2019-05-14 Council Work Session PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
AGENDA
May 14, 2019
1:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Discussion on Personal Self-Storage Uses
3. Discussion of RMF Group-Escrow Account
4. Discussion of 2019-2020 Goals
5. Adjourn
City Council Workshop Session
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance No. 538 – an Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 to
allow “Personal Self-Storage Facility” in the I-Industrial District
(Planning Case No. 2019-01)
Attached hereto is the memo packet report from the previous May 7, 2019 regular meeting.
The packet contains the draft Ordinance No. 538, along with the previous Planning Staff Reports
presented to the Planning Commission on February 26th and January 22nd.
City staff will be prepared to demonstrate varying distance measurements on our local Dakota
County GIS mapping system; and respond to any other questions or concerns on the proposed
ordinance.
The Applicant will be also be in attendance at this workshop; and has offered their continued
assistance and input should the council request.
If you have any questions prior to the workshop meeting, please contact me directly at (651) 255-
1142 or email timb@mendota-heights.com.
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance No. 538 – an Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 to allow
“Personal Self-Storage Facility” in the I-Industrial District
(Planning Case No. 2019-01)
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow
“Personal Self-Storage Facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial District. The applicant is Metro
Storage, LLC.
Background
City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business
or industrial zones. City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 includes a list of prohibited uses within the Industrial
District, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses.
At the January 22, 2019 planning commission meeting, a draft ordinance was initially presented to the
commission, which was later tabled by the commission in order to allow staff to research and explain how
or why “self-storage uses” were included in the list of prohibited use in the Industrial zone.
At the follow-up February 26, 2019 planning commission meeting, staff presented additional information,
which included no concrete discussions or reasons for including storage uses in the prohibited list. After
re-opening and closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended (by 6-1 vote) that the
proposed Ordinance No. 538 be denied, based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission feels the proposed Ordinance to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 and
12-1G-2-2- would be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which
speaks of encouraging employment generating uses.
2. The Planning Commission further determines, and based on previous testimony from the Applicant,
that the number of employees who would be associated with such use(s) is minimal, and is not
fitting with goals and objectives of the city’s Industrial Park Study of 2016.
3. The Planning Commission feels they have not heard any convincing evidence, justification,
rationale or reasons to alter the list, which was recently presented and adopted by the City Council
establishing the list of prohibited uses, including self-storage uses.
At the March 19, 2019 city council meeting, this recommendation and proposed Draft Ord. No. 538 was
presented to the council for first consideration. After some deliberation, the amendment application was
tabled, to allow for further study of this matter, and permit the Applicant time to schedule and conduct a
site visit by the councilmembers of similar self-storage facilities in the metro area.
On April 23rd, Mayor Garlock and Councilmember Miller participated in the site tour with City
Administrator McNeill in attendance. The Applicant provided additional information for the council to
consider, including an overview statement of self-storage uses and various property tax valuations/benefits
from other communities. This information, along with the draft Ordinance No. 538, and the previous
planning report information are once again appended to this memo report.
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a zoning code amendment request and
has broad discretion, provided said action is constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting
the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Action Required
The City Council may choose to affirm the recommendation made by the Planning Commission from the
February 26th meeting, and make a motion to deny the proposed Ordinance No. 538 as presented; or the
Council may choose to reverse the Planning Commission’s recommendation and adopt Ordinance No. 538
as presented herein (or with modifications as the Council deems fit).
Final action on this item requires a simple-majority vote of the council.
D R A F T
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 538
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
AS A CONDITIONAL USE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Personal self-storage facility, provided that:
A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of vehicles, trailers,
and equipment is strictly prohibited.
B. Maintenance and servicing of vehicles stored on site is prohibited, except for minor
maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery
replacement.
C. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons
renting at the facility.
D. Facility shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential
use and/or zone.
E. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or
concrete.
F. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not
directly face a public highway or major collector.
G. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in
a manner acceptable to the fire marshal.
H. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than
one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area
Section 2.
Title 12-1G-2-2: Prohibited Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Personal self-storage facility
D R A F T
Section 3.
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this _____ day of March, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter)
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Planning Report
(Supplemental)
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01
Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in
the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: (extended to April 25, 2019)
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial
district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL).
This item was officially presented under a public hearing item at the January 22, 2019 regular meeting; and
after initial discussion, a motion was made to table the matter and leave the hearing open until the next
regular scheduled meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the January 22, 2019 regular meeting, staff presented a planning report and analysis (dated 01/22/19 –
attached hereto); and after the presentation, questions were raised by commissioners on the issue of why
“personal self-storage” uses were listed as a prohibited use in the I-Industrial district regulations. Staff did
not have any information or answers to report; and was directed to do more research and provide additional
information for further consideration.
Staff was able to find additional information, and has prepared for you the following information and chain-
of-events related to this request:
January 4, 2016: City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation
strategies of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan (adopted by the City Council -
January 2016). As part of this discussion, staff was directed to proceed with exploring potential
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 3
revision and additions to the uses in the Industrial District. The staff memo and minutes from this
workshop meeting are appended as Exhibit-A.
January 26, 2016: city staff presented a planning commission report of proposed Zoning Code
Amendment to the Industrial District Uses. This report provided an initial draft Ordinance No. 491
for consideration, with certain uses added, revised, or struck from the city Zoning Code. The PC
elected to table the matter in order for staff to provide additional information, compare other city
ordinances, and bring the matter back to the next meeting. The report and minutes from that
meeting are appended as Exhibit –B.1 and B.2.
February 23, 2016: city staff presented a follow-up report with additional information; including
an updated Ord. No. 491, but with two different options for the PC to choose. Option No. 1 does
not make any reference or identification of “self-storage” or similar uses, nor does it have a list of
prohibited uses. Option No. 2 however, did provide a list of prohibited uses, which included
“personal self-storage facility”. The PC eventually determined Option 2 as the preferred choice to
present to the Council. Minutes from that meeting reflect little, if any discussion points on how or
why they chose Option 2 or reasoning for including the list of prohibited uses. The report and
minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibit C.1 and C.2.
March 3, 2016: City Council takes up the recommendation from the PC on Ord. No. 491 (Option
2). The planner’s report included a statement: “Title 12-1G-2-2 is established. As proposed, most
manufacturing uses would still be allowed under the proposed permitted use category, as long
as they are compliant with the existing definition. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Industrial District be amended to include "prohibited uses." The proposed list came from
reviewing example ordinances, but can certainly be expanded.” As the minutes from the city
council meeting reflect, comments appear to have focused on “trade schools, colleges, and
universities” and “massage therapy services” – but apparently no comments or input on
prohibited uses was given, either to the list itself or to any specific uses. The report and
minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibits D.1 and D.2 .
On March 3, 2016, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 491, which officially amended Article G.
Industrial District zoning standards, and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under
Title 12-1G-2-2.
Speaking with the former city planner at the time the Industrial District standards and Ordinance 491 were
being researched and considered, he does not recall any discernible comments, objections, or support for
this list of prohibited uses, nor any extended discussion related to personal self-storage uses. For all intents
and purposes, the former staff member suggested he may have simply added another city’s list of prohibited
uses, and offered them up for consideration to the Planning Commission, which was eventually accepted
or made part of the overall recommendations, and later adopted by the City Council.
As for recorded evidence or video of these previous meetings, the city unfortunately retains video records
(CD’s) of all televised meetings for one year (per city retention policies), and Town Square Television does
not retain video of meetings beyond one year as well.
Since there apparently is no “hard proof” or written/recorded evidence of why or how personal self-storage
uses became a prohibited use in the Code, the Planning Commission must decide on whether or not this use
or activity should be removed from the list; and if so, does the Commission support the allowance of such
uses in the community. The draft Ordinance No. 538 (included herein) provides language for such
allowance, but only as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with specific certain site standards. The
Commission may choose to accept this draft ordinance as presented, or modify accordingly. Conversely,
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 3
if the Commission feels this use should remain a prohibited use or not allowed as this time, a
recommendation of denial is in order, with findings (or statements) supporting such a recommendation.
Please note the Applicants are requesting the commission consider additional information for consideration
in this matter. Included in this report is a narrative, which explains the process for calculating demand and
predicting future demand(s) for self-storage uses in certain markets (see attached Exhibit E).
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented (or with revisions), which
amends Zoning Code Title 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as a conditional use
with certain site standards in the I-Industrial district, and amending Title 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited
Uses by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under said section; or
2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment, and make no changes to Title 12-
1G-1 (Industrial District) or Title 12-1G-2-2, with findings to support such recommendation; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to provide additional information for further consideration
by the Planning Commission, and present this information at the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Re-open the public hearing; allow for additional public comments as needed; discuss with city staff and/or
the Applicant the request for zoning code amendment; make a motion to either approve the request as
presented by recommending favorably on the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented herein; or deny the
request with certain findings to support such denial.
If the Planning Commission wishes to delay this matter once again, you should provide reasonable
justifications for tabling, and make a motion accordingly.
Attachments
1) Exhibit –A: 01/04/16 Council Report Memo and 01/04/16 Council Workshop minutes
2) Exhibit –B: 01/26/16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes
3) Exhibit –C: 02/23//16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes
4) Exhibit –D: 03/03/16 Council Report Memo & City Council Mtg. minutes
5) Exhibit –E: Supplemental Narrative from Applicant
6) 01/22/19 Planning Staff Report (Complete) with Draft Ordinance No. 538
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01
METRO STORAGE LLC
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 12-1G-1
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this was a zoning code amendment from Metro Storage
LLC who were seeking a new ordinance to the industrial category in the Industrial District to allow for
personal self-storage facility. Currently, personal self-storage facilities are considered on a list of prohibited
uses in the Industrial zone. Metro Storage was seeking the opportunity to place a new 80,000 square foot
indoor only self-storage facility in the community. This item was presented at the January 22, 2019 meeting.
With the public hearing, this item was tabled for more information, this is now a continuation of that public
hearing.
The City Code does not identify any allowances for self-storage facilities in either the Business or the
Industrial zone. Under Code 12-1G-2-2, there is a list of prohibited uses and within that list is enclosed
personal self-storage facilities. During the January 22, 2019 the Commission asked how that had become a
part of the prohibited list. During their research, staff discovered and presented the following:
January 4, 2016 – City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation strategies
of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and instructed staff to proceed with exploring
potential revision and additions to the uses.
January 26, 2016 – Draft Ordinance 491 was presented to the Planning Commission with certain
uses added, revised, or struck from the Zoning Code. This matter was tabled in order for staff to
gather additional information.
February 23, 2016 – Follow-up report was presented to the Planning Commission with two different
options for them to choose from. Option 1 did not include a list of prohibited uses; however, Option
2 did – including ‘personal self-storage facility’. No explanation for that decision was evident in
the minutes.
March 3, 2016 – City Council took up the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
adopted Ordinance 491, which officially amended Article G, Industrial District zoning standards
and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under Title 12-1G-2-2
Mr. Benetti continued by stating that he spoke with the former city planner and he did not recall any
discernible comments, objections, or support for the list of prohibited uses. He also noted that recorded
evidence of the meetings have been destroyed, based on the city’s one-year retention policy.
Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake
Forest, IL make himself available should the Commission have questions.
Chair Magnuson re-opened the public hearing.
Ms. Belina Reisman, a resident of Mendota Heights, asked if this was to open up the zoning or the ordinance
to this type of business. Chair Magnuson explained that this would be an amendment to Title 12 -1G-2 of
the City Code. This amendment would do two things:
1. Delete ‘personal storage facilities’ from the prohibited use provisions
2. It would permit these ‘personal storage facilities’ as a conditional use within the Industrial Zone
only, subject to the criteria that were formally listed
Chair Magnuson continued by noting that the Commission currently does not have a proposal in front of
them for a storage unit and they are not looking at any particular storage unit at this time. The applicant
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
would like to place a storage unit in the Industrial District, but tonight the Commission is looking only at
the possibility of amending the ordinance to permit that type of personal storage unit to be located within
the Industrial Zone.
Mr. Thomas Smith, Hampshire Drive, expressed his opposition to the idea of providing a conditional use
for the storage facility based the provisions as he understood them; basically a three-story unit. Chair
Magnuson replied that there is not a specific proposal under consideration. The Commission has seen some
schematics provided in terms of the type of facility that they are hoping to propose, with approximately 800
particular storage units within there; however, that is something that has not yet been discussed or proposed,
and the Commission does not have anything like that in front of them.
Mr. Smith stated that if the design ultimately is put before the Commission advocates a three story facility,
he would speak out against it. The current buildings in the Industrial Park are all two story. A three story
facility would be out of character and inappropriate.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-01
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A
CONDITIONAL USE for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission feels the proposed Ordinance to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 and
12-1G-2-2- would be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which
speaks of encouraging employment generating uses.
2. The Planning Commission further determines (and based on previous testimony from the
Applicant), that the number of employees who would be associated with such use(s) is minimal
and is not fitting with goals and objectives of the city’s Industrial Park Study from 2016.
3. The Planning Commission feels they have not heard any convincing evidence, justification,
rationale or reasons to alter the list, which was recently presented and adopted by the City Council
establishing the list of prohibited uses, including self-storage uses.
COUNCILMEMBER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION
Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that he brought up at the previous meeting where this
was heard of how some of the past actions Commission and the Council have taken to amend zoning code
with respect to allowed and permitted and conditional uses where they have tailored conditions within the
code specifically to address one site so that the permitted or conditional nature of the use would not be an
prevalent through the entire zoning district. There is not a specific proposal at this time; however, the
applicant has informed the Commission in their narrative letter where they are thinking of developing this
facility. It is a vacant lot on the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Trunk Highway 55. This site has
been vacant since the inception of the Industrial Park (approximately 40 years) and has not been developed.
If there were an employment generating use consistent with the desire of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Industrial Park, that lot would have been built by now.
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
One of the reasons it has not been developed is access. An employment generating business, use, or activity
is going to have employees/customers/truck traffic challenged to get into and out of the site.
Commissioner Petschel asked for a map view of the area being discussed. He also noted that the
Commission should be very specific and should not consider an individual location. The Commission
should not distract anyone with the notion that they are only considering it on this particular location.
Commissioner Mazzitello concluded that if the Commission were to consider this application in the same
spirit in which they have considered other use changes in the past; such as beekeeping, dog training, vehicles
sales, trampoline park, indoor athletic facilities – the Commission could consider this ordinance with
additional conditions for that in order for a self-storage unit to be eligible for a Conditional Use Permit it
must be abutting a State Trunk Highway and within 1,500 feet of an Interstate. Then there would be only
one site within the Industrial Zone eligible for that Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Noonan asked this wouldn’t be spot zoning, to which Commissioner Mazzitello replied that
it would still be in the Industrial Zone. It would be an Industrial use surrounded by other Industrial uses –
it has been done before.
Commissioner Noonan expressed his disagreement and stated that the way the Commission treated other
zoning applications were on the basis of the merits and the fact in support of the policy. In this case, there
were some fairly substantial hurdles to clear:
1. Contrary policy in the Comprehensive Plan
2. There is a prohibition, which he has not heard a reason why there is merit in terms of eliminating
the prohibition, other than it is a matter of convenience. There was extensive discussion and the
decision made in 2016 was well-reasoned and supported by Council.
He did not want to get caught up in thinking about a location and thinking about the difficulty of this
particular location. If it is difficult for employees and clients, it sure will be difficult for the public pulling
stuff in to provide for storage.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he is sympathetic and cheers argument; he also appreciates and would
like to support the property owners in the Industrial District to maximize the value for their property; if it
is an empty lot that could be best served as a storage facility – great. But then again, he is extremely
sympathetic to the notion that it’s not that lot that he is worried about – it’s when other businesses or other
facilities that do employ people are then converted into storage facilities. He does see them being converted
back into places of greater employment. He is also against the Commission referring where certain
businesses go; no matter that this was a brilliant proposal on how to potentially legally do it. It did not know
if that was a wise venture.
The whole prohibited businesses list is problematic because there are some very clear prohibitions – such
as an asphalt production facility. It still speaks for itself.
Chair Magnuson called for the vote.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01
Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in
the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: February 25, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial
district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL). Metro Storage is seeking the opportunity
to place a new 80,000 sq. ft., indoor only, self-storage facility in the community.
This item (request) was originally introduced at the November 27, 2018 regular meeting, whereby the
applicant’s representatives asked the Planning Commission to provide preliminary feedback and comments
on whether or not such use (indoor self-storage) would be given favorable consideration. The excerpt
minutes from the 11/27/18 meeting are appended to this report for the Commissioner’s review.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
ANALYSIS
City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business
districts (B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4), nor the I-Industrial zone. Moreover, Section 12-1G-2-2 provides a list of
prohibited uses within the Industrial zone, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses.
Zoning Code Sect. 12-1G-1 does allow warehousing as a permitted use in the Industrial zone; with
warehousing defined as follows:
“WAREHOUSING: The storage of materials or equipment within an enclosed building.”
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 5
In staff’s professional opinion, “warehousing” [in general] is not the same as self-storage or similar uses,
and should be considered a use or activity limited to or associated with wares, goods and products services
stored or distributed from a permitted use within the district.
A comment made at the 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting is noted below:
“This type of use would be somewhat inconsistent with the industrial study that the city
commissioned, where they did a look at what the industrial park wanted to be. It is quite clear that
the city desired it to be a robust employment generator that supported the economic development
aspirations of the city. This section in the Comprehensive Plan currently under discussion
certainly supports that notion. A use like this, which one could suggest is rather sterile in the sense
that it does not have a larger plant base or the activity that would be associated with the activity
in the industrial area, would be out of character. That may have been one of the reasons why it
was prohibited originally and has nothing to do with whether the storage is outside or inside.”
The “industrial study” noted above is in reference to the Mendota Heights Industrial District
Redevelopment Plan of 2016. As a follow-up to this comment, staff is presenting an excerpted (reduced)
version of this study, including trends, which are highlighted below:
Trend 1: Large warehousing facilities are needed.
Trend 2: Flexibility is critical.
Trend 3: Sustainability is key.
Trend 4: Telecommuting and transit.
Trend 5: New technology.
Trend 6: Decline and reuse.
The study also provide a list of recommendations, some of which are noted in the partial list below:
1) Keep the area guided and zoned for office, industrial and related uses; don’t make significant
changes that would interfere with its success as a business park.
2) Explore potential revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the park by scrutinizing and
revising if necessary the list of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning code.
10) Stay current on changes in the requirements of industrial and office uses generally and adjust
the city’s policies and regulations as needed to respond to new developments.
11) Promote the opportunity for Industrial land use on the City-owned Bourne Lane site, and only
encourage other uses if the market warrants it.
12) Continue to work cooperatively with Industrial Park owners, managers and tenants to keep the
park successful.
15) Explore ways to communicate, brand, and promote the Industrial District.
As was communicated by staff at the Nov. 27th meeting, there has been a number of inquiries from different
real estate management groups or self-storage user groups (including the applicant) searching for a site
within the City of Mendota Heights. A number of metro cities have embraced or allowed similar indoor
(only) self-storage facilities within their own communities. The following table provides a list of
surrounding communities that allow self-storage, warehousing or similar uses/activities:
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 5
METRO-NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES - COMPARISON MATRIX
CITY USE or ACTIVITY PERMITTED or
CONDITIONAL USE
ZONING
Eagan Storage facilities w/n Enclosed
Building
Permitted G-B General Bus. Dist.
West St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted I-1 and I-2 Zones
South St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted
CUP
I-Ind. Dist.
Exterior storage w/ permitted
warehouse use
Inver Grove Heights Self-Storage (mini-storage) CUP B-3 Gen. Business
I-1 Limited Industry
Burnsville Mini-Storage Uses
Permitted B-4 Highway Comm.
I-3 Office-Industrial Park
Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted Gateway Ind. Heavy;
Gateway Ind. Medium
Blaine Mini-Storage w/o Outdoor Storage CUP
B-2 Community Comm.
B-3 Regional Comm.;
I-1 Light Industrial
I-2 Heavy Industrial
Brooklyn Center Warehousing and Storage (inside) Special Use Permit I-1 Industrial Park
Brooklyn Park Self-Storage facility CUP B-3; B-4; I-Industrial
Cottage Grove Self-Storage Facility CUP B-2 Retail Bus.;
B-3 Gen. Bus.;
P-B Planned Business Park
St. Louis Park Warehousing and Storage Permitted
CUP
Ind. Park Dist.; Gen Industrial Dist.
Business Park Dist.
Apple Valley Self-Storage Facility w/n Enclosed
Building
Permitted GB-General Business
Woodbury Self-storage Use CUP BC-Business Campus Dist.
Of all the communities listed, only one (Cottage Grove) offered the following or added conditions as part
of any self-storage facility use:
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 4 of 5
Self-storage facilities [Cottage Grove] are subject to the following conditions:
A. Shall not allow maintenance of any vehicles on site, except for minor maintenance such as tire
inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery replacement.
B. Shall have a security system adequate to limit access to person s renting a storage site.
C. Shall screen all storage, consistent with the requirements of this code.
D. Shall be screened from all public right of way and residential use and/or zone, with an opaque
fence, wall or berm not to exceed eight feet (8') in height, constructed of new materials (chain-
link with slats is not an acceptable screening material), and maintained in good condition.
E. Exterior storage is prohibited.
F. Shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential use and/or zone.
G. All drive aisles and parking surfaces are surfaced with asphalt or concrete.
H. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not directly face a
public street or adjoining property.
I. An accessory caretaker residence may be permitted with a storage facility, provided it is only
used for resident security and management purposes and the exterior building materials match
those of the principal and accessory storage facility structures.
J. The hours of operation of the self-service storage facility shall be restricted to between the
hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M.
K. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner
acceptable to the fire marshal.
L. Common parking space available to all storage units shall be provided at a rate no less than one
space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. (Ord. 904, 5 -16-2012
As the Commission can see, the matrix identifies a number of cities that allow indoor warehousing and self-
storage uses in the commercial / business districts only, the industrial districts only; or a combination of
both business/industrial zones. The matrix also shows the ratio of cities that allow storage type uses is
almost 50/50 as either a permitted use vs. conditional use in the respective cities.
At the Nov. 27th meeting discussion, it appears some Commissioners would consider or support such uses,
but only in the I-Industrial district, and with certain or special conditions. Staff has prepared a draft
ordinance for the Commission to consider, which would allow such use, along with some suggested
conditions (modified from Cottage Grove’s ordinance). T he Commission may choose to add or modify
these conditions accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-
storage facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-1
or 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as either a permitted use or conditional use
in the I-Industrial district; or
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 5 of 5
2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment to remove “Personal self-storage
facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and make no amendments to Section
12-1G-1, with certain findings; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing; allow for public comments; and discuss with city staff and/or the Applicant the
request for zoning code amendment.
Following the public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending
approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under City
Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage
facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with certain condition as presented under the draft
Ordinance No. 538, presented and attached hereto.
Attachments
1) Draft Ordinance No. 538
2) 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts)
3) MH Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016
4) Proposed Self Storage Development Concept Plans and Information
Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights, Minnesota
An important indicator for calculating existing demand and predicting future demand for self‐storage
product in various submarkets is to utilize the supply ratio. The supply ratio is calculated by taking all
rentable square footage (“RSF”) within the market (typically, a 3 mile radius surrounding the subject
property is used) and dividing it by the total population in that same trade area. In the trade area
surrounding Metro’s proposed subject property, there are three self‐storage competitors within a 3 mile
radius:
1. Acorn Mini Storage
2935 Lexington Ave S., Saint Paul, MN 55121
2. Beyond Self Storage
3100 Courthouse Lane, Eagan, MN 55121
3. Town Centre Self Storage
3495 Denmark Ave, Eagan, MN 55123
In total, these three facilities offer approximately 216,590 RSF to the marketplace. Given that the total
population is 35,826 in the same trade area, the existing supply ratio is 6.0 RSF / Person:
(216,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 6.0 RSF / Person
This is a useful formula for calculating demand in the trade area as that specific market is currently
constructed. However, when proposing to develop a new facility in a market, it is also important to
quantify how the market will be impacted by additional self‐storage product offered from the new facility.
Since Metro’s proposed project would feature approximately 80,000 RSF, the proposed supply ratio would
be 8.3 RSF / Person:
(296,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 8.3 RSF / Person
To offer some perspective, Metro typically views a supply ratio anywhere in the 6‐10 RSF range as the
“sweet spot” for a high‐end, suburban market such as Mendota Heights. Both the pre‐ and post‐ Metro
project supply ratios indicate that the market is undersupplied. Therefore, given the strong physical
occupancies of the existing stabilized self‐storage operators in the trade area (approximately 90‐95%) and
the very healthy supply ratios (both excluding and including the proposed subject facility), Metro is
confident that the market will adequately absorb this additional Class‐A self‐storage product.
In addition to these factors, the average household income in the surrounding market is very strong at
$110,000‐120,000, which will lead to a customer base that will utilize the storage facility products
(premium climate controlled and merchandise).
March 8, 2019
Mr. Jason Kramber
RMF Group
1221 W. Lake Street, Suite 203
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Dear Jason:
The Mendota Heights City Council, along with City staff and the City Attorney, have discussed
the issues surrounding the Villages at Mendota Heights project and parking facility escrow
account at great length over the past several months. These discussions have occurred at staff
meetings and City Council workshops, with a consensus to now engage RMF Group to seek
resolution of these matters. That is the purpose of this correspondence.
As you are aware, one part of the financing for the Villages development was for the City to sell
various parcels, with all or a portion of the proceeds from each sale going to finance parking
facilities on the “ABC Parcel.” These land sale proceeds were deposited in an escrow account
maintained by the City, and were disbursed from time to time to the developer. The City has
complete records of these disbursements and the historic levels of the escrow account. The
Second Amendment to the Development Agreement governing the project further provided that
payments to the developer would be capped at $2,626,000, but the City did not guarantee that
there would be that many proceeds generated from the land sales.
The City sold the ABC Parcel to the developer, and in exchange for deferring the payment of a
majority of the purchase price the City accepted a subordinate promissory note and a subordinate
mortgage from the developer. It is the City’s understanding that RMF proposes to pay off the
subordinate promissory note by using proceeds that are purportedly in the old escrow
account. However, amounts in the escrow account did not approach the $2,626,000 cap, and the
account was closed out in July 2013. It is therefore the City’s understanding and position that
there is no escrow account, and the subordinate promissory note must be paid from some other
revenues, or disposed of in some other fashion.
The City Council is interested to discuss RMF’s calculations surrounding the escrow account,
and the amount remaining on the subordinate promissory note. A preliminary meeting with City
staff and the City Attorney’s office would be appropriate to begin this discussion. We invite
your legal counsel to be part of this discussion as well.
Please let us know when you and your team would be available to discuss this matter.
________________________
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
cc: Mayor and City Council
Andy Pratt, City Attorney
City of Mendota Heights
2019-2020 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Abbreviations:
CA—City Administrator ACA—Assistant City Administrator PC—Police Chief FC—Fire Chief
PWD—Public Works Director CDD—Community Development Director FD—Finance Director RC—Recreation Coordinator
Item Status:
Completed Item in Process Item Stopped Item On Hold Item Not Started
GOAL A: ENHANCE GOVERNANCE
CITY COUNCIL
1. Update and implement Council rules to improve meeting efficiency and effectiveness
Action Step: In addition to LMC training, have facilitator discuss Roberts Rules and other guidelines
Timeline: Fall, 2019 Responsibility of: Council, Advisory Commissions, CA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
2. Increase civility at Planning and City Council Meetings
Action Step: Train Commission Chairs
Timeline: July, 2019 Responsibility of: Facilitator, Chairs, CA Status:
Notes: Check with School District for resources.
Outcome/Progress:
3. Conduct a community wide survey
Action Step: Complete a community survey using Polco baseline questions
Timeline: October, 2019 Responsibility of: Council, Advisory Commissions,
CA Status:
Outcome/Progress: Polco releases/conducts a comprehensive community survey for member
organizations in October. The city plans to participate in that survey.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
4. Update process for City Council interaction with Advisory Commissions
Action Step: Conduct annual meeting with Advisory Commissions
Timeline: October, 2019 Responsibility of: Council, Commissions, CA, Status:
Outcome/Progress:
5. Explore creation of a Natural Resources commission or committee
Action Step: Priority from Comp Plan recommendation. Start with the creation of a committee and
progress to a commission, as warranted
Timeline: Fall, 2019 Responsibility of: City Council, CA, PWD, Natural
Resources Tech Status:
Outcome/Progress:
6. Engage Students in Parks and Recreation
Action Step: Make presentations to student councils, gather feedback
Timeline: Fall, 2019 Responsibility of: RPC, ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
GOAL B: ENHANCE COMMUNITY ASSETS AND SERVICES
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
7. Consider implementation of a hotel lodging tax for business development
Action Step: Meet with Chamber and motels to discuss taxation and meet with area businesses who
might benefit
Timeline: September, 2019 Responsibility of: CA, FD, Chamber of Commerce Status:
Outcome/Progress:
8. Develop an agreed upon vision for key development/redevelopment areas
Action Step: Village Lots-Analyze RFP responses and negotiate development deal
Timeline: May, June 2019 Responsibility of: City Council, CA, PWD Status:
Outcome/Progress: • RFP responses were due May 6.
Action Step: Bourne Site-Discuss long term plan and determine whether redevelopment site or public
use
Timeline: November, 2019 Responsibility of: City Council, CA, PWD Status:
Outcome/Progress:
9. Implement 2040 Comp Plan updating local zoning and subdivision ordinances
Action Step: Council to hold a workshop; tentatively approve and circulate to neighboring communities
for comments
Timeline: May, 2019 Responsibility of: City Council, CDD Status:
Outcome/Progress:
10. Address lack of cell coverage in the City of Mendota Heights
Action Step: Explore solutions for problem locations/areas: the Avenues, North End, Victoria, and
Mendota Plaza areas. Consider improvements through the small cell coverage
Timeline: Winter, 2019-20 Responsibility of: PWD, providers Status:
Outcome/Progress:
DEVELOP A SENSE OF COMMUNITY
11. Develop new opportunities for resident to get together and congregate
o Investigate an expansion of previous or existing events
Spring: Park Celebration; Summer: Expand Night to Unite to a city-wide event; Fall:
Halloween Bonfire; Winter: Holiday Lighting events
Action Step: Continue to offer existing observances and work to improve others; seek private
partnership for tree lighting.
Timeline: In advance of
season Responsibility of: City Council, CA, PC, FC, RC, Private
Partners Status:
Outcome/Progress:
12. Research city participation in and designation as a Yellow Ribbon city/program
Action Step:
Continue to meet with the cities of West St. Paul, Mendota and LIlydale to learn more.
Needed follow-up to determine if Mendota Heights partners with West St. Paul and
others.
Timeline: July, 2019 Responsibility of: Mayor, CA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
13. Work with the newly formed Mendota Heights Foundation
Action Step: Once MHF attains tax-exempt status, work with it to coordinate community giving.
Timeline: 2020 Responsibility of: City Council Status:
Outcome/Progress:
14. Plan regular communications with public and private partners
Action Step: Invite local elected officials to appear before Council. Attend LMC training events
Timeline: Summer, Fall 2019 Responsibility of: City Council, CA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
GOAL C: ENHANCE INTERNAL CITY SERVICES
HUMAN RESOURCES
15. Ensure Human Resource policies and procedures are up-to-date and consistent
Action Step: Complete comprehensive review and audit of personnel files
Timeline: Completed by end
of Q4 Responsibility of: ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
Action Step: Complete comprehensive review and update of City Personnel Policies
Timeline: Throughout 2020 Responsibility of: ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
PUBLIC SAFETY
16. Develop process for citizen input in Police Department activities, initiatives and goals
Action Step: Establish a Citizen’s Advisory Board, similar to the Sheriff’s Office
Timeline: Spring, 2020 Responsibility of: PC Status:
Outcome/Progress:
PARKS AND RECREATION
17. Reimagine park space to maximize usage
Action Step: Explore options for additional athletic facilities—fields, MHAA storage, etc
Timeline: Winter, 2019-20 Responsibility of: ACA, RPC, PWD, CA, private
partners Status:
Outcome/Progress:
18. Expand adult summer recreational programming
Action Step: Implement new and market new programming opportunities such as
Timeline: Summer, 2019 Responsibility of: ACA, RC Status:
Outcome/Progress:
19. Review annual maintenance and improvements for Skate Board Park
Action Step: Identify park improvements and repairs and determine funding
Timeline: August, 2019 &
2020 Responsibility of: PWD, RC, Parks & Rec. Commission Status:
Outcome/Progress:
20. Explore the creation of additional athletic fields
Action Step: Explore locations for new/additional athletic fields such as church fields and dog park
Timeline: Winter, 2019-20 Responsibility of: CA, PWD, RC Status:
Outcome/Progress:
21. Explore the establishment of a regional sporting venue
Action Step: Discuss possibility of Bourne site as
Timeline: November, 2019 Responsibility of: City Council, CA, and Staff Status:
Outcome/Progress:
CITY FACILITIES
22. Conduct space needs assessment for the Police Department
Action Step: Assess medium and long term space needs for the Police Department including storage
and vehicle parking; develop space needs plan
Timeline: Summer, 202 Responsibility of: PC, Captain and ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
23. Conduct space needs assessment for upstairs City Hall
Action Step: Review front desk and council chambers security; implement accepted recommendations
Timeline: October, 2019 Responsibility of: CA, ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
Action Step: Review and update council chambers audio visual equipment
Timeline: Summer, 2019 Responsibility of: CA, ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress: • Staff is working with a vendor to redesign audio/visual layout and spec new
equipment
24. Explore changing business hours at City Hall
Action Step: Implement summer hours for May – September
Timeline: May, 2019 Responsibility of: CA Status:
Outcome/Progress: • Summer hours were implemented on 4/29/2019
25. Develop Fire Station and City Hall community and meeting room reservation policy
Action Step: Establish rules of use and implement room reservation policy
Timeline: Summer, 202 Responsibility of: CA, FC, ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress:
GOAL D: ENHANCE EXTERNAL CITY SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION
26. Plan and implement regional solutions for Dodd Road and Delaware
Action Step: Provide periodic updates on traffic projections; seek solutions with the County and
MNDOT
Timeline: Semi-annual
updates; ongoing Responsibility of: MNDOT, Dakota County, PWD Status:
Outcome/Progress:
27. Examine Dodd, Wagon Wheel Trail, and Pagel Intersections
Action Step: Review safety of newly constructed traffic island and determine if improvements for
turning movements can be made. Advise residents of outcomes.
Timeline: Spring, 2019 Responsibility of: MNDOT, City Staff, PWD Status:
Outcome/Progress:
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
28. Update the City’s Natural Resources Plan
Action Step:
Timeline: Responsibility of: Status:
Outcome/Progress:
29. Join Green Steps cities and consider first requirements to achieve status
Action Step:
Timeline: Responsibility of: Status:
Outcome/Progress:
30. Protect Surface Water Quality
Action Step:
Timeline: Responsibility of: Status:
Outcome/Progress:
31. Educate Residents about Airport Noise
Action Step: Better utilize ARC for regular communications to residents; consider cablecasting regular
meetings
Timeline: Ongoing Responsibility of: ARC, ACA Status:
Outcome/Progress: • Hosted, along with the City of Sunfish Lake, the spring MAC Listening Session
on 4/24/19.
OTHER TASKS
32. Improve Internal Technology
Action Step:
Timeline: Responsibility of: Status:
Outcome/Progress: