as mobile food markets and mobile food pantries/food shelves that can bring food closer to elderly and other under- resourced residents.” In reference to Chapter 9, Commissioner Noonan asked staff to consider Ms. Pilgrim’s comments with respect to the mapping as he could see the confusion. For instance, on page 9-4 there is a line that says ‘city and township boundaries’, yet what has been done is that there is a solid black line. There needs to be consistency. Mr. Benetti explained that these were stock maps provided by the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and he did not believe they could be revised. It was suggested that this feedback be provided to the Met Council as it would be in their best interest to be informed. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that it appeared to him that some of these maps seemed to be sourced and asked where they came from. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing Page 9-1, noticed that there was a sentence that stated that the Critical Area was designated by Governor’s Executive Order in 1976, then it talks about that on January 4, 2017 the Minnesota Rules, chapter 6106 replaced the Executive Order, and then in the next paragraph it says that in 2016 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources revised the rules and regulations, which were incorporated into this plan. The dates are inconsistent. The reality is that the Department of Natural Resources proposed the rules in 2016, which were then adopted in 2017 and incorporated into the plan. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that there are a lot of problems in Chapter 10 Implementation that need to be corrected before this Plan gets sent to the City Council. For example, the goals defined in the tables for the various chapters do not match the Goals and Policies that are in the chapter. Secondly, there are priority levels set that the Commission has not discussed. Commissioner Noonan made the following general housekeeping type comments and suggestions:  The footers need to be made consistent; in some cases it says Implementation and then a page number, and in other cases it is just a naked page number  The headers need to reflect the current version throughout  Ensure that all figures are labeled  The maps have a whole plethora of different dates on them, dating should be consistent Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in spite of all of the negativity heard this evening, the Commission believes that everyone did a remarkable job and she expressed the Commission’s page 28 January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 18 appreciation for all of the hard work they put in – and it is obvious that a lot of hard work went into this Plan. Staff and Commission Announcements This being Chair Field’s last meeting, Commissioner Noonan expressed appreciation for his leadership, direction, the calm voice, and calm demeanor that some needed. Chair Field will be missed and wished all the best in his next phase. Mr. Carlson stated that he has had the privilege in his work to see many, many, many Planning Commissions – not just this one. He could truly say that Chair Field has done an outstanding job; his demeanor, professionalism, and intelligence in guiding this Commission are unique and remarkable. The City and its residents owe him a debt of gratitude. Mr. Benetti asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop meeting before the regular meeting in February 2019. He echoed Commissioner Mazzitello’s observance that a workshop would be appropriate and helpful just to do another fine tooth combing of the plans once the edits are done. Chair Field replied that this would be well advised. It was agreed by all to have the workshop meeting take place beginning at 6:00 p.m. prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO ADJOURN COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CHAIR FIELD ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 9:35 P.M. page 29 DATE: March 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Terry Blum, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Retirement of Cliff Kirchner and Filling of Public Works Maintenance Worker Position INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to accept the retirement notice of Cliff Kirchner, Public Works Maintenance Worker and authorize staff to fill the position. BACKGROUND Cliff Kirchner has submitted a letter informing the City of his intent to retire as a Public Works Maintenance Worker. His last day with the City will be March 8, 2019. Cliff has worked for the City for the past 11 years, working primarily in the parks division. The City wishes Cliff well in his retirement and his services and expertise will be greatly missed. Staff is in the process of recruiting for the additional Maintenance Worker position included in the 2019 budget and recommends using the current candidate list to fill the Maintenance Worker position vacated by Cliff. The recruitment process has included an internal position posting for five days as well as a ten day external posting. There were no internal applications received. The external posting resulted in 14 applications being received and first round interviews were conducted on February 21. BUDGET IMPACT The Public Works Maintenance Worker position is a budgeted position within the Public Works Department. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends accepting the retirement notice of Cliff Kirchner and authorizing staff to use the current candidate pool to fill the vacant Maintenance Worker position. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council concurs, it should by motion, accept the retirement notice of Cliff Kirchner and authorize staff to use the current candidate pool to fill the vacant Maintenance Worker position. page 30 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Solar Garden Subscription Date: March 5, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to enter into 25 year agreements with ReneSola, for the purchase of electricity from a community solar garden. Background: At its February 19th meeting, the City Council saw a presentation from ReneSola a global solar energy producer, regarding participation in a community solar garden. In this arrangement, the City agrees to commit to the purchase of electricity which is generated from a large solar garden. The developer, ReneSola, arranges for the construction of the solar facility, and the City agrees to purchase energy at a predetermined rate which is below the regular retail price offered by Xcel Energy. In exchange, the City agrees to lease the solar panels which generate the electricity, until such time as the panels are paid off. The City will save more in energy costs than what it costs to lease the panels. Depending on how the agreement structures the rates, the City will save approximately $1 million over a 25 year contract. The Council preferred the “flat rate” rate structure, vs. the “escalator” structuring of rates. It also asked to subscribe to the solar garden which is being constructed near Northfield. The City will subscribe to approximately 825,000 Kwh of electricity annually, which is 8% of the 5 MW solar facility. Because of needs from Xcel to have the contracts broken into smaller blocks, ReneSola has divided the City’s commitment into 5 identical contracts. A single typical copy is attached; the others are identical, except for the identifying contract number. Those have been reviewed by the City Attorney; he noted a couple of minor changes which will be addressed before the signature documents are executed.. See the attached February 19 memo for further information. Budget Impact: As a result of the presentation at the previous City Council meeting, the City can expect to save $1.014 million over the life of the contract. This is based on the “flat rate” option, which the City Council felt page 31 was more conservative in its projections. This option will provide greater overall savings during the 25 year term of the agreements vs. the alternative “escalator” option. However, the returns are more modest in the earlier years of the contract. It is estimated that the City will save $3006 of energy costs in the first year. Recommendation: I recommend that the City authorize entering into the five agreements with ReneSola. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the execution of five contracts with ReneSola, to subscribe to the purchase of solar-produced electricity for use by the City of Mendota Heights. page 32 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Presentation--Solar Garden Participation Date: February 19, 2019 Comment: Introduction: At its meeting of February 19, the City Council will hear a presentation regarding having the City subscribe to the solar energy which is produced in a community solar garden. It will be asked to provide direction as to entering into an agreement to participate. Background: ReneSola is company which produces solar energy on a world-wide basis. The company is nearing completion of a multiple acre solar garden in Rice County, and has approached the City of Mendota Heights about being a customer (subscriber) for the electricity which will be generated from that project. Subscribers must be in the host county, or in an adjacent county. Cities, school districts, and other governmental agencies are attractive as participants, as they do not generally move, or go out of business during the 25 year time that the solar garden is in prime operation. ReneSola and its partners provide the upfront cost of buying the solar panels, and building and maintaining the solar garden over 25 years. The subscribers receive bill credits from Xcel Energy, and pay the solar garden operators for their proportionate subscription size of the solar garden. Xcel pays the subscriber in bill credits for their portion of the solar garden’s energy that is produced on a monthly basis. Budget Impact: The business model provides that the subscribers to commit to leasing the solar panels for a set amount of time, and, in exchange, have the opportunity to purchase electricity at a discounted rate. The amount of the savings from the electricity purchases will exceed the cost of the solar panel leases and operation management costs. ReneSola has estimated the savings to the City over a 25 year agreement to be either $1,014,747 for what is called the “flat rate” option, or $953,515 for the option that assumes an increase in future electrical market rates. See the attached estimates. In general, flat rate options can provide more potential savings over the lifetime of the subscription, where the escalator option enables greater savings opportunities early on in the agreement. For example, the first year savings under the flat rate is projected to be $3,006, while the escalator option savings are $12,387 in the first year. In general, ReneSola advises that the escalator option provides less risk and can tolerate near-term ups and downs of the Xcel rebate rates, whereas the flat rate has some risk of being page 33 slightly more than the Xcel credits. Factoring in the time-value of money, there is also some attractiveness in maximizing the higher up-front savings from the escalator option, even if it generates less in the long-run. A further breakdown of the program mechanics, using Year 1 as an example (with the escalator rate) is as follows: • City - Receives monthly credits on Xcel Bill estimated to total $106,869 (12 Months) • City - Pays solar garden operator estimated to total $94,482 (12 Months) • City - Captures savings through the credit amount 106,869 - $94,482 solar payments = $12,387 Savings • Solar payments will escalate at 1%, Xcel Bill credit estimated to escalate at 2.6% • Total Estimated Savings over 25 years: $953,515 Note that both of those estimates have factored in the “on site” production of the solar arrays currently in place at the various City locations, including the electricity which is anticipated from the two 20 kw expansions which are also on the February 19th agenda. The City Attorney has advised that this is not a contract for which competitive proposals must be sought. Recommendation: Information about the solar garden concept, and what the savings are estimated to be under both scenarios, will be presented at the City Council meeting by a representative of ReneSola. Following the presentation, if the Council is comfortable with moving ahead with a subscription, direction from Council as to which rate--the flat or escalator alternative--is asked. That preference would be incorporated into a 25 year agreement which would be brought back to the March 5th City Council meeting for formal approval. Action Required: Review the presentation materials, and provide direction. page 34 page 35 SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT SRC 040316 This Subscription Agreement, as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”), is entered into this ____ day of March, 2019 by and between Northfield Solar LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (together with its successors and assignees, “Owner”) and the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (together with any permitted transferees, “Subscriber”). RECITALS 1. Owner is engaged in the business of developing, constructing and operating community solar gardens as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 216B.1641 (2013) and related rules, regulations, orders, and tariffs (each, a “CSG”). Owner is developing a solar photovoltaic facility approximately 1 MW (AC) in size to be located on real property 7281 115th St E, Northfield, MN 55057 (the “Project”). Subscriber is a retail electric customer of Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy (“Xcel”), receiving service at the address or addresses set forth in Exhibit B. 2. Subscriber wishes to acquire bill credits associated with energy produced by1,400,00 watts (DC) of the nameplate capacity of the Project. 3. Subscriber and Owner wish to enter into this Agreement to confirm Subscriber’s participation in the Project and the terms and conditions for that participation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the mutual promises set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and Subscriber agree as follows: AGREEMENT ARTICLE 1 SUBSCRIPTION 1.1 Subscription. Owner agrees to sell and Subscriber agrees to purchase the right to receive Bill Credits associated with the Energy Production of a portion of the Project (“Subscription”) which consists of 8% of the nameplate capacity of the Project or 112,000 watts (DC) (the “Allocation”). 1.2 Term. (a) This Agreement shall be effective upon its execution and delivery by Owner and Subscriber and shall continue until the date that is twenty-five (25) years after the Commercial Operation Date, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms (the “Term”). (b) Prior to the Commercial Operation Date, Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, upon written notice to Subscriber, and without further obligation to Subscriber, if (i) Subscriber is found to be ineligible to own a Subscription or participate page 36 in a CSG, (ii) the Project cannot be installed due to physical or environmental limitations at the site, (iii) Owner is unable to obtain any necessary permit for the Project, (iv) the Project fails to qualify as a CSG for any reason, (v) Owner cannot obtain Project financing on terms and conditions reasonably satisfactory to Owner, or (vi) there is a change in Applicable Laws or market conditions which make the Project no longer viable. 1.3 Allocation and Subscription. Subject to Subscriber’s initial and continuing eligibility (as defined in Section 2.1), Subscriber’s Allocation entitles it to receive Bill Credits against its monthly retail electrical bill from Xcel equal to (i) the Subscriber Energy for each production month during the Term, multiplied by (ii) the then-current CSG Rate. 1.4 CSG Rate. For Subscriber’s rate class (as shown in Exhibit B) and the Project size, the 2019 CSG Rate, effective as of April 1, 2019, is $0.12405/kWh for General Service, and $0.14509/kWh for Small General. The CSG Rate also includes payment for sale to Xcel of RECs associated with the Energy Production. The CSG Rate will be adjusted annually during the Term to reflect increases or decreases approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“MPUC”). 1.5 Ownership Limitation. Subscriber’s Subscription entitles it only to the Bill Credits described in Section 1.3. Subscriber is not purchasing, and Owner is not selling or transferring to Subscriber: (A) any ownership or lien in any solar modules or other tangible component of the Project; (B) any ownership or membership interests or rights in Owner or any entity which may own the Project or any financial rights or distributions associated with such ownership; (C) any right to any payment by Xcel to Owner with respect to Unsubscribed Energy or related RECs; (D) any rights in any other contract relating to the Project or to which Owner may be a party; (E) any right to manage, direct, control or operate the Project or Owner; or (F) any RECs. ARTICLE 2 SUBSCRIBER ELIGIBILITY 2.1 Eligibility Requirements. Subscriber’s Subscription and its eligibility to receive, and continue to receive, the Bill Credits to be acquired by this Agreement is expressly conditioned upon Subscriber meeting the following criteria and any other eligibility criteria outlined in Applicable Laws (“Subscriber Eligibility Criteria”) at all times during the Term: page 37 (a) Subscriber must receive retail electric service from Xcel at a service address located within Rice County or a contiguous county (Dakota) (the “Eligible Address”) and the Bill Credits must be applied to the Xcel account(s) of Subscriber at the Eligible Address. (b) Subscriber’s Allocation can account for no more than forty percent (40%) of the capacity of the Project. (c) The estimated Subscriber Energy (together with the subscribed energy from any other subscriptions Subscriber may have in other CSGs) cannot exceed one hundred and twenty percent (120%) of Subscriber’s average annual energy usage for the prior 24 months (if available) at the Eligible Address, which is calculated by Xcel at the time the Subscriber is entered into the Xcel system (“Usage Limit”). 2.2 Energy Use Changes. If Subscriber’s electrical energy usage at the Eligible Address declines or increases during the Term due to ordinary changes in usage patterns, installation or use of energy conservation measures (other than electrical generation equipment for net metering), renovations, expansions, or similar circumstances, under current Applicable Laws, the Usage Limit will not be modified to reflect any resulting change in usage. If Subscriber moves, or transfers the Subscription to a transferee at another address, usage history for the new address will be used to establish a new Usage Limit. 2.3 Eligibility Data. Owner will assist Subscriber in evaluating its compliance with the Subscriber Eligibility Criteria and Usage Limit and will submit all eligibility data to Xcel. Subscriber acknowledges that the account and other data contained in Exhibit B is accurate and that Owner may use the data, as well as Subscriber’s electric bills or usage data for the most recent 24 months at the Eligible Address, to determine Subscriber eligibility and may submit the data to Xcel for purposes of Xcel’s confirmation of Subscriber’s eligibility up to the full amount of its Subscription and Allocation. Subscriber agrees to provide Owner and Xcel with any additional information requested by Owner or Xcel to determine, verify, or approve Subscriber’s eligibility at any time during the Term, and to execute any separate authorization in this respect which Xcel may require. 2.4 Eligibility Determination. Owner will inform Subscriber of Xcel’s determination of Subscriber’s eligibility and Usage Limit. In the event that Xcel determines in an initial decision (i) that Subscriber is not eligible, or (ii) Subscriber’s Usage Limit is lower than the amount set forth in Exhibit B by an amount which limits Subscriber’s ability to use the full Subscription acquired in this Agreement, Owner and Subscriber will either terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 9.2 or amend the Agreement to modify Subscriber’s Subscription and Allocation to correspond to the revised Usage Limit or eligibility requirement. 2.5 Subscription Data. Subject to the confidentiality and privacy provisions of Section 8.1, and if necessary for Owner or its Financiers to confirm Subscriber’s creditworthiness, Subscriber agrees to provide Owner with reasonable credit information. page 38 2.6 Agency Agreement. Owner will enter into a Standard Contract for Solar*Rewards Community (“SRC Contract”) with Xcel with respect to the Project, which will govern the terms for sale of the Energy Production to Xcel. Attached to the SRC Contract will be a subscriber agency agreement and consent form (“Agency Agreement”) that Subscriber will be required to sign setting forth details of data access and use and notice information for questions and disputes about the Subscription, Project and related bill credits. The current form of the Agency Agreement is attached as Exhibit E The Agency Agreement, among other things, provides information about Xcel’s access to and management of Subscriber data and Xcel’s data privacy policies. ARTICLE 3 SUBSCRIPTION PAYMENT 3.1 Subscription Payments. (a) Each twelve (12) month period beginning with the Commercial Operation Date and each anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date shall be a Subscription Year. Beginning with the first Subscription Year, Subscriber shall pay to Owner monthly payments of $0.1240 kWh (“Subscriber Rate”) for Energy Production allocated to Subscriber pursuant to its Subscription (each a “Subscription Payment”). (b) The Subscriber Rate for each Subscription Year after the first Subscription Year shall escalate 0.00%. (c) Owner shall invoice Subscriber monthly for the Energy Production attributable to Subscriber during the prior month. Subscriber’s Subscription Payments will be due within thirty five (35) days of the date of the invoice. 3.2 Delinquent Payments. If Subscriber fails to pay any amount due Owner hereunder, in full, by the scheduled due date, Subscriber will be charged interest on the outstanding balance accruing at the rate of five (5) percent per annum until the balance is paid in full. 3.3 No Additional Funds. The Subscription Payments represent full payment by Subscriber for the corresponding Subscription for the applicable month, and Owner shall not have any right to compel Subscriber to advance or pay any additional funds for the Project or the Subscription except as set forth in Sections 3.2 and 9.3. 3.4 Electronic Funds Transfer. At Owner’s request, and unless Subscriber does not have an account or other suitable arrangement, the Subscription Payments due to Owner under this Agreement shall be paid by ACH or other equivalent electronic funds transfer. Subject to applicable confidentiality and data security provisions with respect to Subscriber’s account information and other private data, Subscriber agrees to execute any documents necessary to authorize Owner to withdraw Subscription Payments from Subscriber’s designated account on a monthly basis either on an automated basis 20 days after the date of the invoice, or at an earlier date selected by Subscriber. page 39 3.5 Multiple Subscriptions. If Subscriber is also a subscriber in other CSGs owned by Owner or its affiliates, Owner and its affiliates may create a combined monthly invoice reflecting the energy production and subscription payments for all such projects, including the Energy Production and Subscription Payment. 3.6 Disputed Payments . If Subscriber disputes any amount invoiced by Owner, Subscriber shall notify Owner in writing of the nature of the dispute. The parties shall utilize the dispute resolution process in Section 8.2 to resolve any dispute as quickly as practicable. Subscriber shall not be deemed in default for failure to pay disputed amounts while the dispute resolution process is pending. If some or all of the amount in dispute is subsequently deemed to have been due to Owner, Subscriber shall pay the amount due, along with interest on the amount due at the rates forth in Section 3.2 for the period between the original due date and the date upon which the amount is paid. 3.7 Billing Adjustments Following NSP Billing Adjustments. If, as a result of an Xcel billing adjustment for reasons other than negligence or other actions of Owner, the quantity of Energy Production is decreased (the “Electricity Deficiency Quantity”) and Xcel reduces the amount of Bill Credits allocated to Subscriber for such period, Owner shall reimburse Subscriber for the amount of any Subscription Payment paid by Subscriber in proportion to the Electricity Deficiency Quantity. If, as a result of such adjustment, the quantity of Energy Production allocated to Subscriber is increased (the “Electricity Surplus Quantity”) and Xcel increases the amount of Bill Credits allocated to Subscriber for such period, Subscriber shall pay for the Electricity Surplus Quantity at the Subscriber Rate applicable during such period with the next applicable Subscription Payment. 3.8 Excess Bill Credits. If the value of accrued Bill Credits exceeds the amount Subscriber owes Xcel for retail electric service in any month, the excess value shall be carried forward and applied against Subscriber’s future Xcel retail electricity bills for up to twelve (12) months. Xcel is required under the SRC Contract to pay Subscriber for the value of any unapplied Bill Credits with the retail electric bill that includes the last day of February each year during the Term. ARTICLE 4 OWNER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Design and Implementation. Owner agrees to develop, design, finance, and construct the Project, including, but not limited to, site acquisition, procuring an agreement with Xcel that allows the Project to interconnect with Xcel (“Interconnection Agreement”), selection and procurement of Project components, and installation and testing of all Project components. Installation and repairs shall be performed by, or under the supervision of, an NABCEP certified professional. 4.2 Application Process. Owner shall submit the Project to Xcel for approval as a CSG and shall provide all information required by Xcel to determine the eligibility of the Project. Owner shall negotiate and enter into the SRC Contract and any Interconnection Agreement page 40 or other similar agreement with Xcel necessary to qualify the Project as a CSG and for the Project to operate and deliver energy to Xcel. 4.3 Timeliness. Owner will use all commercially reasonable efforts to complete construction and installation of the Project within two (2) years after Xcel deems the Project’s application as a CSG to be complete and executes the corresponding Interconnection Agreement. 4.4 Eligibility Information. Owner shall submit to Xcel information needed for Xcel to confirm eligibility of Subscriber and for Xcel to enter Subscriber into the Xcel CSG Subscriber Management System (as defined in the SRC Contract) for proper application of the Bill Credits to Subscriber’s retail Xcel account at the Eligible Address. 4.5 Insurance. Owner shall procure and maintain liability and other insurance necessary to protect Owner and the Project against material risks which might adversely affect the operation of the Project, during the Term of this Agreement. 4.6 Repair and Maintenance. Owner shall maintain, repair, and replace the Project components in accordance with Applicable Laws and manufacturer and insurance requirements. All upgrades, maintenance, and repairs will be performed in accordance with industry standards, including the recommendations of the manufacturers of the modules and other Project components. 4.7 Production Data. Owner shall provide Xcel with the Allocation and similar allocations for all Project subscribers, and shall provide, or allow Xcel to directly procure from the Project meter, production information from the Project, and provide Xcel with Subscriber’s Account Information and Monthly Subscriber Information (as defined in the SRC Contract) in order that Xcel may calculate and apply the Credits monthly to Subscriber’s retail account with Xcel. 4.8 Compliance. Owner shall operate the Project in compliance with all Applicable Laws, orders of the MPUC applicable to the Project or CSGs, and applicable Xcel tariffs. 4.9 Unscheduled Outage. After the Commercial Operation Date, Owner agrees to provide notice to Subscriber of the occurrence of any unscheduled outage in excess of 100 kW lasting longer than fifteen (15) days and any expected lost production. Notice will not be required for scheduled maintenance outages or minor outages occurring in the ordinary course of operation. ARTICLE 5 OWNER DISCLOSURES 5.1 Required Disclosures. Owner makes the following disclosures to Subscriber in compliance with Applicable Laws: (a) Production Estimate. The estimate of Energy Production for the Project is set forth in Exhibit C (“Estimated Production”). page 41 (b) Unsubscribed Energy Production. Unsubscribed Energy will be purchased by Xcel from Owner in accordance with Applicable Laws and the SRC Contract, and all payments for Unsubscribed Energy shall belong to Owner. (c) Reserves. Owner has or will have adequate funds available to maintain the Project and pay Project operating expenses such as taxes, maintenance, insurance, and management services for the Term and may maintain reserves for such expenses. (d) SRC Contract. The current form of SRC Contract is attached as Exhibit F. (e) Other Agreements and Documents. Owner will provide Subscriber with the following no later than sixty (60) days prior to the Commercial Operation Date or after each becomes available: (i) a copy of the executed SRC Contract between Xcel and Owner; (ii) a copy of the solar module warranty; (iii) certificate(s) of insurance for the Project; and (iv) proof of a long-term Project maintenance plan. Subscriber agrees to acknowledge receipt of the materials and any other disclosures once provided. (f) Subscription Benefits. Exhibit D sets forth Owner’s estimate of the possible benefits to Subscriber from its Subscription over the Term of this Agreement and a description of the assumptions underlying those estimates. 5.2 Securities Laws. Neither Owner nor Xcel makes any representations or warranties concerning the implication of any federal or state securities laws with respect to this Agreement or your Subscription. Neither this Agreement nor your Subscription has been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws. Owner does not believe this Agreement or the Subscription constitute a security governed by such laws but, in the event any such securities laws may apply, Subscriber represents that, as of the Effective Date, it is an “accredited investor” as that term is defined in Rule 501 of the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Owner’s conclusion is based in part on Subscriber’s agreement that it is not entering into this Agreement or acquiring the Bill Credits for the purpose of making a market in such interests or trading them on any securities or other market which might fall within the scope of such laws, and is acquiring them solely for personal use. 5.3 Taxes. Subscriber acknowledges that neither Owner nor Xcel makes any representation or warranty concerning the tax treatment or consequences, if any, of the Subscription, the Subscription Payments, the receipt by Subscriber of Bill Credits or Subscriber’s participation in the Project. As between the parties, Owner is responsible for payment of all taxes assessed or imposed against the Project, including any production tax pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 2795, as amended, and with respect to amounts received by Owner or page 42 its affiliates from the sale of electricity to Xcel or from subscribers or other sources. Subscriber shall be responsible for payment of any taxes assessed against Subscriber and related to Subscriber’s receipt of Bill Credits. 5.4 Production. Subscriber will not be charged by Owner under this Agreement for any electricity not produced by the Project. Owner makes no representation or warranty as to the likelihood that the Project will generate any specific or minimum amount of electricity or sufficient electricity so as to create any specific or minimum amount of Bill Credits to Subscriber during any period of time or over the Term of the Agreement as a whole. The production estimates in Exhibit C are based on a number of assumptions about expected solar resources at the Project location, accuracy of production estimating software, performance of the modules and other Project equipment, and other factors which are not within the control of Owner. The actual production and delivery of Energy Production is subject to lack of sunlight, other adverse weather, equipment failures, curtailments or outages, and Force Majeure events. The production estimate and any other estimate communicated by Owner to Subscriber of expected Energy Production during any period of time is purely an estimate based on the information available to Owner at the time and is not a guarantee that any such production will occur or that any minimum or particular amount of Energy Production will be generated by the Project over any period of time. 5.5 Subscription Value. Notwithstanding the estimates in Exhibit D, Owner makes no representation or warranty as to the likelihood that Subscriber’s Subscription will create any specific or minimum amount of economic benefit to Subscriber over any period of time or over the Term of this Agreement as a whole, or that the Subscription will create a positive economic benefit to Subscriber. The estimate of potential benefits contained in Exhibit D is based on a number of assumptions about future CSG Rates, Applicable Laws, and a number of other factors beyond Owner’s control. Any estimate by Owner in Exhibit D or elsewhere given to Subscriber as to any expected benefit to Subscriber from the Subscription over any period of time is purely an estimate based on the information available to Owner and related assumptions at the time and is not a guarantee that any positive economic benefit will accrue to Subscriber from the Subscription or that any specific or minimum amount of benefits will accrue to Subscriber over any period of time. ARTICLE 6 TRANSFERABILITY AND LOSS OF ELIGIBILITY 6.1 General. The validity of the Subscription is dependent upon, among other things, Subscriber’s continuing compliance with the Subscriber Eligibility Criteria at the Eligible Address and payment of the Subscription Payments. The Subscription is not transferrable to third parties, other physical addresses, or other Xcel accounts, except pursuant to the provisions set forth below. The Subscription is not transferable by Subscriber at any time when Subscriber is in default under this Agreement, including for failure to pay a Subscription Payment, unless the terms of the transfer provide for cure of the default, including payment of any overdue Subscription Payment, as approved by Owner. page 43 6.2 Relocation/Sale of Eligible Address. (a) If, during the Term, Subscriber moves from the Eligible Address and is no longer the Xcel account-holder at that address, Subscriber may elect to transfer the Subscription to a new address if the following qualifications are met: (1) Subscriber’s new address is within Rice County or a contiguous county, and (2) Subscriber assumes or establishes a new retail electric account with Xcel at the new address. Subscriber shall provide sixty (60) days prior written notice to Owner of any proposed move. Transfer of the Subscription is subject to approval by Xcel and a determination that the Allocation of Energy Production will be less than the Usage Limit at the new address. (b) If, during the Term, Subscriber moves from the Eligible Address and is no longer the Xcel account-holder at that address, and Subscriber is not eligible to receive Bill Credits under the Subscription at its new address for all or any portion of its Allocation or Subscription, Subscriber must notify Owner and transfer the applicable Allocation and Subscription to another eligible transferee in accordance with Section 6.3. Subscriber shall be permitted up to no more than sixty (60) days to complete the transfer of the applicable Allocation and Subscription to one or more eligible transferees, after which, if some or all of the applicable Allocation and Subscription is not so transferred, Subscriber shall execute any documents necessary for the remaining Allocation and Subscription to be transferred to Owner, or, if the entire Allocation and Subscription are not transferred, Owner may terminate this Agreement. 6.3 Transfer to Other Eligible Customers. The Subscription or any portion thereof may be voluntarily transferred to any person or entity who, at the time of the transfer (1) meets the Subscriber Eligibility Criteria for the Project, (2) is found to be reasonably creditworthy by Owner, and (3) whose participation as a Subscriber in the Project in the amount represented by the Allocation and Subscription to be transferred will not cause the Project to no longer be eligible as a CSG or otherwise not comply with Applicable Laws or contractual obligations to Xcel. In addition, the validity of any such transfer is expressly conditioned upon: (a) sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to Owner identifying the proposed transferee, providing the physical address at which they take electric service from Xcel, their Xcel account number and all other information needed to determine their eligibility to be a subscriber, as well as any other subscriptions in the Project or other CSGs held by the proposed transferee, and any distributed generation facility owned by or serving the proposed transferee at the service address associated with the proposed transfer; (b) receipt by Owner and Xcel of authorizations from the proposed transferee needed to access its Xcel account data, and receipt by Owner of usage data at the proposed transferee’s address needed to calculate the applicable Usage Limit; (c) determination by Owner and Xcel that the proposed transferee is eligible to be a subscriber in the Project and that their participation as a subscriber will not cause the page 44 Project to fail to be eligible as a CSG or otherwise not comply with any Applicable Laws or contractual obligations to Xcel; (d) the proposed transferee’s express written assumption of this Agreement or execution and delivery of a new subscription agreement with Owner as to the Subscription on terms acceptable to Owner, including the cure of any prior defaults of Subscriber existing under this Agreement, and of a new Agency Agreement with Xcel; and (e) Subscriber shall not charge any fee or make any profit on the transfer. Once any proposed transfer meets these criteria, Owner shall arrange the delivery of data to Xcel necessary to cause Xcel to reflect the change in subscribers and begin applying the applicable Bill Credits to the transferee’s retail Xcel electric account. 6.4 Involuntary Transfers. Upon transfer of title or control of the Eligible Address or Subscription, or portion thereof, due to bankruptcy, foreclosure, divorce, or operation of law for other reasons, Subscriber or the transferee must notify Owner immediately. During any period of time in which a trustee, receiver, or creditor is in possession of the Eligible Address and assumes responsibility as the account-holder with Xcel at the Eligible Address, such transferee shall be deemed to have succeeded to the rights of Subscriber under this Agreement at the Eligible Address during the period of its possession subject to its continuing performance of the obligations of Subscriber. Upon the transfer of title to the property at the Eligible Address and the Subscription to a creditor or other third party by operation of law, the transferee shall notify Owner of the transfer. If the transferee(s) meets all Subscriber Eligibility Criteria, the transfer shall be treated as a transfer of the Subscription to such transferee upon completion of the conditions set forth in Section 6.3(a)-(d). If one or more transferees does not meet the conditions of Section 6.3, then the ineligible transferee(s) shall be required to immediately transfer the Subscription or applicable portion to an eligible transferee in accordance with Section 6.3. Failure to effectuate a transfer to an eligible transferee or Owner within thirty (30) days shall allow Owner to terminate this Agreement. 6.5 Transfer Timeline. Once all necessary information is received from Subscriber and any proposed transferee, Owner will use all commercially reasonable efforts to implement the transfer within sixty (60) days. ARTICLE 7 PRIVACY; CONFIDENTIALITY 7.1 Subscriber Data. Owner will not disclose personal Subscriber data or information to any person except (i) Xcel, to the extent required or allowed by Applicable Laws, the Agency Agreement or the SRC Contract, for the purpose of administration of the Subscription; (ii) attorneys, accountants, and agents of Owner to the extent necessary for them to render advice or perform professional services associated with the Project or this Agreement; (iii) as otherwise required by Applicable Laws. Account data of Subscriber in the possession page 45 of Owner for purposes of Section 3.4 shall be kept strictly confidential and disclosed only to those employees or contractors of Owner who need to use it to effect such payments. 7.2 Privacy Policies. Subscriber data shared with Xcel will be subject to Xcel’s data privacy policy, a copy of which is included in Exhibit E and will be included in the SRC Contract. 7.3 Confidential Information of Owner. Certain information and data provided by Owner with respect to the Project, the Subscription, or other aspects of Owner’s business may be designated by Owner as confidential and proprietary information (“Owner Data”). Subscriber agrees not to share any Owner Data with any other Person, including, but not limited to, any other developer of CSG projects or anyone otherwise competing with Owner, except for Subscriber’s accountants, attorneys, or other advisers for purposes of assessing whether to enter into this Agreement and for tax filings and similar purposes, except as required by law. If Subscriber receives a request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for access to data that Owner designated as trade secret but Subscriber has determined is not trade secret, then Subscriber will use its best efforts to give the Owner ten (10) days’ notice before releasing the data in order to permit the Owner to exercise whatever legal remedies are available to the Owner to prevent such disclosure. 7.4 Use of Summary Data. Subscriber agrees that Owner may compile and make public certain summary data about the Project which does not disclose information or data about Subscriber or any other individual Project subscriber. Summary data which may be disclosed includes: (a) aggregate Energy Production by the Project, either in real-time or over any period of time; (b) total number of Project subscribers at any point in time; (c) aggregate bill credits received by Project subscribers; and (d) average or aggregate financial benefits or the amount or value of Bill Credits for subscribers in the Project alone or together with other CSG projects managed by Owner and its affiliates. 7.4 Data Practices. (a) Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 6, if any data on individuals is made available to the Owner by the Subscriber under this Agreement, the Owner will administer and maintain any such data in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the “Minnesota Government Data Practices Act”), and any other statutory provisions applicable to the data. If and to the extent that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 11, is applicable to this Contract, then: i) all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Owner in performing this Agreement are subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices page 46 Act; ii) the Owner must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity; and iii) the remedies in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.08 apply to the Owner. (b) Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055, if “private data on individuals,” “confidential data on individuals” or other “not public data” are provided to or made accessible to the Owner by the Subscriber, the Owner must: i) have safeguards to ensure private or confidential data on individuals or other not public data are only accessible or viewable by Owner employees and agents whose work assignments in connection with the performance of this Agreement reasonably require them to have access to the data; ii) immediately notify the Subscriber of any unauthorized access by Owner employees and agents, and unauthorized access by third parties; iii) fully cooperate with Subscriber investigations into any breach in the security of private or confidential data on individuals or other not public data that may have occurred in connection with the Owner’s access to or use of the data; and iv) fully cooperate with the Subscriber in fulfilling the notice and reporting requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.055. The penalties in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.09 governing unauthorized acquisition of not public data apply to the Owner and Owner employees and agents. If the Owner is permitted to use a subcontractor to perform Owner’s work under this Agreement, the Owner shall incorporate these data practices provisions into the subcontract. If the Owner receives a request to release data referred to in this section, the Owner must immediately notify the Subscriber. The Subscriber will give the Owner instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. ARTICLE 8 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 8.1 Xcel Disputes. Any dispute or question which Subscriber has with respect to the application by Xcel of the Bill Credits associated with its Subscription to its retail electric bill, including the applicable CSG Rate, shall be directed by Subscriber to Xcel for resolution. Subscriber may request that Owner assist Subscriber in this respect. If the dispute or question is not resolved to the Subscriber’s satisfaction, Subscriber has the right to complain directly to the MPUC at the following address: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 296-7124 Toll free: (800) 657-3782 Fax: (651) 297-7073 consumer.puc@state.mn.us page 47 Any such dispute shall not allow Subscriber to withhold payment of its Subscription Payments as invoiced. Any issue or dispute identified by Subscriber with respect to Xcel’s CSG program or Xcel’s actions with respect to the Project or Subscription other than as described in Section 8.1(a) shall be referred to Owner in the first instance. 8.2 Disputes Among Parties. Any dispute or issue arising from or related to this Agreement, the Subscription, the Project, or Owner’s performance of its obligations with respect to Subscriber, including, but not limited to, the determination of Energy Production or its allocation to Subscriber, which are not resolved by communications between Subscriber and Owner representatives over the phone or electronically shall be submitted to the other party in writing. Owner shall assign an officer or senior management to address or negotiate a resolution with Subscriber. If a resolution is not reached within ten (10) days or such longer period as the parties may agree, either party may pursue any remedies it may have available at law. ARTICLE 9 EVENTS OF DEFAULT; TERMINATION 9.1 Events of Default. Each of the following events shall be an Event of Default under this Agreement: (a) A party breaches any material obligation, term, or provision of this Agreement and fails to cure the breach within thirty (30) days of written notice of the breach from the non-defaulting party; (b) A representation or warranty by a party in this Agreement, or any eligibility information provided by Subscriber, is or becomes materially untrue, and the applicable party fails to correct the representation or warranty within ten (10) days of notice from the non-defaulting party. (c) With respect to Subscriber, Subscriber fails to make any Subscription Payment when due, and fails to cure the default within ten (10) days after written notice of default from Owner or Subscriber fails to make two consecutive Subscription Payments when due. For purposes of this provision, lack of funds in an account from which funds were to be withdrawn pursuant to Section 3.4 shall be deemed non-payment by Subscriber. (d) With respect to Subscriber, Subscriber (or an involuntary transferee pursuant to Section 6.4) fails to meet the Subscriber Eligibility Requirements at any time during the Term and fails to cure the deficiency immediately after notice from Owner or Xcel, and Subscriber does not or cannot transfer its Subscription to an eligible transferee within the period allowed by this Agreement; (e) With respect to Owner, the Project becomes ineligible as a CSG during the Term, or the SRC Contract or Interconnection Agreement is terminated due to actions or page 48 omissions by Owner, and Owner does not provide substitute capacity from another CSG to replace Subscriber’s Allocation within thirty (30) days. 9.2 Termination. In the event a defaulting party fails to cure an Event of Default within the applicable cure period, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement by notifying the defaulting party in writing. Upon termination of this Agreement by Owner for an uncured Event of Default by Subscriber, Owner shall have no further obligations to Subscriber under this Agreement except for payments or obligations arising or accruing prior to the effective date of termination. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by Subscriber due to an Event of Default by Owner, Subscriber shall have no further obligation to Owner except for obligations arising or accruing prior to termination. Effective upon any termination of this Agreement, Subscriber’s rights to receive Bill Credits or any other rights or benefits associated with its Subscription shall end, and Owner shall be entitled to resubscribe Subscriber’s Allocation to any other person with no obligation to Subscriber, and to notify Xcel to remove Subscriber from its Subscriber Management System as a customer entitled to receive Bill Credits associated with the Project. Subscriber shall be obligated to pay Subscription Payments for all periods prior to the effective date of termination. 9.3 Termination Fee. (a) In the event that this Agreement is terminated due to an Event of Default by Subscriber, or Subscriber fails to effect a transfer of its Subscription to a new address or transferee pursuant to Section 6.3, Subscriber shall pay Owner a fee within thirty (30) days of termination in an amount necessary to make Owner whole for resulting lost revenues (“Termination Fee”). The Termination Fee shall equal the positive difference, if any, between (i) the net present value, using a discount rate of 5.5%, of the Subscription Payments scheduled to be made by Subscriber between the effective date of termination and the scheduled end of the 25-year Term, less (ii) the net present value, using a discount rate of 5.5%, of the Subscription Payments expected to be made by one or more new subscribers for the Allocation, or amounts to be received from Xcel for Unsubscribed Energy associated with the Allocation, or if only a portion of Allocation has been terminated, that portion of the Allocation terminated, for the period between the effective date of termination and the scheduled end of the 25-year Term. The Estimated Production from Exhibit C shall be used to calculate the Termination Fee for the applicable period. (b) To the extent the Allocation has not been resubscribed by one or more eligible replacement subscribers at the effective date of termination, the Termination Fee shall be calculated for the full portion of the Allocation remaining to be resubscribed. To the extent the Subscription Rate received from one or more subscribers for the Allocation is lower or higher than the Subscription Rate which Subscriber would have paid, the calculation of the Termination Fee shall be adjusted to reflect the different Subscription Rate. (c) Owner will use commercially reasonable efforts to resubscribe the Allocation upon a termination of this Agreement. To the extent Owner is successful in resubscribing part or all of the Allocation during the period that is one year after the date of termination, the page 49 Termination Fee shall be recalculated to reflect the replacement subscription(s) at the end of the one-year period, and if the Termination Fee as recalculated is lower than the Termination Fee paid by Subscriber, Owner will refund the difference to Subscriber without interest. After the one-year reconciliation period, Owner shall be entitled to retain the entire balance of the Termination Fee as liquidated damages. Subscriber acknowledges that the Termination Fee is a reasonable approximation of damages to be suffered by Owner as a result of termination of this Agreement, and is not a penalty. 9.4 No Consequential Damages. No Party shall be liable to the other Party for any indirect, special, punitive, exemplary, incidental, or consequential damages, whether arising in contract, tort, under statute, or in equity, and each Party waives its rights to any such damages. The Termination Fee is agreed to be compensation for direct damages suffered by Owner and is not barred by this provision. 9.5 Force Majeure. The performance of each party may be affected or prevented due to events or circumstances beyond the control of the party and that could not, by the exercise of due diligence and foresight, reasonably have been avoided, including flood, earthquake, tornado, hail, fire, lightning, war, riot or other act of God or other cause beyond the control of the party affected (“Force Majeure”). A party shall not be liable to the other party to the extent it is prevented from performing its obligations in whole or in part due to a Force Majeure, provided the party affected promptly takes all action reasonably necessary to overcome its inability to perform. Force Majeure shall not excuse any obligation of a party to make payment money to the other party. 9.6 Early Termination. In addition to any other rights and remedies provided in this Agreement, Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without further liability to Subscriber if (i) Owner discovers conditions which prevent construction of the Project or make the Project not economically viable; (ii) the Project fails to obtain any necessary permit or other approval; (iii) the Project no longer qualifies as a CSG for any reason; or (iv) the Project cannot obtain financing. 9.7 No Warranties. NO WARRANTY, WHETHER STATUTORY, WRITTEN, ORAL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR WARRANTIES ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE, ARE PROVIDED TO SUBSCRIBER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT OR ITS PERFORMANCE, THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY OWNER PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CSG PROGRAM AS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED BY XCEL AND AS IT MAY BE AMENDED AND MODIFIED, OR ANY OTHER MATTER, AND ANY SUCH WARRANTIES ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. The remedies set forth in this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive remedies for any claim or liability arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, whether arising in contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise. page 50 9.8 Indemnification. Subscriber and Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold each other, and their respective officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against all damages for personal injury or death to persons and damage to each other’s physical property or facilities or the property of any other person, including, with respect to Owner, the Project, to the extent arising out of, resulting from, or caused by the negligent or intentional acts, errors, or omissions of the indemnifying party. Nothing in this Section 9.8 shall relieve Subscriber and Owner of any liability to the other for any breach of this Agreement. This indemnification obligation shall apply notwithstanding any negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the indemnitees but the indemnifying Party’s liability to pay damages to the indemnified Party shall be reduced in proportion to the percentage by which the indemnitees’ negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions caused the damages. Neither Party shall be indemnified for damages resulting from its sole negligence or willful misconduct. These indemnity provisions shall not be construed to relieve any insurer of its obligation to pay any claim consistent with the provisions of a valid insurance policy. ARTICLE 10 FINANCING 10.1 Assignment by Owner. Owner may (i) assign its rights and interests in this Agreement to an affiliate or to a successor by acquisition, merger or reorganization, (ii) mortgage, pledge, or collaterally assign this Agreement and the Project to any Financier; and (iii) assign this Agreement and the Project to any entity through which Owner is obtaining financing or capital for the Project; in each case with the prior written consent of Subscriber, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event of any assignment or transfer of all of Owner’s rights and obligations under this Agreement other than a collateral assignment, Owner shall be released from all its liabilities and other obligations under this Agreement, provided the assignee assumes all of Owner’s liabilities and obligations to Subscriber. In the event a Financier acquires Owner’s rights and obligations under this Agreement and the Project, by foreclosure or otherwise, the Financier may assign, sell or transfer its interests in this Agreement and the Project to any other person without Subscriber’s consent. 10.2 Opportunity to Cure. Once this Agreement has been assigned or otherwise mortgaged or pledged to a Financier, if an Event of Default occurs by Owner, Subscriber may not terminate this Agreement unless Subscriber provides prior written notice of the alleged Event of Default to the Financier (if Owner has provided Subscriber with contact information from the Financier), and the Financier shall have no less than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice to cure any default, or if the default cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days, and the Financier commences and diligently pursues a cure for the default within the thirty (30) day period, then the Financier shall have up to an additional ninety (90) days to cure the default. 10.3 Financier Changes. Owner will be obtaining construction and long-term financing from one or more Financiers. Subscriber agrees to consider and to negotiate in good faith any changes or additions to this Agreement reasonably requested by a Financier, provided that page 51 Subscriber is not obligated to agree to any proposed change or addition that changes any material economic term. Subscriber will also execute estoppels, consents or other documents reasonably requested by a Financier provided the information and representations of Subscriber in any such document are factually accurate and do not impose any liability on Subscriber. ARTICLE 11 REPRESENTATIONS 11.1 General Representations. Each Party represents and warrants to the other Party as of the date of this Agreement that: (a) it is duly organized and validly existing and in good standing in the jurisdiction of its organization; (b) it has the full right and authority to enter into, execute, deliver and perform its obligations under the Agreement; (c) it has taken all requisite corporate or other action to approve the execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement; (d) the Agreement constitutes its legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable against such Party in accordance with its terms, except as may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws now or hereafter in effect relating to creditors’ rights generally; (e) there is no litigation, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the best of its knowledge, threatened before any court or other governmental authority by, against, affecting or involving any of its business or assets that could reasonably be expected to adversely affect its ability to carry out the transactions contemplated herein; and (f) it is not currently the debtor in any bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation or similar proceeding, has no present intent to seek protection under any bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation or similar laws providing relief for creditors, and to the best of its knowledge, no other person intends to pursue any action to involuntarily subject the party to any bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation or similar proceeding. 11.2 Subscriber Representations. Subscriber further represents to Owner as of the date of this Agreement: (a) The information in Exhibit B is true and correct; page 52 (b) The Eligible Address is not served by any on-site or other distributed electric generation facilities, and no such facilities are currently planned to be installed at, or which would serve, Subscriber at the Eligible Address; (c) Subscriber is not exempt from the Solar Energy Standard under Minn. Stat. Section 216B.1691, subd. 2(f)(d); (d) Subscriber’s present intent is that the Subscriber Energy allocated to Subscriber from its Allocation and Subscription, when combined with the estimated amount of energy to be allocated from other community solar gardens in which Subscriber has purchased or is purchasing a subscription and from any distributed energy system at the Eligible Address will not exceed one Subscriber’s Usage Limit. ARTICLE 12 MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 NOTICE. ALL NOTICES OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRED OR PERMITTED TO BE GIVEN UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE IN WRITING AND DELIVERED BY HAND, SENT BY FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MAIL, OR SENT, POSTAGE PREPAID, BUT U.S. MAIL OR REPUTABLE COURIER SERVICE TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: To Subscriber: _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ______-______-_________ Email: ___________________ To Owner: _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Complaints or inquiries about this Agreement may be directed to Owner at the address and phone number listed above. Notice shall be deemed delivered upon receipt or refusal, if personally delivered, upon the date of actually delivery or refusal shown on the courier’s delivery receipt if sent by overnight courier, and on the fourth business day after deposit in the U.S. mail if sent by certified mail. Any party may change the address for notice by notice to the other party. Notice by electronic mail shall be made to an address provided by Subscriber and Owner shall be entitled to conclusively presume that the address provided by Subscriber is, and remains, accurate, until notified otherwise by Subscriber. Notice by electronic mail to the address provided by Subscriber shall be considered received upon the day of transmission, if sent before or during normal business hours, or page 53 the next day if sent after normal business hours, unless a message stating that the email was undeliverable at the address is received by Owner. 12.2 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided, neither party may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Any purported assignment without the required consent shall be void. 12.3 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any duty to, or standard of care with reference to, or liability to, any person not a party to this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement is intended to nor shall it in any way inure to the benefit of any third party so as to constitute any such person a third party beneficiary under this Agreement, or of any one or more of the terms of this Agreement, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party to this Agreement. 12.4 Entire Agreement. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Subscriber and Owner and supersedes any and all prior oral or written understandings, representations or statements, and that no understandings, representations or statements, verbal or written, have been made which modify, amend, qualify or affect the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended except in a writing executed by both parties. Where this Agreement refers to provisions of the SRC Contract, Interconnection Agreement or Applicable Laws, the provisions of such agreements or laws shall govern to the extent they conflict with any description or summary of their contents set forth in this Agreement. 12.5 Governing Law. This Agreement is made in Minnesota and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12.6 Waiver. Neither party shall be deemed to have waived any provision of this Agreement or any remedy available to it unless such waiver is in writing and signed by the party against whom the waiver would operate. Any waiver at any time by either party of its rights with respect to any rights arising in connection with this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent or other matter. 12.7 Relationship of Parties. The duties, obligations and liabilities of each of the parties are intended to be several and not joint or collective. This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint venture, fiduciary relationship or partnership between the parties or to impose any partnership obligation or liability or any trust or agency obligation or relationship upon either party. Owner and Subscriber shall not have any right, power, or authority to enter into any agreement or undertaking for, or act on behalf of, or to act or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind, the other party. 12.8 Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be or become void, illegal or unenforceable, the validity or enforceability of the other provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected and shall continue in full force. The parties will, however, use their best efforts to agree on the replacement of the void, illegal or unenforceable provisions with page 54 legally acceptable clauses which correspond as closely as possible to the sense and purpose of the affected provision and the Agreement as a whole. 12.9 Counterparts; Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and each of which shall be deemed an original. To the extent permitted by Applicable Laws, this Agreement may be executed electronically and delivered by electronic transmission, and such electronic signatures shall be deemed original signatures for all purposes. (SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW) page 55 Northfield Solar, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By____________________________________ Its____________________________________ (SUBSCRIBER) By: _______________________________________ Its: _______________________________________ page 56 EXHIBIT A ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS 1. Applicable Laws. Any law, statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, order (including orders issued by the MPUC), tariff, judgment, or other legally binding restriction or ruling issued by a governmental authority which is applicable to the Project, Owner, Subscriber, CSGs or this Agreement. 2. Bill Credits. The monetary value of a credit to be applied by Xcel to a CSG subscriber’s retail electric bill in accordance with Applicable Laws, orders, tariffs and the SRC Contract. 3. Commercial Operation Date. The “Date of Commercial Operation” defined in the SRC Contract and which is generally the date on which the Project begins selling electricity to Xcel for other than testing purposes. 4. CSG Rate. An amount per kilowatthour established by the MPUC with respect to specific classes of Xcel customers to be used for determining the value of a CSG subscriber’s Bill Credits. 5. Energy Production. The electrical energy actually generated by the Project and delivered to the point at which the Project physically interconnects with Xcel’s electrical system and is sold to Xcel, as measured by metering equipment installed by Xcel. Energy Production excludes electrical energy generated by the Project and used by the Project or lost in the transformation, transmission or conversion of electrical energy generated by the Project before physical delivery and sale to Xcel. 6. Financier. Any person providing money or extending credit (including any capital lease) to Owner for construction, term, or permanent financing of the Project or working capital for Owner or the Project, exclusive of common trade creditors. 7. Usage Limit. The maximum amount of electricity for which Subscriber may receive Bill Credits at the Eligible Address, as determined in accordance with Applicable Laws. 8. Subscriber Energy. The amount of Energy Production allocated to Subscriber during any period of time which equals the product of the applicable Energy Production and the Allocation. 9. Subscriber Eligibility Criteria. The criteria established by Applicable Laws, including, but not limited to, MPUC orders and Xcel tariffs applicable to CSGs, which Xcel customers must satisfy to participate as subscribers in a CSG. 10. Unsubscribed Energy. Energy Production from the Project which is not allocated to a subscriber in the Project. page 57 EXHIBIT B SUBSCRIBER DATA Xcel Account Premise number Address Tariff Description 51-4360287-1 302660395 1355 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD Municipal Pumping Svc 51-4360287-1 302929008 2489 HIGHWAY 55 Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302683793 1101 VICTORIA CURV General Service 51-4360287-1 302446799 844 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302866666 2490 PILOT KNOB RD Energy Only St Lt Svc 51-4360287-1 302567034 987 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302345520 1159 VERONICA LN Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302310158 2511 PILOT KNOB RD Energy Only St Lt Svc 51-4360287-1 303022328 1444 NORTHLAND DR Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302780602 2431 LEXINGTON AVE S General Service 51-4360287-1 302561430 1100 CENTRE POINTE DR Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302607206 2429 LEXINGTON AVE S Energy Only St Lt Svc 51-4360287-1 302340063 739 WENTWORTH AVE W Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 303036961 1180 CENTRE POINT CV Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302976539 2166 CONCORD WAY Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 302378745 716 NAVAJO LN Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 304694012 2431 LEXINGTON AVE S PV PROD General Service 51-4360287-1 303614471 2121 DODD RD General Service 51-8293826-5 303453572 1695 DODD RD Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 303691032 1780 LILAC LN Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 303648506 2501 DODD RD Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 304775958 1101 VICTORIA CURV PV PROD 51-4360287-1 303839322 640 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 303765331 820 MENDAKOTA CT Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-4360287-1 303619276 1000 WAGON WHEEL TRL Sm Gen Svc (Metered) 51-8293826-5 302326806 1695 DODD RD General Service 51-4360287-1 303078850 1237 CULLIGAN LN Sm Municipal Pump Svc page 58 EXHIBIT C ESTIMATE OF ENERGY PRODUCTION Year Estimated CSG Production (kWh) 1 1,883,000 2 1,873,585 3 1,864,217 4 1,854,896 5 1,845,622 6 1,836,393 7 1,827,211 8 1,818,075 9 1,808,985 10 1,799,940 11 1,790,940 12 1,781,986 13 1,773,076 14 1,764,210 15 1,755,389 16 1,746,612 17 1,737,879 18 1,729,190 19 1,720,544 20 1,711,941 21 1,703,382 22 1,694,865 23 1,686,390 24 1,677,958 25 1,669,569 Total 44,355,857 Estimated Production was determined by using PVSYST software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory using publicly available historical data for solar resource at the site of the Project, the manufacturer’s specifications for production capability of the solar modules, and reductions for estimated losses for Project usage and conversion, transmission and transformation of the electricity generated by the Project. page 59 EXHIBIT D ESTIMATED SUBSCRIPTION BENEFITS Year Estimated CSG Production (kWh) Allocation (%) Estimated CSG Rate ($/kWh) Subscriber Rate ($/kWh) Cost/Benefit ($) 1 1,883,000 8% $0.12405 $0.1240 $100 2 1,873,585 8% $0.12728 $0.1240 $700 3 1,864,217 8% $0.13058 $0.1240 $1,200 4 1,854,896 8% $0.13398 $0.1240 $1,800 5 1,845,622 8% $0.13746 $0.1240 $2,300 6 1,836,393 8% $0.14104 $0.1240 $2,900 7 1,827,211 8% $0.14470 $0.1240 $3,500 8 1,818,075 8% $0.14847 $0.1240 $4,100 9 1,808,985 8% $0.15233 $0.1240 $4,700 10 1,799,940 8% $0.15629 $0.1240 $5,300 11 1,790,940 8% $0.16035 $0.1240 $5,900 12 1,781,986 8% $0.16452 $0.1240 $6,600 13 1,773,076 8% $0.16880 $0.1240 $7,200 14 1,764,210 8% $0.17319 $0.1240 $7,900 15 1,755,389 8% $0.17769 $0.1240 $8,500 16 1,746,612 8% $0.18231 $0.1240 $9,200 17 1,737,879 8% $0.18705 $0.1240 $9,900 18 1,729,190 8% $0.19191 $0.1240 $10,600 19 1,720,544 8% $0.19690 $0.1240 $11,300 20 1,711,941 8% $0.20202 $0.1240 $12,000 21 1,703,382 8% $0.20727 $0.1240 $12,800 22 1,694,865 8% $0.21266 $0.1240 $13,500 23 1,686,390 8% $0.21819 $0.1240 $14,300 24 1,677,958 8% $0.22386 $0.1240 $15,000 25 1,669,569 8% $0.22969 $0.1240 $15,800 The initial CSG Rate is Xcel’s 2018/2019 CSG Rate for General Service customers subscribing to community solar gardens larger than 250 kW in size and which elect to sell RECs to Xcel escalated at an assumed 2.6% for 2020. For subsequent years the CSG Rate has been escalated an assumed 2.6% per year; actual changes in the CSG Rate will be set by the MPUC and may be lower or higher. Costs and benefits shown equal the expected difference each year between the Subscription Rate and CSG Rate multiplied by the estimated annual Subscriber Energy. Energy Production is calculated using the method described in Exhibit C. page 60 EXHIBIT E FORM OF AGENCY AGREEMENT SOLAR*REWARDS COMMUNITY XCEL ENRGY SUBSCRIBER AGENCY AGREEMENT AND CONSENT FORM https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe- responsive/Programs%20and%20Rebates/Residential/MN-SRC-Subscriber-Agency- Agreement.pdf page 61 page 62 page 63 page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 5, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Water Quality Report Presentation by Saint Thomas Academy COMMENT: INTRODUCTION At its regular meeting of March 5th, the Council will hear a presentation from students at St. Thomas Academy about the water quality of Rogers Lake. BACKGROUND Since the early 1990’s, Saint Thomas Academy Environmental Science Classes have been monitoring several aspects of the water quality present in Rogers Lake. The City Council hears an annual update from the students. The attached historical data on the lakes’ water quality shows a trend of the water quality of Rogers Lake improving over the past several recent years. In 2018 the overall rating improved over the preceding year. DISCUSSION Mr. Tony Kinzley is the Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences Instructor. He has a group of students who have conducted the research and prepared a presentation for Council. Attached is a summary sheet the students prepared, which will be presented at the Council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council receive the Rogers Lake Water Quality Report presentation from Saint Thomas Academy. ACTION REQUIRED No Council action is required. For informational purposes only. page 73 Which chemical tests were performed? What does each test for? What factors affect the readings? What is an acceptable reading? What were the Fall 2018 readings? Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) The amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. Plant life increases D.O., organic waste inputs (pet waste, grass clippings, leaves) lowers D.O. 5-12 ppm 10.7 ppm (10.5 in 2017) Better / acceptable Fecal Coliform Levels of bacteria associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the water Goose and pet waste. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines. 0 colonies/100ml is safe to drink. 200 colonies/100ml or less is safe for swimming 1.4 col/100ml (0.8 in 2017) Slightly worse / acceptable pH The acidity or basicity of the water Acid rain is the typical cause of acidification of lakes 6.5-8.5 pH units (slightly basic) 7.8 units (7.7 in 2017) Same / acceptable Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ) How much oxygen is being used by bacteria in the lake that decompose organic waste put into the water. Organic waste inputs (leaves, grass clippings, or animal waste) and algal blooms from fertilizer runoff 0-3 ppm 3.2 ppm (2.2 in 2017) Worse / Unacceptable ∆ Temperature (Change In Temp.) The difference in temperature between 2 testing sites on the lake Sun/shade differences, industrial thermal pollution, removal of trees/shade 0-1 °C 1.7 °C (1.2 in 2017) Worse / Unacceptable but likely not problematic Nitrate Measure of the amount of Nitrates in the water Animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, fertilizers. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines 0.1-3 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.5 ppm (1.0 in 2017) Better /acceptable Total Phosphates Measure of the amount of various phosphates in the water Soil runoff, animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, some fertilizers. Faulty sewer lines and septic systems. 0.1-1 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.4 ppm (0.9 in 2017) Better / acceptable Turbidity Amount of suspended solids in the water. A measure of water clarity Soil erosion, organic waste input 1-40 JTU 5.0 JTU (7.9 in 2017) Better / acceptable Total Solids Amount of suspended and dissolved solids in water Road salt, soil erosion, organic waste input. 1-300 mg/L 231.3 mg/L (261.7 in 2017) Better / acceptable Overall Rating A composite score of all 9 chemical tests. The 9 chemical tests Excellent: 90-100 Good: 70-89.9 Medium: 50-69.9 84.3 (85.9 in 2017) Slightly worse / page 74 acceptable Fall 2018 Chemical Assessment of Rogers Lake Performed by Saint Thomas Academy A. P. Environmental Science Program page 75 Thank you for allowing us the time to share our findings with the Mendota Heights City Council. Eighty-one students participated in the program this year and were required to prepare a formal group presentation on Rogers Lake to their class. The winning group will present on Tuesday, March 5. This is a genuine learning opportunity for all of these students, especially the winning group. This document gives an overview of the chemical water quality monitoring program used by the A.P. Environmental Science students at Saint Thomas Academy for the Mayor, Council Members, and Staff. Based on the data taken last fall, Rogers Lake once again continues to be a very healthy lake. The actual data, analysis of the data, areas in need of improvement, and possible solutions will be further discussed at the council meeting. Please direct any questions to Mr. Tony Kinzley, A.P. Environmental Science Teacher, at tkinzley@cadets.com. page 76 Rogers Lake Historical Data 2001‐2017 (9 Parameters and Overall Rating)Blank cells indicate that data is not availableBold values indicate data collected using probewareRed values indicate historical recordDissolved OxygenFecal ColiformpHBOD5Δ TemperaturePhosphateNitrateTurbidityTotal SolidsOverallSeason(ppm)(col./100ml)(units)(ppm)(Degrees C)(ppm)(ppm)(JTU)(mg/L)(0‐100)Fall 20016.97.84.61.81.30.740.062.5Spring 20025.98.04.02.02.20.124.168.0Fall 20025.98.23.61.71.71.122.2233.165.1Spring 20036.37.72.70.91.41.021.268.2Fall 20034.87.51.71.41.00.327.2409.664.9Spring 20043.27.62.21.61.10.422.0440.359.0Fall 200469.8Spring 200571.0Fall 20054.937.97.22.41.01.10.411.6307.570.9Spring 2006 2.71.97.61.52.01.20.711.8318.572.8Fall 20067.949.57.62.61.51.11.010.174.6Spring 20077.911.28.22.51.50.70.611.3301.878.4Fall 20077.825.97.62.81.10.60.39.0477.276.7Spring 20088.00.07.64.70.90.50.412.4321.274.3Fall 20086.434.27.93.81.21.10.417.5451.372.1Spring 20098.03.17.02.50.91.00.412.6344.677.9Fall 20097.211.66.22.11.01.00.68.8290.575.6Fall 20106.89.96.22.41.00.90.218.6293.270.8Fall 20118.134.07.54.50.81.00.416.5298.775.5Fall 20127.728.97.73.01.11.00.414.4296.175.9Fall 20137.610.87.62.50.90.80.49.2300.078.6Fall 20147.79.17.51.81.00.50.98.6280.380.8Fall 20157.15.07.72.91.01.00.615.5276.780.2Fall 20169.50.07.71.31.20.90.47.4254.185.1Fall 201710.50.87.72.21.20.91.07.9261.785.9Fall 201810.71.47.83.21.70.40.55.0321.384.3page 77 Average7.115.37.62.81.31.00.515.2323.973.8page 78 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Denying a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance to Julia Weisbecker for property located at 1840 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2019-03 Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would deny a request from Julia Weisbecker of a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for a reduced lot width standards. The subject property is located at 1840 Hunter Lane. Background Julia Weisbecker is requesting a lot line adjustment for one of two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane. Related to this lot adjustment, Ms. Weisbecker is requesting a variance to permit one of the lots to have lesser street width/frontage as required by City Code. The two parcels are located between 1836 and 1850 Hunter Lane, and are identified by Dakota County Assessor as two separate parcels of record. The westerly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-032) is a vacant, square-shaped lot 127’ x 171’ with 22,390 sf. of area. The easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040) is a similar shaped lot of 130’ x 171’ and 25,783 sf. of area. Ms. Weisbecker is selling-off the easterly parcel with the single-family dwelling, and intends to sell the westerly parcel separately for future residential development. Since these parcels are considered by City Code to be “Existing Lots of Record”, they can be legally owned and developed separately. The new owner of 1840 Hunter Lane has requested that instead of accessing the easterly lot through an easement right (over the westerly parcel), he wants to secure a 24-ft, wide permanent (fee title) strip of land for the access. The proposed lot line adjustment would take place on the westerly parcel, which creates a 24-ft. wide strip of land. The strip would then be added or combined with the easterly parcel, thus creating a flag-lot configuration when completed. This strip does not meet the 100-ft. lot width or street frontage standard required under the R-1 Zone standards, therefore the variance was needed. At the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a public hearing was conducted. Comments from the public were received and made part of the meeting minutes. A copy of the 02/26/2019 Planning Staff Report, with site plans and building elevation plans, and the Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this memo report. page 79 Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0 vote) to deny the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance request from Julia Weisbecker, based on the following findings of facts: 1. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order to justify Variance (for reduced lot frontage); and 2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-18 DENYING THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM JULIA WEISBECKER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE. If the City Council wishes to reverse this recommendation, you may make a motion to adopt a revised resolution of approval for the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance, based on the findings of fact supporting approval, as noted in the Feb. 26th Planning Report. Both actions require a simple majority vote. page 80 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-18 RESOLUTION DENYING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03) WHEREAS, Julia Weisbecker, (the “Applicant”) has applied for a lot line adjustment with variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03 for the two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane (the “Subject Properties”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are both 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 for 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 Applicant seeks to adjust and realign the southerly boundary line of the unassigned westerly parcel (PID No. 270270008032) which creates an approximate 24-foot wide strip of land, that would be created for the purpose of providing a dedicated fee title access strip to the easterly parcel at 1840 Hunter Lane (PID No. 270270008040) as described and illustrated on the attached surveys of Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code, the Applicant seeks a variance to allow the access strip to have less than the 100-foot roadway frontage width standard, as required under the R-1 District regulations; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to deny the request for Lot Line Adjustment with Variance, with certain findings of fact to support such denial. page 81 Res 2018-47 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment with Variance as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03 are both hereby denied, with the following findings of fact as recommended by the Planning Commission: A. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order to justify Variance (for reduced lot frontage); and B. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Line Adjustment with Variance for the properties located at 1840 Hunter Lane, and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-03, are hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of March, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 82 EXHIBIT A page 83 EXHIBIT B page 84 Res 2018-47 Page 5 page 85 Res 2018-47 Page 6 page 86 Res 2018-47 Page 7 page 87 Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 1 of 6 Planning Report DATE: February 26, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-03 Lot Line Adjustment and Variance APPLICANT: Julia Weisbecker PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1840 Hunter Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 28, 2019 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358 – subdivisions) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Ms. Julia Weisbecker is requesting a lot line adjustment for one of two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane. Related to this lot adjustment, Ms. Weisbecker also requests a variance to permit a portion of a lot to have lesser street width/frontage as required by City Code. In essence, to allow a flag lot. 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. Staff has not received any comments or objections related to this item. BACKGROUND Both parcels are located between the properties of 1836 and 1850 Hunter Lane, and are identified by Dakota County Assessor as two separate tax identified parcels (see GIS image – below). page 88 Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 2 of 6 Staff was unable to determine when, how or why these two parcels were separated in the first place. It appears over the course of time, the former owners of these two properties sold or transferred them as one combined property. The properties to the north of the subject property were platted in Celia’s Addition in 1989; and the properties to the south were platted into Sun View Hills Addition in 1977. The families that previously owned 1840 Hunter Lane apparently did not plat or become part of either plat on each side, and they remain unplatted, separate parcels to this day. The westerly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-032 – outlined in RED below) is a vacant, square-shaped lot, 127- ft. wide by 171-ft. deep, with 22,390 sq. ft. of area. The easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040 - outlined in BLUE below) is a similar square shaped lot, but 130-ft. wide by 171-ft. deep, with 25,783 sq. ft. of area. The east parcel contains a 3,745 sf. dwelling (built in 1950), which has a single -lane bituminous driveway that leads out on to Hunter Lane across the southern part of the westerly parcel. The survey reveals that an existing 15-ft. wide Ingress/Egress Easement is present along the south edge of this westerly parcel, but the physical driveway does not come close to being centered or located inside this easement space, and veers off more to the south when travelling easterly and back towards the east parcel. The survey also reveals this driveway encroaches slightly over the northerly property line of 1850 Hunter Lane (to the south). The owners of 1850 Hunter Lane have stated they do not wish to participate in a similar lot line adjustment on their private land, nor grant any permanent land rights in order to eliminate this encroachment (due to current mortgage and other legal/title issues). However, this neighbor has agreed to provide a 5-foot easement for driveway purposes on this northerly notched segment of their land, which will go to the benefit of the new owner at 1840 Hunter Lane. Today, Ms. Weisbecker seeks to sell the easterly parcel with the single-family dwelling on its own; and sell-off the westerly parcel separately for future residential development. Since these parcels are considered by City Code to be “Existing Lots of Record”, they can legally be owned and developed individually. The problem exists however, that once the westerly parcel is sold off, and different ownership takes control of each parcel, the easterly parcel potentially loses its legal access rights over and across the west parcel , as it exists today. The new owner of 1840 Hunter Lane has requested that instead of securing an easement right over the westerly parcel for the driveway access, he is requesting a more permanent solution. page 89 Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 3 of 6 The lot line adjustment will take place only on the westerly (unassigned) parcel. The adjustment creates a 20.18-ft. to 23.51 ft. wide parcel strip along the south edge of this westerly parcel, which parcel will then be combined to the easterly parcel for a new permanent (fee title) access strip for the easterly 1840 Hunter Lane parcel (see close-up image – below). Once this strip parcel has been created and is combined or added to the east parcel, it essentially creates a “flag-lot” design, which is something the city allowed at one time (as evident throughout the city), but no longer. City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet (lot width) along a public roadway frontage. To accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, M s. Weisbecker seeks a variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment. 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. In most cases of lot line adjustments, two property owners typically work out an agreement for one to secure added legal rights to another neighboring owner property, usually a side-yard or rear-yard area. This case is somewhat unusual, in that the adjustment creates or leaves a narrow strip, which is then intended to be combined to the land-locked property to the rear. As noted previously and as illustrated on the Applicant’s survey, the adjustment creates a new “access strip” 20.18-ft. wide along Hunter Lane, which tapers out slightly to 23.51-ft. wide on the back end and abuts to the easterly parcel. This results in the westerly parcel having 107-ft. of frontage along Hunter Lane and 171.25-ft. of depth. The survey also illustrates the far west edge of the westerly parcel legally extends out into Hunter Lane ROW; and the Applicant is proposing to dedicate a 14-ft. even strip of land to the City of Mendota Heights for permanent road ROW, thereby reducing the lot width to 157.25 ft. The west parcel is then left with 16,825 sf. of land area for development. The width and area still keep the adjusted westerly lot legal and conforming to City Code (R-1 One Family Zone) standards. page 90 Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 4 of 6  Variance As noted previously, as a result of this lot line adjustment, an approximate 20+ ft. wide strip parcel will be created and combined with the easterly land-locked parcel, thereby creating a new “flag-lot” design. City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet (lot width) along a public roadway frontage. When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to consider an Applicant’s response to certain questions, and carefully weigh certain findings as they apply to these standards. As part of the variance application, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): 1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance; meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter? Ms. Weisbecker proposal will continue to facilitate use of the property in a reasonable manner because its use as a residential lot will not change. The property is zoned R-l, which allows for single family dwellings. There is currently a single family dwelling located on the property and the property will continue to be used as a single family dwelling. If a variance is not granted, the property will not have unambiguous, permanent access, will be unmarketable and cannot be put to any reasonable use. 2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? . If the variance is not granted, 1840 Hunter Lane will be effectively land locked due to circumstances beyond Weisbecker's control. The lot split which created the unassigned parcel, thereby extinguishing access to 1840 Hunter Lane, was approved by the City before the ordinance prohibiting "flag lots" was passed. At the time of the approval of the lot split, the City approved the unassigned lot as a separate, buildable lot from 1840 Hunter Lane. If the variance is not granted, the lot split approved by the City will be effectively nullified. 3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? If the lot split, combination of parcels and variance are granted, both 1840 Hunter Lane and the unassigned parcel will fit with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is zoned R-l and consists of single family dwellings. There is an existing single family dwelling on 1840 Hunter Lane and Weisbecker expects to sell the unassigned parcel to be developed as a single family dwelling. In addition, there are at least two "flag lots" currently in the neighborhood at 1827 Hunter Lane and 1889 Hunter Lane. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment with the requested variance for reduced lot width standard, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance based on amended findings of fact that the proposed lot line adjustment and variance are not consistent with the City Code, Comprehensive Plan or other justifiable and stated reasons: or 3. Table the applications, pending additional information from city staff or the Applicant. page 91 Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 5 of 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment and variance, based on the attached findings of fact and with the following conditions: 1) The Applicant shall combine and attach the new access strip parcel to be created under the lot line adjustment to the easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040). 2) The Applicant must provide proof of a private easement for driveway purposes from the owners of 1850 Hunter Lane (to the south). 3) Should the new owner(s) of 1840 Hunter Lane ever decide to reconstruct the driveway leading back to the property, it must be re-centered and placed within the approximate 20-ft. wide access strip. 4) 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. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Location/Site Map 2. Letter of Intent from Homeowners 3. Planning Application w/ Variance Responses (from homeowners) 4. Surveys with Legal Descriptions page 92 Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 6 of 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment & Variance 1840 Hunter Lane Planning Case No. 2019-03 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 request is to provide a permanent (fee title) access right to the easterly parcel, which will better serve said parcel instead of an easement right. 3. The existing conditions of the two parcels, with one essentially being land-locked, was not created by the current property owners; and this lot adjustment and variance to lot width standards is a reasonable request, the issue of the land-locked parcel does create some practical difficulty in providing legal access rights to the site; and the requests do not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. page 93 6 66666666666 6666666666666666666666 66 6 6 ³³³³! ³ ³ ³ ³ """ " " ""66666666 6 666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 111110221171157 150149136 131130129141 84 11575 455 408 155 10060 139 194 404 30 23124 20185175916 90185150100 13120157 171 15730 100100 171 157 301851140 1850 1154 1840 1830 1836 1835 1845 1831 1855 1175 1151 1819 1155 1827 1145 11451171 HUNTER LNORCHARD PL 375'250'237'269'138' Dakota County GIS 1840 Hunter Lane(J. Weisbecker Properties)City ofMendotaHeights080 SCALE IN FEETDate: 1/22/2019 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 94 page 95 January 23, 2019  LETTER OF INTENT  City of Mendota Heights  e 1101 Victoria Curv Mendota Heights, MN 55118  ttn:  Tim Benetti A timb@mendota‐heights.com  e: nce Request R Lot Split/Property Co 1840 Hunter Lane, Me  File No.:  6639‐2  mbination and Varia ndota Heights, MN  Our Dear Tim:  Julia Weisbecker owns 1840 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 and an unassigned  parcel  immediately  West  of  1840  Hunter  Lane  and  adjacent  to  Hunter  Lane  (referred  to  hereinafter as the “Unassigned Parcel”).  The Unassigned Parcel was the result of a lot split  approved by the City prior to Ms. Weisbecker’s ownership of the property.  Ms. Weisbecker  recently entered into a purchase agreement to sell 1840 Hunter Lane.  She will continue to  own the Unassigned Parcel and expects to sell the unassigned parcel for development as a  single‐family, detached dwelling.  A recent survey has disclosed that there is an approximate three (3) foot gap between 1840  Hunter  Lane  and  1850  Hunter  Lane  and  also  between  the  Unassigned  Parcel  and  1850  Hunter Lane.  Ms. Weisbecker is in the process of commencing a  quiet  title  action  to  eliminate  the  gap(s)  and  establish  ownership  of  the  gap  property.  The relief being  requested in the quiet title action is that Ms. Weisbecker be declared the owner of the gap  between the Unassigned Parcel and 1850 Hunter Lane and the owners of 1850 Hunter Lane  be declared the owners of the gap between their property and 1840 Hunter Lane.  Contingent  on  final  judgment  being  entered  in  the  quiet  title  action,  Ms.  Weisbecker  is  requesting a lot split of the Unassigned Parcel, severing the south 24 feet (approximately)  of said parcel.  The parcel that is severed will be conveyed to the purchaser of 1840 Hunter  Lane  and  combined  with  1840  Hunter  Lane.    The  lot  split  and  combination  with  1840  Hunter Lane is requested to provide unambiguous, permanent access to 1840 Hunter Lane.  In connection with the lot split and combination with 1840 Hunter Lane, Ms. Weisbecker is  also requesting a variance for 1840 Hunter Lane from the City’s zoning ordinances, which  page 96 City of Mendota Heights  January 23, 2019  Pg. 2  require properties located within the R1 zoning district to have front yard lots 100 feet  wide and prohibiting “flag lots.”    If Ms. Weisbecker’s request for a lot split/combination of property and variance is denied,  the lot split approved by the City which created the Unassigned Parcel, and which was  elied  upon  by  Weisbeceker,  will  effectively  be  nullified  and  1840  Hunter  lane  will  be r unmarketable.    The survey referenced above also shows that the West boundary line of the Unassigned  Parcel extends to the center line of Hunter Lane.  There is no easement of record for Hunter  Lane over the Unassigned Parcel.  In connection with the request for a lot split/combination  nd variance, Ms. Weisbecker is willing to assist the City in resolving this issue by granting  ed Parcel for Hunter Lane.  a an easement over the Unassign nclose  p   E   d lease the following:  1.Planning Application;    Application;    Application;  and  2. Lot Split 3.Variance 4. Survey.    Ms. Weisbecker will submit the required fees under separate cover.  Please contact Ms.  eisbecker directly or through her real estate agent, Paul Dorn, with regard to payment of W the fees.    f you require additional information or have any questions, please contact Mike Orme or  igned.  Thank you for your assistance.  I the unders   Sincerely,        ana K. Nyquist  t@ormelaw.com D dnyquis     DKN   c: ‐mail)  :jlf   C Julia Weisbecker (via e   Paul Dorn (via e‐mail)  page 97 M ENDOTA HEIGHTS !!!:I< CI TY OF 1101 V1ctorliJ Curve I Mendota Heights. MN 55118 651.452.1850 pl1one i 651.452.8940 fax www mendota -heights.corn VARIANCE APPLICATION Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case#: ---------- App Ii cant: ________ _ Address: ---------- The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. • Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: ~ Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. ~ Completed Application Form(s). ~ Letter of Intent. ~ Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): ~ Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. 6'I Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. D Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 1 of 3 page 98 variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. 0 If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. 0 If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 2 of 3 page 99 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? @ YES D NO Why or why not? See Exhibit A 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). See Exhibit A 3. In your opm1on, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? Ga YES D NO Why or why not? See Exhibit A The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 3 of 3 page 100 EXHIBIT A 1. Ms. Weisbecker's proposal will continue to facilitate use of the property in a reasonable manner because its use as a residential lot will not change. The property is zoned Rl, which allows for single family dwellings. There is currently a single family dwelling located on the property and the property will continue to be used as a single family dwelling. If a variance is not granted, the property will not have unambiguous, permanent access, will be unmarketable and cannot be put to any reasonable use. 2. If the variance is not granted, 1840 Hunter Lane will be effectively land locked due to circumstances beyond Weisbecker's control. The lot split which created the unassigned parcel, thereby extinguishing access to 1840 Hunter Lane, was approved by the City before the ordinance prohibiting "flag lots" was passed. At the time of the approval of the lot split, the City approved the unassigned lot as a separate, buildable lot from 1840 Hunter Lane. If the variance is not granted, the lot split approved by the City will be effectively nullified. 3. If the lot split, combination of parcels and variance are granted, both 1840 Hunter Lane and the unassigned parcel will fit with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is zoned Rl and consists of single family dwellings. There is an existing single family dwelling on 1840 Hunter Lane and Wisebecker expects to sell the unassigned parcel to be developed as a single family dwelling. In addition, there are at least two "flag lots" currently in the neighborhood at 1827 Hunter Lane and 1889 Hunter Lane. page 101 page 102 page 103 page 104 page 105 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT C) PLANNING CASE #2019-03 JULIE WEISBECKER, 1840 HUNTER LANE LOT ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Julia Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter Lane, was seeking a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for one of two parcels that she owns. This item was presented under a public hearing, all people within 350 feet of the subject property were mailed notices and no comments or objections have been received. The west parcel is 127’ x 171’ or approximately 22,390 square feet. The east parcel is 130’ x 171’ or approximately 25,783 square feet. The east lot contains a 3,745 square foot dwelling, which has a single- lane bituminous driveway from Hunter Lane. These are two legal parcels of record. The packet of information received by the Commission included four surveys. The first survey deals with a quiet title action because there is a 3.5’ gap between the 1840 parcels and the 1850 parcel to the south. The quiet title action is to work on the agreement between property owners when there is a discrepancy or dispute between property lines. This was discovered when the new surveys were called for on this property. Eventually, the east parcel will contain the 3,700 square foot home. There is a driveway that comes off the rear of the parcel from Hunter and slightly veers off into the 1850 property as well. The west parcel is designed for a future home pad; however, one has not been approved on that site. They are filling in the site as approved as part of the separate grading permit by Ms. Weisbecker from the City Council. The lot line adjustment was simply asking to adjust the south line by approximately 24 feet. The reason is that the new homeowner of 1840 Hunter wanted to make sure that, in order to avoid any easement rights or disputes in the future, he requested that he be able to have a fee title strip that would be affixed to the back parcel for the driveway or access easement. They also need to provide for a little additional easement to make sure that the encroaching driveway will be taken care of in the future. It is only an approximately 5’ easement on the south side; if this driveway ever has to be fixed, repaired, or reconstructed staff has asked for a condition that it has to be put back into the easement area. Once they affix the 24’ foot strip, it would create a flag-lot, which is something the city no longer allows. City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet along a public roadway frontage. To accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, Ms. Weisbecker seeks a variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment. Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and responses were provided by the applicant to assist the Commission in determining if a Variance is warranted in this case. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Commissioner Noonan noted that staff reported that the city does not allow flag-lots and asked if that was outright prohibition in ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that by default it is because every new developable lot created has to have at least 100-feet of frontage on a city street. By affixing this parcel to the back of the lot, it would not meet the 100-foot frontage requirement. page 106 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Commissioner Noonan noted that the lot at 1840 Hunter has the required frontage. Mr. Benetti replied that it does not have the required frontage. It does not have any frontage. They are trying to fix their land-locked situation by adding this strip. Eventually, they would be dedicating the 14-feet of the westerly area to the city as part of the additional Hunter Lane right-of-way. Commissioner Noonan then asked why the current flag-lot configuration considered a non-conforming use. Mr. Benetti replied that it is a legal lot of record and he was not sure if it could be called a legal non-conforming lot. It is a legal non-conforming, but not a legal non-conforming use. Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that staff was unable to find any records that allowed for this split. Mr. Benetti replied that he went back and was able to find previous owner names, but was unable to find anything. He believed this could have been corrected had the former owners joined in with the plats to the north or to the south. Unfortunately, they never did. By the city’s code and definitions, these are considered legal lots of record and they can be developed per the city’s code. Commissioner Corbett asked if they intended to develop the western lot, thus creating the hardship. Mr. Benetti replied that there is no hardship because Ms. Weisbecker wanted to leave things the way they are. There is a reasonable requirement to developing the lot. Any correction would be adjoining the lots and combining them into one; that would make it conforming. The new buyer of 1840 Hunter is simply asking for their own fee title strip because they recognize that access easements can get flakey over time. He would prefer to have his own fee title strip. Commissioner Petschel asked if someone came to the Commission with an elongated lot with a house in the back, would the Commission allow them to split their lot like this. The reply was a resounding negative. Commissioner Petschel continued by saying that the only enabling condition that allows this even be considered is the fact that it is already split. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then commented that the owner of the front lot could come in and ask for a building permit and get it as of right now. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Commissioner Noonan continued by stating that the only reason there is an application now is for the desire to have fee title to a driveway, rather than doing a real estate transaction whereby the front gives an easement to the back. Mr. Benetti confirmed. As of right now, Ms. Weisbecker owns both lots. Pretty soon there will be two different ownerships involved. The new owner of the back parcel, 1840 Hunter, has a personal and legal desire to secure their own rights to that driveway and not subject to any easement rights. Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that there is currently an easement of record there. Mr. Benetti confirmed. She continued by noting that the driveway does not follow the easement of record, but it does exist – so there is an access point. If that easement were simply continued or widened through another easement of record, there would not be any land lock issue; this is a preference for the new owner but not something that is necessary absolutely in order to create access to Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Corbett noted that starting at 1850 Hunter and heading closer towards Highway 62, all of those lots are basically the same size. He asked this there was any way that those lots could be split up in the same way. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative, unless they had at least a minimum of 100 feet of frontage; however, splitting them like this would probably be next to impossible because every newly created lot has to have at least 100 feet of frontage onto Hunter or the next road. However, per Commissioner Mazzitello, they could ask for a variance and split off the front portion of their lots and this could take place down Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed. page 107 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Commissioner Noonan stated that approving this request could provide a precedence to guide future actions, potentially. Commissioner Petschel stated that he thought this was predicated as a fact that the lot was already split and that no one could come forward and try to do a front/back split and get approval. He asked if this was setting a precedence or just recognizing a unique situation. Commissioner Katz raised the concern of there is going to be a cul-de-sac coming in through the backside of the lot the house is on and some of the lots on that side are still for sale. He then asked, in theory, if someone could ask for a variance to connect Hunter Lane to whatever that new cul-de-sac is going to be called, and then there would be a new road between them. Then there would be two houses where there is currently just one and then may be another road that goes back through to this cul-de-sac and dividing that neighborhood even more into more segmented lots and connects them all. Mr. Benetti replied that, in theory, this could occur; however, he does not foresee that ever happening. Chair Magnuson stated that she was unsure how these properties ended up how they were; however, this is not the only property like this on Hunter Lane. Across the street is another home that has two lots back-to- back. Conceivably, the Commission would be setting precedence. Mr. Benetti echoed Commissioner Petschel’s comments about not being too worried about setting a precedent because Variances have to stand on their own merit and their own test as they are presented. The Commission would have the choice to say yes or no and make recommendations. Commissioner Toth, referring to the term flag-lot, noted that they were allowed in Mendota Heights in the past, but no longer. He asked why the city make the decision to not allow flag-lots within the city. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unsure, but believed that it was more of a preferred choice not to have homes set behind homes and set behind homes; a decision made 15+ years ago. Ms. Julie Weisbecker expressed her appreciation to the Commission for considering her application. She shared a non-legal document that she received from the previous owner stating that this split occurred sometime around 1967. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Campion, 1836 Hunter Lane, has lived in the area for approximately 23 years and does not remember this lot being split. He understood that they are two lots of record; however, they were always presented to him as one lot. He remembered going through the process of having the buggy trail removed between his lot and this before he could build. This whole two lot discussion has hit him by surprise. He woke up one day and they were digging dirt on the lot. He called the city right away and they came and put a stop to it. This does not comply with the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. There are other lots in the area that there are houses behind it, but they are larger lots than this. By moving and giving this Variance, he believed would set a precedence in the neighborhood to do this more. There has never been any conversation on how they are going to fill in between the houses. A developer bought some lots down the road and he is also involved in this one. He started bringing the dirt over from down the street and dumping onto this lot. This has been a sore spot for them since the beginning and he does not agree with it. Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, was the agent of record when this lot was purchased by the Weisbecker’s approximately 10 years ago. He is working with Ms. Weisbecker now through this process. He noted that there would be a house built on the vacant no matter what the decision is on the Variance. In page 108 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT his experience, if this were reversed and the house was sitting in front and they were trying to gain access to something behind, that would be different. However, they are already have a house of record, have a legal platted lot in front that has the frontage and meets the requirements. From the standpoint of the fee simple versus the easement, the benefit of the fee simple is, especially for mortgage companies, etc., it creates a much cleaner ability for title and to be able to get a mortgage on the property. This is the cleanest way for the city to be able to grant something that is a very unique and is not setting a precedence. During this process, they have discovered that the properties to the north and to the south have drainage easements running through this property. They worked with Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek on making sure that they now grant, behind were the proposed house would be on the front lot, a drainage easement also to make sure that the drainage is going to be beneficial and not create another problem that way. The homeowner has been willing to make sure they work with that as well as granting that right-of-way easement in front. Upon request, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared the locations of the drainage easements as well as other easements. Commissioner Toth, noting that he drove by the property and noticed quite a bit of fill, expressed his concerns about drainage from there. He asked how that would be managed due to the increase in elevation due to the fill. Mr. Dorn replied that they have been working with the public works department on this for a number of months and they have tried to adhere to everything the engineer has requested. Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of how this Variance request due to a practical difficulty. Mr. Dorn replied that the Variance would create a cleaner title for the future property owner and for the property owners to the south. Leaving the easement as is would create a huge lift potentially as far they are going to support this, and could potentially hamper any future mortgage negotiations. Chair Magnuson asked rather than overcomplicating this with another easement for the people on the south, why weren’t they taking this opportunity to clean up that encroachment and move the driveway into the property line and make it then complying rather than having the owners to the south have to grant an easement for some indeterminate period of time. This would be a good opportunity to fix that encroachment. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that if the Commission denied the Variance request, they would not be creating a landlocked parcel because there is access to the lot via an easement already in place. Granting the Variance would just be creating a different mode of accessing Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-03 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this is a unique situation with these lots. He agreed with the testimony heard that fee simple ownership does make for a cleaner title; however, the practical difficulty in this situation is one that the burden of proof has not been met. If a fee simple is cleaner, then fee simple a 100 page 109 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT feet of frontage and be done with it; and said Variance is no longer needed. Better yet, combine the two lots and then there is no Variance needed. He believed the impudence for this application is one of economics, which they are not supposed to consider anyway. Commissioner Petschel agreed with these comments. He agreed with Mr. Dorn and the applicant that this would be a superior solution if it were allowed. However, he did not understand how they could grant a Variance for this and not for any other applicant that came in with a non-conforming lot, saying that their lot does not apply. Commissioner Mazzitello provided the following Finding of Fact for Disapproval: 1. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order to justify Variance (for reduced lot frontage); and 2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. As the second on the motion, Commissioner Katz accepted the Finding of Fact for Disapproval. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. page 110 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split and Lot Combination to Mark & Kris Morin for property located at 963 Chippewa Avenue (Planning Case No. 2019-04 Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Lot Split application from Mark & Kris Morin, to subdivide a residential parcel located at 963 Chippewa Avenue. Background The subject property is a corner lot, located at the southwest corner of Chippewa Avenue and Simard Street. The property consists of two original platted lots, which were combined years ago and assigned a single parcel identification number. The property is currently in the estate of Rosemary A. Morin, who is the late mother of Mr. Morin. Mr. Morin is handling the estate sale of the property on behalf of the family. Upon completion of the split, the residential dwelling at 963 Chippewa Ave. will have a smaller (but legal) residential parcel; while the remaining parcel created by the split will be combined into the Morin’s property of 530 Simard Street, located immediately to the west of this property. 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. In this particular case, the original dwelling at 963 Chippewa will have its own separate (but smaller) parcel; while the resulting parcel created by the lot split, although a non-conforming, will be combined with the 530 Simard Street property only. No individual development will be allowed or permitted on the new, vacant parcel created by the split. At the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a public hearing was conducted. There were no comments or objections from the public related to this matter. A copy of the 02/26/2019 planning report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Lot Split request, with certain conditions and findings of fact. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-19 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 111 Res 2019-04 page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-19 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-04) WHEREAS, Mark and Kris Morin (the “Applicant”) have applied for a Lot Split (Subdivision) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-04, for the property located at 963 Chippewa Avenue, and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Subject Property into two parcels as legally described and illustrated on survey attached as Exhibit B, in which Parcel A will be created as a vacant parcel to be combined with the property of 530 Simard Street, located immediately to the west, and Parcel B will be created as a new lot for the existing residential dwelling at 963 Chippewa Avenue; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0 vote) of the Lot Split request, 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 request for the property located at 963 Chippewa Avenue, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-04 can be approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. C. The two lots resulting from the lot split will keep a single-family development intact; while the new non-conforming lot to be created by this split will be combined with the neighboring property only, thereby eliminating the need for a page 112 Res 2019-04 page 2 variance for a reduced lot size or lot width standard for properties located in the R- 1 District. D. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report, dated and presented February 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights) is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split request for the property located at 963 Chippewa Avenue, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-04, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map prepared by Frank A. Cardarelle (dated Jan. 29, 2019) shall be combined with the property identified as 530 Simard Street (PID No. 27-31300-02- 042). 2) The applicant shall dedicate, by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County, a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north and east property lines of Parcel A; a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and east property lines, and a 5-foot wide easement along the south property line of Parcel B; and a 5-foot wide easement on each side (10-ft. total) of the shared line between Parcels A and B. 3) Approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship for the Applicant or future owners of Parcel A in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on said Parcel A. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of March, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights, M 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 113 Res 2019-04 page 3 EXHIBIT A Property Legal Descriptions ADDRESS - 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 PID No. 27-31300-02-020 LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, GUADALUPE HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED PARCEL A: THE NORTH 86.0 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, GUADALUPE HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARCEL B: LOT 1 EXCEPT THE NORTH 86.0 FEET, AND ALL OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, GUADALUPE HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA page 114 Res 2019-04 page 4 EXHIBIT B page 115 Planning Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING/GUIDED: ACTION DEADLINE: February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Planning Case 2019-04 Lot Split (Subdivision) & Combination Mark Morin 963 Chippewa Avenue R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential May 28, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Mark Morin is requesting approval to subdivide a residential developed parcel located at 963 Chippewa Avenue. Upon completion of the split, the residential dwelling at 963 Chippewa will have a smaller (but legal) residential parcel; while the remaining parcel created by the split will be combined into Mr. Morin’s property, located immediately to the west. This 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. There have been no inquiries or objections received by city staff. BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot, located the southwest corner of Chippewa Avenue and Simard Street. The property consists of two original platted lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe Heights Addition). Staff assumes the two lots were combined many years ago, with have been assigned a single parcel identification number and assessed as one larger parcel for property tax purposes. The subject property has 205-feet of frontage along Chippewa, and 120-ft. along Simard, and consists of 26,193 total square feet of area. The property also contains a 1,925 sq. ft., one-story single family rambler style home built in 1955, with a 3-car attached garage. The overall property is generally flat and even with no noticeable elevations or grades. The area north of the home is relatively wide open, with very little trees page 116 Planning Report: Case #2019-04 Page 2 or landscaping one large evergreen tree near the corner and most of the site vacant/open grass yard. (see Google Street image – below). The site is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district, and is bordered to the north, south, east and west with existing and similar style single family homes. ANALYSIS  Project Description As stated in the Applicant’s letter of intent, they propose to keep the existing single-family home intact, and subdivide the lot into two (2) separate parcels, one for the home and one to be combined with Mr. Morin’s own property to the west, located at 530 Simard Street.  Parcel A: the northern area of the subject property will be subdivided off to create a new 86-ft. wide by 120-ft. deep parcel, containing 10,915 sf. (0.25 acres) of land area.  Parcel B: the southerly part of the subject property will be subdivided to create a new 119-ft. wide by 133.4/150.26-ft. deep parcel, containing 15,278 sf. (0.35 acres) of land area.  Zoning Information 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. Below is a table that reflects the R-1 District standards and those proposed for each parcel: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000-SQ. FT. 26,193-SQ. FT. (0.60 AC.) 10,915-SQ. FT 15,278 SQ. FT. Lot Width 100-FT. 205-FT. / 120-FT. 86-FT. 119-FT. As shown in the table above, the proposed Parcel B will be compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards, and the home meets the 10-foot minimum side-yard (and other) setback standards for single-family structures in this area. page 117 Planning Report: Case #2019-04 Page 3 Parcel A however, does not meet the minimum lot width standards of 100-feet (along Chippewa Avenue); nor the 15,000 sf. lot area minimum standard required in the R-1 Zone. However, the primary reason and stated objective by the Applicant for splitting this property is to provide an opportunity to divide this this lot into two separate parcels; sell-off the existing family home with a newer (but smaller) lot; and the remaining non-conforming lot will be added or combined to his own personal property next door at 530 Simard Street. For this reason, city staff determined there was no need to process a variance with this subdivision application. Approval of this lot split however, will include a condition that the new Parcel A to be considered under this request must be added or combined with the immediate neighboring residential property of 530 Simard Street; and under no circumstances will separate single-family development be allowed on this parcel. Furthermore, any approvals granted under this subdivision request does not create any special or unique circumstances, nor any hardship argument for allowing this newly created (vacant) parcel to be individually developed in the future. The survey shows that there is a small split-rail, wooden fence along the outer perimeter of the proposed Parcel A. Part of this fence appears to encroach slightly into the Simard Street right-of-way to the north. The Planning Commission may wish to decide (make a condition) if this fence needs to be relocated out of the ROW, or allow the fence to remain in place. City staff has determined this fence does not impact any local utilities or snow storage, and is not significant enough to call for its immediate removal.  Easements As stated previously, the subject property was originally platted as Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe Heights Addition (1890). The plat does not depict or include any perimeter drainage and utility easements within the lots; so therefore the vacation of any easement (due to the re-establishment of new lot lines between both parcels) is not required. However, the city normally requests Applicants to dedicate any missing drainage and utility easements when necessary; and the only areas the city can request these easements are along the front, rear and shared (dividing) line between both parcels. The city will request 10-foot wide easements along the front, rear and the shared parcel line. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split application based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split application based on revised or determined findings of fact; OR 3. Table the lot split application, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. page 118 Planning Report: Case #2019-04 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map prepared by Frank A. Cardarelle (dated Jan. 29, 2019) shall be combined with the property identified as 530 Simard Street (PID No. 27-31300-02-042). 2) The applicant shall dedicate, by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County, a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north and east property lines of Parcel A; a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and east property lines, and a 5-foot wide easement along the south property line of Parcel B; and a 5-foot wide easement on each side (10-ft. total) of the shared line between Parcels A and B. 3) Approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship for the Applicant or future owners of Parcel A in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on said Parcel A. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will keep a single-family development intact; while the new non-conforming lot to be created by this split will be combined with the neighboring property only, thereby eliminating the need for a variance for a reduced lot size or lot width standard for properties located in the R-1 District. page 119 page 120 page 121 6666666 6 6666666666 666666666666666 6 6666 6 6 6 6 6 6 666666! " "³ ³ " " ³ ! ! * ³ " ³ " ³66666666666666 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 1791721701631 4 4 90 115 80 120 12 1 78110 75 10710570100656160 119 1 3 5 56 55 1481 9 3 5049 149155 140434130 29117 25 20 19 8197 15510 6130 119 5100140120120 107 100 1403060 5080120 60 60 119 55 78140107 60 119 60 6080 12050 30 530 963 537541 975 529531 546 550 968 969 547 945525537 985 959 953 947 532 554 544 545 983 940 549 987 MIRIAM ST SIMARD ST CHIPPEWA AVEDIEGO LN351.6' 351.2'238'235.5'107'327.5'332.7'107.4'85.9'Dakota County GIS 963 Chippewa Avenue530 Simard Street)Mark & Kris Morin City ofMendotaHeights075 SCALE IN FEETDate: 2/20/2019 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 122 page 123 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT D) PLANNING CASE #2019-04 MARK MORIN, 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE LOT SPLIT (AND LOT COMBINATION) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Kris Morin are the owners of the property adjacent to the subject parcel (530 Simard Street). The subject property, located at 963 Chippewa Avenue, was formerly owned by Mr. Morin’s late mother and is now in estate proceedings and is to be sold off separately by the Morin’s. This item was presented as a Public Hearing and notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. The subject parcel was located at the southwest corner of Chippewa and Simard, is located in the R-1 Residential District. This lot originally consisted of two platted lots; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe Heights Addition. The lots were combined many years ago and have been considered as one parcel since. There is 205 feet of frontage along Chippewa and 120 feet along Simard. The lot area is just over 26,000 square feet. The subject parcel has a 1,925 square foot single-story rambler with a 3-car attached garage. The request is to split the property into two parcels, with Parcel B retaining the existing Morin family estate homes. This Parcel B would be 119’ x 133.4/150.26’, or approximately 0.35 acres of land; making it compliant with the R-1 standards. However, Parcel A would be 86’ x 120’, or approximately 0.25 acres; making this Parcel A non-compliant with the R-1 Residential District standards. Parcel A would be a corner lot and would require 100 feet of frontage on both sides. Mr. Moran is simply asking that in separating this, he would sell off Parcel B as its own lot and then he would retain Parcel A and combine it with his current property (530 Simard Street) as additional yard space. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Commissioner Noonan asked if the combination of the lots would have the County create a separate PID or would it be one PID combining the adjoining properties. Mr. Benetti replied that typically, since there are two different PID’s now, once a piece of property is added to another, they usually assigned a new PID number with it to save on confusion in the future. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he did not see any statistics dimensionally or square footage-wise for 530 Simard in the staff report. He asked if the addition of Parcel A to 530 Simard, which would now have over 300 feet of frontage, create as splittable lot that currently does not exist. Mr. Benetti replied that it would not. Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if the corner lot provision would still be in play. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Mr. Mark Morin, 530 Simard Street, was available for questions. He noted that he would not be looking to develop the lots but would leave them just as they are. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. There being no one coming forward, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 124 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-04 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) & COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will keep a single-family development intact; while the new non-conforming lot to be created by this split will be combined with the neighboring property only, thereby eliminating the need for a variance for a reduced lot size or lot width standard for properties located in the R-1 District. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map prepared by Frank A. Cardarelle (dated Jan. 29, 2019) shall be combined with the property identified as 530 Simard Street (PID No. 27-31300-02-042). 2. The applicant shall dedicate, by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County, a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north and east property lines of Parcel A; a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and east property lines, and a 5-foot wide easement along the south property line of Parcel B; and a 5-foot wide easement on each side (10-ft. total) of the shared line between Parcels A and B. 3. Approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship for the Applicant or future owners of Parcel A in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on said Parcel A. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. page 125 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Variance to the Building Height Standard in the R-1 District for Friendly Hills Middle School (ISD #197) –located at 701 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2019-02) Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Variance from building height standards in the R-1 One Family Residential district, which in this case is a new gymnasium/performance center addition to Friendly Hills Middle School. The school property is located at 701 Mendota Heights Road. Background City Code states all principal buildings in the R-1 Zone must not exceed 25-feet in height. The school is proposing to add an addition at the NW corner of the school, next to the existing gymnasium facility, and match-in with what they have today, which is 31-ft.-5-inches. The variance would allow the new addition to exceed the 25-ft. height limits by 6-ft.-5-inches. In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and handicapped accessibility. This gym/performance center addition is one of many new additions or site improvements ISD #197 is looking to complete on various school campus sites throughout the district. At the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented on this item; and a public hearing was conducted. Written and oral comments were received, and have been made part of the meeting minutes. A copy of the 02/26/2019 Planning Staff Report, with site plans and building elevation plans, and the Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this memo report. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0 vote) of the Variance request from ISD #197 (on behalf of Friendly Hills Middle School) and for the property located at 701 Mendota Heights Road. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-17 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT FOR FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 701 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 126 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-17 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD IN THE R-1 DISTRICT FOR FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL (ISD #197) – LOCATED AT 701 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-02) WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 197 (the “Applicant”) applied for a Variance Application under Planning Case No. 2019-02, for the property generally identified as Friendly Hills Middle School, located at 701 Mendota Heights Road, and which is legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as Institutional – “S-School” and zoned R-1 One Family Residential, according to the city’s official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1E-3.D states no structures or building shall exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in height in residential zones; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking permission to exceed the maximum allowable height for a new gymnasium/performance center addition to the middle school facility; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Variance to exceed the maximum height of 25-feet by 6-ft. - 5-inches, for total building height of 31-ft.-5-inches, as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-02, and for property located at 701 Mendota Heights Road. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance to exceed the maximum height of 25-feet by 6-ft. - 5-inches, for total building height of 31-ft.-5-inches, as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-02, and for property located at 701 Mendota Heights Road, can be supported and approved based on the following findings of fact: page 127 Res 2018-78 page 2 A. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented. B. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility. C. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore does warrant the approval of said variance. D. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that this gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report, dated and presented February 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights) is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the request for Variance to ISD #197 (Friendly Hills Middle School), as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-02, and for property located at 701 Mendota Heights Road, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. 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. page 128 Res 2018-78 page 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of March, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 129 Res 2018-78 page 4 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 701 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights MN 55120 Friendly Hills Middle School DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Warranty Deed Numbers 344343 and 344342) All that part of the Northeast Quarter (NE I/ 4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW I/ 4) of Section Thirty-six (36), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range (23), lying North of the proposed Mendota Heights Road, containing 33 acres more or less, Dakota County, Minnesota. page 130 Planning Report DATE: February 26, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-02 Variance to Building Height Limits APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Friendly Hills Middle School PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional) ACTION DEADLINE: March 11, 2019 INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is seeking to construct a new gymnasium/performance space building addition to the rear of the Friendly Hills Middle School facility, which requires variance from the height standards set for the R-1 One Family Residential District. This legal notice of this public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 500-feet from the outer perimeters of the school boundary lines. The city received one letter of opposition, which is appended to the back of this report. No other comments or objections on this school addition project (or the variance) have been received. BACKGROUND The property is located in the R-1 One Family Residential zone, but guided for S-School (Institutional) use. The subject parcel consists of approximately 30 acres in land area, and contains a 90,000 sq. ft. school facility, with visitor/staff parking lot, bus/delivery service areas, and soccer/ball fields on the north and east sides of the campus. A large natural wooded and pond are located on the westerly edges of the site, and a smaller stand of mature trees are located near the southeast corner of the campus (see image –right). page 131 In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and handicapped accessibility. The school facility contains three, 2-story wings of educational space; along with a cafeteria/delivery space near the east side of the school, and a gymnasium on the north side. The property is currently accessed by two driveway openings on to Mendota Heights Road only. The westerly entrance is for bus service (drop- off/pick-up) and bus parking only, and includes a circular turn-around at the end of this bus driveway. The second entrance is located across from Lockwood Drive to the south, and provides access to the delivery area on eh east side of the building, and leads back to the main outdoor surface parking lot for staff, visitors and parent drop-offs. SITE PLAN The applicant intends to construct a 64’ x 126’, 8,064-sf. addition on the back side of the existing gymnasium, which will be used for additional interior activity and performance space for the school (see image below). The plans also include a new hard-surface play/vehicle turn around area, along with a new “soft-play” area, all on the west side of the new addition. There are no other major building additions planned for the school at this time. page 132 The proposed height of the new building addition will match the existing gym height of 31-ft., 5-inches (see elevation image – below). The R-1 Zone requires all structures to have no more than 25-feet in height. Flat-roofed structures such as these are measured at the upper-most edge of the building. As evident on the attached site plans, the school is looking to separate the bus/ truck traffic from the parent/visitor/staff traffic that enters into the school site from Mendota Heights Road. FHMS intends to shut-off the westerly bus entrance on Mendota Heights Road, and reconfigure a new access and driveway layout from the existing easterly entrance (which remains in place), and shall serve as the dedicated bus drop-off/parking and school/truck delivery entrance only. The driveway that now leads straight back to the staff/visitor parking lot will be cut-off. A new entrance to serve only the staff/visitors/parents is planned off Huber Drive to the east. FHMS intends to reconfigure the school parking lot as part of these improvements. The access drive opening will consist of a striped 3-way turning movement entrance, with one lane for entering off of Huber Drive, and a left and right turn lane for exiting traffic back out on to Huber Dr. The entrance is approximately 170-ft. south (centerline-to-centerline) of Hampshire Drive to the north; and 470-ft. from the intersection of Huber Dr. and Mendota Hts. Road to the south. As part of this new driveway, the ball field diamond that is in the way will be relocated to the south of the other ball diamond, and most of the trees in the southeast corner will be removed to make space available for the playing fields. Staff would like to point out that these new access, driveway, parking, and ball field reconfigurations do not play a part in this variance; nor should they be factored in when considering this variance request. All new driveway openings on to city roadways must be analyzed and approved by the City Public Works Director; and the City Council may be consulted or asked to decide any new changes or entry additions to roadways, and can approve/disapprove a permit if deemed appropriate. The variance is only to allow the new gym addition to exceed the 25-ft. building height limitations in the R-1 zone; and the emphasis of this report and discussion on this planning case should be focused on just the building height variance. page 133 ANALYSIS  Variance When considering variances, the City is required to consider an Applicant’s response to certain questions, and carefully weigh certain findings as they apply to these standards. As part of the variance application, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): 1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance; meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter? The height of the existing middle school gym is 31’-5”, which is the same heights at the new gym/performance addition. The height of the existing middle school at its tallest point is 35-ft. Staff’s response: The use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a school, even with the additional gym space, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s desire to construct an addition to the current gym facility is reasonable. 2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? . The granting of the variance is consistent with the current circumstances unique to this existing property. These current circumstances are that the existing gym spaces are 31’-5-3/8” tall, and the tallest point of the existing school is 35-ft. Staff’s response: One of the primary reasons for this recent school bond approval, was to provide upgrades and additional space for the students that utilize these local schools, and provide effective levels of service and spaces for the students. The plight of the landowner and restrictions on building heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Therefore, granting a variance may be warranted. 3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The height of the new gym/performance space is the same height as the existing gym of the existing middle school. Staff’s response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. ALTERNATIVES Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the variance to exceed the 25-ft. maximum allowable height of strictures in the R-1 District, based on attached findings of facts for approval with certain conditions; or page 134 2. Recommend denial of the variance to exceed the 25-ft. maximum allowable height of structures in the R-1 District, based on amended findings of facts for denial, which must be formulated by the Commission; or 3. TABLE the request; direct city staff to explore other alternatives with the Applicant and provide follow-up information; and extend the review period an additional 60-days in compliance with Minnesota State Statute. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions (Alternative #1): 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. 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. Aerial site map 2. Planning Application, including Narrative 3. Gym Addition Elevation Plans 4. Site & Landscape Plans FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance Request Friendly Hills Middle School – 701 Mendota Heights Road Planning Case No. 2019-02 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed variance request: 1. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented. 2. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility. 3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore does warrant the approval or granting of said variance. 4. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that this gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. page 135 2019-02300.00500.0001/11/201903/11/2019page 136 2019-02ISD-197Friendly Hills MSpage 137 page 138 page 139 RE-ALIGNED BUSCORRAL ENTRANCEDRIVENEW ENTRANCE DRIVEOFF HUBER DRIVEDROP OFFEXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELDDROP OFFDROP OFF ONE WAYONE WAY 843.03' SETBACK396.53'SETBACK319.34'SETBACK321.36'SETBACK132.51'SETBACKSERVICE/DELIVERYPARKING/DROP-OFF(11+1 HC STALLS)NORTHPARKING LOT(119 + 5 HC STALLS)SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/ EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDPROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONSREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKSRELOCATEDSOFTBALL FIELDpage 140 RE-ALIGNED BUSCORRAL ENTRANCEDRIVENEW ENTRANCE DRIVEOFF HUBER DRIVEDROP OFFEXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELDDROP OFFDROP OFF ONE WAYONE WAY 843.03' SETBACK396.53'SETBACK319.34'SETBACK321.36'SETBACK132.51'SETBACKSERVICE/DELIVERYPARKING/DROP-OFF(11+1 HC STALLS)NORTHPARKING LOT(119 + 5 HC STALLS)SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/ EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDPROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONSREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKSRELOCATEDSOFTBALL FIELDProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QF‹LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOLNOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.3. SIGNAGE SHALL GENERALLY BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED.5. WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING TURF, EXISTING TURF EDGE SHALL BE CUT TO ALLOW FORA CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED OR UNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINT BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TOALLOW NEW SOD SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.6. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS,AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.Friendly Hills Middle School701 Mendota Heights Rd,Mendota Heights, MN 55120West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District - ISD #197THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 - One Family ResidentialEXISTING PARKING:135 + 5 HC STALLSPARKING REQUIREMENT:ONE (1) SPACE FOR EACH FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE (70 staff): 70 SPACES REQ'DPROPOSED PARKING COUNTS:STAFF, VISITOR, PUBLIC/ VOLUNTEER PARKING = 130 + 6 HC STALLSBUS PARKING = 14 Large/ 5 SPED/ 3 Vans NeededSITE STATISTICS:020 40LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENTPROPOSED PLAY AREAPROPOSED AGLIMEPROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCINGPROPOSED PAINTED CURBPROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNSIGNAGE KEY NOTEPAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION (FES)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TOARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEA1C2.118C2.1210C2.123C2.1216C2.1217C2.1220C2.1223C2.1210C2.119C2.1111C2.1112C2.1112C2.1224C2.1214C2.1215C2.127C2.1211C2.121C2.1323C2.113C2.13NOT FOR CONSTRUCT ION page 141 RE-ALIGNED BUSCORRAL ENTRANCEDRIVENEW ENTRANCE DRIVEOFF HUBER DRIVEEXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELD876875874873871870870872874876869 86987 0 88 0 88 1 882879 8848838 8 4 885886883883884885886886885 8 8 0 8 8 1 868866865870875873873870879878877874876875877877876878867SERVICE/DELIVERYPARKING/DROP-OFF(11+1 HC STALLS)NORTHPARKING LOT(119 + 5 HC STALLS)SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/ EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDPROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONS4CO3CO3QB3PS3QM3AL2OV2QB1CO2TC2TC5AL7TC3QM3QM1AL3BR5PR3QA3QA2CK4ALSEED AND HYDROMULCHSEED AND BLANKETMINERAL SODSEED AND BLANKETSEED AND BLANKETSEED AND BLANKETSEED ANDBLANKETSOD- STAKEAS REQUIREDSEED AND BLANKETREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKS883880 8748 8 4 8848 8 3 882RELOCATEDSOFTBALL FIELDProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QF‹LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL020 40NOTES:LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREEPROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREEPROPOSED SEED MIX #1PROPOSED SEED MIX #2 & MULCHPROPOSED NATIVE SEED MIXPROPOSED SHRUB / MULCH BEDPLANT KEY (REFER TO PLANT SCHEDULEABOVE)TOP = QUANTITYBOTTOM = PLANT SYMBOLPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. REFER TO SWPPP NARRATIVE FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING AND EROSION CONTROLREQUIREMENTS.3. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST INSPECT AND APPROVE FINISH GRADING BEFORE CONTRACTORPROCEEDS WITH SEEDING.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED OR RECEIVE AGLIME SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED.5. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS,AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.6. BEGIN TURF ESTABLISHMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATION FORPROCEDURE.7. ALL TREES TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED.8. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL RECEIVE 4" DEPTH OF CLEAN SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.9. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NO. 1 QUALITY, NURSERY GROWN AND SPECIMENS MUST BEMATCHED. ALL OVERSTORY TREES ADJACENT TO DRIVE AND IN PARKING LOT SHALL BEGINBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'.1L1.11CONIFEROUS TREE1'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.GENERAL NOTES:xTREES SHALL BE ALIGNED AND PLUMB AFTERWATERING AND SETTLINGxPRUNE TREES AS REQUIRED AND AS DIRECTED BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERxCONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THREE STEEL POSTSWITH THREE HORIZONTALLY OPPOSED REINFORCEDRUBBER HOSE SECTIONS WITH A DOUBLE STRAND OF#11 WIRE AND FLAGGING. WRAP THE WIRE A MINIMUMOF TWO TIMES AROUND EACH POST.SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH (4" MIN. DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (4" MIN.)ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALLBE CUT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OFBURLAP. NON-BIODEGRADABLEMATERIAL SHALL BE TOTALLYREMOVED.PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.RUBBER HOSE AT BARK1'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.DECIDUOUS TREEGENERAL NOTES:xTREES SHALL BE ALIGNED AND PLUMBAFTER WATERING AND SETTLINGxPRUNE TREES AS REQUIRED AND ASDIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT/ENGINEERxCONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THREESTEEL POSTS WITH THREEHORIZONTALLY OPPOSEDREINFORCED RUBBER HOSE SECTIONSWITH A DOUBLE STRAND OF #11 WIREAND FLAGGING. WRAP THE WIRE AMINIMUM OF TWO TIMES AROUND EACHPOST.RUBBER HOSE AT BARKSET TREE AT ORIGINAL GRADESHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH(4" MIN. DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (3" MIN.)PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.FLAGGINGSHRUB BED EDGINGFINISH GRADETOPSOILEDGINGFINISH GRADEMULCH BEDCOMPACTED SUBGRADEGEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER -WRAP SIDES, TYPICAL1L1.112L1.113L1.115QBpage 142 page 143 page 144 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT B) PLANNING CASE #2019-02 ISD #197 VARIANCE TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from ISD 197 on behalf of Friendly Hills Middle School, requesting a Variance for a new gymnasium/performance facility. Friendly Hills School is located in R-1 District and guided as S-School under the Institutional Use of the current Comprehensive Plan. Public and Parochial schools are considered a permitted use under the R-1 zone. Mr. Benetti shared images of the school layout and noted that the property is approximately 30 acres in total size with approximately 90,000 square feet of educational facilities. There are two access points off of Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Benetti explained that they are proposing to shut down one of the access points from Mendota Heights Road and create a singular access across from the residential roadway to the south (Lockwood), which would provide access to the delivery area and leads back to the main outdoor surface parking lot for staff, visitors, and parent drop-offs. The item before the Commission is their desire to construct a 64’ x 126’, 8,064 square foot addition on the back side of the gymnasium. The plan also includes a new hard-surface play and soft-play area, a vehicle turn-around area, and new striping for some outdoor courts. The elevation plans as provided by the school’s architects indicate the new building would match the existing gymnasium, with a flat-top roof, slightly lower than the 35’ height of the existing school facility. The R-1 Zone requires all structures not to exceed 25-feet in height. Even though it is not part of this application, staff noted all driveway openings are typically reviewed and analyzed by the Public Works Director and City Council may be called into be consulted or asked to decide any new changes. Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and then explained how this project meets those criteria. Staff recommended approval of this Variance request. Commissioner Noonan noted that there was a lot of information on the site plan, even though that was not under consideration. He asked why the site plan did not come forward with the Variance request. It would have been nice to consider the full package. Mr. Benetti replied that the Commission normally would not consider a site plan for permitted uses. It is a staff function that would get approved by Council. He included the site plan to ensure the Commission had an indication of where the new addition was going on the backside of the building. Commissioner Noonan stated that he found this odd as there would be significant changes to the traffic flow in the area; a fundamental planning consideration. He would have thought that would have been brought to the Commission for discussion and to enter an opinion. However, if that is not the process then so be it. Mr. Benetti replied that in his experience, a site plan would be a nice tool for the Commission to review and the Council to approve. Had this been a Conditional Use Permit or an amended Conditional Use Permit, a site plan would have gone with that Conditional Use Permit and then the Commission would have been able to do a full review. However, as this is a permitted use it is not under any purview of the Commission. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the school district has been requested by the city to perform a traffic study related to the proposed traffic changes. However, the results of that study would not be page 145 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT available for approximately 4-5 weeks. The City Council will see the results of that study before they make a decision on any access points. Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, ISD 197 Superintendent was available for questions. Commissioner Noonan noted that this has been presented as a stand-alone application for a gymnasium addition and a performance area. He asked, if the district’s plans to alter the access to the site are not approved by City Council, would this expansion go forward. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that yes, the expansion of the gymnasium would go forward regardless of the Council’s decision. Commissioner Petschel asked for more details on what the addition would be used for. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that they are describing it as a multi-purpose facility. There would be choir concerts, band concerts, athletic competitions/activities, and the proposal is to equip it in such a way that it would be a highly usable space for many different purposes. Commissioner Toth, noting that the proposed addition elevation is at 31.5’ and would meet the existing elevation of the gymnasium that is already on the school property, he asked if there were any plans for mechanical structures on top of the building. Ms. Jenny Tuttle with LSE Architects replied that the mechanical structures would be located on a lower roof area and would not exceed the 31.5’ building elevation. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that she had no objection to the Variance for this facility. However, she voiced concerns about the potential changes to the site plan and the new access point. If it should become difficult to access this site, or if access limitations occur in the future; she felt that this would be somewhat of a piece-meal approach to the whole thing. If this approved now without looking at the full site plan, that the city could be put in a position of having to approve a change to the traffic flow within the site. Commissioner Noonan made note of the response made by the Planner that the only jurisdiction that the Commission had was to deal with the Variance request. The Commission would not have the opportunity to be presented the site plan and opine as to the appropriateness of the site plan. Ms. Smith asked if it would be possible for the Commission to defer the decision until they have further information about the entire site. Commissioner Noonan replied that the site plan would not be returning to the Commission; there is no site plan review process by the Planning Commission on permitted uses, it goes directly to the City Council. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that he bicycles west on Mendota Heights Road very often in the mornings, before school starts. At the present time, it is not unusual to see cars wishing to enter the existing access on Mendota Heights Road backed up all of the way to Huber. He understood that they Commission could not make any decisions on that, but he felt they should be aware that there are some access issues presently. Transcriptionist notes here that there was one email received from Mr. Jim Dietz expressing his opposition to this application. That email has been made a part of the public record. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 page 146 EXCERPTS - February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-02 VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented. 2. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility. 3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore does warrant the approval or granting of said variance. 4. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that this gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. 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 Noonan commented that this is another incident on an institutional use in the R-1 zone and asked that the work plan include development of distinctive institutional zoning so the Commission would not have to deal with institutional variances and applying residential standards to it. Commissioner Mazzitello expressed his agreement to that statement. Chair Magnuson suggested that Findings of Fact 2 be edited to read ”The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or and reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility” where a strike-through is a deletion and an underscore is an addition. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed to these amendments to his motion. Commissioner Toth, as the seconder, agreed as well. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. page 147 page 148 To: Mayor and City Council From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Award of Contracts to Construct Fire Station Project Date: March 5, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to award contracts for the construction of the addition to, and a remodeling of, the Mendota Heights Fire Station. It is also asked to give direction on financing options. Background: The City started looking at a new or expanded fire station in 2015. A feasibility study was done, but the overall project was placed on hold for a couple of years. In December, 2017, the Fire Department and the City Council chose to move the project ahead, and hired CNH Architects to do a cost estimate and preliminary design work. It was determined to wait until after the ISD Bond referendum question was decided before proceeding further. In May, the Council gave the approval to proceed, using a direct bond issuance to pay for the project. Initially, $6.125 million was determined to be the project budget; however, because of concerns about inflation, $7 million was advertised and adopted as the ultimate project total. A Public Hearing for the direct issuance of bonds in this amount was held on July 2nd. Following a required 30 day waiting period, on August 7th the City Council approved this method of financing. CNH was directed to prepare working drawings and bid documents. CPMI was subsequently hired as a Construction Management (CM) company. Because of inflation concerns in the construction industry, as the design plans progressed, the Fire Station Building Committee went through the preliminary construction documents, and made value reductions wherever possible in an attempt to keep the project within budget. On January 15th, the City Council authorized the advertisements of bids. On February 21st, those bids were opened. Because of the Construction Management process, 66 different bids were received for 21 different components of the project. The CM has reviewed them, and is recommending that the low bids for 20 of the 21 components be accepted, and contracts be entered into with those companies. The 21st component which is not included at this time is for Fire Suppression. That is being reviewed for possible cost savings. A contract for that component will be returned at a future time for consideration. page 149 The combined bids yielded a project total of $6,758,736.36. This was significantly more than the $5.57 million which was needed to keep the overall budget under the $7 million bond issuance cap. (There are additional costs above the $5.57 million which are the “soft” costs, such as architectural and construction management fees, and the costs of bond issuance.) The CM has reviewed the bids received, and has discussed the bid results with actual bidders, and also other companies which had been expected to participate, but didn’t bid. In his opinion, the bidding climate is not currently favorable, and most contractors have already made commitments for this construction season. He recommends proceeding with construction with the existing proposals; he feels the concept of rejecting all bids and re-bidding the project is unlikely to find any savings, and may in fact find re-submitted prices higher. The bids which were opened on February 21st are good for a period of thirty days. A single sample contract is attached for your review. In the interests of practicality, the other nineteen contracts which are being recommended for award at this time are available for inspection at City Hall, or with CPMI, the CM firm. The contractors being recommended, the bid components, and the amount of each of the contracts are listed in the bid tabulation attachment from CPMI. Budget Impact: Project Shortfall: The bid total is approximately $1.12 million over budget. After discussions with the CM, architect, city financial advisor, and City staff, we are recommending the following: 1. Have the CM continue to confirm that bid prices are accurate, and negotiate where possible reductions in areas where additional “value engineering” is possible. 2. Approve a future inter-fund transfer of approximately $400,000 from the City’s capital improvements fund (water tower) to the fire station project. 3. Designate the proceeds of the sale of the three Village lots to fund the remaining shortfall. Note the last recommendation (Village lots proceeds) assumes the net proceeds will be at or near the 2017 valuation appraisal amount of $813,000; that appraisal is currently being updated. However, doing this may impact the City’s ability to financially partner regarding the possible relocation of Maple Street at that project’s site. This also commits the City to sell the Village lots, and receive at or close to the current appraised value. Failure to do so will result in having to fund the shortfall from other City sources. One alternative to the above would be to increase the amount of bonds to be sold. Similar to what was done for the $7 million cap, a Public Hearing would be held for issuance of bonds to cover the incremental additional amount. A reverse referendum could be requested within a 30 days waiting period. However, because of the impact on property taxes, this option is not recommended. Bond Issuance: The initial estimate for the impact on a typical property valued at $356,000 was $91 annually, based on a 15 year bond term, and for the $6.125 million project. However using the $7.0 million bond amount for a $365,000 property, the impact on that same property would be $103.76 annually for a 15 year bid, and $84.77 for a 20 year term. As with a home mortgage, the shorter the term of the bond, the larger are the overall savings in interest paid. page 150 Assuming the Council approves the contracts at the March 5th meeting, the first payment draw will be in late May. That means that the City Council will be asked to formally authorize the issuance of bonds at the March 19th meeting. To prepare for that, a decision on whether the $7.0 million shall be repaid in 15 years, or 20 years, is requested at this meeting. Recommendation: In order to proceed with the project, we recommend that the City Council authorize the execution of the 20 recommended contracts. In addition, it should determine whether the repayment of bonds shall be over a 15, or a 20 year term. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the execution of 20 contracts for the 2019 Mendota Heights Fire Station Remodeling and Addition project. In addition, it should, by motion, determine the repayment term of the bonds for the General Obligation bonds to be issued to fund the project. _________________________________ _______________________________ Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Mark McNeill, City Administrator page 151 CPMI 3265 Northwood Circle Suite 170 Eagan, MN 55121 952/854-3663 952/854-2847 Fax 27 February 2019 Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mark, On 21 February 2019 we assisted the City Clerk to receive and open bids for the Fire Station Addition and Remodel project. There were 66 bids received for 21 packages on this date. One bidder in package CP-1 Earthwork & Sites Utilities has claim they made a bid mistake and have withdrawn their bid. CPMI has interviewed all of the apparent low bidders and confirmed their scope of work is per the contract documents. Using the second low bidder in CP-1, the total of the low bids is $6,758,736.36. As part of the ongoing process to identify and evaluate cost saving measures, we recommend the bid for CP-15 Fire Suppression be reviewed with the intent of changing scope to reduce cost. We recommend that the City accept the bidders on the attached list for a maximum value of $6,758,736.36, with the exception of CP-15 as noted above. Please feel free to contact us with further questions. Sincerely, COST, PLANNING & MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Paul Oberhaus CEO Attachments: CPMI Award Recommendation List cc: Dave Dreelan, Mendota Heights Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects page 152 CPMI Mendota Heights Fire Station Remodel and Expansion BID TAB 21 February 2019 Contractor Base Bid CP-01 Earthwork & Site Utilities Construction Results Corp.483,000.00 CP-02 Multiscope Meisenger Construction 492,500.00 CP-03 Concrete Northland Concrete & Masonry 251,100.00 CP-04 Masonry John Foley Masonry Inc 1,170,470.00 CP-05 Structural & Miscellaneous Steel Industrial Construction Specialties 352,153.00 CP-06 Roofing Rosenquist Construction Inc 228,204.00 CP-07 Metal Panels Schwickerts Tecta America 154,710.00 CP-08 Glazing, Aluminum Storefronts Ford Metro 125,670.00 CP-09 Overhead Doors Twin City Garage Door 99,172.00 CP-10 Metal Stud & Drywall RTL Construction 269,000.00 CP-11 Tile Superior Tile & Terrazzo 37,500.00 CP-12 Paint Stenbrecher Painting Co.78,250.00 CP-13 Acoustic Ceilings Twin City Acoustic 35,475.00 CP-14 Flooring Multiple Concept Interiors 45,857.00 CP-15 Fire Suppression Summit Companies 131,900.00 Review scope for cost saving opportunities Page 1 page 153 CPMI Mendota Heights Fire Station Remodel and Expansion BID TAB 21 February 2019 Contractor Base Bid CP-16 Plumbing Wenzel Plumbing & Heating 445,000.00 CP-17 Mechanical Ryan Mechanical 931,900.00 CP-18 Electrical A.J. Moore Electrical 1,152,500.00 CP-19 Asphalt Paving McNamara Contracting 122,597.36 CP-20 Site Concrete Ebert 82,400.00 CP-21 Landscape Plant Pros LLC 69,378.00 Low Bid Total 6,758,736.36 Page 2 page 154 page 155 page 156 page 157 page 158 page 159 page 160 page 161 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion Table of Contents Division Section Title Pages PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING DOCUMENTS GROUP DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS 00 01 01 TITLE AND CERTIFICATION 5 00 01 15 DRAWING SHEETS AND SCHEDULES 1 00 11 17 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 1 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS 1 00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA 1 00 41 00 BID FORM 00 41 23 BID ATTACHMENT DOCUMENTS 1 00 52 13 AGREEMENT FORM - STIPULATED SUM (SINGLE PRIME) 1 00 72 14 GENERAL CONDITIONS - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1 SPECIFICATIONS GROUP General Requirements Subgroup DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01 10 00 SUMMARY OF WORK 5 01 21 00 ALTERNATES 2 01 25 00 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES 3 01 26 00 CONTRACT MODIFICATION PROCEDURES 2 01 29 00 PAYMENT PROCEDURES 3 01 32 13 PHASING & SCHEDULES 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES 8 01 40 00 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 8 01 50 00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS 8 01 73 00 EXECUTION 8 01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL 2 01 77 00 CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES 5 Facility Construction Subgroup DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 02 10 00 SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION 1 02 41 19 SELECTIVE STRUCTURE DEMOLITION 6 DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE 03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 16 03 41 00 PRECAST STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 9 DIVISION 04 - MASONRY page 162 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion 04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY 21 04 72 00 CAST STONE MASONRY 9 DIVISION 05 - METALS 05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 11 05 21 00 STEEL JOIST FRAMING 6 05 31 00 STEEL DECKING 6 05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING 12 05 50 00 METAL FABRICATIONS 11 05 51 13 METAL PAN STAIRS 8 05 52 13 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS 8 05 53 00 METAL GRATING 5 05 55 00 ROOF EDGE PROTECTION 4 DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES 06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY 9 06 16 00 SHEATHING 4 06 40 23 INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK 06 64 00 PLASTIC PANELING 3 DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 07 13 26 SELF-ADHERING SHEET WATERPROOFING 6 07 19 00 WATER REPELLENTS 3 07 21 00 THERMAL INSULATION 3 07 21 50 SPRAY-APPLIED FOAM INSULATION 3 07 27 26 FLUID-APPLIED MEMBRANE AIR BARRIERS 7 07 42 13.13 FORMED METAL WALL PANELS 10 07 42 13.23 METAL COMPOSITE MATERIAL WALL PANELS 7 07 51 13 BUILT-UP ASPHALT ROOFING 11 07 62 00 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM 12 07 84 13 PENETRATION FIRESTOPPING 5 07 84 46 FIRE-RESISTIVE JOINT SYSTEMS 6 07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS 7 07 92 19 ACOUSTICAL JOINT SEALANTS 3 DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS 08 11 13 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES 8 08 14 16 FLUSH WOOD DOORS 6 08 31 13 ACCESS DOORS AND FRAMES 3 08 36 13 SECTIONAL OVERHEAD DOORS 9 08 41 13 ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS 6 08 66 51 PASS-THRU ALUMINUM WINDOWS 4 08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE 23 08 80 00 GLAZING 8 08 83 00 MIRRORS 4 DIVISION 09 - FINISHES page 163 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion 09 22 16 NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING 5 09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD 8 09 30 00 TILING 13 09 51 13 ACOUSTICAL PANEL CEILINGS 8 09 65 13 RESILIENT BASE AND ACCESSORIES 5 09 65 19 RESILIENT TILE FLOORING 4 09 68 13 CARPET TILE 4 09 91 13 EXTERIOR PAINTING 5 09 91 23 INTERIOR PAINTING 8 09 96 00 HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATINGS 4 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES 10 14 00 SIGNAGE 9 10 22 39 FOLDING PANEL PARTITIONS 7 10 28 00 TOILET, BATH AND LAUNDRY ACCESSORIES 6 10 44 13 FIRE PROTECTION CABINETS 4 10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 3 10 50 50 METAL LOCKERS 5 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT 11 40 00 FOODSERVICE EQUIPMENT 3 DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS 12 24 13 ROLLER WINDOW SHADES 5 12 36 61 SIMULATED STONE COUNTERTOPS - QUARTZ 3 DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION 21 10 00 WATER-BASED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 15 DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING 22 00 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 6 22 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR PLUMBING 11 22 05 13 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR PLUMBING EQUIPMENT 2 22 05 19 METERS AND GAGES FOR PLUMBING PIPING 5 22 05 23 GENERAL-DUTY VALVES FOR PLUMBING PIPING 4 22 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 9 22 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 4 22 07 00 PLUMBING INSULATION 11 22 11 16 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING 11 22 11 19 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING SPECIALTIES 10 22 11 23 DOMESTIC WATER PUMPS 3 22 13 16 SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING 7 22 13 19 SANITARY WASTE PIPING SPECIALTIES 9 22 14 13 FACILITY STORM DRAINAGE PIPING 6 22 14 23 STORM DRAINAGE PIPING SPECIALTIES 4 22 15 13 GENERAL-SERVICE COMPRESSED-AIR PIPING 5 22 34 00 FUEL-FIRED DOMESTIC WATER HEATERS 5 page 164 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion 22 40 00 PLUMBING FIXTURES 17 22 45 00 EMERGENCY PLUMBING FIXTURES 3 22 47 00 DRINKING FOUNTAINS AND WATER COOLERS 3 DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING 23 00 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 6 23 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR HVAC 10 23 05 13 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT 3 23 05 19 METERS AND GAGES FOR HVAC PIPING 4 23 05 23 GENERAL-DUTY VALVES FOR HVAC PIPING 8 23 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 7 23 05 48 VIBRATION CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 5 23 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 4 23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC 14 23 07 00 HVAC INSULATION 16 23 08 00 HVAC COMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS 5 23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC 26 23 09 93 SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS FOR HVAC CONTROLS 15 23 11 23 FACILITY NATURAL-GAS PIPING 7 23 21 13 HYDRONIC PIPING AND SPECIALTIES 13 23 21 15 PROPYLENE GLYCOL 5 23 21 23 HYDRONIC PUMPS 4 23 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING 7 23 31 13 METAL DUCTS 10 23 33 00 AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES 11 23 34 23 HVAC POWER VENTILATORS 5 23 36 00 AIR TERMINAL UNITS 4 23 37 13 DIFFUSERS, REGISTERS, AND GRILLES 3 23 37 23 HVAC GRAVITY VENTILATORS 4 23 51 00 BREECHINGS, CHIMNEYS, AND STACKS 2 23 52 16 CONDENSING BOILERS 9 23 57 00 HEAT EXCHANGERS FOR HVAC 3 23 74 13 PACKAGED, OUTDOOR, CENTRAL-STATION AIR-HANDLING UNITS 9 23 81 26 SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR-CONDITIONERS 6 23 82 19 FAN COIL UNITS 3 23 82 33 BASEBOARD RADIATION 3 23 82 39 UNIT HEATERS 4 23 83 16 RADIANT-HEATING HYDRONIC PIPING 5 DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL 26 00 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ELECTRICAL WORK 6 26 00 90 DEMOLITION 3 26 01 00 CONSTRUCTION POWER AND LIGHTING 3 26 04 00 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE 3 26 04 45 ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS TO EQUIPMENT 7 26 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL 4 page 165 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion 26 05 19 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES 6 26 05 23 CONTROL-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CABLES 5 26 05 26 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 7 26 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 4 26 05 33 RACEWAYS AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 8 26 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 5 26 08 00 ELECTRICAL COMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS 7 26 09 23 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES 8 26 09 36 MODULAR DIMMING CONTROLS 16 26 09 26 RELAY-BASED LIGHTING CONTROLS 6 26 09 27 RELAY-BASED LIGHTING CONTROLS 14 26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS 8 26 24 16 PANELBOARDS 7 26 27 26 WIRING DEVICES 6 26 28 13 FUSES 3 26 28 16 ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS 4 26 29 13 ENCLOSED CONTROLLERS 7 26 29 23 VARIABLE-FREQUENCY MOTOR CONTROLLERS 7 26 32 13 ENGINE GENERATORS 15 26 36 01 TRANSFER SWITCH 12 26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING 5 26 71 11 DIGITAL, ADDRESSABLE FIRE-ALARM SYSTEM 11 DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS 27 00 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 4 27 01 00 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE & WARRANTY 2 27 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS 2 27 05 26 GROUNDING FOR COMMUNICATIONS 2 27 05 28 PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS 2 27 05 44 SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR COMMUNICATIONS PATHWAYS AND CABLING 3 27 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 3 27 06 00 SCHEDULES FOR COMMUNICATIONS 1 27 08 00 TESTING OF COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 3 27 10 00 STRUCTURED CABLING REQUIREMENTS 3 27 11 00 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ROOM FITTINGS 4 27 11 16 CABINETS, RACKS, FRAMES & ENCLOSURES 2 27 11 19 TERMINATION BLOCKS & PATCH PANELS 2 27 11 23 CABLE MANAGEMENT & LADDER RACK 3 27 11 26 RACK MOUNTED POWER PROTECTION & POWER STRIPS 2 27 15 13 COPPER HORIZONTAL CABLING 2 27 15 33 COAXIAL HORIZONTAL CABLING 2 27 15 43 FACEPLATES & CONNECTORS 3 27 16 19 PATCH CORDS & CROSS CONNECT WIRE 2 27 51 16 PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS 12 page 166 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 28 00 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 9 28 05 44 SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY PATHWAYS AND CABLING 4 28 23 13 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE - CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 13 28 23 29 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE - REMOTE DEVICES AND SENSORS 9 28 61 00 CCTV CABLING SYSTEM 2 Site and Infrastructure Subgroup DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK 31 00 00 EARTHWORK 7 31 10 00 SITE CLEARING 1 31 25 00 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL 3 DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 32 05 00 AGGREGATES 5 32 10 00 PLANT MIX BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 6 32 20 00 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 6 32 22 00 CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT 2 32 24 00 PAVEMENT STRIPING 2 32 31 19 DECORATIVE METAL FENCES AND GATES 5 32 32 23 SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL 5 32 84 00 PLANTING IRRIGATION 6 32 92 00 LAWNS AND GRASSES 8 32 93 00 EXTERIOR PLANTS 9 DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES 33 10 00 WATER DISTRIBUTION 6 33 30 00 SANITARY SEWER 2 33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 4 END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS page 167 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion Section 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS Page 1 DOCUMENT 00 01 15 – LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS G1.1 General Information G1.2 Code Review Summary G1.3 Phasing Plan C100 Demolition Plan C200 Paving Plan C300 Grading and Erosion Control Plan C400 Utility Plan C500 Details C501 Details L1.1 Landscape Plan A1.1 Site Plan A1.2 Enlarged Site Plans A1.3 Site Details A2.1 Site Demolition Plan A2.2 First Floor Demolition Plan A3.1 First Floor Plan A3.2 Second & Third Floor Plans A3.3 Enlarged Floor Plans A3.4 Enlarged Floor Plans A3.5 Enlarged Floor Plans A3.6 Finish Floor Plan A4.1 First Floor Ceiling Plan A4.2 Second & Third Floor Ceiling Plans A5.1 Exterior Elevations A5.2 Exterior Elevations A6.1 Building Sections A6.2 Wall Sections A6.3 Wall Sections A6.4 Wall Sections A6.5 Wall Sections A6.6 Wall Sections A6.7 Wall Sections A6.8 Wall Sections A6.9 Wall Sections A6.10 Wall Sections A6.11 Wall Sections (See Alternate #5) A6.12 Wall Sections & Details A6.13 Stair & Ramp Sections A6.14 Stair Sections A7.1 Schedules & Frame Types A7.2 Window Types A7.3 Window Details A7.4 Window Details A8.1 Interior Elevations A8.2 Interior Elevations A8.3 Interior Elevations A8.4 Interior Elevations A8.5 Interior Elevations A8.6 Interior Elevations A8.7 Interior Elevations A8.8 Interior Elevations A8.9 Interior Elevations A8.10 Interior Elevations A8.11 Millwork Details A8.12 Millwork Details A9.1 Roof Plan S000 General Structural Notes S001 Structural Abbreviations S100 Foundation Plan page 168 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion Section 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS Page 2 S101 Low Roof and Second Floor Framing S102 High Roof Framing Plan S500 Details S501 Details S502 Details S503 Details M0.1 Mechanical Title Sheet M1.0 Underfloor Plan - Plumbing Demolition M1.1 First Floor Plan - Plumbing Demolition M1.2 First Floor Plan - HVAC Demolition M1.3 Roof Plan - Mechanical Demolition M2.1 First Floor Plan - Fire Protection M2.2 Second & Third Floor Plans - Fire Protection M3.0 Underfloor Plan - Plumbing M3.1 First Floor Plan - Plumbing M3.2 Second & Third Floor Plans - Plumbing M3.3 Plumbing Riser Diagram - Waste and Vent M3.4 Plumbing Riser Diagram - Waste and Vent M3.5 Plumbing Riser Diagram - Domestic Water M3.6 Plumbing Riser Diagram - Domestic Water M4.1 First Floor Plan - Piping M4.2 Second & Third Floor Plans - Piping M5.1 First Floor Plan - HVAC M5.2 Second & Third Floor Plans - HVAC M6.1 Roof Plan - Mechanical M7.1 Schedules - Mechanical M7.2 Schedules - Mechanical M8.1 Details - Mechanical M8.2 Details- Mechanical M8.3 Details- Mechanical E0.1 Title Sheet - Electrical E0.2 Site Plan - Electrical Demolition E0.3 Site Plan - Electrical E1.1 First Floor Plan - Electrical Demolition E2.1 First Floor Plan - Lighting E2.2 Second and Third Floor Plans - Lighting E3.1 First Floor Plan - Power E3.2 Second Floor Plan - Power E3.3 Roof Plan - Power E4.1 First Floor Plan - Systems E4.2 Second Floor Plan - Systems E5.1 Power Riser Diagram E6.1 Schedules - Electrical E6.2 Schedules - Electrical E6.3 Schedules - Electrical E7.1 Details - Electrical E7.2 Details - Electrical E7.3 Details - Electrical E7.4 Details - Electrical Detail Index D0.0 Detail Book Cover D0.1 Detail Book Index D1.1 Exterior Signage S-1 D1.2 Exterior Signage S-2 D1.3 Exterior Signage S-3 D1.4 Exterior Signage S-4 D1.5 Exterior Signage S-5 D1.6 Exterior Signage S-6 D1.7 Exterior Signage S-7 D1.8 Exterior Signage S-8 D1.9 Exterior Signage S-9 D1.10 Exterior Signage S-10 D1.11 Exterior Signage Type S-19 page 169 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion Section 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS Page 3 D1.12 Exterior Signage Type S-20 D1.13 Sidewalk at Control Joint D1.14 Sidewalk at Expansion Joint D1.15 Sidewalk at Stoop D1.16 Steel Bollard with Cover Sleeve D1.17 ADA No Parking Stall D3.1 Control Joint at Existing to New Transition at Fitness Room D3.2 Control Joint at Existing to New Transition at New Apparatus Bay D3.3 Control Joint at Existing to New Transition at HealthEast D3.4 Wing Wall Plan at Dayroom D3.5 CMU Pilaster at Admin D3.6 Typical Trench Drain D3.7 Brick/Metal Stud to Plywood/CMU Transition D3.8 Brick to CMU Transition D3.9 ACM to Brick Transition D3.10 Brick to CMU Transition at Mezzanine D3.11 Column Wrap at Hallway 140/Locker Room 139 D4.1 Operable Partition Ceiling Detail D5.1 Exterior Vertical Control Joint - Brick D6.1 Wall Handrail Extension at Stair - Top D6.2 Wall Handrail Extension at Stair - Bottom D6.3 ACM Band at Existing Apparatus Bay ACM/Wall Recess D6.4 ACM Band at Existing Apparatus Bay ACM/Wall D6.5 ACM Band at ACM/CMU Pilaster D6.6 ACM Band at Apparatus Display ACM D6.7 ACM Band at Admin ACM/Metal Stud D6.8 ACM/Brick Flashing Transition D6.9 ACM Band at CMU Pilaster D6.10 ACM Band to ACM Wing Wall Plan at Apparatus Display D6.11 New ACM Band & Brick at Existing Low Building D6.12 ACM Band Flashing at CMU Wall D6.13 Apparatus Display ACM at Concrete Paving D6.14 ACM to Prefinished Metal Wall Panel System Transition D6.15 Brick on Metal Stud/CMU at Sidewalk D6.16 Brick on Metal Stud/CMU at Grade D6.17 Burnished 4" CMU on 8" CMU at Sidewalk/Paving D6.18 Typical Door Threshold D6.19 OH Door Threshold at Apparatus Display D6.20 OH Door Threshold at New Apparatus Bay D6.21 Breach Floor Training Opening at Precast D6.22 Confined Space Training at Manhole Precast Side D6.23 Confined Space Training Manhole Precast Cut D6.24 Confined Space Training Opening at Training Mezzanine D6.25 Threshold at Training Tower HM Door Openings D6.26 Training Tower Door Removable Bar D6.27 Access Panel at Manifold at Apparatus Display D6.28 Brick Jamb at Tower Rappelling Opening D6.29 Brick Jamb at Tower Railing D6.30 Steel Plate Jamb at Existing Wall D6.31 Steel Palate Jamb at Existing Wall/New Door D6.32 Raised Concrete Curb at Gear Washer D6.33 Entry 101 Soffit Banding D6.34 Guardrail Connection to CMU D6.35 Guardrail at Ramp D6.36 Guardrail at Training Tower Vertical Ladder D6.37 Typical Guardrail Section at Stairs/Landing D6.38 Wall Type A1.2 D6.39 Wall Type A1.3 D6.40 Wall Type A2 D6.41 Wall Type A3 D6.42 Wall Type A3.1 D6.43 Wall Type A4 D6.44 Wall Type B3 D6.45 Wall Type B3.1 D6.46 Wall Type B4 D6.47 Wall Type C2 page 170 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion Section 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS Page 4 D6.48 Wall Type C3 D6.49 Wall Type C4 D6.50 Wall Type F1 D6.51 Wall Type F3 D6.52 Wall Type F9 D6.53 Wall Type J1 D7.1 Typical HM Frame 3" From Metal Stud Wall Corner D7.2 Typical HM Frame at Straight Metal Stud Wall D7.3 Typical HM Frame at Straight CMU Wall D7.4 Window Head at Metal Stud/ACM at Apparatus Display D7.5 Window Jamb at CMU/ACM D7.6 Window Sill at Floor/Sidewalk D7.7 Window Head at Metal Stud/ACM D7.8 Window Sill at Metal Stud/Brick D7.9 Window Jamb at Corner Windows D7.10 Window Head at Metal Stud/Brick Soldier Course D7.11 Window Jamb at Metal Stud/Brick D7.12 Window Jamb at Metal Stud/ACM D7.13 Window Jamb at CMU Transition D7.14 Window Jamb at ACM/8" CMU Wing Wall D7.15 Window Sill at Tower ACM Band D7.16 Aluminum Pass-Thru Window at Transaction Countertop D7.17 Typical Wall End Cap at Window D7.18 Typical OH Door Jamb at Brick Cavity Wall D7.19 Typical OH Door Jamb at ACM on CMU Wall System D8.1 Ceramic Tile Control Joint at Slab D8.2 Ceramic Tile Control Joint at Wall D8.3 Water Cooler Elevations D8.4 Handicap Urinals D8.5 Handicap Water Closet Front Elevation D8.6 Handicap Water Closet Side Elevation D8.7 Lavatory Section - Solid Surface Floating D8.8 Typical Lavatory Section at Tube Connection - Wall Mount D8.9 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate Door/Drawer (Plam Countertop) D8.10 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate Door/Drawer (Quartz Countertop) D8.11 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate Single Door (Quartz Countertop) D8.12 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate 3 Drawer (Solid Surface Countertop) D8.13 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate 1 Drawer (Solid Surface Countertop) D8.14 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate Single Door (Solid Surface Countertop) D8.15 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate 3 Drawer (Plastic Laminate Countertop) D8.16 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate Door 18" Deep (Quartz Countertop) D8.17 Lower Cabinets - P-Lam 2 Drawer (Solid Surface Countertop) D8.18 Lower Cabinets - P-lam Door/Drawer (Stainless Steel) D8.19 Lower Cabinets - P-Lam Door at Sink (Stainless Steel) D8.20 Lower Cabinets - Plastic Laminate 1 Door (Stainless Steel Countertop) D8.21 Lower Cabinets - Open Shelving (Solid Surface) D8.22 Lower Cabinets - P-Lam Fixed Panel (P-Lam) D8.23 Lower Cabinets - P-Lam 1 Door (Plastic Laminate Countertop) D8.24 Lower Cabinets - P-Lam Door/Drawer at High Counter (Quartz) D8.25 Lower Cabinets - P-Lam Door/Sink at High Counter (Quartz) D8.26 Lower Cabinets - Open Shelving (Plastic Laminate) D8.27 Typical Plastic Laminate Countertop at P -Lam Dividers D8.28 Typical P-Lam Countertop with Stainless Steel Support D8.29 Typical Solid Surface Countertop with Steel Support D8.30 High Counter Support Detail (Quartz Counter) D8.31 Plastic Laminate Wall Cap D8.32 Apparatus Display Access Panel at Manifold Elevation D8.33 Interior Signage Type S-11 D8.34 Interior Signage Type S-12 D8.35 Interior Signage Type S-13 D8.36 Interior Signage Type S-14 D8.37 Interior Signage Type S-15 D8.38 Interior Signage Type S-16 D8.39 Interior Signage Type S-17 D9.1 Roof Drain-Built-Up Roof D9.2 Roof Curb Detail-Built-Up Roof page 171 CNH# 17113 Mendota Heights Fire Station 01/23/2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Remodel & Expansion Section 00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS Page 5 D9.3 Roofing Assembly at Vent Pipe-Built-Up Roof D9.4 Prefinished Metal Cap at ACM/Metal Stud Parapet D9.5 Apparatus Display Roof at ACM D9.6 Apparatus Display ACM at Existing Roof Edge D9.7 Cast Stone Parapet Cap at New Apparatus Bay 12" CMU D9.8 Cast Stone Parapet Cap at New Apparatus Bay 8" CMU D9.9 Existing Wall to New Wall Transition at Roof D9.10 Existing Roof to New Roof Transition at Fitness D9.11 Prefinished Metal Cap at Brick/CMU D9.12 Apparatus Display ACM Cap D9.13 Apparatus Display ACM Cap D9.14 Prefinished Metal Cap at Brick/Metal Stud D9.15 Prefinished Metal Cap at Admin ACM/Block Wall D9.16 ACM Band at Admin Entrance Roof Edge D9.17 New Wall to New Roof Transition D9.18 Admin Entrance Roof at ACM Wall D9.19 Apparatus Display Roof to Existing Apparatus Bay Wall D9.20 Gravel Stop at New Roof D9.21 Scupper at New Roof D9.22 Prefinished Metal Cap at ACM/Metal Stud Parapet at Scupper D9.23 Prefinished Metal Cap at CMU/Brick Parapet at Scupper D9.24 Cast Stone Parapet Cap at Tower D9.25 Brick Wall to Roof END OF SECTION 00 01 15 page 172 page 173 $7,000,000 15 2.78% Estimated Bond Rating S&P AAA Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2018 $21,060,499 Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 606,001 Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: Payable - 2018 Without Proposed Bonds 39.647% Payable - 2018 With Proposed Bonds 42.524% Estimated Tax Rate Increase 2.877% Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current Proposed Proposed Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity City Tax Tax Increase*City Tax 250,000$ 14,740$ 235,260$ 2,353$ 932.74$ 67.69$ 1,000.43$ 275,000 12,490 262,510 2,625 1,040.77 75.54 1,116.31 300,000 10,240 289,760 2,898 1,148.81 83.38 1,232.19 365,000 4,390 360,610 3,606 1,429.71 103.76 1,533.47 400,000 1,240 398,760 3,988 1,580.96 114.74 1,695.70 Residential 450,000 - 450,000 4,500 1,784.12 129.48 1,913.60 Homestead 500,000 - 500,000 5,000 1,982.35 143.87 2,126.22 600,000 - 600,000 6,250 2,477.94 179.84 2,657.78 700,000 - 700,000 7,500 2,973.53 215.81 3,189.33 800,000 - 800,000 8,750 3,469.11 251.77 3,720.89 900,000 - 900,000 10,000 3,964.70 287.74 4,252.44 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 11,250 4,460.29 323.71 4,784.00 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 947$ 375.44$ 27.25$ 402.69$ 200,000 - 200,000 2,052 813.46 59.04 872.49 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 3,314 1,314.05 95.37 1,409.41 400,000 - 400,000 4,577 1,814.63 131.70 1,946.33 500,000 - 500,000 5,840 2,315.22 168.03 2,483.25 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,153 4,818.17 349.68 5,167.85 Apartments 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ 2,500$ 991.18$ 71.94$ 1,063.11$ (4 or more units)300,000 - 300,000 3,750 1,486.76 107.90 1,594.67 500,000 - 500,000 6,250 2,477.94 179.84 2,657.78 150,000$ 23,740$ 126,260$ 1,263$ 500.58$ 36.33$ 536.91$ 400,000 23,740 376,260 2,513 996.17 72.30 1,068.47 Agricultural 500,000 23,740 476,260 3,013 1,194.41 86.69 1,281.09 Homestead **600,000 23,740 576,260 3,513 1,392.64 101.07 1,493.71 800,000 23,740 776,260 4,513 1,789.11 129.85 1,918.96 1,000,000 23,740 976,260 5,513 2,185.58 158.62 2,344.20 Agricultural 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ 15$ 5.95$ 0.43$ 6.38$ Non-Homestead 2,000 - 2,000 20 7.93 0.58 8.50 (dollars per acre)2,500 - 2,500 25 9.91 0.72 10.63 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 1,000$ 396.47$ 28.77$ 425.24$ Seasonal/Recreation 200,000 - 200,000 2,000 792.94 57.55 850.49 Residential 300,000 - 300,000 3,000 1,189.41 86.32 1,275.73 400,000 - 400,000 4,000 1,585.88 115.10 1,700.98 Number of Years PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact March 1, 2019 Bond Issue Amount BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Average Interest Rate Type of Property 15 Year Term Prepared by Ehlers 3/1/2019 page 174 Mendota Heights, Minnesota $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps 15 Years Sources & Uses Dated 05/08/2019 | Delivered 05/08/2019 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $7,000,000.00 Total Sources $7,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)84,000.00 Costs of Issuance 67,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 132,595.83 Deposit to Project Fund 6,716,404.17 Total Uses $7,000,000.00 Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/ 1/2019 | 9:19 AM page 175 Mendota Heights, Minnesota $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps 15 Years Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total 05/08/2019 ------- 02/01/2020 --132,595.83 132,595.83 (132,595.83)-- 08/01/2020 --90,750.00 90,750.00 -90,750.00 - 02/01/2021 395,000.00 1.950%90,750.00 485,750.00 -485,750.00 576,500.00 08/01/2021 --86,898.75 86,898.75 -86,898.75 - 02/01/2022 405,000.00 2.000%86,898.75 491,898.75 -491,898.75 578,797.50 08/01/2022 --82,848.75 82,848.75 -82,848.75 - 02/01/2023 410,000.00 2.050%82,848.75 492,848.75 -492,848.75 575,697.50 08/01/2023 --78,646.25 78,646.25 -78,646.25 - 02/01/2024 420,000.00 2.150%78,646.25 498,646.25 -498,646.25 577,292.50 08/01/2024 --74,131.25 74,131.25 -74,131.25 - 02/01/2025 430,000.00 2.250%74,131.25 504,131.25 -504,131.25 578,262.50 08/01/2025 --69,293.75 69,293.75 -69,293.75 - 02/01/2026 440,000.00 2.350%69,293.75 509,293.75 -509,293.75 578,587.50 08/01/2026 --64,123.75 64,123.75 -64,123.75 - 02/01/2027 450,000.00 2.450%64,123.75 514,123.75 -514,123.75 578,247.50 08/01/2027 --58,611.25 58,611.25 -58,611.25 - 02/01/2028 460,000.00 2.550%58,611.25 518,611.25 -518,611.25 577,222.50 08/01/2028 --52,746.25 52,746.25 -52,746.25 - 02/01/2029 470,000.00 2.650%52,746.25 522,746.25 -522,746.25 575,492.50 08/01/2029 --46,518.75 46,518.75 -46,518.75 - 02/01/2030 485,000.00 2.750%46,518.75 531,518.75 -531,518.75 578,037.50 08/01/2030 --39,850.00 39,850.00 -39,850.00 - 02/01/2031 495,000.00 2.850%39,850.00 534,850.00 -534,850.00 574,700.00 08/01/2031 --32,796.25 32,796.25 -32,796.25 - 02/01/2032 510,000.00 2.950%32,796.25 542,796.25 -542,796.25 575,592.50 08/01/2032 --25,273.75 25,273.75 -25,273.75 - 02/01/2033 525,000.00 3.050%25,273.75 550,273.75 -550,273.75 575,547.50 08/01/2033 --17,267.50 17,267.50 -17,267.50 - 02/01/2034 545,000.00 3.100%17,267.50 562,267.50 -562,267.50 579,535.00 08/01/2034 --8,820.00 8,820.00 -8,820.00 - 02/01/2035 560,000.00 3.150%8,820.00 568,820.00 -568,820.00 577,640.00 Total $7,000,000.00 -$1,789,748.33 $8,789,748.33 (132,595.83)$8,657,152.50 - Significant Dates Dated 5/08/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $64,348.89 Average Life 9.193 Years Average Coupon 2.7813197% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.9118581% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.9168587% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.7640414% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.0405767% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.7813197% Weighted Average Maturity 9.193 Years Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/ 1/2019 | 9:19 AM page 176 Mendota Heights, Minnesota $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps 15 Years Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --132,595.83 132,595.83 (132,595.83)-- 02/01/2021 395,000.00 1.950%181,500.00 576,500.00 -576,500.00 605,325.00 02/01/2022 405,000.00 2.000%173,797.50 578,797.50 -578,797.50 607,737.38 02/01/2023 410,000.00 2.050%165,697.50 575,697.50 -575,697.50 604,482.38 02/01/2024 420,000.00 2.150%157,292.50 577,292.50 -577,292.50 606,157.13 02/01/2025 430,000.00 2.250%148,262.50 578,262.50 -578,262.50 607,175.63 02/01/2026 440,000.00 2.350%138,587.50 578,587.50 -578,587.50 607,516.88 02/01/2027 450,000.00 2.450%128,247.50 578,247.50 -578,247.50 607,159.88 02/01/2028 460,000.00 2.550%117,222.50 577,222.50 -577,222.50 606,083.63 02/01/2029 470,000.00 2.650%105,492.50 575,492.50 -575,492.50 604,267.13 02/01/2030 485,000.00 2.750%93,037.50 578,037.50 -578,037.50 606,939.38 02/01/2031 495,000.00 2.850%79,700.00 574,700.00 -574,700.00 603,435.00 02/01/2032 510,000.00 2.950%65,592.50 575,592.50 -575,592.50 604,372.13 02/01/2033 525,000.00 3.050%50,547.50 575,547.50 -575,547.50 604,324.88 02/01/2034 545,000.00 3.100%34,535.00 579,535.00 -579,535.00 608,511.75 02/01/2035 560,000.00 3.150%17,640.00 577,640.00 -577,640.00 606,522.00 Total $7,000,000.00 -$1,789,748.33 $8,789,748.33 (132,595.83)$8,657,152.50 $9,090,010.13 Significant Dates Dated 5/08/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $64,348.89 Average Life 9.193 Years Average Coupon 2.7813197% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.9118581% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.9168587% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.7640414% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.0405767% Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/ 1/2019 | 9:19 AM page 177 $7,000,000 20 3.03% Estimated Bond Rating S&P AAA Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2018 $21,060,499 Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 495,054 Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: Payable - 2018 Without Proposed Bonds 39.647% Payable - 2018 With Proposed Bonds 41.998% Estimated Tax Rate Increase 2.351% Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current Proposed Proposed Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity City Tax Tax Increase*City Tax 250,000$ 14,740$ 235,260$ 2,353$ 932.74$ 55.30$ 988.04$ 275,000 12,490 262,510 2,625 1,040.77 61.71 1,102.48 300,000 10,240 289,760 2,898 1,148.81 68.11 1,216.92 365,000 4,390 360,610 3,606 1,429.71 84.77 1,514.48 400,000 1,240 398,760 3,988 1,580.96 93.73 1,674.70 Residential 450,000 - 450,000 4,500 1,784.12 105.78 1,889.89 Homestead 500,000 - 500,000 5,000 1,982.35 117.53 2,099.88 600,000 - 600,000 6,250 2,477.94 146.91 2,624.85 700,000 - 700,000 7,500 2,973.53 176.30 3,149.82 800,000 - 800,000 8,750 3,469.11 205.68 3,674.79 900,000 - 900,000 10,000 3,964.70 235.06 4,199.76 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 11,250 4,460.29 264.45 4,724.73 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 947$ 375.44$ 22.26$ 397.70$ 200,000 - 200,000 2,052 813.46 48.23 861.69 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 3,314 1,314.05 77.91 1,391.95 400,000 - 400,000 4,577 1,814.63 107.59 1,922.22 500,000 - 500,000 5,840 2,315.22 137.27 2,452.49 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,153 4,818.17 285.66 5,103.83 Apartments 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ 2,500$ 991.18$ 58.77$ 1,049.94$ (4 or more units)300,000 - 300,000 3,750 1,486.76 88.15 1,574.91 500,000 - 500,000 6,250 2,477.94 146.91 2,624.85 150,000$ 23,740$ 126,260$ 1,263$ 500.58$ 29.68$ 530.26$ 400,000 23,740 376,260 2,513 996.17 59.06 1,055.23 Agricultural 500,000 23,740 476,260 3,013 1,194.41 70.82 1,265.22 Homestead **600,000 23,740 576,260 3,513 1,392.64 82.57 1,475.21 800,000 23,740 776,260 4,513 1,789.11 106.07 1,895.18 1,000,000 23,740 976,260 5,513 2,185.58 129.58 2,315.16 Agricultural 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ 15$ 5.95$ 0.35$ 6.30$ Non-Homestead 2,000 - 2,000 20 7.93 0.47 8.40 (dollars per acre)2,500 - 2,500 25 9.91 0.59 10.50 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 1,000$ 396.47$ 23.51$ 419.98$ Seasonal/Recreation 200,000 - 200,000 2,000 792.94 47.01 839.95 Residential 300,000 - 300,000 3,000 1,189.41 70.52 1,259.93 400,000 - 400,000 4,000 1,585.88 94.03 1,679.91 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. Number of Years Average Interest Rate PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Type of Property City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact March 1, 2019 20 Year Term BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION Bond Issue Amount Prepared by Ehlers 3/1/2019 page 178 Mendota Heights, Minnesota $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps 20 Years Sources & Uses Dated 05/08/2019 | Delivered 05/08/2019 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $7,000,000.00 Total Sources $7,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)84,000.00 Costs of Issuance 67,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 143,703.93 Deposit to Project Fund 6,705,296.07 Total Uses $7,000,000.00 Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/ 1/2019 | 9:20 AM page 179 Mendota Heights, Minnesota $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps 20 Years Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total 05/08/2019 ------- 02/01/2020 --143,703.93 143,703.93 (143,703.93)-- 08/01/2020 --98,352.50 98,352.50 -98,352.50 - 02/01/2021 275,000.00 1.950%98,352.50 373,352.50 -373,352.50 471,705.00 08/01/2021 --95,671.25 95,671.25 -95,671.25 - 02/01/2022 280,000.00 2.000%95,671.25 375,671.25 -375,671.25 471,342.50 08/01/2022 --92,871.25 92,871.25 -92,871.25 - 02/01/2023 285,000.00 2.050%92,871.25 377,871.25 -377,871.25 470,742.50 08/01/2023 --89,950.00 89,950.00 -89,950.00 - 02/01/2024 290,000.00 2.150%89,950.00 379,950.00 -379,950.00 469,900.00 08/01/2024 --86,832.50 86,832.50 -86,832.50 - 02/01/2025 300,000.00 2.250%86,832.50 386,832.50 -386,832.50 473,665.00 08/01/2025 --83,457.50 83,457.50 -83,457.50 - 02/01/2026 305,000.00 2.350%83,457.50 388,457.50 -388,457.50 471,915.00 08/01/2026 --79,873.75 79,873.75 -79,873.75 - 02/01/2027 310,000.00 2.450%79,873.75 389,873.75 -389,873.75 469,747.50 08/01/2027 --76,076.25 76,076.25 -76,076.25 - 02/01/2028 320,000.00 2.550%76,076.25 396,076.25 -396,076.25 472,152.50 08/01/2028 --71,996.25 71,996.25 -71,996.25 - 02/01/2029 330,000.00 2.650%71,996.25 401,996.25 -401,996.25 473,992.50 08/01/2029 --67,623.75 67,623.75 -67,623.75 - 02/01/2030 335,000.00 2.750%67,623.75 402,623.75 -402,623.75 470,247.50 08/01/2030 --63,017.50 63,017.50 -63,017.50 - 02/01/2031 345,000.00 2.850%63,017.50 408,017.50 -408,017.50 471,035.00 08/01/2031 --58,101.25 58,101.25 -58,101.25 - 02/01/2032 355,000.00 2.950%58,101.25 413,101.25 -413,101.25 471,202.50 08/01/2032 --52,865.00 52,865.00 -52,865.00 - 02/01/2033 365,000.00 3.050%52,865.00 417,865.00 -417,865.00 470,730.00 08/01/2033 --47,298.75 47,298.75 -47,298.75 - 02/01/2034 375,000.00 3.100%47,298.75 422,298.75 -422,298.75 469,597.50 08/01/2034 --41,486.25 41,486.25 -41,486.25 - 02/01/2035 390,000.00 3.150%41,486.25 431,486.25 -431,486.25 472,972.50 08/01/2035 --35,343.75 35,343.75 -35,343.75 - 02/01/2036 400,000.00 3.200%35,343.75 435,343.75 -435,343.75 470,687.50 08/01/2036 --28,943.75 28,943.75 -28,943.75 - 02/01/2037 415,000.00 3.250%28,943.75 443,943.75 -443,943.75 472,887.50 08/01/2037 --22,200.00 22,200.00 -22,200.00 - 02/01/2038 430,000.00 3.300%22,200.00 452,200.00 -452,200.00 474,400.00 08/01/2038 --15,105.00 15,105.00 -15,105.00 - 02/01/2039 440,000.00 3.350%15,105.00 455,105.00 -455,105.00 470,210.00 08/01/2039 --7,735.00 7,735.00 -7,735.00 - 02/01/2040 455,000.00 3.400%7,735.00 462,735.00 -462,735.00 470,470.00 Total $7,000,000.00 -$2,573,306.43 $9,573,306.43 (143,703.93)$9,429,602.50 - Significant Dates Dated 5/08/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $84,898.89 Average Life 12.128 Years Average Coupon 3.0310249% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.1299661% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.1288061% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0057347% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.2284747% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.0310249% Weighted Average Maturity 12.128 Years Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/ 1/2019 | 9:20 AM page 180 Mendota Heights, Minnesota $7,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019A Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 25bps 20 Years Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2020 --143,703.93 143,703.93 (143,703.93)-- 02/01/2021 275,000.00 1.950%196,705.00 471,705.00 -471,705.00 495,290.25 02/01/2022 280,000.00 2.000%191,342.50 471,342.50 -471,342.50 494,909.63 02/01/2023 285,000.00 2.050%185,742.50 470,742.50 -470,742.50 494,279.63 02/01/2024 290,000.00 2.150%179,900.00 469,900.00 -469,900.00 493,395.00 02/01/2025 300,000.00 2.250%173,665.00 473,665.00 -473,665.00 497,348.25 02/01/2026 305,000.00 2.350%166,915.00 471,915.00 -471,915.00 495,510.75 02/01/2027 310,000.00 2.450%159,747.50 469,747.50 -469,747.50 493,234.88 02/01/2028 320,000.00 2.550%152,152.50 472,152.50 -472,152.50 495,760.13 02/01/2029 330,000.00 2.650%143,992.50 473,992.50 -473,992.50 497,692.13 02/01/2030 335,000.00 2.750%135,247.50 470,247.50 -470,247.50 493,759.88 02/01/2031 345,000.00 2.850%126,035.00 471,035.00 -471,035.00 494,586.75 02/01/2032 355,000.00 2.950%116,202.50 471,202.50 -471,202.50 494,762.63 02/01/2033 365,000.00 3.050%105,730.00 470,730.00 -470,730.00 494,266.50 02/01/2034 375,000.00 3.100%94,597.50 469,597.50 -469,597.50 493,077.38 02/01/2035 390,000.00 3.150%82,972.50 472,972.50 -472,972.50 496,621.13 02/01/2036 400,000.00 3.200%70,687.50 470,687.50 -470,687.50 494,221.88 02/01/2037 415,000.00 3.250%57,887.50 472,887.50 -472,887.50 496,531.88 02/01/2038 430,000.00 3.300%44,400.00 474,400.00 -474,400.00 498,120.00 02/01/2039 440,000.00 3.350%30,210.00 470,210.00 -470,210.00 493,720.50 02/01/2040 455,000.00 3.400%15,470.00 470,470.00 -470,470.00 493,993.50 Total $7,000,000.00 -$2,573,306.43 $9,573,306.43 (143,703.93)$9,429,602.50 $9,901,082.63 Significant Dates Dated 5/08/2019 First Coupon Date 2/01/2020 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $84,898.89 Average Life 12.128 Years Average Coupon 3.0310249% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.1299661% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.1288061% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0057347% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.2284747% Series 2019A GO CIP Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/ 1/2019 | 9:20 AM page 181