Loading...
2019-06-04 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 4, 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 May 21, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of May 16, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approval of May 21, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes d. Approval of May 28, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes e. Acknowledge the April 9, 2019 Parks/Rec Commission Minutes f. Acknowledge the April 23, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes g. Approve Renewal of Liquor Licenses h. Approve City Compensation Plan and Pay Matrix Adjustments i. Authorize Purchase and Installation of a New City Telephone System j. Approve Grading Permit for 1895 Lexington Avenue k. Approve 2019 Street Striping Contract l. Approve Noise Oversight Committee Appointments m. Approve Out of State Training for Police Department n. Approve Out of State Training for Fire Department o. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 7. Public Hearings - none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2019-39 Approving an Interim Use Permit to Southview Design for property located at 2383 Pilot Knob Road t (Planning Case No. 2019-10) b. Resolution 2019-40 Approving (or Denying) a Variance (Over-Height Fence) to Chuck Mastel for property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road (Planning Case No. 2019-12) c. Resolution 2019-41 Approving a Wetlands Permit to Mark & Stacy Roszkowski for property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail (Planning Case No. 2019-13) d. Resolution 2019-42 Approving a Lot Split (Subdivision) to Nona Mosvick for the property located at 1133 Orchard Place (Planning Case No. 2019-15) e. Consider Approval of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update f. Consider the Request For Proposals for the Sale of Vacant Lots at The Village at Mendota Heights g. Set Meeting Date and Time for Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 21, 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 Duggan, Miller, Paper, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. City Administrator Mark McNeill asked to add item 9c. Establish Time and Date for Discussion on The Village Requests for Proposals. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 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 items c) Approve Public Works Superintendent Appointment and Maintenance Lead Recruitment and e) Approve Purchase of Radar Feedback Speed Limit Sign for Sibley Memorial Highway, for discussion. a. Approve May 7, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approve May 14, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approve Public Works Superintendent Appointment and Maintenance Lead Recruitment d. Approve Resolution 2019-35 Accepting a Donation for a Tree in Hagstrom King Park e. Approve Purchase of Radar Feedback Speed Limit Sign for Sibley Memorial Highway f. Approve Ordinance 541 Establishing Parking Restrictions on Marie Avenue g. Approve the Building Activity Report for April h. Approve the Fire Synopsis Report for April i. Approve the Treasurer’s Reports for March and April j. Approve the Claims List page 3 Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT APPOINTMENT AND MAINTENANCE LEAD RECRUITMENT Councilor Duggan wished to acknowledge the appointment of Mr. John Boland to the position of Public Works Superintendent. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the appointment of John Boland to the position of Public Works Superintendent, effective June 10, 2019, with the pay provisions listed above and authorize staff to conduct the internal recruitment process to fill a Maintenance Lead Worker position. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 E) APPROVE PURCHASE OF RADAR FEEDBACK SPEED LIMIT SIGN FOR SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY Councilor Duggan expressed his wishes that the radar feedback speed limit sign be available to other areas for use. He requested that the Council receive reports on what is happening. The reports received should be able to assist everyone to get a better sense. Councilor Petschel clarified that this speed limit sign is not the city’s portable moving sign. There has been additional traffic on Sibley Memorial Highway since the Smith Bridge was under construction, and the residents have noticed an increase in traffic speed; also truck traffic has increased. The Police Chief observed the traffic levels and concurred that this would be a good place for permanent radar feedback sign. The sign is not as portable as the city sign that is on a trailer. Councilor Petschel moved to approve the purchase of two solar powered radar feedback speed limit signs. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, addressed issues he sees with the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He expressed his hope that the Council would adopt the same Future Land Use Categories and the same number of units per acre in the 2040 Plan as set forth in the 2030 Plan. Mr. Friel also noted a couple of specific items with changes from the 2030 Plan to the proposed 2040 Plan. In relation to the parcel addressed 340 D Street (0.86 acres), the designation of this parcel was left blank in the 2030 Plan. A recommendation has been made to change the guidance for this parcel to page 4 Industrial to reflect its current use (Jacks Manufacturing Co.). He stated there has never been any indication that there was any industrial use on this property. The only use indicated for this property is Residential Homestead, which is what the records of the county reflect. Mr. Friel questioned where the evidence was proving that industrial activities have occurred there. Councilor Duggan moved to allow Mr. Friel additional time to speak because he knows many of these areas and locations. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Mayor Garlock noted that the Council has a 5 minute rule in place for public comments. He then asked for individual Councilor comments on the extension of time for comments. • Councilor Duggan – rules have been placed and rules have been bent • Councilor Petschel – asked how much additional time was needed. Mr. Friel replied he would need 3-4 minutes. Councilor Petschel suggested he shorten that timeframe. • Councilor Paper – did not want it to go longer but was willing to listen It was approved that Mr. Friel continue for three additional minutes. The second item Mr. Friel wished to bring up was August Shores / Lemay Lakes and four other sites. The recommendation was to zone up to the next highest category because it was consistent with what was there. In each case what was there was there because of a Planned Unit Development. Furthermore, in addition the Council added in the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.2.7 that reads “Redevelopment of existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density than currently exists.” With one hand the city has increased the density permitted from Low Density to Medium Density and then with this provision has said that was fine except that now that you have the higher density you cannot redevelop it at that higher density. In effect, the city has emasculated the increase in density that was provided for. Mr. Bob Thompson, 979 Caren Road, said that he heard that the four lots west of Bogey’s on Highway 13 are under contract for sale, pending due diligence and annexation. Two of the lots are located in the city of Mendota Heights and two are located in the city of Lilydale. The lots located in Mendota Heights are zoned low density. Apparently the proposed plan is to build a high density high rise 55-plus apartment building at this location. He stated he is very concerned about this possibility. His goal would be that Mendota Heights keeps the two lots as zoned low density and not allow the City of Lilydale to annex it into their city. Councilor Petschel asked Community Development Director Tim Benetti to update everyone on this proposed development. Mr. Benetti stated that the developer called him a couple of months ago inquiring about developing the four lots next to Chet’s and Bogeys. He indicated to the developer that there are two lots within the city’s jurisdiction – not city-owned but in its jurisdiction. The other two lots are located in Lilydale. The developer claimed he was working with Lilydale to provide a 10-story, 120 unit market-rate senior apartment building. Mr. Benetti told him that the two parcels in Mendota Heights were currently guided and zoned low density residential – R1, and he cannot see the Mendota Heights Council or Planning Commission agreeing or allowing those two properties to be annexed out of our city to allow for that type of development. At this point, no application has been received by Mendota Heights and nothing has been approved. page 5 Councilor Miller asked if an annexation would require a simple majority vote or a super majority vote. City Attorney Andrew Pratt replied that there are many different ways to annex property. When there are municipalities that do not collaborate or agree, it is very difficult to do so. Councilor Petschel clarified that, speaking only for herself, the Council is not going to rezone this property and they would not permit it to be annexed out of the city. Councilor Duggan asked for further clarification from staff if the city had received an application. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Ken Herman, 995 Caron Court, noted that this issue of the lots is settled for now. However, in the future if anything changes or comes up, he and his neighbors want to be involved. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, addressed the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He noted the author of the document is the City Planner, Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson is an agent of the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil). He is listed on the MetCouncil website as a professional with expertise in developing and propagating comprehensive plans. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan that this city is considering is a transcript of the THRIVE 2040 Plan of the MetCouncil. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, serves the interests of the MetCouncil; it does not serve the interests of Mendota Heights. As to specific defects in the document, the first is confusion regarding the density or land use provisions. There is a high density provision in Chapter 2, an HR-25 High Density provision that allows for up to 25 residential units per acre. That has not been removed. That would allow for the construction of duplexes or four-plexes on any residential property that is sold in the future. The next provision pointed out by Mr. Smith was the unnecessary detail in a number of chapters; the Resiliency chapter is a good example. The reason this is important is that if the plan is approved, that detail has legal status and the city is compelled to insure compliance with that detail or else face litigation. Mr. Smith’s simple solution recommendation was to throw the whole thing out and send to the MetCouncil the draft 2030 Plan, which has already been approved by them. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan has served this city well for the last 20 years. PRESENTATION A) RESOLUTION 2019-36 APPROVE PLANS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that this project includes rehabilitation to Mager Court, Marie Avenue between Trail Road and Dodd Road, South Lane from Linden Street to the end of the cul- de-sac, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Court, and Wesley Lane. Street rehabilitation to Mager Court, South Lane, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Lane, and Wesley Court will consist of reclaiming the existing bituminous roadway and placing a 2.5” bituminous base course; page 6 installing a 1.5” bituminous wear course over the reclaimed pavement, curb and gutter repair, and catch basin repair. Additional catch basins and rain gardens will also be installed. On Marie Avenue, the same type of rehabilitation is proposed. Bump-outs will be installed, along with a radar feedback speed limit sign. Water main replacement is specified between Dodd Road and Sutton Lane. The land bridge will be rehabilitated. There will also be improvements to the pond just west of Sutton Lane. They are also proposing construction of a shared-use pedestrian trail, which would extend from Maple Street. Due to time constraints, the pedestrian underpass was moved to Phase Two of the project to be constructed in 2020. The current estimate for Phase One of the project, including indirect costs, is $2.5 million. It is proposed to be financed through special assessments, municipal bonds, utility funds, and municipal state aid (MSA). Councilor Miller asked for an estimate of when Phase One would be completed. Mr. Ruzek replied that the bid opening is June 26, 2019. Ideally, a contractor would start in July and be completed in October. Councilor Miller, as a follow-up in regards to the land bridge, asked if the City is hoping to get a contractor with experience in managing that type of work. Mr. Ruzek answered that the bridge repair work is not substantial enough for an expert. If it ends up causing issues with the bidders, the city could possibly look at taking the bridge work out of the project and bid it as a stand-alone project next year. Councilor Duggan, in reference to the right-of-way needed for the trail, asked if there were any remedies. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city would have an off-street trail that does not exist today between Market and Mager. There will still be the roadway between Mager and Marie where there is a 5 to 8 foot shoulder that people use as a shared use trail. There is not land available to extend the trail without acquiring right-of- way from private land owners. He met with those residents in that block earlier and was unable to reach an agreement with all of the parties. In regards to the land bridge on Marie Avenue, Councilor Paper asked for clarification that they do not anticipate finding anything more to be corrected when they remove the asphalt. Mr. Ruzek replied that the consultant, TKDA, met with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) bridge personnel and showed them the plans and the inspection reports. Staff is hopeful that the pre-work done by TKDA with the MnDOT bridge engineers would have identified all of the necessary repair work. Unfortunately, they cannot tell for certain until the asphalt is off. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-36 APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE AND WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. Councilor Miller seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. page 7 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) ORDINANCE NO. 538 TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-01) Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave a brief background on this proposed ordinance to allow personal self-storage as a conditional use in the Industrial District. The suggested changes that came out of the workshop meeting held on May 14, 2019 included increasing the separation requirement to one-fourth of a mile between a personal self-storage facility to a residential use or zone; adding recreational vehicles to the list of items that are prohibited from being stored outside the facility; and the facility shall have no more than three overhead doors or bays to be used for entering and exiting the facility. Councilor Duggan asked if the calculations would call for approximately 13 parking spaces. Mr. Benetti replied that based on the overall footprint of the proposed use, it would be approximately that many. Councilor Paper asked where this use would be allowed in the city. Mr. Benetti shared that the quarter- mile perimeter that was established, which left open a large southwest quadrant of the industrial park district. The intention was to keep this type of facility away from residential areas but still be fair and equitable to any other facilities. Councilor Duggan asked what the distance is to the Bourne property site. Mr. Benetti recalled it was 1,500 to 1,600 feet away, outside the quarter-mile boundary, and the homes to the east are well outside of this boundary. Councilor Paper asked what type of areas could these go into; is the industrial zone in the business park going to be a draw or an attraction to an operator. Mr. Benetti replied that it is somewhat subjective but he believed it would be a draw for the people who want to rent or use the facility. It could possibly be a draw for other businesses or users to store their items as well. Councilor Paper asked if the city could place a moratorium on these facilities, after the first facility is built. Mr. Benetti replied that the Council could prevent these types of facilities by not adopting this ordinance. For a moratorium, there has to be a reason, which allows time for staff to research and study the issues. City Attorney Andrew Pratt also explained that usually a moratorium is good for a year and studies need to be initiated to back up that moratorium. He did not believe they would be renewable after that year; a conclusion needs to be reached. Any application submitted before a moratorium goes into effect will still need to be processed. Councilor Duggan asked if there was a way to include that the next storage facility must be one, two, or three miles away from residences. City Attorney Pratt replied that if another storage unit facility found a place to build, the city could not change the quarter-mile distance indicated in the ordinance. Councilor Miller asked what would be the real-time implications for this business, if the Council were to approve this ordinance and then remove it from the Code Book in the future. City Attorney Pratt replied the business would turn into a non-confirming use or a grand-fathered use allowing them to continue at page 8 their current capacity or volume. If they would want to do a large expansion or something else, then they would have to come into compliance with the zoning ordinance at that time; which sometimes requires a variance if it is a non-conforming use or the Council would have to approve a new ordinance. Councilor Miller asked if it would open the city up to future lawsuits from similar perspective businesses if this ordinance is removed in the future. City Attorney Pratt replied that when zoning decisions are made by the city that is usually accorded great deference by courts when they are being challenged because the city is using it legislative powers to zone the city. However, someone could perhaps argue successfully that it was an arbitrary and capricious method that the city had done as a city to push one in and not allow any other ones. Councilor Paper, in an attempt to clarify Councilor Duggan’s question earlier, stated that he thought the question was whether or not the city could impose a restriction on how close these facilities could be from each other. Mr. Benetti replied that if the city were to look at placing a restriction of one or more miles from each other they would probably eliminate the entire industrial park district; that would probably be an easy challenge for someone. City Attorney Pratt concurred. Councilor Duggan explained his initial reluctance when he considered this type of facility in the city. He then noted why he has changed his mind. He sees this as a new business wanting to move into the Industrial Park. This is putting vacant land to good use. It appears that the applicant is willing to work with the city on some of the aesthetics and landscaping. Councilor Paper asked what the signage would look like. Mr. Benetti replied that currently signage is limited to one or two square feet per linear foot of the building wall, but no more than 100 square feet on each wall. The illumination and brightness of the signs at night can be controlled under the Conditional Use Permit. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 538 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 (Duggan, Miller, Garlock) Nays: 2 (Petschel, Paper) B) ESTABLISH FEE FOR THE PARK BENCH DONATION PROGRAM Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the city has a Park Bench Donation Program where anyone can fill out a form requesting to make a donation to the city for a park bench. A park bench with a memorial plaque would then be installed. Currently the fee for this is set at $1,000; however, that does not cover the cost of the city’s expenses. A bench with a plaque delivered to Public Works costs $1,250, the concrete slab excavation and poured is an additional $400 - $500 depending on conditions of the site. The city is investing approximately page 9 $1,700 - $1,750 in this program – not including the staff time to assemble the benches and anchor them to the new concrete slab. Staff requested that the Council set a required fee for the Park Bench Donation Program with staff doing an annual review. Councilor Miller, in reference to the $1,700 figure, asked if it was comparable to other municipalities. Mr. Ruzek replied that he had not done a comparison with other municipalities to determine their fees. Councilor Duggan asked if the city had a list of requests from residents or others to establish benches in Mendota Heights. Mr. Ruzek indicated that there have been ten benches installed through this program since its inception in 2001. Councilor Duggan expressed his concern that $1,700 is prohibitive to many. He stated he did not like that the memorial plaque would be attached to the back of the approved standard bench design. He stated it should be on the front where people could see it. Mr. Ruzek stated he would check to see if that was an option. Councilor Petschel stated that she has seen benches with a brass plaques right in the front. She also like the fact that the benches were all different colors – not just a standard bench. It made the walk even more enjoyable. Councilor Miller noted that it may be advantageous to reach out to other municipalities and obtain details on the costs, etc. from a vendor standpoint. Councilor Duggan stated that if it was the goal of the city to have more of these benches, the city should make it so that they are within reach of people financially. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that he was aware of communities that had different types of sponsorship programs. Those could be explored in the future. However, tonight the question was if this was something the Council felt the city should subsidize. Councilor Paper said that the city has been doing this for 18-plus years. The city has a 26-mile trail system with room to add more and if the residents are willing to pay $1,000 towards a bench, the city could subsidize the cost because the entire community is benefiting. His family purchased a bench several years ago and it still looks good and, he believed the plaque was on the front of it. Councilor Petschel asked if the city subsidized the cost currently. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city was currently subsidizing approximately 40% of the costs. The donation program currently stipulates a $1,000 donation with the city footing the remainder of the cost. Councilor Duggan moved that the Park Bench Donation amount should remain at $1,000 with the costs to be reviewed annually. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 10 C) ESTABLISH TIME AND DATE FOR WORK SESSION ON THE PREFERRED CANDIDATES FOR THE VILLAGE RFP City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that five proposals have been received for the sale of the vacant lots at The Village. The Council has narrowed the proposals down to two finalists. He suggested these two finalists be interviewed at a Council Work Session on May 28, 2019 at 12:45 p.m. or June 4th at 5:00 p.m. It was determined that this discussion would occur on Tuesday, June 4 beginning at 5:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the Parks Celebration and 5K are June 1st. May 31 st at 8:30 p.m. is the free Outdoor Movie Night at Mendakota Park. June 19th at 6:45 p.m. is the Teddy Bear Band Concert and June 23rd at 2:00 p.m. is the Bogey with the Red and Blue at the Par 3 Golf Course. The receptacles in the parking lot to collect used shoes and clothing for repurposing, an effort with West St. Paul and South St. Paul – prevented 7,500 pounds out of landfills with Mendota Heights providing approximately 840 pounds of that. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel expressed her appreciation to Mr. Tyler Wilsey for the tree donation at Hagstrom King Park. Mayor Garlock thanked everyone, staff and Council, for the extra hours put in on a lot of important issues. Councilor Miller congratulated Mr. John Boland as the new Public Works Superintendent as he is the perfect man for this position. Councilor Paper echoed the sentiments regarding Mr. John Boland; he is well respected and does a great job. He also noted that Mayor Garlock has done a tremendous job leading up to the Scott Patrick Memorial 5K; the care he has poured into this year after year is appreciated. Councilor Duggan hoped everyone would celebrate Memorial Day weekend in an appropriate manner as everyone thinks of the military and service people, and their families, who have given so much. He asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek if there were any concerns in regards to flooding. Mr. Ruzek replied that he has only had reports of small localized flooding in people’s yards. page 11 Councilor Duggan expressed his personal thanks to everyone involved in the Comprehensive Plan, more particularly the Planning Commission, city staff, and the community that has stepped forward and helped. He believes the community has to have a say in how they see the community moving forward in the next 20-30 years. He also wished those who are graduating to have a happy celebration. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held May 16, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Paper and Petschel were also present. Councilor Miller was absent. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Community Development Director Tim Benetti; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk. REVIEW OF 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan which is required to be updated every 10 years. He reviewed the purpose and the sections of the plans contained therein: • Introduction & Background • Land Use • Transportation, • Parks and Open Space • Housing • Economic Development • Natural Resources • Resilience • Critical Area Plan (Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area) • Implementation • INTRODUCTION -Councilor Paper suggested that the history of the city that is included in this chapter also be included on the city’s website. -Page 1-6, Councilor Duggan requested that the words ‘and vibration’ be included at the end of the last paragraph regarding the airport. Councilor Petschel noted that there is no recognized measurement for vibration. The Councilors agree to include those words in the document. -Page 1-10, Duggan suggested that ‘support’ be changed to ‘plan’ for a mix of housing affordability. -Page 1-12, Councilor Duggan suggested the words ‘in Minnesota’ be added to the sentence regarding Fort Snelling, the first American fort. page 13 -Page 1-13, Councilors noted that St. Peter’s Church was built in 1840 and not 1853 as stated. -Page 1-17, Councilors suggested that the first sentence be changed to read “….and adopting the first Noise Attenuation Ordinance in the metro area.” -Page 1-18, Councilor Duggan requested that it be noted in the first paragraph that Pilot Knob is a landmark that is include on the National Historic Register. -Page 1-23, Councilors suggested that the date of the water system transfer to St. Paul Regional Water Services, which was in 2016, be noted. • LAND USE Page 2-1: -Policy 2-1-1: Councilor Petschel suggested changing the statement ‘Continue to develop’ to “Land Use, housing, transportation shall develop….” -Policy 2-1-2: Councilors suggested deleting the last section. -Policy 2-1-4: Councilors agreed to change ‘or as required’ to ‘or as called for’. -Policy 2-1-5: Councilor Petschel questioned why this policy was needed. Director Benetti replied that it is to meet growth demands. Page 2-2 -Policy 2-3-1: use available resources, whose objectives, Councilor Petschel noted, does not have to be onerous -Policy 2-4-5: Councilors agreed to take out this paragraph. • FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES -Page 2.8, Councilors suggested medium density should not exceed 5.9 units per acre. Revising the High density category was discussed, but not agreed upon. Suggestion was made to have staff determine or estimate the density calculations of existing high density sites (R-3 Multi-Family and other similar zoned developments) throughout the city. -Figure 2-5, Director Benetti discussed the Future Land Use Map and noted the zoning changes to be made. –Friendly Hills, Monet Court, etc. • TRANSPORTATION -Page 3.1; -policy 3.1.1–Councilor Petschel suggested that this policy needs to be more strongly worded; -policy 3.1.2-Councilor Petschel suggested a statement be included stating that the city will work with MnDOT and Dakota County Highway Department to solve any Dodd Road traffic issues, possibly creating a regional task force; policy 3.1.3-addition ‘will be incorporated’. -Page 3.8, the Councilors asked for a definition of HCM, as referenced to in the first paragraph. -Page 3.16, Councilors suggested language be added stating the city will pursue park and ride facilities. page 14 -Page 3-21, Aircraft Noise Policy 3.3.5, Councilor Petschel suggesting removing this. • PARKS AND TRAILS No changes proposed. • HOUSING -Page 5-1, Councilor Duggan suggested wording in the first sentence to read ‘may also be measured’. -Page 5-2, Policy 5.2.1 iv. -change to read ‘support the development of’. • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -Page 6-4, Economic Overview, the second paragraph should be changed to read ‘should be consistently used’. • NATURAL RESOURCES No changes proposed. • RESILIENCE -Page 8-12, Policy 8.7.1. – Councilors agreed to delete. • CRITICAL AREA No changes proposed. • IMPLEMENTATION No changes proposed. It was noted that the City Council will discuss this plan at the June 4, 2019 City Council meeting. It will not be a public hearing, but public comments will be taken. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held May 21, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and Petschel were also present. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Tim Benetti, Community Development Director; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk. REVIEW OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR VACANT LOTS LOCATED AT THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the five proposals received for the sale of the City owned vacant lots at The Village at Mendota Heights and showed the layout of each. Proposed Concept Plan #1 – This is a 70 rental home unit, which will include a 60 unit apartment building (19 of those will include private entries) and 10 private entry row homes with garages. The plan includes 123 parking spaces for the apartment building (89 underground and 34 surface). Maple Street will remain unchanged. The project has a proposed value of $21 million. Proposed Concept Plan #2 – This project is an 11,743 square foot early education preschool and daycare facility. It will include a 17,369 square foot playground area and 57 parking spaces. There were covenant restrictions within a two mile area also included in the proposal. Maple Street will remain unchanged. The project has a proposed value of $4.5 to $4.8 million. Proposed Concept Plan #3 – This project includes a three-story, 85 unit apartment building. It will have 134 parking spaces (98 underground, 25 surface, 11 street). Maple Street will remain unchanged. The project has a proposed value of $20 million. Proposed Concept Plan #4 – This is a mixed use concept. It will include a three-story, 42 unit apartment building for age 55+. The project will include a 4,000 square foot restaurant and a 2,000 square foot co-working space mix with private office spaces. Maple Street will remain unchanged. The project has a projected value of $13 to $16 million. Proposed Concept Plan #5 – This project consists of a three-story, 90 unit senior independent living facility. Maple Street will be closed and not realigned. The proposed project has a projected value of $30 million. page 16 May 16, 2019 City Council Work Session page 2 of 3 The Council discussed the proposed plans. They were all in agreement to not consider Plan #3. Four of the Councilors agreed to not consider Plan #2 due to the covenant restrictions that were being proposed. Councilor Petschel stated that she prefers plan #4, but also likes plan #1. Mayor Garlock stated that he prefers plan #1, but also likes plan #4. Councilor Duggan stated that he prefers both plan #1 and plan #4. Councilor Miller stated that he preferred plan #2 and felt the other plans have too many units proposed for the site. His second choice would be plan #4. It was noted that the City Council will set the next work session meeting date to discuss the two finalists, Plan #1 and Plan #4, at their regular meeting being held that evening. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:02 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 17 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held May 28, 2019 A work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 12:45 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and Petschel were also present. City staff present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director; and Lorri Smith, City Clerk. DISCUSSION OF PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill provided information on the proposed compensation plan and wage adjustments impacting four positions. As a result of the compensation study completed in 2017, the pay for four positions was found to be over step seven, the highest step for their pay grade. These positions have not received a cost of living increase for 2019. The positions include receptionist, Utility Billing Clerk, Senior Engineering Technician, and Assistant City Administrator. It is proposed to add job duties and increase the job points, which will adjust the pay grades for these positions. The adjustments would be retroactive to January 1, 2019. This will be included on the next Council meeting agenda. DISCUSSION OF ATHLETIC FIELDS USE POLICY City Administrator Mark McNeill and Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson discussed with the Council an issue with the local athletic association not complying with city policy and the city’s request for information from the organization. It was noted that the communication with this organization needs to be better. Councilor Paper will set up a meeting with representatives of this organization. Councilor Miller and city staff will also attend. DISCUSSION OF OLD SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY page 18 Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director, informed the Council that the State of Minnesota Highway Department is looking to turn this 1.3 mile stretch of roadway over to the city. Mr. Ruzek will contact MnDOT for a formal proposal. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 pm. ___________________________ ATTEST: Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 19 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING April 9, 2019 The April meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners Pat Hinderscheid, Ira Kipp, Bob Klepperich, David Miller, and Dan Sherer. Commissioner Stephanie Meyer and Student Representative Matthew Boland were absent. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. 3. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Miller to approve the agenda. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 4. Approval of Minutes from March 12, 2019 Commissioner Sherer had one correction to the minutes that being that the basketball backboard he suggested be obtained from Friendly Hills Middle School would come from the outdoor court, not from the gymnasium. Staff agreed to make the correction. Motion Klepperich/second Sherer to approve the minutes of the March 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 5. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *There were no citizen comments. 6. Acknowledgement of Reports 6.a Par 3 Update 6.b Recreation Update 6.c Communications Update Motion Klepperich/second Miller to acknowledge receipt of the Par 3 Update, the Recreation Update, and the Communications Update Commissioner Miller, given the upcoming weather reports, asked if the Par 3 Golf Course was open. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that the course was officially opened today. However, the course will likely be closed for the next few days and will reopen whenever the weather is cooperative. In regards to the Recreational Update, Chair Goldade wanted to highlight the Earth and Arbor Day Volunteer Event on April 27, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. He encouraged residents to check the city’s website for information. He also highlighted the need for an adult D level men’s softball team. page 20 Chair Goldade noted that the Commission has been in discussions about surveying the community regarding Parks & Recreation issues. The City of Mendota Heights is working with a company called POLCO; giving them the opportunity to survey citizens. That initiative will start in May 2019 with a whole city focus. Therefore, in May and June 2019 the commission will start talking about questions they are interested in asking and have those 3-5 question choices made for a July 2019 survey. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that the Commission had discussed getting a school class or organization involved in creating a survey; however, it appears that they are rolling the Parks and Recreation survey into a broader city survey. He asked for confirmation. Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that staff still has a survey outline filed with the University of Minnesota, Minnesota State Mankato, and Hamline University as a potential project or senior capstone project; however, they have not had any takers. Chair Goldade clarified that the POLCO would come out with a city-focused survey; however, at some point the Commission would be picked to have a batch or a number of questions related to Parks and Recreation. It is just one tool that the commission can use to get feedback from the residents. AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 7. Unfinished Business 7.a Park Bench Donation Program Revision Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Commission has been asked to review the Park Bench Donation Program as well as the application form. A slightly modified form was included in the Commission Meeting packet. He continued by explaining that citizens are asked to complete the form to request a memorial park bench. Staff reviews the application and routes the request through the Parks & Recreation Commission for approval of the location and to provide recommendation to the City Council for final approval and official acceptance of the donation amount. The former donation amount was $1,000. In 2017 the actual cost of the bench and plaque delivered to the city was just under $1,200. With the addition of a concrete slab ($500) and staff time to assemble the benches and anchor them to the new concrete slab the total estimated cost of a park bench would be approximately $2,000. Therefore, staff recommended that the minimum donation required per bench would be increased to $2,000. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the Commission had ever offered potential site locations for benches; for instance, at the Dog Park. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff currently leaves that option open as many memorial benches are located where the person being memorialized enjoyed being. However, staff could put together a list of possible locations if the Commission desired. Commissioner Kipp said that it was very nice that the citizens might want to subsidize the uses of the benches as this is like a charitable donation on their part. Some of them have probably planned for some time to purchase a bench. Kipp expressed concerns with raising the cost of the donation to a minimum of 100% by going from $1,000 to $2,000 in one jump. page 21 Commissioner Sherer asked if the benches have been coming from the same vendor that the city has used historically. Mr. Ruzek replied that yes, these have been purchased through Flagship Recreation who have provided some of the playground equipment. Commissioner Klepperich noted that there are no other funding sources for the benches so if they want to continue the bench program it has to be self-supporting. Mr. Ruzek replied that there could be a recommendation from the Commission to request funding in future years to subsidize these; however, there is nothing in the 2019 budget. Staff could make that recommendation to Council for 2020. Chair Goldade asked how many benches are donated per year. Mr. Ruzek replied that there has been nine benches donated since the mid-1990’s, when this program began – maybe one donation per year or every other year. Commissioner Kipp suggested that the Commission prioritize where they want these benches to go and put something in the newsletter informing the citizens. Chair Goldade replied that the Commission has talked of being purposeful in communicating about the program in the Friday News. This is something the Commission can continue to inform the citizens about. Commissioner Sherer asked if there was a way to reduce the cost of the concrete slab – make it smaller or something. Mr. Ruzek replied that he would have to see the surfacing underneath as his concern would be vegetation or weeds growing underneath. Also, if they put down weed blocker and/or gravel, the dirt and gravel might blow off more. Most of the cost for the concrete slab is the mobilization and setup by the contractor. Commissioner Miller raised the concern that doubling the price could put a stop to the donations all together. Commissioner Kipp suggested that the focus be on placing benches no further than one-half to three-quarters of a mile apart and that staff, knowing which paths are walked more than other, make those paths the priority. Since most people interested in donating a bench have a specific place in mind, Chair Goldade suggested staff put together a list of 3-5 preferred spots. Chair Goldade summarized the feedback as: • Find a way to reduce the cost o Different type of bench o Reduce the size of the cement pad o Asking Council to supplement the cost (in 2020) • Finding a standard distance between the benches, taking topography into consideration • Make the preferred location by a contributor the priority, but then have a list of 1st, 2nd, 3rd possible bench locations if no preference is indicated or the preferred location is not available Commissioner Kipp asked if the park donation has to be paid all at one time or if it could be paid for over a number of years. Mr. Ruzek replied that he has not had that request come up. If it were requested it would probably be a one-time event as the city runs on an annual budget. He did not believe payments over time would be the best option for this program. page 22 Motion Kipp/second Klepperich to authorize the Park Bench Budget Donation Form as is, ask City Council to provide short-term and long-term subsidies, and direct staff to develop a preferred location list AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Chair Goldade expressed his appreciation to the residents who have already donated park benches and encouraged others to donate a bench to this great city. Commissioner Kipp asked if the donation for a park bench would be tax deductible. Staff agreed to look into finding the answer to this question. 7.b Community Outreach Chair Goldade reminded the Commission of Commissioner Meyer’s suggestion of having each commissioner choose a community group to partner with as another way to obtain feedback regarding Parks & Recreation by meeting with them periodically, update them on park and recreation ideas, and listen to them about their ideas. She specifically provided the example of the Mendota Moms Group. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if there were any indication from these groups that they would be interested in having an arrangement like this. Chair Goldade indicated that this would probably be the first step after deciding if the commission wanted to move forward. Commissioner Sherer mentioned that the Moms Group would be a great start as they have children who play in the parks, participate in the programs, and use the facilities. Commissioner Hinderscheid stated that it would be helpful to know the community groups that they would consider contacting. Commissioner Klepperich stated that he knew that sometimes the relationship with MHAA was not very smooth; however, would offering to have someone represent them and provide their feedback be advantageous? Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that there are three main youth associations that currently utilize the city’s facilities; Sibley Area Youth Hockey Association, Salvo Soccer Club, and MHAA. They might be good groups to reach out to. Chair Goldade suggested the following for a start: • Mom’s Club • Somerset Elementary School PTA • Mendota Elementary School PTA • Friendly Hills Middle School PTA • Henry Sibley High School • Independent School District Community Education • Mendota Heights Athletic Association Board of Directors • Sibley Area Youth Hockey Association Board of Directors • Salvo Soccer Club Board of Directors Chair Goldade asked Commissioners if this would be something they would be interested in doing since each of them would be responsible for contacting a group or groups. page 23 Ms. Lawrence noted that something to keep in mind is the desire to connect with groups that have perspectives of all age groups. One area they are lacking getting information from is people who are not in the school system. Commissioner Hinderscheid suggested some business groups would be a good contact point. Commissioner Kipp asked if the outreach would be invited by the commissioners or by city staff. Chair Goldade replied that city staff may help the commissioners with the message but his thought was that the commissioners would go to the groups. Each Commissioner was asked if they wanted to continue with this idea: • Commissioner Kipp – yes • Commissioner Sherer – yes • Commissioner Klepperich – yes • Commissioner Hinderscheid – yes, one Commissioner hears the various groups interest level • Commissioner Miller – see two levels of engagement o Specific input on a project o Periodic basis for open ended input for new ideas or desires Chair Goldade requested that the commissioners come back to the next meeting – or next few meetings – with ideas and suggestions, keeping in mind Ms. Lawrence’s challenge of looking at all age groups and levels of involvement. Commissioner Hinderscheid recalled a meeting he had with a representative from the Hastings Park and Recreation; they conducted a Facebook Live Park and Recreation Meeting. They had tremendous involvement and were surprised at how well people participated in it. 8. New Business 8.a Parks, Recreation, and Par 3 Annual Report Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence presented the Commission with the same report presented to the City Council on April 2, 2019. The items covered in the report included: • Commission Update • Facility/Park Improvements • Recreation Program Review • 2019 Recreation Plans • Par 3 Usage Review • Financial Review • Equipment and Approvals • Special Events/Footgolf • Facility Improvements • 2019 Par 3 Plans Commissioner Hinderscheid mentioned that Inver Grove Heights has doubled their greens fees on the weekends and asked how much those fees were increased on the weekends at the Par 3. Ms. Lawrence replied that the fees are increased by $1.00. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if they would want to consider increasing those fees even more. Ms. Lawrence informed the Commission that they had approved the fees for 2019 and they have been set by City Council. However, it is something they can look into for 2020. She cautioned them by saying page 24 that the golf course industry in Minnesota is very competitive and the city has a very short course. She sees this as a benefit because it is a quick course to get through. However, she would be very careful about increasing the fees too much. With any increase they will see the number of players decline. Commissioner Hinderscheid requested that there be some sort of study done to see what similar sized courses do on their weekends. Ms. Lawrence also mentioned that she would not consider Inver Wood Golf Course a very good course to compare to the Par 3. Burnsville has a nine-hole course that would be a better comparison. Commissioner Hinderscheid suggested a simple solar light be installed to light up the golf sign on Dodd Road. Ms. Lawrence said she would check into it; however, there are residential homes nearby that may not be a fan of having a light there. The lights installed at the maintenance garage had to be diminished because the residents felt they were too bright. Chair Goldade asked if the basketball hoops had been installed at Marie Park. Ms. Lawrence replied that the basketball hoops have arrived at Public Works, it is just a matter of time to get them installed; however, it is on their list. Chair Goldade also asked about the bike racks now that the concrete pads are in. Ms. Lawrence replied that they are on their way and will be installed soon. Chair Goldade congratulated Ms. Lawrence on moving the spraying of the grass at the golf course in-house. It is a great solution. Commissioner Sherer asked if there was a cost to the city for the Workouts in the Park or is that a marketing effort by Anytime Fitness. Ms. Lawrence replied that it is a marketing effort on their part. 8.b Parks Celebration Volunteer Signup Chair Goldade reminded residents that they are invited to Mendakota Park after they run the 5K race on June 1, 2019. Besides the activities, they can meet their favorite Park and Recreation Commissioners. He then asked for volunteers to sign up for one of the two shifts: 1. 10:45 – 12:00 2. 11:45 – 1:45 Commissioner Miller volunteered for the early shift Commissioner Kipp volunteered for the same shift. Commissioner Hinderscheid volunteered for the later shift (11:45 – 1:45), as did Chair Goldade. Commissioner Sherer said he would do 11:00 – 12:30, as did Commissioner Klepperich. Chair Goldade asked for ideas or suggestions on what to have at their table/booth or what they would like to do at the Parks Celebration. Commissioner Hinderscheid provided an example of what they did in the previous year with the survey. Commissioner Klepperich suggested they resurrect the written survey used last year. page 25 Another suggestion was for the Commissioners to wear Parks & Recreation Polo Shirts for a look of continuity. However, Ms. Lawrence noted that apparel was not budgeted for 2019. Commissioner Hinderscheid suggested a board showing the locations of the parks and trails in the city. Mr. Ruzek replied that staff could print a 3 x 5 poster board. 8.c Discussion of Parks Tour Chair Goldade reminded the Commission of their discussion to have a Parks Tour to look at facilities that may need updating in the future. Staff is available on Thursday, May 23 at 5:00 p.m. He then asked for suggestions on which parks to visit. Ms. Lawrence said it would be a good idea for them to pick parks where they would want to look at certain facilities or amenities that they may want to do upgrades to – ensure there is a purpose when visiting the parks so they can stay on topic that night. Chair Goldade asked if Ms. Lawrence had a list of 3-5 they could choose from. She did not; however, a park that had been discussed in the past was Valley View. It is a park many residents do not know exists. Commissioner Klepperich suggested Wentworth Park since Public Works has had an on-going project there. That would also give them an opportunity to view the warming house that they have been working on. Commissioner Hinderscheid suggested the Dog Park and maybe Rogers Lake. Commissioner Miller noted that he visited Victoria Highland and found it to be clean and relatively new; there are not any significant issues there. Commissioner Klepperich also suggested Mendakota since that is the city’s crown jewel and gem. It would be worth seeing how much it is being used. Chair Goldade summarized the list of six: • Valley View Heights Park • Wentworth • Dog Park • Rogers Lake • Victoria Highland • Mendakota The list needed to be whittled down to four. They asked Ms. Lawrence to choose the four. 9. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence made the following announcements: • There are still open positions available for summer employment, details are available on the city’s website • The Earth and Arbor Day Volunteer Event will be on Saturday, April 27 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Register through the city’s website prior or at the event on that day • Golf course is open for the 2019 season. page 26 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek made these announcements: • City Clean-up Day has been scheduled for Saturday, May 4 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at Mendakota Park. There is a fee for some items; details on fees and what can and cannot be brought in can be found on the city’s website or Facebook page • Impending snow on the way; staff is not proposing to do any snow plowing of the city trail systems. The grounds have thawed and they would severely rip up the turf surrounding the trails • Some of the metal ramps have been repaired at the Skate Park • Grants were submitted for both playgrounds • Staff has been unable to complete the pond project at Wentworth due to melt off and thaw • There is a city monument sign on the corner of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd; staff is doing a re-landscaping of that project in early May 10. Student Representative Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence read an update provided by Student Representative Matthew Boland: • He, along with four other students, has started an Environmental Group at St. Thomas Academy o They will have regular meetings at school along with a monthly Mendota Heights Park Clean-up. Their first project area is Rogers Lake Park Skateboard Area on Saturday, April 20 at 10:00 a.m. They encourage people of all ages to join them in cleaning the parks to make them a better place. 11. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Miller: • Nothing to report on Victoria Highlands • There was good discussion this evening • He expressed his appreciation to Ms. Lawrence for the annual reports Commissioner Hinderscheid: • Asked if the vegetation at Ivy Hills Pond would come back now that the dredging of the pond has been completed. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city did install some native plantings at Ivy Hills Pond, North Kensington, and Rogers Lake over 10 years ago. He is now in the process of trying to reach out to Prairie Restorations to get them back out to all three sites to see what kind of maintenance they need to be brought back to their original native planting designs. • The Dog Park was very busy on Sunday, which was encouraging. The people there could not say enough nice things about the Dog Park. • He asked if wood chips, gravel, or something could be put down in the high traffic areas to alleviate the mud. • Looking at what took place in 2018 was very exciting with a lot of positive changes and he looks forward to 2019. Commissioner Kipp: • He noted that conversation had taken place in the past about an exercise course for elderly people in the parks; this should be followed-up on. page 27 • This was a very good meeting and the Commission accomplished a lot • Ms. Lawrence did a wonderful job with the golf course • Commissioner Hinderscheid noted that they did try to put in some features that would be designed for adults when they did the playground updates Commissioner Sherer: • Suggested that an actual adult exercise area might be better suited placed separate from the playground as the adults might feel more comfortable, especially if they are not with their children • Hagstrom-King and Friendly Hills Parks are very busy with the warmer weather • Hagstrom-King grass is soggy with the rain and thaw • Friendly Hills – the hockey nets are still out on the rink and should be put in storage for the season Commissioner Klepperich: • Summer is on its way, which is great for the Parks and Recreation programs • He looked at Mendakota yesterday and there were preschoolers and moms on the playground equipment; everything looked to be in really good shape • There were two Public Works employees who were literally up to their elbows trying to locate an irrigation valve over on one of the fields – they found it. But it was certainly an example of the devoted Public Works people in action. • The baseball field at Mendakota appears to be ready to play on. • Baseball was being played on the Civic Center Field • He would like to see users of the Civic Center Field have a volunteer day where they could help with some of the cleanup of leaves and twigs, etc. • The streets are being swept but he encouraged residents to keep an eye on the sewer openings to keep them clear, especially if there will be another round of rain and snow Chair Goldade: • Asked if the tree purchase program was still going on or has the deadline passed. Mr. Ruzek replied there are two different programs going on: o Friends of the Parks – not sure of the deadline on that o City-sponsored program is available until May 11, 2019 and an update posted yesterday stated that trees are still available • He encouraged everyone to check out the Adult Tennis Program and to get out an enjoy the parks • Marie Park – the new Pickleball nets are here and encouraged everyone to gather together to play Pickleball • He too was encouraged by the 2018 report and is looking forward to a great 2019 12. Adjourn Motion Klepperich/Second Sherer to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 PM AYES 6: NAYS 0: ABSENT 1 Minutes Taken By: C. Darlene Oehlke Independent Contractor page 28 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Michael Toth and Brian Petschel Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 26, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes and April 15, 2019 Workshop Meeting Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 2019 REGULAR MEETING AND THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 2019 WORKSHOP MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-08 ISPIRI, LLC ON BEHALF OF BREANNA ZARMBINSKI & PAUL SHREWSBURY, 916 ADELINE COURT VARIANCE REQUEST Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Ispiri, LLC on behalf of Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury; a request for Variance to encroach 8.8 feet into the 30-foot front yard setback to build a front-entry/foyer addition. The property is zoned R- 1 Single-Family Residential and is located at 916 Adeline Court. The subject property is a trapezoidal shaped parcel approximately 0.36 acres in size and contains a 4,628 square foot one- story walk out rambler home. This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received an email voicing support of this application, which has been made part of the public record. page 29 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 13 Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in its current state and a rendering of what the property would look like should this application be approved. He also explained the variables the Commission must consider when deciding on a variance: 1. Practical Difficulties i.) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance ii.) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner iii.) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood iv.) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties 2. Impact to the Community i.) Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community ii.) Existing and anticipated traffic conditions iii.) Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety iv.) Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan v.) Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty The staff report included the applicants’ and staffs’ responses to the above listed variables. Staff recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that the 22.2 feet from the front property line included the front porch. Mr. Benetti replied that it did not include the front porch. Commissioner Corbett noted that Condition F.v. claims that within one year of approval the applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition and asked what proposed garage. Mr. Benetti replied that it should have read front entry/foyer addition. Commissioner Noonan stated that he was wrestling with the justification and asked Mr. Benetti his thoughts on what the practical difficulty actually is. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Circumstances unique to the property is somewhat suggestive; however, the curvature of the front lot line is unusual. Also, the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood and there are no economic considerations. Ms. Breanna Zarmbinski, 916 Adeline Court and Mr. Adam Bender with Ispiri, LLC were available for comments and questions. Ms. Zarmbinski explained that this is the home she grew up in and she and her husband have purchased it from her parents. They are updating the property and making it their home. Chair Magnuson asked, if the porch was not part of their plans, how much impact would that have on the whole concept of their remodel, or if it was something that could be modified or work around to come into closer compliance with the setback requirements. Mr. Zarmbinski replied that one of the functionalities is that the home currently has a very large great room with a small closet page 30 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 13 area, but not a lot of space for people to sit and remove their shoes or winter gear. They are trying to create a more functional area and that is the reason for the foyer. The idea of the porch was to continue the curb appeal of the home similar to the neighboring properties. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-08 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the front-yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. page 31 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 13 D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8-feet into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019-08). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. Commissioner Noonan stated that he was having a hard time seeing the practical difficulties. The staff report talks about the reason for the variance was to accommodate an expansion that provides greater convenience on the inside of the house. The granting of the variance should not be a convenience to the application. Saying that the nature of the house on the inside provides a rationale does not rise to meeting the practical difficulty test. He questioned how far the Commission should go to protect the zoning and the setbacks, which are established for certain reasons. He believed that this would make the granting of variances rather trite. Commissioner Mazzitello explained that the reason he chose to move this application for approval, and he partially agreed with Commissioner Noonan, was that, although the practical difficulty definition was weak but he could see the rationale behind it. The existing floor plan of the house really has no foyer space whatsoever. The front door opens into and covers the closet and empties right into the family room. What they are proposing is to have a foyer space, which is relatively common throughout the city, in the front entranceway of the home. Because the initial construction of the building, the shape of the lot, the curvature of the lot line – constructing that foyer space inside the existing frame of the house is not practical. It is difficult to be practical. Because of what has already been built and plumbed within that house – stairwell, bathroom – are things that do not get moved in renovations. He could see where there was a difficulty in obtaining that foyer space within the existing building footprint and abiding by the setback. page 32 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Noonan said, with that argument, one could say that an existing floor plan of an existing house could meet the test of practical difficulty if someone wished to create something significantly at odds with the original. Commissioner Mazzitello understood what Commissioner Noonan was saying; however, each Variance request stands on its own merit. In this particular instance, although he agrees that the practical difficulty test is weak, he could see where there is a difficulty in updating and renovating this home to current standards. Chair Magnuson agreed that if the Commission were to continue granting variances based solely on reasonableness without a strong showing of practical difficulty they undermine the zoning ordinance. She commented that she would be interested in seeing if the front porch could be smaller so the encroachment becomes de minimis. Commissioner Katz shared his opinion that if one were to make this amount of remodeling to the house, it makes a lot of sense to change structurally the interior of the house and that it, in many ways, meets the definition of practical difficulty. He would support the motion on the floor. Chair Magnuson stated that all she has heard is that the shape of the property could possibl y contribute to the practical difficulty, the home is not really susceptible to be creating a foyer internally given the layout of the current home, and there are older people in the family who need to sit down to remove their shoes. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the property to the east has a very similar front porch; although it sits back further from the property line because of the curve of the cul-de-sac. So meeting the character of the neighborhood is met. Commissioner Katz stated that the granting of this variance would be in line with what is going on in the Comprehensive Plan with the encouragement of remodeling of homes so that multiple generations can use and stay in the home. Making these adaptations of things like this is helpful. Again, approving the Variance would be in line with that type of effort. It was noted that the new Comprehensive Plan has not yet been approved. Chair Magnuson called for the vote. AYES: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Katz) NAYS: 2 (Noonan, Magnuson) ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019 meeting. page 33 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 13 B) PLANNING CASE #2019-09 PHILIP & MARGARET JOHNSON, 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Philip and Margaret Johnson; a request for Wetlands Permit to remove an existing deck and construct a new 685 square foot deck off the back of the home. The property, located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, is situated next to a fresh water pond. This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received one phone call from a neighboring property owner who had no objections or concerns and voice their support of the project. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in its current state and a rendering of the proposed deck. He then shared the 23 standards and conditions of a Wetlands Permit, as listed in Title 12-2-7. He noted that all major construction related to the building of the new deck should have little, if any, effect upon the adjacent wetland and that the existing rear yard buffer would remain virtually the same. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) recommends a 25-foot no- disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, which this property and neighboring properties appear to have and would not be affected by this work. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the new deck surface would be impervious. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Noonan asked for the size of the old deck. Mr. Benetti did not measure but he believed it to be a little bit smaller than the new. Commissioner Noonan noted that the old deck was on stilts and asked for the relationship of the new deck to the ground. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be the same elevation with stilts. Mr. Mark King from Infinite Decks, contractor, came forward on behalf of the owners who could not be in attendance. In response to the questions asked by the Commission, he noted that the new deck would be on the same level (approximately 9 feet off the ground) as the old and would be using the majority of the existing footings. Any new footings installed would be of helical piles, which will be driven in; no concrete and no soil removal. The surface will be permeable. Commissioner Noonan asked how much larger the new deck would be from the old. Mr. King replied that it is approximately 40 square feet larger. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. page 34 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 13 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-09 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems. 3. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 4. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands, due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from the wetland. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019 meeting. page 35 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 13 Unfinished Business A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Chair Magnuson explained that this was a continuation of the public hearing on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. There have been a number of public hearings over the course of the last year or more with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed her appreciation to staff for all of their hard work on this project and, in particular, she expressed appreciation to the residents who worked so hard and volunteered so much time and effort to review the various drafts and bring the Commission such thoughtful and insightful comments; many of which were incorporated into the final product. Public Comments Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that he agreed with Commission Noonan and Chair Magnuson regarding Variances. The legislature eliminated the hardship rule about seven or eight years ago in favor of practical difficulty. By doing so, they threw the ability to make good decisions about Variances in the absolute chaos. The Chair expressed an appropriate concern about that this evening because it is easy to find ‘practical difficulty’. In regards to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Friel stated that after watching the video of the March 26th meeting he had further comments and questions to add to the email he sent to the Commissioners in response to Mr. Benetti’s list of 30 proposals [Draft 04-23-2019, Pages 2-14 to 2-17] in the draft. Although he represented a number of members of the community, he promised not to use up the 27 minutes used by Mr. Ostrosky and his entourage in addressing a matter not on the agenda at the last meeting. Mr. Friel has lived in the city for two-thirds of his nearly 90 years and has watched its careful development from a township to a village to a city; plan to preserve open spaces and wooded areas; and to control density and the traffic it produces. The city is a well located community, convenient to both cities and the airport. The city is virtually fully developed and the quality city has benefited from a long history of good leadership and careful planning. He was concerned that many of the 2040 land use proposals have much to do with pleasing the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and little to do with serving the people of the community and maintaining the development philosophy that has made it such a desirable place to live and raise a family. The development philosophy that has served the city well has been with the land use categories described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He has not heard any good reason to change any of them. It would be unconscionable to increase the densities of any of the land use categories and they should remain at their current levels. Mr. Friel then addressed the following areas under “Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 Comprehensive Plans”: page 36 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 13 1) 340 – D Street. He questioned the site’s current use [Manufacturing] and asked what was manufactured there. He then wanted to know if the owners had asked for the designation to be changed to Industrial. Mr. Benetti replied that staff did not know what was being manufactured at the site and the owners did not request the change; however, they have been informed and have made no response to the city. Mr. Friel shared the information he had found on the ownership and use of the site; that being the owners are deceased, the property is delinquent in taxes, and appears to be vacant. Mr. Friel then moved onto a discussion of Figure 2-3 “Lots Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map” and noted that this map was not included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and questioned where it came from. Mr. Benetti replied that this map was prepared by Stantec as a reference to general lot sizes throughout the community as it currently exists. Mr. Friel noted his understanding that this map showed ‘proposed lot sizes’ rather than actual. Discussion incurred and Mr. Friel was made to understand that the map indeed showed current actual lot sizes. To prevent any further or additional confusion, Commissioner Noonan suggested that the title be changed to “Existing Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map”. 5) Augusta Shores / Lemay Shores Townhomes. He questioned why these developments, which were guided Low Density Residential, were proposed to be guided Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that these are a zero lot line development that are not allowed in the R-1 zone or Low Density Residential guidance. Even though these were approved through a Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, the Medium Density Residential designation is more appropriate for their current use. In response to his concerns about the properties being re-developed in the future to a higher density than they are currently, Chair Magnuson pointed out Policy 2.2.7 that reads “Redevelopment of existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density than currently exists”. Mr. Friel suggested that this Policy Statement is inconsistent with the primary and controlling provisions of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guide medium and high density use, and is also inconsistent with the zoning ordinance which will implement the 2040 Plan. Policy Statements never trump either the primary land use guides or the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Friel then asked what specifically was meant by the term “current use”. It is difficult to look at the list of Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 without noticing that the basis given for the change, in 24 of the 30 items, is to reflect the current or existing use. He questioned the need for professional planning to make that decision if all that is being done is adopting the existing use. In closing, Mr. Friel expressed his hope that the City Council would reject these recommended Land Use Changes just as quickly as it rejected this Planning Commission’s recommendations to sell two parcels of Wentworth Park land worth $40,000 to $50,000 without an appraisal for $1,000. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, took a broader perspective on the Land Use section of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Since the founding of this city generations of city fathers have adopted an approach to careful and prudent development that has resulted in a city that holds a special place in all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities. His first claim is that the provisions of the page 37 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 13 Land Use section of the 2040 Plan under consideration jeopardizes that record. He then read a letter, titled “Density in Minneapolis”, that appeared in today’s Star Tribune that underscored his point. The author points out that the City of Minneapolis has denied the need for any study of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and its likely cumulative effects. The Plan will intensify land use in virtually every square inch of the city. This has relevance to Mendota Heights is that the comprehensive plans under consideration in Mendota Heights and Minneapolis – and probably other cities in the area as well – are copies in many major respects to the THRIVE 2040 Plan that the Met Council is considering. The last time Mr. Smith appeared before the Planning Commission he pointed out that in considering the 30 land use changes to individual properties by lumping them all together is denying due process to the individual owners. At that time, the Chair took umbrage with this statement and said that the Commission has been transparent in dealing with this issue. Mr. Smith pointed out two things: 1. The notification to the land owners of these properties did not specify that if they wanted to change the land use provisions of their property, these changes would have to be approved by the Met Council. 2. These land owners were not notified that the professional who presented the Draft 2040 Plan to the city is identified on the Met Council website as a Comprehensive Plan Professional that any city might consider calling upon. He asked the Commission to consider the question of whether a professional that this city has hired to guide the comprehensive plan process and who is also identified on the Met Council website constitutes a conflict of interest. Mr. Smith continued by saying that the Land Use section of the plan currently under consideration does not address the interests of the city or its residents. It clearly addresses primarily the agenda of the Met Council. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec clearly, on the record, serves the interests of the Met Council. In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the Land Use provisions of the plan under consideration is a discredit to the city and to its residents. He found it very interesting that the most detailed and critical analysis of the flaws in the Land Use provision proposals, approximately two-thirds of the properties that are specified in the current version of the comprehensive plan – the Land Use section – that analysis, which was submitted to the Commission by email, has come from a private citizen and raises the question of why this body did not carry out a comparable, critical, and careful analysis of the flaws in those Land Use provisions. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 50 years. He was very puzzled in reading the draft comprehensive plans for the city; he has seen a lot of changes being made from the old plan. He questioned why this was since, from what he has known for a long time, everyone is pretty happy with how they live in Mendota Heights. He was on the City Council for almost 12 years and during those years they did a comprehensive plan in 1979. They struggled hard on this plan, they had a consultant, and they had some tough times with the Met Council from them wanting to influence the city on how the city has density. The consultant went to work for the city and they fought hard for the density that is had now. If the Met Council had won the city would not have minimum 15,000 square foot lots. He raised the concern of how the page 38 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 13 city got to where it is. The consultant for this update is Stantec Consultants. Stantec is very close to the Met Council; to the point they have Stantec writing expert articles for comprehensive plan practices on the Met Council website. He asked how one expert writing for the Met Council could also represent Mendota Heights. Mr. Carlson, working for both parties, has a conflict of interest. He is a good man but he cannot be loyal to two conditions at the same time. In regards to Chapter 7 NATURAL RESOURCES and Chapter 8 RESILIENCE, Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, read a letter on behalf of many community members. The letter expressed their appreciation to the Planning Commission for working with community members to craft two new chapters for the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resources and Resilience are exceptionally important to include in the plan as the city looks to the challenges and opportunities facing the community over the next 20 years. A copy of the letter will be provided to each of the Commissioners. Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, spoke in reference to Chapter 7 NATURAL RESOURCES by saying that having participated in this process and having learned much from it, she thanked the Commission, as well as former Chair Litton Field, for their earnest work, attention to detail, and their willingness to not only listen to residents but also to address the residents’ concerns. She also thanked the Commission for their carefully and well thought out decisions in crafting this plan and challenging the work of the consultants and making those changes in this plan. She appreciated the time, the effort, the work, and the standards to which the entire Commission followed throughout this process; she believed this has become a much better plan for it. Ms. Sue Light, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court, noted that at the Workshop Meeting last week Chair Magnuson said that she really listened to what the citizens had to say; Ms. Light believed it because of the changes made and the considerations shown to the residents. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson asked the Commissioners if they had any additional comments, changes, or corrections. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he had eight, seven of which were more grammatical and punctuation in nature. He was willing to give those seven to Mr. Benetti to be incorporated into the draft to go to the City Council. Referring to the edited red-line version of the draft Comprehensive Plan that was on the city’s website and emailed to the Commissioners, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested the following: 1. Page 2-8: there is a comment under Medium Density Residential that the number of units would be decided by the Planning Commission upon completion of the public hearing. He proposed that this number remain at 8 units per acre; he then provided his rationale as to why. page 39 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 13 2. Page 6-3, Goal 6.4: they went through Chapter 10 IMPLEMENTATION and edited the tables for the verbiage in the Implementation Goals – the same edits need to be made in Chapter 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Goal 6.4 should read ‘developed and redeveloped community, commercial areas’. 3. Page 6-4, Goal 6.5: should read ‘Business and Industrial Park areas’ 4. Page 7-2, Goal 7-1, Policy 7.1.2: at the workshop the Commission talked about the difference between a Commission and a Committee for crafting the Natural Resource Management Plan and establishing the Commission. What is currently written as the addition from staff is “This Commission may begin as a Committee, and can remain so, until such time that it is incorporated into the city code with bylaws.” He believed that they heard in a vast quantity of public testimony as the desire for a Commission. He proposed that this second sentence read “This Commission may begin as a Task Force, whose charge would include the establishment of the bylaws and city code necessary to establish the Commission”. Items 5, 6, 7, and 8 were all grammatical in nature. Commissioner Noonan said he would support Commissioner Mazzitello’s recommendation with respect to the 8 units per acre. In terms of what is reasonable for medium density and what has been the experience with two medium density developments – he believed that 8 units per acre is reasonable and could be advanced with good type housing that is compatible with the neighborhood and provides for that diversity in housing opportunities. Chair Magnuson raised her concerns about the 8 units per acre as it is a big jump from 4.35 as in the past. However, in looking at the materials that Mr. Benetti provided with respect to the comparisons of a number of surrounding communities, 8 tends to fall in the low end. In light of the conversation about the need to try to make Mendota Heights affordable for people and to have a diversity of housing, if the Commission was too restrictive the only option then becomes doing these projects by ignoring the density requirements. That would not be good either. She wanted to stick to her comment that if the city is going to have standards, then they need to stick to the standards; and do not make them unrealistic so they cannot be met. She did not like the 8 units per acre but she understood the reasoning. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE DRAFT MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH EDITS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING TO BE MADE BY STAFF BEFORE THE COPIES ARE FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL, DATED APRIL 23, 2019 Discussion Commissioner Mazzitello stated that for the last year the Commission has heard comments, received emails, received letters, been visited in their front yards about how the Commission is trying to fundamentally change the City of Mendota Heights. He commented that this has already been done. All the Commission is doing is reflecting what has been done for the past 60 years of development. There are high density residential developments, none of which meet the old page 40 April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 13 standards for high density residential development; there are medium densities developed at 8 units per acre when the standard was just over 4; and there are twin homes being developed in a single family zone. The Commission is just trying to reflect what the city has on the ground. They are not trying to fundamentally change the city. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson expressed her appreciation to all of the residents who took the time to read this document, time after time after time, as difficult as it was to follow draft by draft. Please know that the Commission really appreciated everything they did. The Commission took to heart all of the comments they received, whether they agreed with them or not; there has been spirited discussions; and the Commission has tried to be as open and as engaged in the process as possible with all of the citizens who wanted to participate. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal updates: Planning Case 2019-05 Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road Variance to Encroach into the Side-yard Setback Did not go to Council as the applicant was out-of-town. This has been delayed to the May 7, 2019 City Council meeting. Planning Case 2019-06 Charlie Co. Design, acting on behalf of John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1875 Hunter Lane Critical Area Permit and Variance Approved by the City Council The application made by Metro Storage on the self-storage uses code amendment went to the City Council; however, they desired a tour of one of their facilities. The intent is to bring this back to the May 7, 2019 City Council meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:31 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) page 41 April 23, 2019 To: Commissioners Michael Toth, Patrick Corbett, Brian Petschel, Mary Magnuson, John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan and Andrew Katz: As residents of Mendota Heights, we would like to express our thanks to the Planning Commission for working with community members to craft two new chapters for our city's Comprehensive Plan. We believe that both Chapters 7, Natural Resources, and Chapter 8, Resilience, are exceptionally important to include in our city's Comprehensive Plan as we look to the challenges and opportunities facing our community over the next 20 years. We appreciate the Commission's willingness to listen to community input not as an exercise, but as an authentic effort to understand and weigh the merits of this input and to integrate it into this very important forward-looking document. Best Regards, Alexis Ludwig-Vogen, 1580 Boardwalk Ct. Angela Gallant, 1008 James Court Beth Pearlman, 1773 Diane Road Boyd Ratchye, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Brian Aukema, 707 Evergreen Knolls Carla Breunig, 656 Sibley Memorial Hwy Donna Gies, 1926 Twin Circle Drive Elizabeth Dunham, 2153 Aztec Lane Gail Lewellan, 656 Sibley Memorial Hwy Garry George, 1773 Diane Road Ingrid Mattson, 2005 Victoria Road South Janet Favorite, 2098 Patricia St. Jill Rukavina, 1724 Vicki Lane Jonathan Zagel, 2230 Copperfield Drive Jerry Hoffman, 836 Monet Court Judy Hoffman, 836 Monet Court Julie Weisbecker, 1862 Walsh Lane Julie Woolsey, 2316 Lemay Lake Road Kelley Stoneburner, 1665 James Road Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane Lisa Lane, 1806 Rolling Green Curve Ned Rukavina, 1704 Vicki Lane Nissa Tupper, 1696 James Road Patty Krause, 1440 Cherry Hill Road Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane Rosemary Husbands, 659 Callahan Place Seth Tupper, 1696 James Road Sue Light, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Tamara Will,788 Hokah Ave Thomas (Tad) Dunham, 2153 Aztec Lane Tim Gallant, 1008 James Court Tom Stoneburner, 1665 James Road page 42 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Renewal of Liquor Licenses COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to consider the renewal of the current liquor licenses. BACKGROUND The current liquor licenses will expire on June 30, 2019. Renewal applications have been received from the following: Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Liquor: • Felipe’s LLC dba Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant, 762 North Plaza Drive • Courtyard Management Corp. dba Courtyard by Marriott, 1352 Northland Drive Club Liquor and Sunday Liquor: • Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive • Somerset Country Club, 1416 Dodd Road Wine licenses: • Mendo Restaurant Group, Inc., dba Mendoberri located at 730 Main Street • Windy City Pizza LLC dba Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria located at 730 Main Street • King and I Thai, Corporation, dba King and I Thai, 760 North Plaza Drive Off-Sale Liquor licenses: • Twin City Beverage Inc. dba Mendota Liquor Barrel, 766 North Plaza Drive On-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor licenses: • Mendo Restaurant Group, Inc., dba Mendoberri located at 730 Main Street • Windy City Pizza LLC dba Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria located at 730 Main Street • King and I Thai Corporation, dba King and I Thai, 760 North Plaza Drive Off-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor licenses: • Northern Tier Retail LLC dba Speedway #4521 located at 1080 Highway 62 • Northern Tier Retail LLC dba Speedway #4516 located at 1200 Mendota Heights Road Please note that Haiku Japanese Bistro is in the process of changing ownership. Their application will be on the next City Council agenda. page 43 Background investigations have been conducted on all of the licensees resulting in no negative findings on the above applicants. Outstanding documentation - All of the required documentation has been received, except for the Certificates of Insurance for the following: Mendo Restaurant Group, dba Mendberri Northern Tier Retail LLC, dba Speedway #4516 and #4521 Windy City Pizza LLC, dba Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria The permits for the above would be issued upon receipt of the required Certificates of Insurance. If approved, the liquor licenses would be effective July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve the issuance of the license renewals as listed above for the period of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, contingent upon the outstanding documentation being received. page 44 DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Compensation Plan and Pay Matrix Adjustments COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to approve adjustments to the City’s 2019 Compensation Plan and Salary Matrix. Background The annual salaries and hourly rates for employees are provided for under the City’s Compensation Plan. As part of the City’s compensation study completed in December, 2017, each staff position was re-evaluated and adjusted both in position grade and salary range beginning in 2018. Position pay grades and salaries are primarily based on two factors—job evaluation points and pay of similar positions within cities comparable in size and scope to Mendota Heights. As a result of the new compensation plan, four positions were found to be outside of step seven of the salary matrix and therefore have not received a cost of living increase for 2019. Those positions were: Receptionist, Utility Billing Clerk, Senior Engineering Technician, and Assistant City Administrator. To recognize the valuable work provided by staff as well as the importance to the City in attracting and retaining a qualified workforce, staff is recommending the following: • Receptionist: The position of Receptionist is ranked at position grade 3. Staff recommends revising the job description to include volunteer coordinator tasks, changing the title of the position from Receptionist to Office Support Assistant and moving the position to grade 4. The Receptionist position is a job share position between two staff. Staff recommends that the hourly wage for each be adjusted to their same step in position grade 4. • Utility Billing Clerk: The position of Utility Billing Clerk is ranked at position grade 4. Based on job evaluation points from the compensation study, staff recommends an adjustment to the Utility Billing Clerk position to grade 5. Staff further recommends that the annual compensation of the Utility Billing Clerk be adjusted to step seven of grade 5. page 45 • Senior Engineering Technician: The position of Senior Engineering Technician is ranked at position grade 9. Based on a review of the market including cities of comparable size and scope, staff recommends an adjustment to the Senior Engineering Technician position to grade 10. Staff further recommends that the annual compensation of the Senior Engineering Technician be adjusted to step seven of grade 10. • Assistant City Administrator: The position of Assistant City Administrator is ranked at position grade 16. Based on job evaluation points from the compensation study, staff recommends an adjustment to the Assistant City Administrator position to grade 17. Staff further recommends that the annual compensation of the Assistant City Administrator be adjusted to step seven of grade 17. Attachment: Proposed revised 2019 Salary Matrix Budget Impact All positions are included in the 2019 budget and annual increases were accounted for in the budget process and can be accommodated. The 2019 Cost of Living Adjustment was 2.75%. The salaries of the employees in the identified positions will be adjusted for a minimum of that amount. The amount which is in excess of the budgeted cost of living adjustment is $5,222, which can be accommodated in the 2019 budget.. Adjustments to move employees to steps within the new position grades would be retroactive to January 1, 2019. Recommendation I recommend that the City Council approve the recommended changes to the 2019 compensation plan and salary matrix and adjust the wages of the Receptionists, Utility Billing Clerk, Senior Engineering Technician and Assistant City Administrator, retroactive to January 1,2019. Action Requested If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the adjustments to the City’s Compensation Plan and salary matrix and adjust the wages of the Receptionist, Utility Billing Clerk, Senior Engineering Technician and Assistant City Administrator, as recommended above, retroactive to January 1, 2019. page 46 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROPOSED REVISED SALARY MATRIX (2019) Grade Position 1234567 1 $38,089 $39,422 $40,802 $42,230 $43,708 $45,238 $46,821 2 Community Service Officer $40,375 $41,788 $43,250 $44,764 $46,331 $47,952 $49,631 3 $42,797 $44,295 $45,845 $47,450 $49,111 $50,830 $52,609 4 Office Support Assistant $45,365 $46,953 $48,596 $50,297 $52,057 $53,879 $55,765 5 Accounting Clerk Utility Billing Clerk Police Support Specialist $48,087 $49,770 $51,512 $53,315 $55,181 $57,112 $59,111 6 Secretary/Deputy City Clerk $50,972 $52,756 $54,603 $56,514 $58,492 $60,539 $62,658 7 Natural Resources Technician $54,030 $55,921 $57,879 $59,904 $62,001 $64,171 $66,417 8 Recreation Program Coordinator Communications Coordinator $57,272 $59,277 $61,351 $63,499 $65,721 $68,021 $70,402 9 $60,709 $62,833 $65,032 $67,309 $69,664 $72,103 $74,626 10 Senior Engineering Technician $64,351 $66,603 $68,934 $71,347 $73,844 $76,429 $79,104 11 City Clerk $68,212 $70,599 $73,070 $75,628 $78,275 $81,015 $83,850 12 $72,305 $74,835 $77,455 $80,166 $82,971 $85,875 $88,881 13 $76,643 $79,326 $82,102 $84,976 $87,950 $91,028 $94,214 14 Public Works Superintendent $81,242 $84,085 $87,028 $90,074 $93,227 $96,490 $99,867 15 $86,116 $89,130 $92,250 $95,479 $98,820 $102,279 $105,859 16 Police Captain Community Development Director $91,283 $94,478 $97,785 $101,207 $104,750 $108,416 $112,210 17 Finance Director Assistant City Administrator $96,760 $100,147 $103,652 $107,280 $111,034 $114,921 $118,943 18 Public Works Director Police Chief $102,566 $106,156 $109,871 $113,716 $117,697 $121,816 $126,079 19 $108,720 $112,525 $116,463 $120,539 $124,758 $129,125 $133,644 20 City Administrator $115,243 $119,276 $123,451 $127,772 $132,244 $136,872 $141,663 21 $122,157 $126,433 $130,858 $135,438 $140,178 $145,085 $150,163 22 $129,487 $134,019 $138,710 $143,564 $148,589 $153,790 $159,172 Step 4 = Midpoint Step page 47 Request for City Council Action DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: City Phone System Replacement INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to authorize the purchase and installation of a new telephone system for City Hall, Public Works and the Fire Station. BACKGROUND With the installation and connection to Dakota County I-Net fiber, the City is now in a position take advantage of significant technology upgrades including those needed to the City’s telephone system. The City telephone system is approximately 20 years old and has reached the end of its useful hardware and software life, and must be replaced. City staff has developed and reviewed with LOGIS, the City’s IT support services vendor, the City’s needs and specifications for a new telephone system. Features such as conference calling, video calling, integration with email, overall mobility, and the ability to modify and manage the system configuration are all desired features. The system that LOGIS hosts and supports is a CISCO voice over internet protocol (VoIP) unified communications platform and meets the needs that staff has identified. LOGIS currently provides IP Telephony services for 14 cities. LOGIS has provided a cost proposal which includes hardware, software and implementation costs in the amount of $59,793. The next steps to be taken would be to refine the City’s specifications, verify telephone counts and select hardware types. BUDGET IMPACT LOGIS procures the CISCO system through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing contract and receives an additional LOGIS cooperative discount on top of the State contract pricing. As a result, the competitive purchasing requirement has been satisfied. page 48 The initial cost proposal for a replacement system covering City Hall, Public Works and the Fire Station is $59,793 and is under the original budgeted amount of $80,000. If approved, funds would be available from the Cable Fund to cover costs. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to move forward with the purchase and installation of a new telephone system for City Hall, Public Works and the Fire Station. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the purchase and installation of a new telephone system for City Hall, Public Works and the Fire Station. page 49 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit for 1895 Lexington Avenue COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a grading permit for 1895 Lexington Avenue. BACKGROUND City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part a separate approval process. DISCUSSION The property at 1895 Lexington Avenue desires to create a level area in their backyard. The property currently has a low area in the northwest corner of the lot which has seasonal flooding. The southwest corner of the lot is proposed to be lowered and a tiered retaining wall constructed. Excess soil is proposed to be used to raise the elevation of the northwest corner and level some uneven areas in the front yard. Additional soil will be exported from the site. Staff mailed letters to property owners within 350 feet of this parcel. One resident responded to the mailing. He was concerned with drainage from the front yard not being directed onto his property, but had no issues with the rear yard grading. This project will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Mendota Heights’ Land Disturbance Guidance Document. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity to cover staff time in reviewing and inspecting the improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the grading permit for 1895 Lexington Avenue. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to issue the Grading Permit for 1895 Lexington Avenue. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 50 Pressman Property - Landscape Project, May 2019Scale: 1 mm = 1 FootTrellis (4 Sections 12 ‘ x 8’ ) Arborvitae Tree Property Line 1895 Lexington Avenue So., Mendota Heights MN 55118Property LineElevation 904’Elevation 901’Elevation 902’Elevation 906’Elevation 910’See Cross Section View (East Facing) See Cross Section View (South Facing) New Grading Area Retaining Wall40 ft150 ft12 ft6 ft20 ft40 ft 239 ft 18 ft8 ft 6 ft 20 ft House Shed page 51 Pressman Property - Landscape Project, May 2019Scale: 1 mm = 1 Foot1895 Lexington Avenue So., Mendota Heights MN 55118Trellis (4 Sections 12 ‘ x 8’ ) Arborvitae Tree Property LineProperty LineElevation 904’Elevation 901’Elevation 902’Elevation 906’Elevation 910’See Cross Section View (East Facing) See Cross Section View (South Facing) New Grading Area 40 ft150 ft12 ft6 ft20 ft40 ft 239 ft 18 ft8 ft 6 ft 20 ft Shed page 52 Pressman Property - Landscape Project, May 2019Scale: 1 mm = 1 Foot1895 Lexington Avenue So., Mendota Heights MN 55118240 ft 6 ft40 ft Current Elevation - Cross section View (Facing East) Current Elevation - Cross section View (Facing South) Proposed Elevation - Cross section View (Facing East) Proposed Elevation - Cross section View (Facing South) Grade Grade House House Trellis (4 Sections 12 ‘ x 8’ ) Level Grade (no change in elevation) Arborvitae Trees Retaining Wall (4’ high)9 ft10 ft150 ft 150 ft 12 ft6 ft 10 ft10 ft4 ft4 ft8 ftShed Shed page 53 Pressman Property - Landscape Project, May 2019Scale: 1 mm = 1 Foot1895 Lexington Avenue So., Mendota Heights MN 55118page 54 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. – Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2019 Street Striping COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council award a project for the 2019 Street Striping Project. BACKGROUND Funding for street striping is included in the Public Works Street Cleaning and Striping Budget ($40,000). Following completion of the street sweeping operations, portions of this budget are allocated to paint striping or markings on city streets. The costs for the spring sweeping were higher this year due to the material being brought to a landfill. The remaining budget after the spring street sweeping for 2019 is approximately $21,000. Staff estimates that a fall sweeping will cost approximately $10,000. Additional funds may also be used from the storm water utility due to the fall sweeping keeping organic matter from entering city ponds. DISCUSSION City Council approved the use of epoxy enamel marking paint, which lasts two to four times longer than the paints previously used. This product is extensively used by Dakota County and MnDOT. Mendota Heights is able to secure bids for this service through the JPA with the City of Burnsville. Sir Lines-A-Lot was granted the service through the JPA and submitted a quote of $8,376.20 for the 2019 striping project. The project includes striping to Chippewa Avenue and Lemay Lake Road which are proposed to have a chip seal installed which will cover the existing striping. BUDGET IMPACT There is approximately $11,000 available in the street budget for striping. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the striping project and awarding this project to Sir Lines-A-Lot. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the Staff recommendation, pass a motion approving the 2019 Street Striping Project and awarding the project to Sir Lines-A-Lot, for the amount of $8,376.20. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 55 page 56 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Noise Oversight Committee Appointments Date: June 4, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to make appointments to the MAC Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), to represent the City of Mendota Heights. Background: The NOC is an advisory group which is charged with making recommendations to the MAC on policy matters relating to airport noise. It is represented equally by members of airport-related businesses, and representatives of cities which are neighbors to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Mendota Heights has a full representative on the NOC; terms are for two years. For the past two years, Councilor Jay Miller has been the primary representative. Mayor Garlock has asked Councilor Miller to remain as the Mendota Heights primary representative for another two year term, and Mr. Miller has accepted. In addition, alternate representatives are typically appointed in the event that the primary representative cannot attend a meeting. Mendota Heights is fortunate to have several well-qualified individuals who are able to serve in that capacity. Mayor Garlock recommends the following to be appointed: First Alternate—Councilor Liz Petschel Second Alternate— ARC Chair David Sloan Third Alternate— Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson Discussion: The appointments are for two years, and would take effect July 1, 2019 Recommendation: I recommend that the primary, and alternate appointments be made as shown. page 57 Action Required If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, make the following appointments to two year terms to serve on the Noise Oversight Committee, effective July 1, 2019: Primary—Councilor Jay Miller First Alternate—Councilor Liz Petschel Second Alternate— ARC Chair David Sloan Third Alternate—Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson Mark McNeill City Administrator page 58 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Police Chief Out of State Training Date: June 4, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to authorize Police Chief Kelly McCarthy to attend out of state training in Boston, Massachusetts, from October 27, to November 1, 2019 Background: In February, Chief McCarthy applied for, and was recently notified that she has been accepted into a one week class given at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Entrance into Kennedy School classes is highly competitive, and the number of participants in each class is typically small. The classes are taught by leading scholars in the field, and the class rosters typically is made up of a broad cross section practitioners from around the world. The class that Chief McCarthy is interested in attending is Applying Behavioral Insights to the Design of Public Policy. As is noted by the course description, government policies are traditionally designed on the basis that people behave rationally. However, both individuals and organizations can sometimes both behave in irrational manners, resulting in policies which are ineffective or contrary to the desired outcome. This class is designed to help find ways to better design those policies. The class will be held from October 27, to November 1, 2019 in Boston, Massachusetts. Budget Impact: The cost of this class is $9400, which includes the classwork and lodging. That amount is available in the Police training budget. While this is an amount which is greater than what is typically experienced for an individual employee’s training, it also presents a unique opportunity. In recognition of the costs, Chief McCarthy has offered to pay the other expenses of attendance, including transportation. Recommendation: From my knowledge of people who have attended the Kennedy School, the experience can be life- changing--even being accepted is an honor. Participation by Chief McCarthy could greatly benefit the City of Mendota Heights organization. As a result, I recommend approval by the City Council. page 59 Action Required If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the attendance by Chief Kelly McCarthy of a class at the Kennedy School in Boston, Massachusetts, to be held October 27, through November 1, 2019. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 60 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Fire House Expo and Conference DATE: June 4, 2019 COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is being asked to approve attendance at an out of state conference for Fire Chief Dave Dreelan. Background The City’s Travel Authorization and Expense Reimbursement Policy requires that all out-of-state conferences, seminars, workshops, training or other education related expenses be approved in advance by the City Council at an open meeting, and must include an estimate of the cost of the travel. The International Fire House Expo and Conference is being held in Nashville, TN this year. It is October 8 to 12, 2019. Discussion This conference was budgeted for in 2019, and authorization is being requested for Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief to attend. There are many good instructional sessions, as well as opportunities to see the latest state of the art technologies, and to network with other fire chiefs. Budget Impact The cost of the conference (registration, hotel, airfare and meals) is estimated to be $1900. There is money in the budget for this conference. Recommendation The City Administrator recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the out-of- state travel for the Fire Chief to attend the conference in Nashville, TN. page 61 Action Required If Council agrees with the recommendation, it should approve the out-of-state travel for Dave Dreelan to attend the Fire House Expo and Conference in Nashville, TN. page 62 page 63 page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-39 Approving an Interim Use Permit to Southview Design for Temporary Off-Site Parking Area in the I-Industrial District (Planning Case No. 2019-10) Introduction City Council is being asked to consider adopting a resolution approving an Interim Use Permit to Southview Design, and for the property located [adjacent to] 2383 Pilot Knob Road. Background Southview Design, a local landscaping and design company, is seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow the temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the adjacent MnDOT owned property to the north of their facility. This MnDOT property is a section of former CMSP Railroad right-of-way. The site is generally located south of the intersection of TH 13 and Pilot Knob Road, and is addressed as 2383 Pilot Knob Road. At the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this Interim Use Permit request item was presented for consideration under an official public hearing. A copy of the 05/28/19 Planning Staff Report, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this council memo report. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on an interim use permit request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Interim Use Permit request from Southview Design and for the property located next to 2383 Pilot Knob Road, based on the findings of facts noted in the draft resolution of approval included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-39 APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO SOUTHVIEW DESIGN FOR TEMPORARY OFF-SITE PARKING AREA IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 75 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-39 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO SOUTHVIEW DESIGN FOR TEMPORARY OFF-SITE PARKING AREA IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - LOCATED AT 2383 PILOT KNOB ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-10) WHEREAS, Southview Design (the “Applicant”) applied for an Interim Use Permit, which would allow for the temporary parking of employee vehicles on adjacent property owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), which is located next to the Applicant’s own property of 2383 Pilot Knob Road (the “Subject Property”), as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-10, and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting of May 28, 2019; whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval (by 7-0 vote) of the Interim Use Permit with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that Interim Use Permit, which would allow for the temporary parking of employee vehicles on adjacent property owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), which is located next to the Applicant’s own property of 2383 Pilot Knob Road, as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-10, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed interim use allowing an unpaved off-site parking facility for Southview Design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. B. The proposed interim parking use conforms [partially] to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including some performance standards. The City however, supports the efforts of Southview Design to provide off-site parking for their seasonal employees next to their business site; and will be required to keep and maintain this site in a neat and orderly fashion, and that they shall meet all conditions during the term of construction. C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty (on December 31, 2020). page 76 D. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of restoring the temporary parking site upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Interim Use Permit for the property located next to 2383 Pilot Knob Road, and as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-10, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2020. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council. 2. The former railway right-of-way shall be used for the parking of seasonal employee vehicles only. No commercial or business/work trucks, semi-trailers, storage containers, dumpsters, refuse or landscaping equipment or materials will be allowed to be stored in this area. 3. The temporary parking area shall be properly maintained during the duration of the Interim Use Permit by the Applicant; and if the City deems the site is not being adequately maintained, the Applicant shall provide the appropriate maintenance to the satisfaction of the City. 4. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Southview Design and the City Administrator, to ensure the MnDOT owned property will be vacated, cleaned and restored to its pre-parking state, upon the expiration or revocation of the interim use permit, either by the City or MnDOT. 5. Any new or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the adjacent Pilot Knob Roadway. 6. No direct access to this interim parking facility will be allowed on to Pilot Knob Road. 7. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12- 1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. page 77 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of June, 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 78 EXHIBIT A Subject Property Address: 2383 Pilot Knob Road, Mendota Heights MN 55120 Parcel ID Number: 27-03300-04-010 LEGAL: PT OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LYING SE OF TH# 13 & S OF RR EX PARCEL 46B ON MNDOT R/W PLAT 19-94, SECTION 33 TWN 28 RANGE 23 Legal Description of MnDOT Owned Lands: Parcel ID Number: 27-03300-01-050 Part of the former CMSP & P Railroad in NE ¼; SECTION 33 TWN 28 RANGE 23, lying east of TH# 13 right-of-way, and west of Dakota County Road # 31 right-of-way (Pilot Knob Road). page 79 Planning Staff Report DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-10 INTERIM USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Southview Design PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2383 Pilot Knob Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial District / I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: July 2, 2019 INTRODUCTION Southview Design, a local landscaping and design company, is seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow the temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the adjacent MnDOT owned property to the north of their facility. This MnDOT property is a section of former CMSP Railroad right-of-way. The site is generally located south of the intersection of TH 13 and Pilot Knob Road, and is addressed as 2383 Pilot Knob Road. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND Southview Design property is zoned I-Industrial, consisting of 3.35 acres, with a two-story, 17,000 sf. office/warehouse building, and a large storage building in the rear outdoor storage yard (see image – below). page 80 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 2 of 8 The current site contains 56 parking spaces for employees and visitors. Due to the nature of Southview’s business, they employ a number of seasonal employees to handle the added workload and jobs during the spring/summer/fall months. Since the business site is no longer able to handle some of these added workers, a number of these employees park along Enterprise Drive, located just south of Southview’s site. This parking on Enterprise has generated a number of complaints from local businesses and users in this area, and Southview is seeking to remedy this issue by allowing their seasonal employees to park in the former railroad right-of-way. Looking Northwesterly Looking Westerly – from Pilot Knob Road Looking Easterly (towards Pilot Knob Rd.) Looking Westerly Southview Design attempted to negotiate and purchase the former railroad right of way next to their landscape business from MnDOT. Southview was seeking to expand their landscape storage, provide additional parking for their employees, and hard surface the area. The railroad ROW has been owned by MnDOT for some years now, and they currently have a lease agreement with Dakota County. According to MnDOT, Dakota County is considering extending the Big River Regional Trail (Soo Line Trail) east to connect to the new Vikings facility development in Eagan, and would be using their former rail right-of- way. For this reason, MnDOT withdrew any offer to convey the site to Southview (at this time); but was willing to allow Southview to continue to lease the ROW space for a short period of time, and until the county decided to use or develop the property. At this time, the city does not have a timeline of when the trail will be built. MnDOT has stated they will not allow the area to be improved with any drainage improvements (sedimentation basins); nor any hard surface, including Class-5 aggregate. MnDOT has however, agreed page 81 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 3 of 8 to allow bark mulch to be placed to control weeds and some run-off, and provide some form of temporary, drive-able surface. Southview intends to provide a temporary drive down to the lower ROW surface as access. NO direct access or driveway will be approved on to Piot Knob Road. Off-Site Parking Facilities are allowed under City Code Section 12-1D-16 by the following: When required accessory off street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot on which the principal use served is located, written authority for using such property for off street parking shall be filed with the city so as to maintain the required number of off street parking spaces during the existence of said principal use. No such parking facilities shall be located more than one hundred feet (100') from the premises at its closest point. Approval of this Interim Use Permit by the city should satisfy the written authority provision. ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is slated to continue to be guided Industrial under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Southview’s request to establish a temporary off-site parking facility this area may be in compliance with the City Code requirements, subject to meeting certain standards under City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses.  Interim Use Permit Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use (Staff response or comments are noted after each standard): A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed interim use at this location would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as this will be a tightly controlled and monitored area right next to the Applicant’s property. The off-site parking will eliminate the need for seasonal employee to park on the side streets, reducing the congestion on said roadway systems. The legal non- conforming residential use to the north of the site is very well screened and buffered, and should not pose any issues or depreciate any values on this or other surrounding industrial uses. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses states that an interim use is allowed for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature. The proposed use of the railroad ROW is a reasonable use, especially when considering the nature of Southview Design’s business of hiring a large pool of seasonal workers every year. One pressing factor the city must consider or allow in this case, is the fact the off-site parking facility will not be paved or hard-surfaced (only mulched). All off-street parking areas in business/industrial districts must be hard- surfaced. The Interim Use Permit may act as a mechanism to allow the space to be used or parked on without this hard surfaced (instead of a variance); since the IUP is only temporary and may permit special allowances or standards to be approved under said IUP. MnDOT has indicated they are willing to allow Southview to lease this space for the next three (3) years. The city could easily match this IUP with the same time-frame, to ensure this area is only used not just seasonally, but temporary. Since this Interim Use Permit is only granted for a short and limited period of time, there will be no long-term impacts or concerns by the City that this activity will be expanded, or the site will become a long-term parking facility, unless Southview secures the fee-title rights to this site, then the area would have to be paved to meet City Code. page 82 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 4 of 8 Staff believe the proposed interim use at this location conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. Staff Response: The Applicant indicated they have a 2 year lease agreement with MnDOT, which began on November 1, 2018. Assuming this true, staff will ask the IUP approval include a termination date of December 31, 2020. If the Applicant wishes to have this IUP extended, they will be required to request an IUP extension, whereby the city could determine if the IUP and off-site parking arrangement worked well, not only for Southview but the neighboring businesses as well, and determine if any IUP extension is warranted. D. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the City would be burdened by any additional costs or expenses to secure the rights to this property (including Dakota County or MnDOT). E. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. Staff Response: This report provides certain conditions that will be imposed upon the Applicant as part of any interim use permit approval on this subject site. Most of these conditions are very reasonable; and Staff does not have any reason to believe Southview Design will not comply or follow these conditions as part of any approval related to this permit. Staff has not finalized any financial surety at this time, but does plan to negotiate a fair and reasonable amount to ensure that this IUP does cease and desist at the agreed upon expiration date, and the site is cleaned, restored and returned to its original condition (if needed). F. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site. Staff Response: Staff believes MnDOT has full control over this site, and does not wish to have any development take place on this railway ROW until such time as Dakota County (or MnDOT) wishes to use it for trial or other purposes. Because of the temporary nature of this IUP, this will not affect or cause any delay to any anticipated development, since there is nothing planned at this time. G. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes the vacant (unused) subject property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. H. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district. Staff Response: As noted previously, the requested rail ROW space will not be paved or improved by the Applicant, as per the wishes of MnDOT – the landowner; and most commercial/industrial uses must have paved parking surfaces and have proper stormwater management on the site. The specific interim use requested by Southview on this site is not specifically identified or a use allowed as an interim use under the I-Industrial Zone; however, the interim use ordinance provides for limited/seasonal allowance of certain uses, provided they are reviewed and given full consideration by the Planning Commission under the standard public hearing process, and approved by the City Council. The use must also meet certain standards as noted herein; fulfill the conditions as prescribed by the City; and said use or operations must cease upon the approved deadline date. page 83 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 5 of 8 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit request to Southview Design, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit request in this case, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project generally complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1), with the following conditions: 1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2020. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council. 2. The former railway right-of-way shall be used for the parking of seasonal employee vehicles only. No commercial or business/work trucks, semi-trailers, storage containers, dumpsters, refuse or landscaping equipment or materials will be allowed to be stored in this area. 3. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Southview Design and the City Administrator, to ensure the MnDOT owned property will be vacated, cleaned and restored to its pre-parking state, upon the expiration or revocation of the interim use permit, either by the City or MnDOT. 4. Any new or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the adjacent Pilot Knob Roadway. 5. No direct access to this interim parking facility will be allowed on to Pilot Knob Road. 6. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Site Plan 2. Planning applications, including supporting materials page 84 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 6 of 8 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Interim Use Permit to Southview Design (MnDOT Owned Property) 2383 Pilot Knob Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed interim use allowing an unpaved off-site parking facility for Southview Design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed interim parking use conforms [partially] to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including some performance standards. The City however, supports the efforts of Southview Design to provide off-site parking for their seasonal employees next to their business site; and will be required to keep and maintain this site in a neat and orderly fashion, and that they shall meet all conditions during the term of construction. 3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of restoring the temporary parking site upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. page 85 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 7 of 8 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES: A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to: 1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction. 2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code. 3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use allowed within the respective zoning district. 4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature. B. Application For Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6B of this chapter. C. Referral To Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6C of this chapter. D. Planning Commission Hearing And Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6D of this chapter. E. Action By City Council: 1. Grant Of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if: a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an ongoing basis. c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site. g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district. page 86 Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 8 of 8 2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid upon recommendation of the planning commission to the city council. F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs first: 1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a violation of this code. 2. A violation of laws of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or this code. 3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent information. 4. An amendment to this code which prohibits the use. 5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use. 7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months. 8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been issued within one year after approval. G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit, the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six (6) months after the date of such notice. H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right. I. Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination has been met or any other unintended consequences. J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. (Ord. 479, 7-7-2015) page 87 2360 1500 2425 1460 2401 2359 1480 2430 2411 1460 1455 2411 2418 2422 1400 2351 2359 2440 1495 2311 2351 HWY 1 3 PILOT KNOB RDSIBLEY MEMORIALENTERPRISE DR HWY 1 3 City of Mendota Heights0310 SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/23/2019 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. Southview Design 2383 Pilot Knob Road (Planning Case No. 2019-10) page 88 page 89 2383 Pilot Knob Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Phone: 651-203-3000 Fax: 651-455-1734 SouthviewDesign.com Date Date Issue Notes Revision Notes Scale: X" = X' Designer: Design Associate: Project Name: Job #: This drawing contains proprietary information which belongs to Southview Design Inc. Any unauthorized duplication or use is strictly prohibited. Released By:______________ Date Released:__/__/____ SOuthview Design Overflow Parking NO. NO. Sheet 1 of 1 Ryan Slipka Chris BarberSouthviewDesignSouthview Design Overflow Parking2383 Pilot Knob RdMendota Heights, Mn 55120Print Date: File Name:19_02_06_SVD North Parking Expantion 2.vwxPILOT KNOB ROAD840 841 84184284284184 2 843842 84 5 85 0 841 84 2 84 3 84 4 84 6 847 8 4 8 84 9 851 852 853 845 841 842 843 844 846 840 84 5 836 837 838 839 841 84 2 84 3 84 4 84 6 84 0 845 83 8 83 9 841 84 2 84 3 84 4 846 840 845 837 838 839 841 842 843 844 840 839 841 842 843 844 8 4 2845846847 848 845844846847848849 843 840 837 838 839 841 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN 2383 PILOT KNOB RD EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PARKING NEW RAMP TO AJOINING PROPERTY MULCH ALREADY LEVEL AREA REBUILD WALLS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW RAMP page 90 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 28 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 23, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Petschel stated the minutes reflect he was present and absent, and they should reflect only absent. Commissioner Corbett also asked to change Page 5 - seventh paragraph down, from “Commissioner Corbett stated…” to “Commissioner Katz stated....” COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2019 AS AMENDED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-10 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PROPERTY NEXT TO 2383 PILOT KNOB ROAD INTERIM USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Southview Design was seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow for the temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the adjacent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) owned property. The site is generally located south of the intersection of Highway 13 and Pilot Knob Road, officially addressed as 2383 Pilot Knob Road. The public hearing was properly notified with letters being sent out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. No objections or comments have been received. page 91 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 28 Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property as it exists today. It is very typical of a railroad right-of-way; there being no more rails. Mr. Benetti pointed out that although the subject property is located immediately adjacent to Pilot Knob Road there would be no access from Pilot Knob. Southview Design is a landscaping company who hires a lot of seasonal employees who, in the past, have had to park along Enterprise Drive. This has been tolerated but has raised some concerns and issues. Southview Design tried to purchase the land from MnDOT; however, it is under a lease agreement with Dakota County who is considering extending the Big River Regional Trail (Soo Line Trail) east to connect to the new Vikings facility development in Eagan. MnDOT is willing to allow Southview to continue to lease the right-of-way space until the county makes a decision on their plans. While MnDOT will not allow the area to be improved with any drainage improvements or any hard surfaces, they have agreed to allow bark mulch to be placed to control weeds and some run- off and provide some form of temporary drive-able surface. Temporary access would be provided down to the lower right-of-way, but no direct access or driveway onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti shared that the City Code Section 12-1D-16 does allow for off-site parking facilities with written authority filed with the city and as long as said parking facilities are located no more than 100 feet from the premises at its closest point. Approval of this requested Interim Use Permit would satisfy the written authority provision. He then explained how the eight standards for approval for an Interim Use Permit were met in this application. Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that Southview Design has a lease with MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed, prompting Commissioner Noonan to state that Dakota County has a lease with MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed that was true as well. Commissioner Toth asked to see the image of the proposed parking area and noted that there was quite a bit of green space – foliage and trees – and asked how they planned to park their cars in this space. Mr. Benetti replied that there was approximately 50 feet before the green space so they would most likely pull their cars up against the boulder wall. Commissioner Toth also asked for confirmation that there would be no access point to the parking area from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed. All cars would enter the site from the current access point to the facility and use a temporary access point down to the temporary parking area. Commissioner Toth noted a yellow marker and asked if that was a gas main running parallel with Pilot Knob and does not run down the center of the right-of-way. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed there was a pipeline running down the center; so they would be parking on top of the pipeline. Commissioner Toth asked if there were any other permit needs to ensure safety to and from the pipeline. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT would be the permitting agency for that – or allowance. They would be like any other private land owner, if they want to allow people to park there it is up to them. It was asked if MnDOT was aware of this parking arrangement. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. page 92 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 28 Commissioner Katz asked if there was an estimate as to the number of cars to be parked on this site. Mr. Benetti did not have a specific number. Commissioner Noonan stated that a comment had been made that MnDOT would not allow any improvements on the area to accommodate the parking other than some mulch. He asked if the city allowed other properties to have parking areas that are not improved and if the city had standards on how parking areas should be improved. Mr. Benetti answered that most parking surfaces have to be hard surface – either concrete or bituminous. Commissioner Noonan asked for a reason. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a requirement of the city code for stormwater management. However, in this case MnDOT said they would allow the site to be used but it could not be improved – even with Class 5 surface. Commissioner Noonan then cited the two examples of Interim Use Permits provided by Mr. Benetti – the Xcel and the Minnehaha Academy examples – where they met the definition of an Interim Use because they were here today and gone tomorrow. At the end of December 2020 and they move into the height of the season in 2021, the parking problem is not going to disappear. So essentially the city is ‘kicking the can down the road’. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, he believed the intention here was to match up with what MnDOT was allowing for their lease agreement. It is a two-year timeframe. The applicants have indicated that their lease with MnDOT expires in December 2020. If MnDOT were to choose to extend it, they have the ability to return and ask for another 2-year extension. At that time the city can determine if they provided for a satisfactory use in that 1.5- or 2-year period and if the extension was warranted. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were to be a very wet spring, what rights would the city have to go in and say they needed to address the mud and condition of the property. Mr. Benetti replied it would most likely be a code complaint if they were tracking mud all over the roads and not being good stewards of the land. Looking at their facility and looking at their property he believed them to be very good stewards and have one of the nicest property’s in the industrial park. Chair Magnuson said that she believed putting down mulch would some benefit to keeping that property from being destroyed from tire tracks and heavy vehicles. However, she saw that the mulch was an allowance but not a requirement. She asked if that was something the Commission wanted to consider – that they be required to put a certain amount of mulch on the property so as to protect it from any kind of heavy rain, damage, or erosion. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and noted that as he walked the site it was clearly a very heavily compacted base to begin with. Putting that little bit of mulch in there is a double layer of protection. Chair Magnuson suggested that a requirement be added that if they do not put down mulch for weed control, it at least has to be regularly mowed. Commissioner Toth stated that it was fair to say that since this was a previous railroad bed, they probably did not disturb the top or the sub-aggregate, it probably drains very well, it has been compacted, and it is not like they would be driving over green space. That packed material has been put into place. Mr. Benetti agreed and said when he walked the property it was right after a heavy rain and he did not see any standing water and it was very well drained. page 93 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 28 Commissioner Toth asked if the mulch would be removed and the site returned to its current state after the Interim Use had ended. Mr. Benetti replied that there is a provision that they have to restore the site back to the way it was. The city could also ask MnDOT what they defined as an approved restoration. Chair Magnuson, referring to the Findings of Fact for Approval, stated that number three reads “The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty” and asked if the date of December 31, 2020 shouldn’t be identified there. Mr. Benetti agreed that could be added. Chair Magnuson then referred to number four under the Findings of Fact for Approval refers to restoring the property but it does not require it. It also then talks about the possibility of providing an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost. She suggested there be a condition that requires that the property would be restored. It was noted that Condition three provided that. Commissioner Noonan stated that restoration is important; however, maintenance during the period is important as well. He suggested a condition be added to that affect. Mr. Benetti asked if ‘the property shall be properly maintained during the duration of the Interim Use Permit’ would be sufficient. Commissioner Noonan like that but also suggested that something be added that says if the city deems the site is not being adequately maintained, the applicant shall provide the appropriate maintenance to the satisfaction of the city. Chair Magnuson asked what amount of Mr. Benetti thinking for the ‘financial surety’ noted in Condition three. Mr. Benetti replied that was left up to the City Administrator to determine. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the surety would be held by the property owner rather than the city. Mr. Benetti replied that in this case it would be held by the city because the city was providing the Interim Use Permit. Mr. Chris Clifton, President and CEO and Ryan Slipka, Operating Officer / Partner of Southview Design, were available for questions. Mr. Clifton stated, in regards to the Flint Hills and the petroleum line servicing MSP, the engineers came out from Flint Hills and they did compaction tests. They had been on board with the Class 5 initially so they are very well aware of what Southview is looking to do. Even just adding mulch they will have to consult with Flint Hills and there would be watch dog meeting – they would come out and watch every improvement done within 20 feet of the gas line. As to the number of vehicles, at this point there are 50 to 60 vehicles parked on Enterprise Drive. This space would allow for these vehicles. It is approximately 60 feet wide and drains from south to north. There is an approximate 5-foot drainage ditch between Southview and their neighbor to the north. Mr. Slipka said they would expect the lease to be renewed without issue. As long as Dakota County is not planning on using that land for a bike trail, they would expect to be able to keep leasing it indefinitely. Mr. Clifton stated that Dakota County would have to pull out part of page 94 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 28 Highway 13 and tunnel underneath, the way the land is set up now. There is a crosswalk at Highway 13 for the bike trail. The folks at MnDOT that they have been dealing with said that they do not foresee it coming in the near 20 or 30 years. His goal would be to, in the next two years, during the course of this – and whether there is more direction on the extension of the bike trail – to be able to do a more permanent compacted Class 5 base. At this point, the mulch they are talking about doing and the access from their site should ensure that when they hit their parking lot, let alone Pilot Knob Road, we they do not expect there to be any mess. Commissioner Noonan asked if they would have any objection to putting a maintenance clause or condition obligation in the permit. Mr. Clifton said they would have no objections whatsoever. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that they mulch would keep the mud from tracking onto their parking lot, their facility, and onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Clifton confirmed and said that the mulch they are talking about is more of a wood chip rather than the fine ground-up mulch typically seen in residential yards. And they are looking at a 5-6 inch depth of that. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation they were talking about 50-60 vehicles. Mr. Clifton confirmed. He then asked, if the business were to expand and grow, if he saw four or five years from now the need for parking for 50 to 120 vehicles. Mr. Clifton replied that the facility they are in currently is almost maxed out; from trucks, trailers, and their currently facility to the south (3.1 acres). At this time they are looking for space in the Maple Grove area to start to base some operations out of there as well. Commissioner Petschel asked if they were planning to park mostly company vehicles on the site or parking for the employees. Mr. Clifton replied that it would be parking for personal vehicles. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the access point off of the parking lot to the right-of-way area, noted that it was not part of the right-of-way so they could surface that any way they wanted. He asked what their intentions were for that area given the concerns for possible creation of mud and muck. Mr. Clifton replied that they would rather not pave that. Most construction sites have a construction entrance and they would be looking at a compacted Class 5 base so there is anything that would catch on that area they could easily blow that off and clean it off. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-10 INTERIM USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: page 95 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 28 1. The proposed interim use allowing an unpaved off-site parking facility for Southview Design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed interim parking use conforms [partially] to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including some performance standards. The City however, supports the efforts of Southview Design to provide off-site parking for their seasonal employees next to their business site; and will be required to keep and maintain this site in a neat and orderly fashion, and that they shall meet all conditions during the term of construction. 3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty [the following portion of this Findings was added by the Commission] (December 31, 2010). 4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of restoring the temporary parking site upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2020. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council. 2. The former railway right-of-way shall be used for the parking of seasonal employee vehicles only. No commercial or business/work trucks, semi -trailers, storage containers, dumpsters, refuse or landscaping equipment or materials will be allowed to be stored in this area. 3. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Southview Design and the City Administrator, to ensure the MnDOT owned property will be vacated, cleaned and restored to its pre-parking state, upon the expiration or revocation of the interim use permit, either by the City or MnDOT. [The following portion of this condition was added by the Commission] The applicant shall maintain the Interim Use area in manner acceptable to the city. Should the city deem the area needs maintenance, the applicant shall promptly move to maintain the property. 4. Any new or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the adjacent Pilot Knob Roadway. 5. No direct access to this interim parking facility will be allowed on to Pilot Knob Road. 6. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 96 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-40 to Approve [or Deny] a Variance for property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road (Planning Case No. 2019-12) Introduction City Council is being asked to consider adopting one of two draft resolutions contained in this packet. One affirms the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a variance request for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road; while the other denies the variance with amended finding for denial. Background Mr. Chuck Mastel is requesting a variance to permit an over-sized fence of up to nine feet (9’) in height along the rear property line. Zoning Code allows residential fences in rear and side yards not to exceed 6- feet in height. Mr. Mastel is seeking the extra-high fence in order to maintain a level of privacy, screening and security he had when the rear-yard fence was located up near the trail edge along Wachtler Avenue. Dakota County has ordered the owner to relocate the fence due to the encroachment into the county ROW. At the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this variance request item was presented for consideration under an official public hearing. A copy of the 05/28/19 Planning Staff Report, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this council memo report. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Variance request for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road, based on the findings of facts noted in the draft resolution of approval included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-40 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD; or the Council can reverse this recommendation and adopt alternative RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 40 DENYING THE VARIANCE for the subject property. Either action to approve one of the two resolutions requires a simple majority vote. page 97 D * R * A * F * T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-12) WHEREAS, Charles “Chuck” Mastel (as “Applicant”) applied for a variance for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance to allow an oversized privacy fence of 9- feet in height, which would exceed the maximum allowable sized fence height of 6-feet in residential zoned properties, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the City of Mendota Heights (the “City”) to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on May 28, 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 (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Variance as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-12, with certain findings of fact to support such approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance application proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact and conditions: page 98 A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along the rear lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the property; ii.) Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next to the county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system; iii.) due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the subject property abuts residential properties on both sides, and the residential uses on the opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated far enough away that they will not be impacted by the higher fence; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the county roadway, and enhances safety for the homeowner. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a page 99 variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-40. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. ii.) The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9-ft. above the level grade of the rear yard at the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the current shadow-box style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject property. iii.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of June, 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 100 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1341 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-17151-03-040 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Four (4), Block Three (3), Cherry Hill 2nd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 101 D * R * A * F * T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-40 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-12) WHEREAS, Charles “Chuck” Mastel (as “Applicant”) applied for a variance for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance to allow an oversized privacy fence of 9- feet in height, which would exceed the maximum allowable sized fence height of 6-feet in residential zoned properties, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the City of Mendota Heights (the “City”) to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on May 28, 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 (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Variance as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-12, with certain findings of fact to support such approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby reversed, and the Variance application for the subject property and proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12 is hereby denied, with the following findings of fact: page 102 A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for increased fence height. The proposed higher fence is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance for normal fence height standards is not warranted under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the subject property and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-12, is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of June, 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 103 Exhibit A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1341 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-17151-03-040 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Four (4), Block Three (3), Cherry Hill 2nd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota page 104 Planning Staff Report DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-12 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Charles J. Mastel PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1341 Cherry Hill Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Chuck Mastel is requesting a Variance to residential fence height standards for his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. Mr. Mastel’s existing rear yard fence is 6-feet in height, and he is relocating the fence farther back into the rear-yard, and seeks to rebuild the fence to a height of 9-feet. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. The property consists of 0.54 acres of land, and contains a 3,468-sf. tow-story dwelling, with an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard. page 105 Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 2 According to Title 12-1D-6.B Fences in Residential Districts, “fences up to and including six feet (6') in height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines.” Mr. Mastel’s rear yard abuts up to the westerly right-of-way line of Wachtler Avenue (a/k/a Dakota Co. Road 8). This rear–yard is currently fenced-off with a 6-ft. high shadow-box (alternating board) style fence, installed a number of years ago by Mr. Mastel’s fence contractor. The fence was originally placed on the property lines along the side-yards, and was installed up against the back-edge of the north/south trail running along Wachtler Avenue. Mastel’s property line however, sits approximately 12-15 feet off the back edge of this trail, so when this fence was installed, it was placed inside the county right-of-way. Mr. Mastel indicates in his narrative that the fence has been in place for 32 years (note: early aerial photo interpretation appears to support this claim). Mr. Mastel’s neighbor to the south recently completed fencing off his rear property, and was seeking to match his corner of the fence with Mr. Mastel’s southeasterly fence corner. However, Dakota County officials determined the fence the neighbor was installing would be up next to the trail and inside the county road ROW area, so they denied his request to have the fence encroach up to the trail, and required his fence be placed on his own private property line. At this same time, the County noticed Mr. Mastel’s fence encroachment, and sent him a notice that the fence had to be removed or relocated within a certain time- frame. page 106 Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 3 According to Mr. Mastel, he recalls receiving “some kind of approval” from a Dakota County official to put the fence up near the trail edge, but has no written evidence or proof of such agreement. Mr. Mastel’s rear yard is relatively flat and even throughout most of the area, however, it does incline somewhat steeply from the back property line up to the trail edge (where the fence sites today). Based on Dakota Co. GIS, it appears this grade rises about 3.5 to 4-ft. above the flat rear yard. Due to the elevated grade next to the trail and location of the existing fence up near this trail, it provides Mr. Mastel’s property with an extra level of screening and buffering from the traffic and pedestri ans traveling along Wachtler Avenue. Mr. Mastel is now concerned that with the fence being relocated 15-feet or so back into the rear yard (in the flat level area), a 6-ft. high fence will not provide the same screening, buffering or security that he had with the current fence, and is now seeking approval of this variance for the added fence height. ANALYSIS Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The very back part of my yard runs along Wachtler Rd. [Avenue] with a steep 6-ft. incline. The County is making me move the fence into my property line approx. 25-ft. at the bottom of [the] incline. I need a 9-ft. fence because of the incline. A 6-ft. fence at top would be level with Wachtler Rd. I would not have any privacy and is a safety issue. Staff’s Response: A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed 3- feet of additional fencing (from 6-ft. to 9-ft.) is reasonable. With or without the 3-foot added fence page 107 Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 4 height, the overall use (and enjoyment) of the home and property probably will not change. Because of the swimming pool, the Applicant must provide at least a 5-foot high fence for security and safety reasons. The location of the existing fence along the trail edge definitely provides a much better screening and buffering of vehicle traffic on Wachtler Avenue and pedestrians using the trail; however, Zoning Code only allows higher fences of up to 10-ft. (chain-link only) for outdoor tennis courts; and business and industrial districts are allowed fences greater than 6-feet in height with a conditional use permit. In order to maintain the level of screening, privacy and security the Applicant is seeking under this variance, the city will need to determine if this request is indeed reasonable or justifiable, even if the Owner is being forced to relocate the fence off county ROW. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The 6-ft. incline on the back of my yard. Staff’s Response: The city must determine and substantiate if this grade change [incline] in the rear yard is unique enough to support the granting of this variance. As was noted, the fence was originally placed up on the elevated section of land next to the trail, either inadvertently or on purpose (with or without county permission). Nevertheless, this fence was installed in Dakota County ROW, and the county has the right to request its removal from their property. Based on the age and duration of the fence at its current location; the fact the fence does provide a much more effective screen at the top of this slope; and now the homeowners are being forced to remove and relocate this fence after so many years, may lend to some uniqueness in this case, and some reasonable justification in granting this fence height variance. The City will need to determine if this pre-installation of the fence and the County orders to move said fence, gives enough unique circumstances to warrant the granting of the fence height variance. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: Because of the incline, 9-ft. fence will blend in with the rest of the fences at 6- feet. Have had the fence for 32 years. . Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is residential in character; and there are a few neighboring houses that have similar style fences of 6-feet in height. Staff is unaware if there are any residential fences greater than 6-feet in this neighborhood – or even in the city. It would seem that by relocating and installing a 9-ft. high fence at the toe of the slope, it can give the illusion that a 9-ft. high fence may appear smaller or less intrusive when viewing from the adjacent roadway or trail system. However, when viewed from the adjacent properties to the north or south, the appearance of the higher fence may seem a bit out of place, especially compared to the neighbor’s 6-foot high fence, and the homeowners existing 6-ft. side yard (connecting) fence sections. The city will need to determine if the higher fence would alter the essential character of this neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” page 108 Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 5 B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along the rear lot line, by the following: i.) the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the property; ii.) Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next to the county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system; iii.) due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the subject property abuts residential properties on both sides, and the residential uses on the opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated far enough away that they will not be impacted by the higher fence; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the county roadway, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. ii.) The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9-ft. above the level grade of the rear yard at the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the current shadow-box style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject property. iii.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition. page 109 Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 6 2. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for increased fence height. The proposed higher fence is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance for normal fence height standards is not warranted under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of this Variance request, and either make a motion to recommend Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Variance with findings of facts to support said approval with the conditions noted therein; or make a motion on Alternative No. 2, a recommendation of denial on the Variance with findings of facts supporting such decision. If the Planning Commission wishes to table or delay making a recommendation on this item for any plausible reason, then the commission should make a motion consistent with Alternative No. 3 noted above. Attachments 1. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 2. Aerial/Site Location Map 3. Site Pictures page 110 Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 7 SITE PHOTOS – 1341 Cherry Hill Road page 111 1341 Cherry Hill Road04/28/2018page 112 66666666666666666666!!2 !!2 151140 71102949512020163 100140 1341 1411 1338 1347 1407 WACHTLER AVE289.5'291.6'Elevation 1341 Cherry Hill RoadChuck Mastel Res.Planning Case. No. 2019-12 City of Mendota Heights030 SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/20/2019 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 113 page 114 page 115 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 28 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-12 CHUCK MASTEL - 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Chuck Mastel has requested a Variance to residential fence heights standards for his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. He currently has a rear yard fence at 6-feet in height, which must be relocated due to a county order. He is now seeking a Variance to rebuild with a high fence. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published; no letters of objections or notices from the adjacent neighbors were received. The property is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property in relation to surround properties and roads. The property is just over a half-acre in size, contains a 3,468 square foot two story home with an in-ground swimming pool. The applicant’s neighbor to the south had requested to re-fence his backyard and tried to match into the fence owned by Mr. Mastel; however, the county official discovered this and said they could not do that because they were well within the county’s right -of-way. They then sent Mr. Mastel a letter indicating that he needed to move his fence to be outside of their right-of-way as soon as possible. Mr. Mastel indicated to staff when they visited the property that moving the 6-foot high fence would have it sitting in a spot that would be three to four feet lower than its current position. Therefore, he is requesting a nine-foot fence to keep the screening he has enjoyed for many years. There are three standards that must be met when considering a Variance request; Mr. Benetti explained how this application met those standards. Mr. Chuck Mastel, 1341 Cherry Hill Road, was available for questions. He stated that the fence had been in its current location for 32 years and he did not have a record of a variance or permit for the installation. Midwest Fence Company were the ones who installed the original fence; however, they only keep records for 20 years. Therefore, they were unable to provide evidence of a variance or permit. He also stated that if the fence were relocated at the 6-foot height, the top would be level with Wachtler Road and he would not have any privacy. More importantly, there is the safety issue. Anyone could put a plank from Wachtler Road to his fence and enter his rear yard; someone could drown in the pool. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the portion of the fence he is proposing be nine feet was just that portion parallel with the Wachtler Road. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. The side yard fences would remain at six feet. Chair Magnuson asked how he came up with nine feet. Mr. Mastel replied it is a combination of the incline and Midwest Fence not recommending a fence higher than nine feet based on the page 116 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 28 board-on-board style he has. It would not be as great as it is right now but it would be better than installing a six-foot fence. Commissioner Noonan asked what the difference would be from the current six-foot height to the proposed nine-foot height. Mr. Mastel replied that it would be approximately three feet. Commissioner Noonan stated that essentially he was doing the nine-foot fence to effectively reproduce the status quo condition – the separation of approximately six feet. Mr. Mastel replied that it would not be the same as a six-foot fence from Wachtler, it would be more like a three-foot fence. However, that is better than being level with Wachtler. Commissioner Corbett asked if the whole run along Wachtler was 6 feet. Mr. Mastel answered in the affirmative and noted that it was 150 feet long in the back. This would be the portion of the fence that would be nine feet in height. The sides that come up to his home would remain at six feet. The top of the fence portions – from the side yards (6 feet) to the rear yard (9 feet) would level. Commissioner Toth asked if his fence would be three feet higher than his neighbor’s fence. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-12 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along the rear lot line, by the following: page 117 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 28 i. the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the property; ii. Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next to the county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system; iii. due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the subject property abuts residential properties on both sides, and the residential uses on the opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated far enough away that they will not be impacted by the higher fence; and iv. the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the county roadway, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i. The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. ii. The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9-ft. above the level grade of the rear yard at the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the current shadow-box style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject property. iii. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition. WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. Commissioner Noonan, referencing Finding of Fact B-iv, stated that he was compelled by the safety consideration that the applicant mentioned; given the fact that a lower fence would page 118 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 28 effectively provide the ability to bridge Wachtler in. He proposed a friendly amendment by requesting that they include safety in that section. Also, there had been no discussion on economic considerations so he recommended the removal of that phrase as not being relevant. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the friendly amendment as stated. Commissioner Katz asked if this essentially was a 16-foot move from the fence’s currently location to the new. Mr. Benetti confirmed that it was approximately 15 feet. Commissioner Katz then stated that, in his mind this would wipe out any safety concerns as he could not see anyone riding across a plank long enough to enter the rear yard. In his opinion, the emphasis on the safety concern should be due to the pool, which was probably why the fence was installed in the first place. This is a safety concern because the county is saying he needs to move the fence; the issue they are really discussing is whether or not the six-foot versus the nine-foot is the acceptable use for this now. In his opinion, because of the grade, etc. – yes, the nine-foot still gives him the privacy he needs, he has to move this fence, and it is still providing the protection for the property and against the pool that is there. Mr. Benetti pointed out for the record that, per city code, anything built over seven feet requires a building permit. So this fence will be inspected and will have to be very well built to withstand certain wind and snow requirements. Chair Magnuson commented for the record that there was conversation with staff and the land owner about the difference in grade being somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately three feet. Her thinking is that, given that difference in grade, effectively he is putting up roughly a six- foot fence because it is coming down to the point it might match or even be less than what it currently there. The fact that the topography of the property exists the way it does makes putting a six-foot fence in useless. She agreed that no one was going to put a board across a 16-foot span, but depending on the grade it might be a lot easier to hope over a six-foot fence from an elevated position than a nine-foot fence from an elevated position. Commissioner Toth commented that 32 years ago, when this fence was put into place, the resident has lived there and has had a level of privacy. Now with the changes required by Dakota County, they would lose that privacy with the six-foot ruling. The privacy needs to be looked at as well when making their decisions. Commissioner Petschel noted that if privacy had been the only issue, he would have voted against this request. They had artificial privacy as a result of having the fence further up the hill than what would normally be allowed although that is clearly not the homeowners fault. Safety is really the only concern here. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 119 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council; City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2019-41 Approving a Wetlands Permit for 660 Hidden Creek Trail (Planning Case No. 2019-13) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Wetlands Permit to Mark & Stacy Roszkowski, owners of the property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail. Background City Code Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. The Roszkowski’s seek permission to construct and install a new in-ground swimming pool with deck to the rear area of the subject property. All new work will have very minimal (if any) impacts to the adjacent pond and wetland feature. At the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, this Wetlands Permit item was presented for consideration under an official public hearing. There were no comments from the public. A copy of the 05/28/19 Planning Staff Report, with plans, attachments and supporting information, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are all appended to this council memo report. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a Wetlands Permit, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Wetlands Permit, with certain conditions and findings of fact to support said approval. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-41 APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL This action requires a simple majority vote. page 120 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-41 RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-13) WHEREAS, Mark and Stacy Roszkowski, (as “Owner” and “Applicant”) applied for a Wetlands Permit as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-13, for the property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail (the “Subject Property”), legally described in attached Exhibit-A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is located adjacent to an established wetland and Rogers Lake; and WHEREAS, the Applicants seek permission to construct and install a new in-ground swimming pool with deck to the rear area of the subject property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, all new construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within one-hundred (100) feet of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) to approve the Wetlands Permit Wetlands Permit as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-13, 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 recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Wetlands Permit as presented under Planning Case No. 2019-13, and for the property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. page 121 B. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed. C. No grading or vegetation removal within the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer area will take place or is anticipated under this project, which will ensure no negative impacts to the adjacent wetlands feature should occur. D. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction. E. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Wetlands Permit presented under Planning Case No. 2019-13, and for the property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the creek or wetland systems. Any drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. 4. The Owners shall provide and maintain a 25-foot wide no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the creek edge in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection from said wetland feature. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 7. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. page 122 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of June, 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 123 Exhibit-A Legal Description PID# 27-32500-02-020 LOT 2, BLOCK 2, HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA page 124 Planning Staff Report DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-13 WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: Mark & Stacy Roszkowski PROPERTY ADDRESS: 660 Hidden Creek Trail ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool. The subject property is located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail, and is situated adjacent to an established Type III wetland (i.e. Slightly Susceptible Wetland). A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND The subject property is 1.25 acres in size, and contains a 5,356 sq. ft. (finished) sq. ft. single family dwelling. The property is zoned R-1 and guided LR-Low Density Residential development. The rear area of the lot contains a small, meandering creek channel, and an open pond or wetland area (see aerial image - below): page 125 Planning Case 2019-13 Page 2 of 6 The subject property is subject to a drainage and utility easement along the back one-half area of the lot, which encompasses the creek and wetlands areas (see Hidden Creek Estates plat image - below). The homeowners have hired Performance Pool and Spas to install a new 14’ x 28’ in-ground swimming pool, along with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter of the pool (see site plan image – below). The edge of the pool structure will be situated 40-feet from the nearest point (edge) of the creek channel. The decking will be approximately 36-feet from the same channel. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city; with the list of activities noted as follows: page 126 Planning Case 2019-13 Page 3 of 6 1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. ANALYSIS The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to:  Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas;  Maintain the natural drainage system;  Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation;  Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and  Ensure safety from floods. It appears all major construction activities related to the building of the new pool and deck are far enough away from the creek and wetland area, that this work will have little, if any effect upon these adjacent water features. No part of the pool structure, including the deck and required fencing, will encroach or impact the dedicated drainage easement in the rear yard as well. Due to the proximity of the new pool to these wetland features, the ease of draining a pool into these nearby water features is a concern of the city. The owners need to be aware that per Section 9-2-1 Swimming Pools, the drainage or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property or into approved public drainage ways and shall not drain onto adjacent private lands. Drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) provides certain guides and suggested standards for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The LSWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any fertilizer/chemical runoff from the lawn areas. The subject property has a very well established and natural vegetative buffer in place. The scope and scale of this proposed new home project fits in nicely with the overall size of the property; and due to the proximity of the wetland and adjacent lake, most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area in and around where the old patio exists today. Due to this relatively minor scale of the project on this large parcel, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; page 127 Planning Case 2019-13 Page 4 of 6 c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to Mark and Stacy Roszkowski, and for the property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail, which would allow the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool, deck and fence enclosure, based on the attached findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the creek or wetland systems. Any drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. 4. The Owners shall provide and maintain a 25-foot wide no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the creek edge in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection from said wetland feature. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 7. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. page 128 Planning Case 2019-13 Page 5 of 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool and Improvements 660 Hidden Creek Trail Planning Case No. 2019-13 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed. 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer area will take place or is anticipated under this project, which will ensure no negative impacts to the adjacent wetlands feature should occur. 4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction. 5. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. page 129 Planning Case 2019-13 Page 6 of 6 SITE PHOTOS – 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL page 130 1698 679 630 700 683 673 625 680 1770 665 685 1694 660 690 635 703 645 630 670 697 691 1680 610 1768 645 640 679 675 663 653 649 647 625 650 637 1695 1780 646648 615 688 688 1706 1760 1762 640 1758 620652656660666672638636632 1756 699 698 620 696700 700 710 701 1818 623 614 631 702 635641645647651653 MARIE AVE WDODD RDHIDDEN CREEK TR L NATURE WAYCALLAHAN PLCity of Mendota Heights0250 SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/23/2019 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. 660 Hidden Creek Trail Roszkowski Res. (Planning Case No. 2019-13) page 131 page 132 page 133 page 134 page 135 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 28 C) PLANNING CASE #2019-13 MARK & STACY ROSZKOWSKI, 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Stacy Roszkowski were seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow for the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool for their property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail. This property is located up against an established Type III wetland, which is a Slightly Susceptible Wetland. Any new construction related improvements, grading or removals requires a wetlands permit. This item was heard under a public hearing and notices were sent to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in relation to surrounding neighbors and streets. The wetland was also indicated in the images. The property is currently zoned R-1 and is guided as LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.25 acres in size with half of it currently encumbered by a drainage and utility easement on the back side; making for a limited amount of buildable area there. The property has a 5,356 square foot single family dwelling. Mr. Benetti then shared a site plan image showing the location of the proposed 14’ x 28’ in - ground swimming pool, which would replace the current back yard patio. They also plan to install a concrete patio deck around the perimeter. The edge of the pool structure would be situated approximately 40 feet from the nearest edge of the creek channel with the decking approximately 36 feet from that same channel. Normally, the city requires no disturbance within 25 feet of an established wetland. Mr. Benetti shared the Local Surface Water Management Plan, which provides certain guides and standards to follow for the city to follow or implement for any new development near natural water features. This plan recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge; the subject property has a very well established and natural vegetative buffer in place. He then provided statements that met the guides and standards for the Commission to review and consider in their determination. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the schematic drawing, noted that the dimension from the creek edge to the pool is 40 feet. He then asked what the dimension was from the creek edge to the silt fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it appeared to be approximately half that distance – say 20 feet. He then asked if it would be amiable to the applicants to move the silt fence to be 25 feet from the creek edge (per city code). Mr. Benetti agreed this could be done. Looking at the elevation numbers, Commissioner Toth asked if there would be additional fill brought in on the back side of the home or would the dirt removed to install the pool be used to fill. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; most of the area where the patio currently exists is pretty much where the new pool deck and in-ground pool would be located. There would not be much grading or regrading necessary around there. page 136 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 28 Commissioner Katz asked where the rest of the fencing would be in terms of relativity to the pool. Mr. Benetti indicated the location of the fence of the schematics – approximately 14 feet from the pool itself and approximately 35 feet from the wetland. Chair Magnuson, referencing Condition 3 that reads, in part, “Draining or back-flushing of water from the pool shall be directed onto the owner’s property only, and shall not drain directly into the creek or wetland systems”, asked how that would be enforced, especially with a grade like this because no matter where they put the water it will flow downhill. Mr. Benetti replied that it is usually the responsibility of the property owner to make sure they are not flushing chlorinated water directly into the creek system. The fact remains that if they let chlorinated water drain out onto an open space of their land, the chlorine would dissipate enough that by the time it reached the natural water body it would be harmless. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that most pools are going to burn through any chlorine in them within a couple of days. If any homeowner does not add any chlorine for three to four days, the chlorine levels would be very low in the pool and can be discharged in the yard. Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that there are no plans for an additional drain to actually put pool discharge water into that then gets treated in some sort of city or storm sewer system. Mr. Benetti replied the he was unaware of anything like that under this plan but he Commission could ask that of the applicant if they wished. Mr. Ruzek noted that the city does not have a lot of heavy restrictions. He did a quick search of neighboring communities; Eagan basically says that it is up to the homeowners to make sure the chlorine is evaporated but they can discharge it anywhere in Eagan. Mendota Heights could let it connect directly to the sanitary sewer; however, most people are not filling their pool in January, February, or March so that is not getting counted for water that is going down the sewage systems. Commissioner Katz continued by explaining that his concern is that this is so close to the wetland and there are other provisions that have to protect it from things like silt. The last thing he would want to see done, because of convenience sake, when they want to dump the water in the fall or whenever, there is this natural wetland and the just hook the hose up; no one is enforcing it so what do they care. To him, that defeated the provisions of protecting wetlands and other things. The Commission needs to look at something to recommend at least. Mr. Nick Holly from Performance Pools came forward to address some concerns raised in terms of drainage. He explained that backwashing is taking a canister of sand (typically), which is filtering the small particles from the water and essentially pumping that out to clean the filter. Performance Pools installs cartridge filter pieces – pleated paper cylinders – and when they get dirty they dismantle the filter and clean out the cartridges so there is no back flushing involved with the general filtration maintenance. Also, there is no need to drain pools to winterize any more. They have duck plugs, one-way valving, there is no water draining every fall. If they needed to drain to the front, they have a 3.5 horsepower pump on that would take care of that. page 137 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 28 They also install salt systems on all of their pools, which generally maintains 1 to 3 parts per million of chlorine. To the best of his knowledge, EPA allows up to 4 parts per million in their drinking water. They could also reduce the parts per million before any sort of draining. The only time that would have to happen is if there was a liner replacement – 15 years or so after the initial install of the pool. The salt system is taking a sodium chloride blend and associating it so the chlorine can then sanitize the pool; and does it at a very slow consistent rate versus products and other ways to apply. As for the salt, it is 2,700 parts per million, it cannot even be tasted. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there were a need to drain the pool, whether for maintenance or whatever, it would have to be discharged somewhere. Mr. Holly replied in the affirmative and stated that as long as they are allowed to drain to the street, which would be the easiest and most reasonable way to do that. Chair Magnuson noted that they would be pulling out a significant amount of dirt of the ground and asked what they planned to do with that. Mr. Holly replied that their proposed pool grid, relative to three quarters of that pool, is essentially equal or zero. The one corner is getting closer to two feet out. He would be essentially excavating and hand full loads or dirt and bringing it up on the deeper end corner and blending off. Based on the conversations he heard, it sounds like they are untouchable within 25 feet of the creek, including the way the install the silt fence an d potential grading adjustments. He believes and knows that they will do that. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-13 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed. page 138 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 28 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer area will take place or is anticipated under this project, which will ensure no negative impacts to the adjacent wetlands feature should occur. 4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction. 5. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the creek or wetland systems. Any drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. 4. The Owners shall provide and maintain a 25-foot wide no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the creek edge in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection from said wetland feature. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. 6. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 7. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 139 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split for 1133 Orchard Place (Planning Case No. 2019-15) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Lot Split application from Mrs. Nona M. Mosvick, to subdivide her residential parcel located at 1133 Orchard Place. Background The subject site is square shaped parcel, located generally in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle. The original property is an unplatted parcel containing 45,260-sf. (1.04 acres) of land area, with 211-ft. of frontage along Orchard Place 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. Both parcels would be compliant with R-1 zoning district standards. At the June 4, 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 05/28/19 Planning Staff Report, survey and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously to approve 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. 2019-42 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1133 ORCHARD PLACE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 140 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-42 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1133 ORCHARD PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-15) WHEREAS, Nona M. Nosvick (as “Owner” and “Applicant”) applied for a Lot Split (Subdivision) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-15, for the property located at 1133 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in attached Exhibit A: 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, Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Subject Property into two parcels, as legally described and illustrated on attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (by 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 (Subdivision) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-15, and for the property located at 1133 Orchard Place, can be approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. page 141 B. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Orchard Place. C. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Lot Split (Subdivision) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-15, and for the property located at 1133 Orchard Place, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) As part of any new building permit application on Parcel A, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored. 2) Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Orchard Place shall be a min. of 57-feet. 3) The applicant shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Johnson & Scofield Inc., dated 04/30/2019; or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of June, 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 142 EXHIBIT A Property Legal Description PID# 27-02700-01-040 The North 214.50 feet of the West 211 .0 feet of the East 750.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 23, according to U. S. Government Survey. Subject to an easement for road purposes over and across the South 30.00 feet thereof, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Dakota County, State of Minnesota. page 143 EXHIBIT B NEW (PARCEL) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS CREATED BY LOT SPLIT Legal Description Parcel A: The North 214.50 feet of the West 100.00 feet of the East 750.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. Subject to an easement for road purposes over and across the South 30.00 feet thereof. And Subject to a permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the North 10 feet, the East 5 feet, the South 10 feet and the West 5 feet thereof. Legal Description Parcel B: The North 214.50 feet of the West 111.00 feet of the East 650.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. Subject to an easement for road purposes over and across the South 30.00 feet thereof. And Subject to a permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the North 10 feet, the East 5 feet, the South 10 feet and the West 5 feet thereof. page 144 page 145 Planning Staff Report DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-15 LOT SPLIT –SUBDIVISION REQUEST APPLICANT: Nona M. Mosvick PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1133 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 29, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mrs. Nona Mosvick is requesting approval to subdivide her residential property located at 1133 Orchard Place. This subdivision request requires city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. BACKGROUND The subject site is square shaped parcel, located generally in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle. The property has an existing 1-1/2 story, split level single family dwelling built in 1983, with 4,404 sq. ft. of finished floor space. The subject property is an unplatted parcel containing 45,260-sf. (1.04 acres) of land area, with 211-ft. of frontage along Orchard Place (see images below). page 146 Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 2 The home has a dual access, u-shaped driveway off Orchard Place, with a large open space area on the westerly edge of the home. The proposed lot split would effectively create a new parcel in this west area, which is planned to be developed by Mrs. Mosvick’s son Matt Mosvick for a new single-family home next to his mother’s own home. ANALYSIS  Project Description The applicant proposes to keep the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two single-family lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 04/30/2019 from Johnson & Scofield Inc.  Parcel A: the proposed new parcel is located on the west side of the existing parcel. The new parcel will have 100-ft. of roadway frontage and 214.5-ft. of lot depth, creating a 21,451-sf. (0.49 acres) sized parcel.  Parcel B: the east side of the subject property will be subdivided and retains the existing 1983 single-family dwelling occupied by Mrs. Mosvick. This proposed parcel will have 111-ft. of frontage and the same 214.5-ft. of depth, for a new lot size of 23,810-sf. (0.55 acres). As illustrated on the survey, the subject property is unplatted and extends to the right-of-way centerline of Orchard Place. The survey notes that the parcels to be created under this lot split are “subject to an easement for road purposes over and across the South 30.00 feet” of both parcels (recorded document No. 612790). Removing the 30-foot easement from each new parcel will leave 18,451 sf. (0.42 ac.) of area for Parcel A and 20,480 sf. (0.47 ac.) for Parcel B.  All new lots to be created under this subdivision will have new perimeter drainage and utility easements dedicated along the front, sides and rear lot lines of each parcel. page 147 Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 3  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.42 acres and 0.47 acres respectively, makes each new lot consistent with and well below the LR density level of 2.9 units per acre. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. The City’s policies for consideration of development in these areas are noted as follows: o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations. o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties. o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors. o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing. o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a “spot-zoning” pattern. o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design.  Zoning Requirements 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. As shown in the table below based on the attached survey, the proposed parcels are compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 SF 45,260-sf. (1.04 acres) 18,451 sf. 0.42 acres 20,480 sf. (0.47 ac.) Lot Width 100 ft. 211-ft. 100-ft. 111-ft. Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the Code requires the following: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. The existing house will remain on Parcel B, which is shown with a 51-ft. setback off the roadway easement line. New Parcel A does not depict a new/future house pad location. Front-yard setbacks of 30-ft. are normally required for R-1 lots; but according to the zoning rule Sect. 12-1D-4-D-2 described above, any new home built on Parcel B needs to meet an average setback between the existing 1133 Orchard Place dwelling and 1139 Orchard Place to the west. This setback is estimated at 57-feet (see image below). page 148 Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 4 REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. 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) As part of any new building permit application on Parcel A, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored. 2) Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of 57-feet. 3) The applicant shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Johnson & Scofield Inc., dated 04/30/2019; or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. page 149 Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for 1133 Orchard Place The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Orchard Place. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood. page 150 666666666666666666666 6 6666666666666666666666" "³ " ³ * ** " ³³³³³³ """6 6 6666666666666 66!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 2 2 3 221211 218 200 186185175 170 146 96 95 141 137135132 1309712511911883116120110 76 75 7278 7168 100 11365 163646663 60 58 54105 504932544 341 36 35114523130282725108 37171 20 25765 10130108100 171 13530 1851851351353028100 30186 185120 100 100 58 14130 13513060 120 120 185141 30251140 1133 1127 1851 1149 1849 1122 1140 1145 1139 1136 11281134 1787 1124 1795 1850 1143 1135 1129 1151 1133 1117 1127 1853 11391145 1154 1117 1854 ORCHARD PL ORCHARD CIR 389' 299'301'250'141'173' 1133 ORCHARD PLACENona Mosvick ResidencePlanning Case No. 2019-15 City of Mendota Heights090 SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/20/2019 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 151 page 152 page 153 page 154 page 155 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 22 of 28 E) PLANNING CASE #2019-15 NONA MOSVICK, 1133 ORCHARD PLACE LOT SPLIT - SUBDIVISION Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Nona M. Mosvick was requesting approval to subdivide her property located at 1133 Orchard Place. A subdivision request must obtain city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item was presented under a public hearing with notice being printed in the Pioneer Press and letters being sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcels. No objections or indications of support were received. The subject site is a square shaped 1.04 acre parcel of land located in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle and has an existing 1.5 story split level single family home with 4,404 square feet of finished floor space. The home has a dual access U-shaped driveway off Orchard Place with a large open space area on the western edge. The proposed split would create a new parcel in this west area, which Ms. Mosvick’s son plans to develop for a new single- family home. Parcel A, the proposed new parcel, would have 100 feet of roadway frontage and 214.5 feet of lot depth, creating a 21,451 square foot (0.49 acre) parcel. Parcel B, containing the current single- family dwelling, would have 111 feet of frontage and the same 214.5 feet of depth, creating a 23,810 square foot (0.55 acre) parcel. Once the 30-foot easement is taken into consideration, Parcel A would be 18,451 square feet or 0.42 acres in size and Parcel B would be 20,480 square feet or 0.47 acres in size. Both parcels would meet the 100-foot frontage requirement, as well as the minimum lot size. Their surveyor is working on adding the new perimeter drainage and utility easements required along the front, sides, and rear lot lines of each parcel. In terms of the average setback rule, the average setback between 1133 and 1139 is approximately 57 feet. Staff has requested that any house built on the new lot has to match or maintain that average setback rule. Chair Magnuson noted that the property slopes down; therefore, a fair amount of work will need to be done to deal with drainage issues, access issues, etc. She asked if anyone knew the plans for that. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not know what those plans were; however, that would typically be handled during the building permit process. Commissioner Toth asked Mr. Benetti if he had walked this lot. Mr. Benetti replied that he walked it from the road. Commissioner Toth then asked for confirmation that the new lot is a buildable lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be buildable assuming it was approved with the 100’ x 215’ size. Commissioner Toth then asked if it would impact drainage to the residents to the west. Mr. Benetti replied that all of that would be reviewed and reconciled during the building permit process. page 156 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 23 of 28 Mr. Matt Mosvick, the son of Ms. Nona Mosvick, stated that they were looking to do the lot split and then he would build a house next to her to allow her to stay in her home as long as possible. As far as any of the grading, he has had several builders out there and he knows they are going to have to fill a lot in the front and then come down level to the house to the west. The front would be filled and then they are looking at a walkout to the back. A few trees will have to be removed; however, the majority are black walnuts that the neighbor will be happy to see go. Also, a maple tree in the middle will need to be removed, which will make Xcel Energy happy. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, 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 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-15 LOT SPLIT – SUBDIVISION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Orchard Place. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. As part of any new building permit application on Parcel A, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored. 2. Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of 57-feet. 3. The applicant shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Johnson & Scofield Inc., dated 04/30/2019; or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. page 157 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 24 of 28 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Mr. Mosvick asked about the Park Dedication Fee. Mr. Benetti replied that this is a standard fee that the city adopted into the fee schedule for a long period of time. State law allows cities to either require developers, whenever they are platting out multiple lots, to either have to dedicate out a certain percentage of land for parks, open space, drainage area. In Mendota Heights case, whenever they create a new buildable lot or a new potential residential unit, there is a $4,000 cash in lieu of payment for that. Mr. Mosvick stated that he could understand that fee for a developer putting in multiple lots; however, for splitting one lot that is a pretty excessive amount of money. Chair Magnuson replied that there was nothing the Commission could do about that as it is written in the code. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. page 158 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final Draft of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Introduction The Council is asked to consider approving (not adopting) the Final Draft of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. Background At the May 16, 2019 City Council Workshop meeting, the council discussed and reviewed with city staff the final draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission. That evening, a number of edits, changes and revisions were noted, and most of these have been added or completed in the final May 2019 Draft Plan. The following is a brief synopsis of the changes made: Chapter 1 – Introduction & Background: a number of minor edits and changes were made; and staff has included a full copy of this section for your complete review. Chapter 2 – Land Use: minor grammatical changes made; Pg. 2-1 – made slight revision to Policy 2.1.1; Pg. 2-3 – deleted original “Policy 2.4.5 Encourage establishment of a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer of general aviation use to other reliever airports.” Pg. 2-8: staff has modified the MR-Medium Density Residential land use category as follows: “This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities of more than 3.0 but not to exceed 5.9 units per acre.” The HR –High Density Residential density allowance “not to exceed 25 units per acre” was also questioned, but no final determination or decision made. Staff was directed to review the current high density sites throughout the city, and determine (estimate) the density calculations for these sites. Attached to this memo is a table that identifies these developments, their zoning, units/count, and land (net acres) size, with the density (ratio of units per acre) indicated. If any changes to this HR High Density land use density notation are made, staff can easily fix or make the change in the draft document. A resident comment from the May 21st meeting included concerns of the proposed land use designation of the property locally addressed as 340-D Street. This property is still listed by Dakota County Assessors under the names of Carl R. and Elizabeth Nimis, with [JACKS MFG CO] as the common name. The page 159 assessors also list the primary use as [INDUSTRIAL PREFERRED] – but following this indicates the property as [FULL HOMESTEAD]. When this property was first brought to staff’s and the Planning Commission’s attention, most were not familiar with this property, or even aware it was located inside the city limits. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission was asked to determine a land use designation for this site, and upon examining the Dakota County records, and reviewing aerial photos and on-site pictures of the property, they deemed it appropriate to designate the site as I-Industrial. The Council can choose to accept this land use recommendation from the Commission, or suggest the site change to LR-Low Density Residential, due in part to the fact it is homesteaded. The resident also stated concerns of the proposed 2040 Plan’s Land Use Goal 2.2: Policy 2.2.7 that reads “Redevelopment of existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density than currently exists.” This policy was put in place by the Planning Commission to assure residents in those areas (or developments) where changes were being proposed form LR-Low Density Residential to MR-Medium Density, that the level of units (i.e. density) cannot change or increase than what existed before on the site. The Council should make a determination if this policy should remain; or delete it and let the approved density allotments under each of the MR and HR land use categories dictate the allowable level of redevelopment that may take place on a site. Ch. 3 – Transportation: Pg. 3-2 and 3-16: Staff added a new Policy 3.2.3: “The City will support park and ride facilities if demand is met or requested by the residents and/or local businesses.” – and included the same statement in Page 3- 16 (highlighted yellow) Page 3-8: identified “HCM” as Highway Capacity Manual. Pg. 3-11, under the sub-heading of Future Traffic Operations, staff added the following statement (per Councilor Petschel – and highlighted in yellow - plan copy): “Daily trips on Dodd and Delaware are projected to increase to levels creating unacceptable conditions at various city intersections. Although some solutions lie within the city itself, rising levels of "pass through" traffic from development to the south of the city need to be addressed. This must be accomplished through a regional traffic plan that involves Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, MnDOT and Dakota County. This should be a formal process with clear goals and objectives.” Pg. 3-21: deleted Policy 3.3.5 Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer general aviation use to other reliever airports. Ch. 8 Resilience: Pg. 8-12, Policy 8.7.1 has been deleted: 8.7.1 Review and update regulations governing food processing businesses, such as commercial kitchens, flash freezing businesses, and small scale home kitchen businesses. Chapter 4 Parks & Trials; Ch., 5 Housing; Ch. 6 Economic Development; Ch. 7 Natural Resources; Ch. 9 Critical Area and Ch. 10 Implementation had few (if any) changes. page 160 Please note this memo packet only contains hard-copies of Chapters 1, 2 and 3. Please be sure to bring the three-ring binder (complete hard-copy) of the 2040 Comp Plan – provided to you at the May 16th Workshop meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends Council give careful consideration of this draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, make any additional changes or revisions as needed; and approve the draft plan document. This action requires a simple majority vote. If the draft plan is approved, the Council should then direct city staff to send the plan out for adjacent jurisdictional review. page 161 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS DENSITY CALCULATIONS DEVELOPMENT ZONE UNITS ACREAGE (Net –Approx.) Density (units/acre) Parkview Plaza (CDA) R-3 65 2.7 24 u/a Lexington Apts. R-3 225 14.8 15.2 u/a Hillside Gables (CDA) R-3 25 3.64 6.9 u/a Eagle Pointe Condos I R-3 51 2.65 19.2 u/a Eagle Pointe Condos II R-3 36 5.7 6.3 u/a The Reserve (At Homes) MU-PUD 139 2.2 63.2 u/a Village Commons (CDA) MU-PUD 60 0.91 66 u/a Village Condos MU-PUD 35 2.15 16.3 u/a Village Townhomes MU-PUD 20 1.37 14.6 u/a Heights Apartments HR-PUD 132 5.5 24 u/a Summit Apts. HR-PUD 48 3 16 u/a Augusta Shores R-1 * 43 17 2.53 u/a Lemay Shores R-1 * 60 25 2.4 u/a Kingsley Estates R-1 24 8 3 u/a Ivy Keep Townhomes R-1 82 13.8 6 u/a Somerset 19 R-1 22 8 2.75 u/a Victoria Highlands R-1 31 10 3.1 u/a Mendota Meadows MR-PUD 34 8 4.25 u/a Kensington TH’s HR-PUD 285 38 7.5 u/a * Although the development is currently shown as zoned R-1 One Family Residence, the development was actually approved as “R-1 PUD One Family Residence – Planned Unit Development” page 162 COMPARISON OF LOW DENSITY / MEDIUM DENSITY / HIGH DENSITY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS METRO COMMUNITIES LD-R = Low Density Residential MD-R = Medium Density Residential HD-R = High Density Residential U/A – Units per Acre Arden Hills LD-R MD-R HD-R 3 - 5 U/A 6 - 9 U/A 9 - 12 U/A Crystal LD-R MD-R HD-R 1 - 6 U/A 6 - 16 U/A 16 - 40 U/A Cottage Grove LD-R MD-R HD-R 1 - 4 U/A 4.1 -10 U/A 10.1 - 20 U/A Edina LD-R MD-R HD-R 1 - 5 U/A 5 - 20 U/A 20 - 60 U/A Eagan LD-R MD-R HD-R 4 U/A 4 - 12 U/A 12+ U/A Hopkins LD-R MD-R HD-R 1 - 7 U/A 8 - 16 U/A 17+ U/A Inver Grove Heights LD-R Low-Med. Res. / Med. Res. HD-R 1 - 4 U/A 4 - 8 U/A / 8 - 12 U/A 12 – 35 U/A Lilydale SF-R Multi-Fam. Res. Mixed Use 1 - 3 U/A 4 - 12 U/A 10 - 40 U/A Mahtomedi LD-R MD-R HD-R 4 - 5 U/A 5 - 10 U/A 12 - 25 U/A Oakdale LD-R MD-R HD-R 3 U/A 4 - 8 U/A 8 - 30 U/A page 163 Richfield LD-R MD-R HD-R 1 - 7 U/A 8 - 34 U/A 35 - 100 U/A Shoreview LD-R MD-R HD-R 1 - 4 U/A 4 -8 U/A 8 - 20 U/A Vadnais Heights LD-R MD-R HD-R 2.5 - 5 U/A 5 - 9 U/A 9 - 22 U/A White Bear Lake LD-R MD-R HD-R 3 - 9 U/A 8 - 14 U/A 12 - 34 U/A Woodbury LD-R MD-R HD-R 2 – 3.5 U/A 4.5 - 8 U/A 10 - 15 U/A West St. Paul SF-R Multi-Fam. Res. Mixed Use 3 - 6 U/A 20 - 40 U/A 25 - 40 U/A page 164 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has a long history and commitment to planning, resulting in unique residential living environments and business centers. The City’s first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1960, years before the Metropolitan Land Planning Act went into effect, requiring communities to incorporate regional policies and guidelines into their plans. The City has used its Comprehensive Plan to guide decisions since the 1960’s; and the community looks much like it was envisioned in 1960, with an emphasis on high quality residential neighborhoods, open space and parks, and well-planned commercial and industrial areas. The community is essentially developed and is enjoying the fruits of its long-range vision and development policies. Infill properties will continue to be built out, following the community’s successful development philosophy. Redevelopment is also happening in select areas, following the City’s commitment to provide a high quality of life for its residents and businesses. The City understands its role as part of the greater Metropolitan Region and will continue to plan accordingly. The City has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to guide planning and development: Vision Statement Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family- oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city. Mission Statement Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth. Plan Organization page 165 This 2040 Comprehensive Plan is organized in chapters similar to the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but with new chapters on Economic Development and Resilience, arranged as follows: 1 Introduction & Background 2 Land Use 3 Transportation 4 Parks & Open Space 5 Housing 6 Economic Development 7 Natural Resources 8 Resilience 9 Critical Area (Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area) 10 Implementation Goals and policies for each chapter are included within that chapter and also as one combined set in the Appendix. Surface Water Management Plan (July 2018) will also be appended. Setting Mendota Heights is located in northern Dakota County, bordering the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The City of Lilydale and the City of Mendota border the City on its northwest side. Across the rivers are the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Fort Snelling and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The east is bordered by Delaware Avenue and the cities of West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. Interstate 494 page 166 divides Mendota Heights from Eagan to the south. Interstate I-35E divides the City north to south. Despite being near to these major business centers, much of the community maintains a natural, open appearance. The river bluffs, rolling topography, and wooded areas have provided an excellent setting for residential development. The topography has brought about the creation of a curvilinear local street system and allowed for intimate residential neighborhoods to be nestled amongst mature wooded settings, lakes, wetlands, nature preserves, and the Mississippi and Minnesota River bluffs. Mendota Heights is a premier suburb, offering high-quality residential and business areas. Per capita income and property values are among the highest in the area, but homes in more moderate price brackets are also available. The residents of Mendota Heights enjoy close proximity to an extensive system of regional and local parks, and convenient access to the regional highway system, international airport, and metropolitan employment centers. These factors have helped make Mendota Heights an attractive place to live. Centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights achieved its exceptional residential neighborhoods and successful business community by following the comprehensive plans set forth many decades ago. Innovative and page 167 forward thinking on the part of community officials has resulted in a planned community, which affords a high-quality lifestyle for its residents while providing a full array of services and employment opportunities. The community has preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional character of the City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. The community set out early in its incorporated history to create attractive residential neighborhoods by planning for aggressive protection and wise use of its abundant environmental assets. The rich abundance of woods, wetlands, and open space areas that provide the natural feel of the community today, are a testament to the forethought and planning of Mendota Heights’ forefathers. As the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown up around it, Mendota Heights has actively pursued its objective of preserving open spaces, making this community one of the region’s most attractive places to live. The environment has played a central role in the City’s land use planning. Mendota Heights has many spacious, green neighborhoods page 168 Process The process of updating the Comprehensive Plan for Mendota Heights was initiated in late 2016 when Stantec, the City’s planning consultant, began updating background information and demographics for the Plan. Stantec also worked with Tangible Consulting, which prepared a report analyzing the market and development context of the City. A background report was shared with the Planning Commission in early 2017. The City held three public information meetings at the local schools; and provided a “hands- on” display at the city’s annual Fire Station Open House in 2017. In a series of meetings later that year, the Planning Commission reviewed and adopted the draft Vision, Mission, and Goals & Policies for the Plan. This material was shared with the Parks Commission and with the larger community in four community open house meetings in the fall of 2017. There was also an online survey and an invitation for comments on the City website and Facebook page. Discussion at a community open house Facebook was used to share information and invite comments on the planning process Participation at the Fire Station Open House event page 169 Key Planning Issues The initial discussion with the Planning Commission, grounded in the background information and analysis, was condensed into seven key planning issues: • Character, Natural Feel, Design Mendota Heights is open, spacious, green, and natural. The character and design of our community is important to maintain our quality of life. The environment and green space is essential to this character. • Commercial/Retail Options Many people wish there were more restaurant and shopping options in Mendota Heights. • Development & Redevelopment Sites The City is almost fully developed, but there are a few sites where new development or redevelopment can occur and there is keen interest in how to maximize their potential. • Housing Mendota Heights is mostly high-end and mid-range valued single-family homes, but the City also needs a range of housing choices to provide life- cycle opportunities for people of all generations and stages of life, and work force housing to support people working in a wide range of careers. • Minnesota Vikings Facility The Vikings football team has built its new headquarters and practice facilities nearby in Eagan, within a 200-acre mixed use development featuring offices, retail, and housing. Many are concerned about traffic impacting Mendota Heights. This mixed-use is anticipated to be developed in the future. On the business side, the Vikings development could be competition for City businesses or an opportunity for Mendota Heights businesses to support activities there. • Airport The MSP Airport is conveniently located nearby across the river, but also poses a nuisance with aircraft noise. The key planning issues are interrelated page 170 • Infrastructure Like many communities, Mendota Heights’ roads, bridges and other infrastructure are aging and in need of maintenance. The City must plan in conjunction with county and state agencies in order to preserve quality of life and safety. Community Input There were over a hundred comments and stories offered in the various open house meetings and the online survey at the beginning of the planning process. Resident comments, SWOT analysis, survey results and presentation boards are noted and summarized in attached Appendix-A. The comments have been grouped into eight topics as illustrated below in the blue boxes: Character, Environment, etc. These topics relate strongly to the Key Planning Issues identified above, as indicated by the arrows connecting similar ideas. Taken together, these issues and topics represent the ideas that will be the guiding force shaping the Comprehensive Plan Update. These issues are reflected in the Goals and Policies in the Plan as well. page 171 Regional Planning Designation The following narrative and policies (in gray italic type) are excerpted and paraphrased from the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 Plan: The regional planning area designation and related policies identify the Metropolitan Council’s expectations for the amount, location, and standards for development. A community’s planning area designation is based on its location, amount of developable land, existing development patterns, planned land uses and availability of infrastructure. The Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 Plan designates Mendota Heights as “suburban.” Suburban communities experienced continued growth and expansion during the 1980s and early 1990s, and typically have automobile-oriented development patterns at significantly lower densities than in previous eras. Figure 1-1: Community Designation Map for Mendota Heights (Metropolitan Council) page 172 Developed Communities Community designations are intended to guide regional growth and development for areas that have urban infrastructure in place and the capacity to accommodate development and redevelopment and establish land use expectations including overall densities and development patterns. The Metropolitan Council forecasts that “Suburban” communities will account for 22 percent of the region’s population growth, 27 percent of its household growth, and 43 percent of employment growth over the next three decades. The 2040 Thrive MSP policies for Suburban communities are available on the Metropolitan council website, and include the following: • Orderly and Efficient Land Use o Plan for new growth at overall average densities of 5 units per acre1 o Look for development and redevelopment opportunities that link jobs, housing and transit o Plan local infrastructure to accommodate future growth • Natural Resources Protection o Integrate natural resource conservation and restoration into the comprehensive plan and ordinances o Identify contaminated land for reclamation. o Plan for restoration of natural features and functions 1 The Met Council policy only applies to new residential development in the City and does not affect existing development or neighborhoods. All new single-family, medium density and high density residential development combined is expected to be 5 units/acre or more. Existing residential of all kinds in the City is currently about 2.3 units/acre. Metropolitan Council policies for Suburban communities: https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/ Publications-And- Resources/Thrive-MSP-2040- Plan- (1)/7_ThriveMSP2040_LandUseP oliciesbyCD.aspx page 173 • Water Sustainability o Implement BMPs to control and treat stormwater in redevelopment • Housing Affordability and Choice o Support the community’s share of the region’s affordable housing need o Support a mix of housing affordability o Use various sources of funding and financing tools to facilitate the development of lifecycle and affordable housing, including the needs of multigenerational households • Access, Mobility, and Transportation Choice o Focus growth, if possible, around regional transit o Support improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation o Consider policies that reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles o Adopt Complete Streets policies Lemay Lake page 174 • Economic Competitiveness o Identify appropriate areas for business and industrial expansion o Support the cleanup and reuse of contaminated land o Preserve the industrial base for higher-intensity employment and new industries o Protect sites for highway-, river-, and rail-dependent manufacturing and freight transportation needs o Plan for land uses that support the growth of businesses that export goods and services outside the region o Preserve locations for employment, manage growth, and minimize land use conflicts • Building Resilience o Identify potential vulnerabilities in local infrastructure as a result of severe weather o Participate in programs that incentivize wind and solar power o Consider a property-assessed clean energy (PACE) program for conservation and renewable energy o Promote community solar gardens o Encourage travel demand management (TDM) policies and ordinance o Consider development standards that increase vegetative cover and increase the solar reflective quality of surfaces. o Participate in urban forestry assistance programs Mendota Office Center page 175 Community History Mendota Heights has a long and rich heritage, which serves as a source of identity for the community. Mendota Heights is located near the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. The Dakota people knew and referred to this place as “Mdo’–te” or “the junction of one river with another.” French explorers and traders who settled the area in the late 1600’s named the Minnesota River “Sans Pierres” because the river was silty, with few rocks. British explores and traders who arrived a few years later misunderstood the French name, calling the river Saint Peter’s. Native Americans view the area as an important meeting place. The current Pilot Knob site (now City-owned property) overlooks the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. It was considered sacred by the Dakota who called it Oȟéyawahe, or “the hill much visited.” Pilot Knob was named by riverboat pilots as the landmark overlooking Fort Snelling, the first American fort in Minnesota. Fort Snelling was constructed in the 1820s; and the name of the area was later changed to Mendota, which in Dakota means, “meeting of the waters.” Taoyateduta, chief of the Mdewakanton Dakota, ca. 1850 page 176 In 1852, the territorial legislature changed the name of the river to Minnesota, a version of its Dakota name. Fur traders established a trading post in the early 1830’s within what is now Mendota Heights. The trading post, coupled with Fort Snelling located across the river, formed the basis for one of the first settlement areas in Minnesota. During the period from 1837 to 1858, the Dakota ceded large tracts of land to the United States, which was then deeded to settlers who tilled the land and operated dairy farms. Gradually, individual homes began to appear along the St. Paul border in the north and in the hills above Mendota Township in the west. Between them were farms, country schools, and estates. The population of Mendota Township in 1860 was 454. The area grew slowly to 1,360 at the start of World War II. St. Peter’s Church was originally built in 1840; re-built in 1853 atop the bluff overlooking the rivers; and today is the oldest church in continuous use within Minnesota. Several trails crossed the area, including the Mission Trail. It connected the river to the Dakota Village at Kaposia, located in present-day South St. Paul. Dodd Road, the first military road through the region, was completed in 1849 and connected the community to St. Peter. Dodd Road currently bisects the City and continues to provide a north-south travel artery throughout the community. The Old Mendota Road, which is now Highway 62 (formerly Highway 110), provided for east-west travel through the area. The Minnesota Central, the first Dakota County railroad, later the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, ran through Mendota Township, crossing the Minnesota River, and carried supplies to Fort Snelling. The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha Railway was also an early railroad in the area. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha railroad depot in Mendota, ca. 1890 page 177 Following World War II, farmers began to sell lots for individual homes and acreage for residential subdivisions. Home construction increased rapidly, particularly in the northern section of the township and by 1950, the population totaled 2,107. The Township of Mendota was established in 1858, and was eventually divided into two separate towns; Mendota being chartered in 1887, and incorporated in 1936. The remainder of the township was incorporated as Mendota Heights in 1956. Interstate 494 comprises the southern border of Mendota Heights. Its intersection with Interstate 35E acts as a primary “gateway” into the community, as does Highway 55 as it crosses the Mendota Bridge. Other gateways include the Interstate 35E/Mississippi River crossing and Highway 62, as it enters the community from the east. Minnesota Highway 13 traverses the west and northwest edge of the City near the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. Steep bluffs along those rivers include the natural open spaces of Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and Lilydale Regional Park. These together with the Dodge Nature Center provide a greenbelt that surrounds and infiltrates Mendota Heights. The location of these features is illustrated on the Community Facilities map. The natural and open space areas, when combined with the 770+ acres of community parks, three golf courses, Rogers, Augusta, and Lemay Lakes, and with the naturally rolling terrain and mature woodlands, create the appealing “natural open” setting of the City. These features and spaces are located adjacent to the major roadways and as such, create a unique, natural setting for intimate neighborhoods. The views of the River Valleys from adjacent bluffs and bridge crossings are nothing less than spectacular. The predominance of scenic, natural vistas and corridors within a community located so close to the core of the Twin Cities is truly unique within the Metropolitan Region. This being the case, the City of Mendota Heights considers it paramount to protect and enhance the natural living environment for its residents. Rogers Lake in Mendota Heights page 178 Development History Early History The river topography and landscape of bluffs, ravines, views, lakes, and wooded areas have provided attractive settings for residential settlement. Mendota Heights was a part of Mendota Township until the Village of Mendota Heights was incorporated in 1956. 1957 to 1977 The first Land Use Plan for Mendota Heights was adopted in 1959. Its purpose was to guide public and private development to achieve balanced residential and commercial/industrial growth, in order to assure the availability of tax funds for schools and public services. At that time, 21% of the land (exclusive of golf courses and cemeteries) was developed. The City’s history of early land planning established a clear and well-defined pattern for future land uses. The 1959 Plan identified the following needs: • The need for additional east-west thoroughfares; • The need for community connections across future I-35E; • The designation of a business/industrial area in the southwest corner of the City; • The desire to limit commercial “strip” development; and • The decision to continue the semi-rural character of the residential areas. Many of the major objectives of the 1959 Plan came to fruition as the Plan was largely followed over the ensuing years. In the twenty-year period from the late 1950’s to the late 1970’s, St. Thomas and Visitation schools were established (1955-56); Fort Snelling State Park was established (1961); the I-35 bridge into St. Paul was built (1965); Henry Sibley High School was built (1971); and in 1974, Mendota Heights became a city. Overall, an additional 40% of the land area was developed, most of it to establish new residential areas. 1977 to 1997 The land use pattern initially laid out by early comprehensive plans was clearly established along with several transportation improvements. Both I-35E and I-494 were built during this period. I-35E was extended in both directions, into downtown St. Paul and south into Burnsville. Interstate 494 was constructed along the southern border of the City and replaced Highway 110 (now Highway 62) as the primary east-west route. page 179 In this period, United Properties began the development of the Mendota Heights Business Park, and several areas designated as residential were developed throughout the City. The availability of the Interstate routes did relieve local roadways of some traffic, particularly in the cases of Highway 62 and Highway 149. The accessibility of the Interstate routes also more clearly established distinct neighborhoods in the community. The 1959 Land Use Plan emphasized the importance of east-west routes and planned crossings at Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights Road, and Wagon Wheel Trail, all of which were built more than 20 years later. Aircraft traffic noise from flights over Mendota Heights dramatically increased in this period as well, due to the growth and expansion of the airline industry and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The increasing number of flights, larger aircraft, and expanded use of the runways over the Mississippi River corridor, continue to impact the land use and living environment of the southern part of the community. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) actually bought out one neighborhood and created a flight path corridor, near Acacia Cemetery, within Mendota Heights. Homes were removed and the area was re-developed for industrial uses. Other residential areas were part of the Part 150 Sound Insulation program, receiving funds to upgrade windows and insulation in existing homes. New residential neighborhoods have been built with additional sound insulation and modified building techniques. Total operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) increased from 230,793 in 1972 to 483,013 in 1998, more than doubling. This increase in flights, along with expansion of the flights over the new residential areas and outside of the flight corridor, has adversely affected many neighborhoods of the City. MSP International Airport, located across the Minnesota River west of Mendota Heights page 180 The City put forth considerable time and effort to reduce aircraft noise and operations over the City, establishing an Airport Relations Commission (ARC), participating in the Dakota County Airport Relations Commission (DCARC), and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and adopting the first Noise Attenuation Ordinance. 1998 – 2007 From 1998 to 2006, the City issued 436 residential building permits; and of those, 259 were for single family homes. In 2003, the City saw the most development during this period, with a total of 125 residential permits issued during that year. A number of significant projects reshaped Mendota Heights during this time. The most visible is the Village at Mendota Heights, a mixed-use development at the northeast intersection of Highway 62 and Dodd Road. The City acquired the property to create an urban town center that includes a senior residential facility, townhomes, condominiums, boutique-like retail center, and an open space plaza. A second significant change is the Summit of Mendota Heights, a mixed residential development consisting of townhomes and a multi-story condominium. This development is located on the former site of the Ecolab research building at Sibley Memorial Highway and Wachtler Avenue. Another residential project is the Hidden Creek development, a residential plat of generally one-acre lots. Two other projects have showcased the City’s desire to preserve and retain existing open space. The Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course had operated as a privately-owned facility for many years, until the owners proposed to close the 17- acre facility and develop the property into approximately 30 single family lots. After a successful referendum, the City purchased the golf course and is now operating the facility as a municipal course. The Village at Mendota Heights Source: City of Mendota Heights page 181 Perhaps the most important project also involves the City’s decision to spend public dollars to preserve the Pilot Knob area, just off the Mendota Bridge between Acacia Cemetery and Highway 55. The City joined with other public entities, including Dakota County and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and purchased a number of large parcels totaling 25.5 acres. The land will be retained as open space, and is currently being restored to its pre-development environment. The property has historical and cultural significance on many levels, including as a sacred site for native people, a nearby gathering area for the 1862 transfer of the Minnesota Territory lands to the U.S. government, and the “Pilot Knob” landmark for steamboats approaching the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. In 2017, Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2008-2018 Since the last Comprehensive Plan was prepared, a number of significant developments have taken place in Mendota Heights. The economic recession from 2007 to 2012 impacted development cross the Twin Cities, including Mendota Heights and there was little development activity during those years, but coming out of the recession there was some significant activity. The Mendota Plaza Shopping Center at Highway 62 and Dodd Road saw a major renovation during this period, with a 15,000-square-foot Walgreen’s pharmacy added in 2012; and in 2014, White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Also at Mendota Plaza, a new 4-story 139-unit apartment project called The Reserves at Mendota Village was completed in 2018 by At Home Apartments. It is the first new market-rate project in Mendota Heights in thirty years. The project is proposed to include 11,000 square feet of commercial space in two buildings sharing the site with the apartments. The Reserves at Mendota Village (Mendota Plaza Source: At Home Apartments page 182 A new market rate apartment project began development in 2018 by Michael Development on the site of the former Mendota Motel and Larson Garden Center at Highway 13 and Acacia Drive. Phase I will provide 70-units of market rate apartments, with underground and surface parking. Phase II will provide between 64-68 units of senior (aged 55+) units of housing. Both phases are expected to be completed by late 2019 to mid-2020. The Vikings football team’s new headquarters and surrounding development in nearby Eagan has generated considerable discussion and will affect Mendota Heights with traffic, noise and light, but also with potential increases in economic activity and property values. Located just off the southeast edge of Mendota Heights, it will include the teams’ corporate offices, practice facilities, 6,500-seat stadium, athletic clinic, team Hall of Fame, and ancillary offices, hotels, retail, restaurants and housing on the 200-acre site. Minnesota Vikings facility in Eagan -2017 (photo: Leila Navidi) Mendota Heights Apartments - 2160 & 2180 Hwy 13 Source: Kaas-Wilson Architects page 183 While no major roadway projects have been built recently, one of the major highways in Mendota Heights has been renamed. In the summer of 2018, Highway 110 was renamed Highway 62, acknowledging it as an extension of Highway 62 that starts on the west side of the Mendota Bridge and extends west through Minneapolis and other suburbs to I-494 in Eden Prairie. Source: MnDOT page 184 Community Facilities / Services The City of Mendota Heights currently retains a full complement of administrative services, including Administration, Engineering, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Police, Fire, Finance, and Code Enforcement. The City contracts with private consultants for planning and legal services. City Hall provides administrative office space and public meeting facilities. City Hall is located at 1101 Victoria Curve, northwest of the intersection of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue. Police and Fire The City of Mendota Heights provides police protection for its residents. The police station is located in the lower level of City Hall. Police are dispatched from Dakota Communications Center located in Empire Township. The City also provides police services to the communities of Lilydale and Mendota. The Police Department consists of 20 officers and 2.5 non-sworn civilian employees. Fire protection is also provided by the City. The department is located on Dodd Road, one-quarter mile south of Highway 62. Fire and Rescue Service consists of 36 volunteers and has a fully equipped station consisting of a 2,000-gallon tanker, three pump trucks (one with a 65’ ladder), a rescue vehicle, a brush truck, a boat, an ATV, and other equipment and services. Renovations are underway for the Dodd Road facility with approximately $8 million of upgrades to relieve overcrowding in the apparatus bay, administrative space and storage areas, plus technology and HVAC upgrades. The City also provides fire services to the cities of Sunfish Lake, Lilydale, and Mendota. The average response time to fire calls ranges from six to eight minutes. The Fire and Rescue Services was last rated as providing Class 4 services (1- best, 10-worst), as defined by the Insurance Services Office. Specific residential fire ratings are determined based upon a combination of factors, including the individual rating for the Fire Department, availability of water services, and the level of communications (i.e., 911 call system, fire alarms, pagers, and dispatch systems), available in the community. Schools Minnesota Independent School District #197 serves all or parts of the communities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake and West St. Paul. The District is comprised of five elementary schools (two neighborhood schools and three magnet schools), two middle schools, and one high school. In addition, the District serves birth-to-age five children with an Early Learning Program. Total enrollment for District schools in the 2015-2016 school year was estimated at 4,343 students. This is down from 4,885 students in the 1998-1999 school year. page 185 There are six public and private schools offering kindergarten through 12th grade located within the City of Mendota Heights: Mendota Elementary School, Somerset Elementary School, Friendly Hills Middle School, Henry Sibley High School, St. Thomas Academy, and Visitation School. The following table provides a breakdown of enrollment of the K-12 public schools located within the City at the start of the 2007 - 2008 school year compared with the 2015-2016 school year. Table 1-1: Public School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2018-19 School Years School Grades 2007-08 Total Enrollment 2018-19 Total Enrollment Percent Change 2007-08 to 2015-16 Mendota Elementary School K - 4th 360 388 8% Somerset Elementary School K - 4th 318 419 32% Friendly Hills Middle School 5th - 8th 597 727 22% Henry Sibley High School 9th - 12th 1,462 1,477 1% Source: ISD 197 The number of students enrolled in private schools within the City was 1,201 during the 2015-16 school year, down from the 2007-2008 school year, when 1,295 students were enrolled in private schools. Table 1-2: Private School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2018-19 School Year School Grades 2007-08 Total Enrollment 2018-19 Total Enrollment Percent Change 2007-08 to 2015- 16 St. Thomas Academy 6th - 12th 695 632 -10% Visitation School Montessori -12th 600 585 -2.5% Source: St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School websites page 186 Parks, Open Space, and Trails The City of Mendota Heights boasts a variety of recreational opportunities, including access to regional trails, riverside and lakeside parks, scenic bluffs and a nature preserve. These facilities represent unique features in a park system that helps to shape the character of Mendota Heights. The City has 295 acres of city- owned parks and open spaces, which includes active and passive recreation areas, along with other state and private parks and open spaces. These facilities are detailed in the Parks, Open Space and Trails chapter of this plan. Cemeteries There are two cemeteries in Mendota Heights – Resurrection and Acacia – which occupy a significant amount of land on the west side of the community. Wastewater The City's Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s sanitary sewer system. The responsibilities of the sanitary sewer system include maintenance of the sanitary sewer lift stations, sanitary sewer main repair, and sanitary sewer hook-up inspections. The City has a “Cleaning and Televising Program”, which it uses to identify and repair infiltration and structural deficiencies; permitting re-lining and replacement of service lines. Water Supply In 2016, the City transferred the ownership of its municipal water supply system to the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). SPRWS provides water to all of Mendota Heights’ properties, and owns the water tower and distribution system. SPRWS also maintains the water lines and hydrants and bills its customers directly. The two-million-gallon water tower, located on Lexington Avenue, next to the City's Public Works Facility, also provides reserve water capacity. Surface Water & Stormwater Management The City's Public Works Department is responsible for handling stormwater runoff, both to reduce flooding and to protect water quality. This has been identified as an important issue for Mendota Heights. The city completed a Surface Water Management Plan (July 2018), which is made part of this Comprehensive Plan Update, detailing the programs and policies for surface water management in the City, and is included as Appendix – C. page 187 Socio-Economic Profile The purpose of the social and economic inventory is to identify past trends, document current conditions, and help identify issues to be addressed in planning policies. These policies will help the community address a broad base of land use and development issues. With the help of a solid information and policy base, decision makers can evaluate and prioritize proposals for the community while fulfilling the City’s long-term goals and objectives. Growth Trends: Mendota Heights The following graph illustrates the estimated and projected growth in the City of Mendota Heights for population, household, and employment from 1970 through 2040. The table on the following pages expands this information with comparisons to Dakota County. Figure 1-2: Mendota Heights: Population, Household, & Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970-2040 Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census After a significant increase between 1980 and 2000, City population decreased slightly after 2000, but is expected to remain relatively stable in the decades to come. In the meantime, the number of households is expected to grow at a slow pace, indicating a further decline of household sizes. Employment, however, has continued to grow in the past ten years, even despite the economic downturn in the mid-2000’s, and is expected to continue but at a slightly slower pace in the next 20 years. 6,565 7,288 9,381 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,8001,140 2,998 5,805 8,549 11,550 12,600 13,400 13,700 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Population Household Employment page 188 Growth Trends: Mendota Heights vs. Dakota County Communities The following table shows population, household, and employment estimates and forecasts for the City of Mendota Heights and Dakota County, 1970 through 2040. The table shows how the City has grown slower in all three measures than the County as a whole over several decades, with the exception of employment between 1970 and 2000. The City saw its largest population percent growth from 1980 to 1990. Dakota County also experienced its highest percentage growth in population from 1980 to 1990. City population is projected to remain more or less unchanged out to 2040, whereas the County is projected to continue to grow steadily for the next three decades. Table 1-3: Mendota Heights and Dakota County: Population, Household, and Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970 – 2040 Population/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 6,565 7,288 9,381 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 Decade change - 11% 29% 22% -3% 2% 0% 1% Dakota County 139,808 194,279 275,186 355,904 398,552 435,870 474,670 514,050 Decade change - 39% 42% 29% 12% 9% 9% 8% Household/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,800 Decade change - 35% 49% 27% 5% 5% 2% 2% Dakota County 37,560 64,087 98,293 131,151 152,060 170,940 187,980 204,750 Decade change - 71% 53% 33% 16% 12% 10% 9% Employment/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 1,140 2,998 5,805 8,549 11,550 12,600 13,400 13,700 Decade change - 163% 94% 47% 35% 9% 6% 2% Dakota County 31,100 62,134 106,029 154,242 170,192 203,330 219,860 236,500 Decade change - 100% 71% 45% 10% 19% 8% 8% Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census page 189 Population The following line graph illustrates the estimated and forecasted population for Mendota Heights and four other communities within Dakota County – Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul. Mendota Heights and its neighbors West St. Paul and South St. Paul are mostly developed and will grow slowly; Eagan and Inver Grove Heights, with room to grow, will see larger population increases. Figure 1-3: Mendota Heights and Dakota County Communities: Population Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census Household Growth Trends The following graph illustrates the growth trend in the number of households, actual and projected, in Mendota Heights and area communities within Dakota County, from 1970 to 2040. As the graph illustrates, households in West St. Paul and South St. Paul will continue to steadily increase from 2010 until 2040. As with population, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights will experience more dramatic increases between 2010 and 2040. Mendota Heights is expected to experience a modest rise in the number of households, similar to West St. Paul and South St. Paul. 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 63,557 64,206 67,400 69,800 72,300 29,751 33,880 37,300 42,000 46,700 19,405 19,540 20,800 21,900 23,100 20,167 20,160 21,500 21,500 21,800 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population Mendota Heights Eagan Inver Grove Heights West St. Paul South St. Paul page 190 Figure 1-4: Mendota Heights and Dakota County Communities: Household Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 Household Size The graph below illustrates average household size in Mendota Heights compared to Dakota County from 1970 to 2040. Household size has declined steadily since 1970 but is expected to flatten out in the next couple decades. Figure 1-5: Average Household Size Mendota Heights & Dakota County 1970-2040 4.00 3.30 2.84 2.74 2.51 2.45 2.46 2.40 2.38 3.72 3.03 2.80 2.71 2.60 2.58 2.55 2.53 2.51 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040Persons per HouseholdYear Mendota Heights Dakota County 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,800 23,773 25,249 27,400 28,700 30,000 11,257 13,476 15,400 17,600 19,800 8,645 8,529 9,200 9,600 10,100 8,123 8,186 8,900 9,200 9,400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Households Year Mendota Heights Eagan Inver Grove Heights West St. Paul South St. Paul page 191 Household Type Two types of householders are distinguished in the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census: a family and a non-family householder. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all people in the household related to him or her are family members. A non-family householder is a householder living alone or with non- relatives only. The table below illustrates the demographic profile of the households in Mendota Heights. The table separates households by information pertaining to family and non-family households; households with or with or without children; and the number of households in each category. Table 1-4: Mendota Heights Household Types 2000 & 2010 Total households HHs with Children HHs without Children Household Type 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Married Couple Families 2,902 2,821 1,356 1,068 1,546 1,753 Female Householder 253 281 151 155 102 126 Male Householder 83 102 37 46 46 56 Total Family Households 3,238 3,204 1,544 1,269 1,694 1,935 Percent 77.5% 73.2% Total Non-Family Households 940 1,174 Percent 22.5% 26.8% Total Households 4,178 4,378 Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census The number of households held fairly steady between 2000 and 2010, but the significant change is in households with and without children – the trend being fewer households with children. This likely indicates a societal trend but also the presence of more retirees in Mendota Heights. page 192 Age Distribution The following bar graph compares the percentages of the age distribution in the City of Mendota Heights in 2000 and 2010 and 2014. The median age of Mendota Heights’ residents in 2000 was 41 years old. By 2010, the median age climbed to 47.5 years old. By 2014, the Census estimated it rose again to 49 years old. Figure 1-6: Mendota Heights Age Distribution 2000, 2010, & 2014 Source: US Census 2000 & 2010, ACS 2014 The largest age cohort in Mendota Heights are 45-to-64-year-olds, rising from about 29% in 2000 to over 37% in 2014. The share of children 14 and under has decreased from about 22% in 2000 to under 15% in 2014. 5.8% 16.5% 11.1% 6.9% 15.8% 18.9% 10.6% 8.3% 6.2% 4.6% 13.0%11.4% 7.2%9.8% 18.1%18.2% 9.1%8.7%3.9% 11.5%11.7% 6.4% 10.0% 17.0% 20.2% 9.2%10.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 22.0% Under 5 years 5 to 14 years 15 to 24 years 25 ot 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years + 2000 2010 2014 page 193 Age Distribution The graphs to the right depict this aging trend in Mendota Heights in a focused way. In just 14 years, the share of the population over and under 45 years of age has flipped – from just under half to just over half. Mendota Heights’ age trends have been following the age composition trends of the Twin Cities Metro Area. The greatest population gains in the 1990s in the Seven-County Metro Area were in the forty-five (45) to fifty-four (54) year old age group, which is the same as Mendota Heights’ largest percentage category. This was a result of the Baby Boom generation moving into an age category previously occupied by the smaller Depression and World War II generation. The generation after the baby boom generation, also known as Generation X, 35-to-44-year-old age group, also grew significantly in the 1990s, just as in Mendota Heights. The continued aging of the population creates new challenges for the Seven- County Metro Area, as well as for the City of Mendota Heights. It is expected to increase the demand for a wider range of services and housing choices, such as townhomes, one-level housing, assisted living, and so on, rather than traditional single-family homes. The Metropolitan Council has estimated that between 2000 and 2030, the population under the age of 55 is projected to increase by nineteen percent (19%) in the Twin Cities Seven County Metro Area, while the number of people 55 and over is expected to more than double, an increase of 111%. If the City of Mendota Heights continues to follow the population trends of the greater Metropolitan Area, the needs of the aging population will need to be recognized and addressed. Education The graph on the next page illustrates education levels for Mendota Heights’ residents ages 25 and over in 2010, compared to Dakota County, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and the State of Minnesota. Compared to the County, State and Metro area, Mendota Heights’ residents are very well educated. The City has more than 20 percent more residents with Bachelor’s degrees than either Dakota County or the Metro Area, and the highest percentage of high school graduates. Figure 1-7: Mendota Heights Age 45+ 2000 & 2014 44%56% 2000 45 years and older 44 and younger 56%44% 2014 45 years and older 44 and younger page 194 Employment Information from the 2010 Census regarding employment demographics for Mendota Heights is depicted in the table below. The statistics provided include employment information for residents over the age of 16. The majority of those employed in the City in 2010 were in Management, employing 62 percent of the population. The second largest employment category was Sales and Office, employing 23 percent of the population. Figure 1-8: Educational Attainment – Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Metro Area & Minnesota Source: ACS 2014, Metropolitan Council 97%95%92%92% 62% 40%41%33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mendota Heights Dakota County 7 County Metro Minnesota High School Grad or higher Bachelor's Degree or higher Table 1-5: Occupation of Residents in Mendota Heights Management, business, science, and arts occupations 3,567 Service occupations 501 Sales and office occupations 1,342 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 110 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 259 Total Civilian employed population 16 years and over 5,779 Source: ACS 2014 page 195 Income The median household income for the City of Mendota Heights in 2000 was $81,155. The City’s median household income has increased since then to $98,098 in 2014. The median household income for the City is higher than that of Dakota County, the entire Twin Cities Metro Area, and the State of Minnesota. Poverty Rates According to the 2000 Census and 2017 Census estimates, the City has a relatively low percentage of individuals below the poverty level, compared to Dakota County and Minnesota as a whole. Federal guidelines for 2015 considered the poverty level to be $12,071 annually for a single person, $24,230 per year for a family of four. For 2018 these increased to $12,140 and $25,100, respectively. The number living below the poverty level more than doubled in 2017 to 488 residents, or 4.3% of the estimated population. Figure 1-9: Median Household Income 2000 & 2014 Source: ACS 2014, Metropolitan Council $81,155 $61,863 $54,300 $47,111 $98,098 $74,995 $68,000 $60,828 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Mendota Heights Dakota County 7 County Metro Minnesota 2000 2014 page 196 2 Land Use Although Mendota Heights is almost completely developed, there are substantial areas of public and private open space, wetlands, lakes, bluff and wooded areas that give the feeling of very low density in much of the community. The land use pattern is well established, with strong residential neighborhoods throughout the City, business and industrial development in the southwest corner, several major institutional uses (cemeteries, schools, golf courses), and protected natural areas (Dodge Nature Center, bluffs and ravines along the river). The City of Mendota Heights has identified the specific locations, and type of natural areas, open space, and recreation areas located within and around Mendota Heights, as illustrated in the Community Facilities Map - FIGURE 2-1. Attention is given to protecting the high quality natural and built environments which is addressed in many of the goals of this Plan. The intent is to continue to protect the quiet, secluded feel of its mature neighborhoods by preserving natural features and the environment, promoting high quality and well-functioning developments, and continuing to work to decrease airplane noise over the City. GOALS and POLICIES GOAL 2.1: The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights. Policies: 2.1.1 Land use, housing, transportation, parks and other community facilities shall develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.1.2 Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure consistent development policy in current and future development decisions. 2.1.3 Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan. 2.1.4 The Land Use Plan will be updated to reflect changing priorities and conditions as called for by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. 2.1.5 Balance land use designations to meet projected growth demand. page 197 GOAL 2.2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. Policies: 2.2.1 Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and building design. 2.2.2 Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. 2.2.3 Future parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance of all residential areas. 2.2.4 Encourage development and planning of land that provides reasonable access to the surrounding communities. 2.2.5 Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow. 2.2.6 Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties. 2.2.7 Redevelopment of existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR- High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density than currently exists. 2.2.8 LR Development & Redevelopment shall avoid the creation of new “flag lots” where the “flag lot” has less than the required 100 feet of frontage. Goal 2.3: Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. Policies: 2.3.1 The City will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2.3.2 Encourage appropriate transitions between adjoining land uses. 2.3.3 Encourage the development of additional amenities within the industrial and commercial districts. page 198 Goal 2.4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community. Policies: 2.4.1 Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). 2.4.2 Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and corridor compliance. 2.4.3 Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport Comprehensive Plan. 2.4.4 Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and advanced technology. 2.4.5 Notify and work with Federal Aviation Administration and other appropriate agencies in the event that potential airspace obstructions are encountered. 2.4.6 Consider aircraft noise and safety issues in applicable land use and zoning decisions. page 199 FIGURE 2-1 [Insert Community Facilities Map] page 200 EXISTING LAND USE The following table indicates how the existing land use is distributed within the City of Mendota Heights, and is also illustrated on the Existing Land Use Map - FIGURE 2-2. Note that these categories are not the same and do not correspond to the Future Land Use categories identified later in this chapter. Table 2-1: 2017 Existing Land Use 2017 Existing Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres * Rural Residential 147.36 115.86 Low Density Residential 1,792.12 1,727.75 Medium Density Residential 63.79 59.80 Medium Density Residential - PUD 14.17 14.17 High Density Residential 127.19 126.52 High Density Residential - PUD 6.42 6.42 Business 21.78 21.78 Limited Business 98.38 96.71 Mixed Use - PUD 38.66 37.20 Industrial 386.17 384.76 City Facilities 37.79 31.99 Schools (Public Private) 288.06 282.21 Churches Synagogues 32.59 30.53 Cemetery 239.67 238.47 Parks/Open Space 1,032.68 526.46 Golf Course 292.47 281.95 Right-of-Way 1,222.47 1,202.42 Open Water 591.03 551.02 Wetland 0.00 696.80 Total 6,432.81 6,432.81 * The “net” acreage calculation reflects the gross acreage less estimated area of wetlands. Non-Conforming Single-Family Uses The City recognizes there are certain areas of the city where single-family lots are generally smaller, and have less than the minimum lot size standard of 15,000 square feet per Zoning Code. Moreover, many structures in these areas do not meet current setback standards. Refer to Lot Sizes for 2020 Single-Family Land Uses Map – Figure 2-3. These smaller lots were developed before current zoning standards were in place, so in some cases, residences were built with or without meeting current setback standards. Over the course of time, when the City adopted updates to its Zoning Ordinance, many of these single- family parcels became legal non-conforming lots, which in terms of size and reduced setbacks can pose problems and legal hurdles when homeowners want to improve or expand their dwellings, and in some cases run into setback or lot coverage issues. The City supports updating the Zoning Ordinance, as part of the Implementation Plan, to provide mechanisms for assisting these legal non-conforming uses, which may permit said uses to be improved or updated without extraordinary measures, such as a variance. page 201 FIGURE 2-2 [Insert Existing Land Use Map] page 202 FIGURE 2-3 [Insert Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map] page 203 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES RESIDENTIAL Single family housing is the predominant land use in the City, although in recent years there has been an increase in the development of multi-family housing. Eight percent (8%) of the residentially-designated land in the City is utilized for multiple family homes or medium to high-density development, as opposed to one percent (1%) in 1979 and five percent (5%) in 2002. The Land Use Plan identifies four categories of residential uses: rural, low density, medium density and high density. RR – Rural Residential This land use is generally located in the east central part of the City. This designation is intended for large lot single family residences with and without City sewer. The Residential Estate areas are planned with a density not to exceed 1.45 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is R-1A (One Family Residential). LR – Low Density Residential This land use is the most prevalent land use category in the City and provides for single family development. This designation is intended for a density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre, corresponding to the R-1 district minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and minimum lot width of 100 feet. MR – Medium Density Residential This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities of more than 3.0 but not to exceed 5.9 units per acre. New areas of Medium Density Residential are added in this update to include existing townhouse and duplex projects that were previously designated Low Density and zoned R-1. The corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-2 (Medium Density Residential District) and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development). HR – High Density Residential This land use provides for multi-family and apartment development at densities not to exceed 25 units per acre. Most of this land use is in a few large apartment projects. The corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-3 (High Density Residential District) and HR-PUD (High Density Residential Planned Unit Development). page 204 COMMERCIAL Commercial land uses are typically divided into two general categories; (1) office and (2) retail. The office category includes land uses generally considered to be of a limited business nature, typically a daytime office use. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as “LB - Limited Business”. The current and corresponding zoning district classifications are B-1 (Limited Business), B-1A (Business Park) and B-2 (Neighborhood Business). LB – Limited Business There are presently four locations where most Limited Business uses in Mendota Heights are currently located or planned: • In the southwest quadrant of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue; • Either side of Mendota Heights Road, between I-35E and Dodd Road; • On the south side of South Plaza Drive, east of Dodd Road near the Mendota Plaza area; and • On the south side of Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) at the northern city boundary, east of I-35E. The second category of commercial uses expands the uses to include retail, restaurants, hotels and other high-level commercial uses. This includes neighborhood type convenience stores and shopping centers. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as “B - Business”. The current and corresponding zoning district classifications are B-3 (General Business) and B-4 (Shopping Center). B – Business There are four locations where Business uses are planned: • The southeast quadrant of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue; • The northeast quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Mendota Heights Road; • The area between Highway 55 to the west, Mendota Heights Road to the north, and Northland Drive to the east/south. • The 14.6 acres assemblage of city-owned parcels, located east of Highway 55, north of Bourn Lane and south of Lemay Shore Drive. The properties are commonly referred to as the “Bourn Lane Site”. page 205 MU – MIXED USE The largest concentration of commercial or business uses in the City is not guided Business, but rather Mixed Use, at Highway 62 and Dodd Road, in the Mendota Plaza and The Village of Mendota Heights developments. The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. This land use designation is located both north and south of the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection, the City’s only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use center known as The Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139- unit apartment project developed by At Home Apartments. INDUSTRIAL I – Industrial The Industrial land use category is concentrated in the City’s industrial and business park in the southwest part of the City, north of I-494. The vast majority of the 400-plus acres of Industrial land is west of Highway 55, with a portion east of Highway 55 and west of I-35E. This land use includes manufacturing, office, and warehousing uses, but also hotels, and other commercial uses. PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE P/S – Public/Semi-Public The Public/Semi-Public land use designation includes various land uses that are generally outside the commercial, industrial and residential categories. Among these are city buildings, such as City Hall, public works and fire stations; schools, both public and private; churches and synagogues; and cemeteries. P – Park & Open Space The Park and Open Space land use designation includes City parks, State parks, golf courses and nature preserves. page 206 FUTURE LAND USE The following table summarizes future land use for the City of Mendota Heights: Table 2-2: 2040 Future Land Use 2040 Future Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres * RR - Rural Residential 218.88 176.62 LR - Low Density Residential 1,781.10 1,712.03 MR - Medium Density Residential 187.64 179.66 HR - High Density Residential 65.57 65.27 LB - Limited Business 143.86 142.09 B - Business 30.87 30.83 MU - Mixed Use 47.41 45.05 I - Industrial 401 400.33 P/S - Public/Semi-Public 515.51 502.56 P - Park & Open Space 1,227.47 727.13 Right-of-Way 1,222.47 1,202.42 Open Water 591.03 552.02 Wetland 0.00 696.80 Total 6,432.81 6,432.81 * The “net” acreage calculation reflects the gross acreage less estimated area of wetlands. The following pages contain the City’s previous 2030 Planned Future Land Use Map - FIGURE 2-4, followed by the 2040 Future Land Use Plan - FIGURE 2-5. page 207 FIGURE 2-4 [Insert 2030 Planned Future Land Use Map] page 208 FIGURE 2-5 [Insert 2040 Planned Future Land Use Map] page 209 LAND USE CHANGES FROM 2030 TO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS The designated future land use for a number of properties in the City has changed between the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (in 2008) and this 2040 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2019). Below is a brief narrative and summary of these changes, illustrated on the 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with Planned Land Use Change from 2030 to 2040 – FIGURE 2-6. 1) 340 - D Street. This 0.86 acre parcel, referred locally as Jack’s Mfg. Co., was left blank on the 2030 Plan, and is now guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Plan to reflect its current use. There is also a small 0.27 acre triangular shaped parcel located behind this property, owned by the adjacent St. Peter’s Catholic Church. This parcel will be guided as P/S-Public/Semi-Public. 2) Pilot Knob Historical Site. This area consists of several parcels totaling over 32 acres in the westerly edge of the City, south of Highway 55 and either side of Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13. The westernmost parcel is owned by the Minnesota DNR; and all others by the City. In the 2030 Plan the DNR parcel was guided Right-of -Way and the City parcels were guided Parks & Nature Preserve. That land use category has been replaced with the designation Park & Open Space, hence the change between the 2030 and 2040 Plans. The existing and intended use of all the parcels is consistent with the designation Parks & Open Space. 3) Valencour Circle (2085 Valencour Cir. & 2095 Hwy 55). Two residential parcels on Valencour Circle, fronting Highway 55 north of Acacia Boulevard, were guided NP-Nature Preserve in the 2030 Plan, but being single family residences they have been changed in the 2040 Plan to LR-Low Density Residential, reflecting their current use. 4) 2160-2180 Highway 13 (between Acacia Drive & Victory Ave.). Up until 2017, these properties housed an old landscaping-nursery business and a motel, which were razed and redeveloped for a new apartment development. The 2030 Plan guided the properties as Business, but in 2017 the City approved the guiding of these sites to HR-High Density Residential, reflecting their future and intended use (refer to Res. No. 2017-43; adopted 06/06/17). 5) Augusta Shores / Lemay Shores Townhomes. The Augusta Shores and Lemay Shores residential developments were both guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but as twin-homes, it is more appropriate as Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use. There are also several parcels within each development owned in common by the homeowners association as permanent open space or conservation easement, so identifying these areas as Park & Open Space is appropriate. page 210 6) Lexington & Centre Pointe Curve. The City owns a vacant 1.2-acre parcel in the southwest quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Centre Pointe Curve, backing up to Highway 62. It was guided Parks & Nature Preserve in the 2030 Plan, but as a City-owned parcel is guided Public/Semi-Public in the 2040 Plan. 7) Veronica Lane. There are two City-owned parcels at the end of Veronica Lane totaling 1.2 acres that were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use as permanent open space. 8) Lexington & Marie. The City owns two parcels in the southeast quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Marie Avenue that are permanent open space. They were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use. 9) Kingsley Estates. The Kingsley Estates townhomes on Lexington Avenue and Kingsley Circle occupy about 8.3 acres and were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but have been designated Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use and density. 10) Caren Road. The City owns four parcels on Caren Road where it meets James Road and Lilac Lane, totaling about two acres. They were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use as permanent open space. 11) Victoria Highlands. The Victoria Highlands townhomes on the north side of Marie Avenue at Victoria Road occupy about 10 acres. They were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use. 12) Eagle Ridge. The Eagle Ridge townhomes in the southeast quadrant of Marie Avenue and Victoria Road occupy about 22 acres. They were guided HR- High Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided MR-Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use. 13) Valley View Heights Park. This small park at the corner of Cullen Avenue and Timmy Street was guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but is now guided P-Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as a City park. 14) Rogers Lake Park. This 2.3-acre parcel is part of Rogers Lake Park and had been guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but is now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as a city park. page 211 15) Wagon Wheel Trail at Rogers Lake. The 3-acre City-owned parcel on the south side of Wagon Wheel Trail as it crosses Rogers Lake was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space 16) Condon Court. Two parcels formerly addressed as 2511 and 2525 Condon Court were re-guided in 2015 from LB-PUD Limited Business-Planned Unit Development to MR-Medium Density Residential (refer to Res. No. 2015-02; adopted 01/06/15). The properties were later subdivided and rezoned R-2 Two Family Residential. These parcels will be guided in the 2040 Plan as Medium Density Residential, reflecting their current use. 17) 2357 Pagel Road. Two privately-owned parcels totaling 1.2 acres were shown in the 2030 Plan as Highway 149 right-of-way, but are actually privately owned parcels with 2357 Pagel Road. They are shown in the 2040 Plan as Low Density Residential, reflecting their actual use. 18) Mendota Meadows (Monet Court): two parcels dedicated to the city for open- space/buffering and storm water pond. Re-guided from MR-PUD in the 2030 Plan to Park/Open-Space in the 2040 Plan. 19) Mendota Woods. The Mendota Woods single family development on Arbor Court south of Mendota Heights Road was guided HR-PUD in the 2030 Plan, but is appropriately guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting the actual use. 20) Kensington PUD Townhomes. The Kensington PUD townhome development, south of Mendota Heights Road at Concord Way and Lockwood Drive, was guided HR-PUD in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting the actual use. 21) Kensington PUD Single Family Homes. The Kensington PUD single family development, in the southwest quadrant of Mendota Heights Road and Delaware Avenue, was guided MR-PUD in the 2030 Plan, but is appropriately guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting the actual use. 22) MnDOT Right-of-Way on Decorah Lane. A small triangular 0.76-acre parcel on MnDOT right-of-way fronting on Decorah Lane east of Dodd Road was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Right-of- Way in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual ownership. 23) Friendly Marsh Park. A one-acre triangular parcel at the end of Apache Street is part of Friendly Marsh Park, but was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan. It is now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use. page 212 24) The Village (Dodd Road/Hwy 62/Market Street). A combination of city-owned outlots (total of 4.08 acres) located in The Village of Mendota Heights, was guided Mixed-Use PUD in the 2030 Plan, but are all guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use as permanent open space. 25) Somerset Area (Southwest Part). A large area in the southwest part of what was designated the Somerset Area Focus Area in the 2030 Plan was guided Rural Residential. It is actually developed as single family residential on sewered lots and is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan. 26) Somerset 19 Condominiums. The two-building condo project at Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue on 8.1 acres was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual density and use. 27) 723 - 3rd Avenue. The 3-acre privately-owned single family parcel was guided Parks in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual single-family residential ownership use. 28) City Parcel, Highway 13 at Ivy Falls. A narrow 2.6-acre parcel of City-owned land fronting Highway 13 on the bluff where Ivy Falls drains toward the river between Wachtler Avenue and Sylvandale Road was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan. It is now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space. 29) Ivy Keep Condominiums. The Ivy Keep condo and townhome project, consisting of about 19 acres at Dodd Road-Ivy Hill Drive-Maple Park Drive, was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual density and use. The exception is the Ivy Keep Association’s 2.67 acre tract known as Outlot F, which has been requested to be re-guided to Park & Open Space, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space. 30) Lilydale Regional Park, St. Paul Parcel. A 0.7-acre parcel at the far northern edge of the City on the west side of Highway 13 is owned by the City of St. Paul and is within the Lilydale Regional Park. It was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but is now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual ownership and use. page 213 FIGURE 2-6 [Insert 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with Planned Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 map] page 214 FOCUS AREAS In the City’s previous comprehensive plans, a number of specific properties in the City were mapped that were either vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or identified as either potential infill or redevelopment areas. Infill means that the property has the opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. The City is not recommending any land use or rezoning changes on these sites at this time or as part of this plan. A summary of these sites are provided below, along with the Focus Area Map – FIGURE 2-7. 1) SE Quadrant of Highway 55 and Acacia Boulevard: This 9.1-acre city-owned site is bounded by Pilot Knob Road on the west, Acacia Boulevard on the north, and Highway 55 on the east. The site was approved under an interim use permit in 2015 as an off-leash dog park for a five year period, but is located in the industrial park and guided for future Industrial use. 2) 2359 Pilot Knob Road. This area consists of a 3.1-acre property currently used as a single family residence plus a 0.4-acre site owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Both are guided for Industrial use. 3) NW Quadrant of Pilot Knob Rd. & Mendota Heights Road: This vacant 5-acre site is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, and an unnamed extension of Perron Road right-of-way to the north. The property is owned and adjacent to Lloyd’s BBQ business to the south. Site is guided for industrial use. 4) Highway 55 and Northland Drive. This 2.2-acre site is vacant and guided industrial. 5) Bourn Lane Site (city-owned properties). This 14.8-acre area on Bourn Lane and Lemay Lake Road consists of nine separate parcels, all owned by the City. The site is guided for Business use. 6) 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. This 3.6-acre site is one of two vacant parcels in the Centre Pointe Business Park. The site is guided for Limited Business. 7) Centre Pointe Curve & Lexington. This 2.1-acre site is currently vacant and located on the south frontage road to Highway 62. The site is guided Limited Business. 8) Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road. This 6.3-acre site is vacant and guided Low Density Residential. 9) Lexington & Highway 13. Three single family parcels totaling 3.1 acres are surrounded on three sides by multi-family development. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. page 215 10) 2015 & 2021 Victoria Road South. Two large single family parcels totaling 3.5 acres on the north frontage road to Highway 62. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 11) 1026, 1032, & 1036 Dakota Trail. Three single family parcels totaling 2.5 acres on Dakota Trail, the south frontage road to Highway 62, are adjacent to commercial parcels and are guided for Low-Density Residential use. 12) Lexington Avenue & Wagon Wheel Trail. Bounded by Lexington, Wagon Wheel Trail and I-35E, and adjacent to the Lexington Heights Apartments. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 13) SE Quadrant of I-35E interchange and Mendota Heights Road: This 2.4-acre vacant parcel is guided for Limited Business use. 14) Vacant Parcel – South of Visitation School: The Sisters of the Visitation Monastery own this 28.1-acre vacant parcel on Mendota Heights Road and I-494 just west of Dodd Road. It is one of the largest vacant parcels in the City and is guided as Public/Semi-Public use. 15) 750 Mohican Lane: This property consists of two parcels (one vacant/one developed) containing 7.2 acres of total land area in the Friendly Hills neighborhood. Both are located behind residences on Mohican Lane and Pagel Road. The property is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 16) 2455 Delaware Avenue. This is a 2.5 acre, single-family parcel, and is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 17) Dakota County CDA. This area consists of two separate parcels totaling 11.9 acres owned by Dakota County, part of former reserved highway right-of-way that was never used. The property is guided for Low Density Residential use. 18) Mendota Plaza Area. There are three (3) vacant parcels in and around the Mendota Plaza: (i) a 2.05 acre parcel located northwest of the new The Reserve of Mendota Village apartments; (ii) a 2.1-acre parcel on South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way; (iii) a 2-acre parcel at the end of South Plaza Drive, owned by Dakota County CDA. All three parcels are guided and zoned MU-Mixed Use. 19) Village Lots (City-Owned properties). These city-owned properties consists of four vacant parcels totaling 1.7 acres, which are located in The Village center development on the east side of Dodd Road (Hwy 149) and north of Maple Street. The City has been actively marketing the property as a site for high-density residential or mixed-use development. page 216 20) Wachtler & Wentworth. This 2.7-acre residential property in the NE quadrant of Wachtler and Wentworth Avenues adjacent to Wentworth Park is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 21) Somerset Area. This area has been referred to as the “Superblock” due to its collection of large residential lots. It consists of over 20 separate parcels on approximately 90 acres located directly south of Somerset Country Club and Golf Course. The area is developed with single family homes on large lots with private septic systems. The neighborhood is bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north by Wentworth Avenue, and the south and west by smaller single family lots. The neighborhood contains significant wetlands and woodlands. The area is guided Rural Residential use. Due to the existing large lot configuration, the area has the potential to be further subdivided, provided public sewer, water and road systems would be extended to the area. 22) 1170 Dodd Road. This property consists of approximately 3.7 total acres. The property is guided Low Density Residential use. page 217 FIGURE 2-7 [Insert Focus Areas Map] page 218 3 Transportation Mendota Heights is strategically located within the regional roadway system, with access to major highways connecting to both downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, MSP Airport, and all parts of the region in all directions. The completion of Interstates 494 and 35E in the late 1980’s altered the physical environment of Mendota Heights. The highway systems have connected the community to the region, and this improved access has contributed to growth of the residential, commercial, and industrial base of the community; but these major transportation systems have also increased air, noise, and water pollution in parts of the community. This chapter of the plan addresses transportation in many forms – automobiles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, aviation, and freight. GOALS and POLICIES GOAL 3.1: Provide a safe, high quality, and cost effective multi-modal transportation system. Policies: 3.1.1 Transportation improvements will be coordinated with the plans of MnDOT, Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, and adjoining communities. 3.1.2 When feasible, the City will support regional improvements to major transportation facilities serving the city. 3.1.3 New construction techniques, technologies, and environmental sustainability will be incorporated in planning transportation facilities. 3.1.4 A network of sidewalks and trails will be constructed in all new developments and redevelopments, where practical and feasible. 3.1.5 Developers will be required to provide the transportation facilities within and adjacent to new subdivisions, including rights-of-way, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities necessary to support their development. page 219 3.1.6 Existing transportation facilities will be maintained so as to preserve or improve service levels and minimize life-cycle costs, including an ongoing pavement management program for city streets. 3.1.7 Where practical and feasible, planning for roadway improvements will include landscaping, street lighting (where deemed appropriate), and other aesthetic improvements. 3.1.8 Advocate for transportation improvements outside of Mendota Heights, as identified in the Dakota County Regional Roadway Visioning Study. 3.1.9 Investigate funding alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the need for special assessments. GOAL 3.2: Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights. Policies: 3.2.1 The City will continue to support and participate in efforts to implement proposed improved transit service in the City. 3.2.2 The City will support the appropriate transit agencies in the seeking of county, regional, state or federal funding to expand transit services in and around the city. 3.2.3 The City will support park and ride facilities if demand is met or requested by the residents and/or local businesses. Transportation Analysis Zones In order to develop forecasts and plan for regional roads and highways, the Metropolitan Council needs to know the demographic forecasts for smaller geographic areas known as Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The Traffic Analysis Zones Map - FIGURE 3-1 illustrates the eighteen zones currently located within the City of Mendota Heights. Within each zone the allocation of the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 population, household, and employment forecasts are shown for each TAZ. The distribution of future growth within these areas reflects the communities overall land use planning efforts. page 220 FIGURE 3-1 TAZ MAP page 221 Functional Classification System Mendota Heights’ street system consists of Principal Arterials, “A” Minor Arterials, “B” Minor Arterials, and community collectors, and a series of local streets. The Transportation System Map - FIGURE 3-2 illustrates the classification of the roads within the City of Mendota Heights. • Principal Arterials Interstates 494 and 35E, State Trunk Highway (TH) 55, and the western part of Highway 62 (formerly Highway 110) – from 35E to TH 55 – are all designated Principal Arterials. Interstate 494 forms the southern boundary of the City, while Interstate 35E bisects the City from east to west. Highway 62 bisects the community from north to south, with Highway 55 further dividing the southwestern part of Mendota Heights. • Arterial Roadways “A” Minor Arterials are further classified as minor augmenters, minor relievers, and minor expander roads. The definitions of these classes are outlined in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. The major function of an arterial road is to move traffic from the smaller community collector roads to principal arterials as efficiently as possible. The “A” Minor Arterials within the City of Mendota Heights are Highway 62, (35E to Delaware Avenue), Dodd Road (Highway 149), Highway 13 (Highway 55 to Interstate 494), and Pilot Knob Road or County Road 31 (Interstate 494 to Highway 13). Wentworth Ave West (Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue) is the only roadway currently classified as a “B” Arterial Roadway. Arterial roadways, except county roads, are maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Traffic on both principal and arterial roadways within the city limits has increased steadily over the last ten years. • Community Collectors Community collector streets are broken down by major collectors and minor collectors. The City of Mendota Heights does not have any minor collectors. Delaware Avenue functions as a major collector on the City’s eastern border. It is otherwise known as County Road 63. Other roads within Mendota Heights that are designated as Collector Streets are: Lexington Avenue or County Rd 43, Mendota Heights Road, Marie Avenue, Sibley Memorial Highway, and Highway 13 (Highway 55 to Sibley Memorial Highway). County Roads 8 (Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue), 63 Delaware Avenue), 43 (Lexington Avenue) and 31 (Pilot Knob Road) are all maintained by Dakota County. page 222 FIGURE 3-2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MAP page 223 Traffic Volumes The Transportation System Map illustrates the current daily traffic counts, the forecasted 2040 traffic volumes, both in average annual daily trips (AADT), and the existing number of lanes for each roadway Transportation Issues Mendota Heights commissioned a North-South Mobility Traffic Study to compile data from existing traffic studies into one complete study for the city to use in identifying needed improvements. Previous Studies The need for this study was prompted in response to multiple major growth plans surrounding the study area. Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion and the Minnesota Vikings Headquarters and Mixed-Use Development Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review (AUAR) planning documents identified traffic and impacts for each development respectively, but neither document examined the combined impact of both developments. The intersections for each study were also primarily south of I-494 along Dodd Road and Argenta Trail and did not fully consider the impacts of traffic traveling to the north of the study areas into the city of Mendota Heights. In addition to the two AUARs, this study also incorporated two other Mendota Heights’ expected future developments. These impact studies and other past studies that were used to provide a basis for this project included: ➢ Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion AUAR (Sept 2007) ➢ Regional Roadway System Visioning Study (Aug 2010) ➢ Vikings Headquarters & Mixed-Use Development AUAR (April 2016) ➢ Mendota Plaza Expansion Traffic Impact Study (Aug 2016) ➢ Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) ➢ Linden Street Senior Housing Traffic Impact Study (Dec 2017) ➢ Viking Lakes Event Travel Demand Management Plan (Jan 2018) page 224 Study Intersections Key intersections in the study area were identified by Mendota Heights’ staff that could be impacted by future development. These intersections included the following list on each study corridor: ➢ Dodd Road at: • I-494 South Ramps • I-494 North Ramps • Mendota Heights Road • Lake Drive • Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane • South Plaza Drive • Highway 62 (formerly Highway 110) • Market Street • Maple Street • Marie Avenue • Wentworth Avenue ➢ Delaware Avenue at: • O’Neill Drive • Mendota Heights Road • Huber Drive / Charlton Road • Highway 62 ➢ Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive ➢ Lake Drive and Swan Drive page 225 Existing Traffic Operations Existing traffic operations were analyzed to identify intersection delay and level of service (LOS) based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) guidance. LOS grade values correspond to specific traffic characteristics within a given system. At intersections, LOS is a function of average vehicle delay. For two-way stop controlled intersections, minor approach delay is reported in addition to intersection LOS results. LOS “E” or worse, according to MnDOT standards, is considered deficient under normal traffic operations. Results of the existing traffic operations analysis identified several intersections and operational deficiencies in the study area. Noteworthy deficiencies include: ➢ Dodd Road at Highway 62 has unacceptable operations in the AM peak hour and approaching capacity in the PM peak hour. The queues in the AM peak hour spill back to cause unacceptable conditions and block movements at Market Street. ➢ Delaware Avenue at Highway 62 is approaching capacity. Existing Traffic Control Warrant analysis results showed that signal warrants were met for all existing signalized intersections. For the un-signalized intersections that were analyzed, existing all-way stop intersections at Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue met Multi-Way Stop Application (MWSA) and 70% signal warrants for four hour and peak hour conditions. The remaining two way stop control intersections did not meet signal or MWSA warrants under their current volume conditions. page 226 Future Conditions Traffic projections were developed for 2040 to evaluate operating conditions under both existing and proposed roadway infrastructure. Multiple 2040 traffic scenarios were developed to determine the impact from major developments that are under construction or planned in the area. 2040 Base Scenario ➢ Based on traffic projections from 2030 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan extrapolated to 2040. ➢ Includes planned Mendota Plaza development near Dodd Road and Highway 62. ➢ Does not include the new Viking Lakes development (Minnesota Vikings practice facility and adjacent development) or the planned Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion. 2040 Build AUAR (No Interchange) Scenario ➢ Includes 2040 base scenario traffic growth assumptions as well as traffic generated by the Viking Lakes site and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion. Trip generation for the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion sites are based on information in the respective AUAR documents for each site. ➢ Does not assume a future Argenta Trail/I-494 Interchange. ➢ Assumes the most densely developed Viking Lakes scenario that was considered in the AUAR. Viking Lakes Development Details The Viking Lakes development is in the southeast quadrant of the I-494 and Dodd Road interchange. The site will include the new Minnesota Vikings practice facility and associated office space, other offices not affiliated with the Vikings, hotels, retail, and apartments. During typical operating conditions (i.e., no major events occurring at the Vikings facilities), the following traffic volumes are expected to be added to the surrounding roadway network compared to existing conditions: ➢ 40,000 daily trips ➢ 3,100 AM peak hour trips (74 percent entering/26 percent exiting) ➢ 3,800 PM peak hour trips (35 percent entering/65 percent exiting) page 227 Viking Lakes Event Traffic As part of a separate study, a Travel Demand Management Plan was developed for the Viking Lakes site to best accommodate traffic during atypical event conditions such as Vikings training camp, high school athletic events, concerts, etc. This event plan looked at events between 500 and 7,200 attendees for existing events and up to 21,000 attendees for future events. However, vehicle traffic to and from the event site will be much lower due to transit/walk/bike and vehicle occupancy which decreases the maximum vehicles to 2,495 for existing events and 7,280 for future expanded capacity events. Many events will occur during off-peak time periods, during weekends, midday, or evening, where total volume splits using Dodd Road or Delaware Avenue are expected to be less than peak volumes. Therefore, the North-South Mobility Study will only evaluate typical operating conditions in the area. Results from the ongoing Travel Demand Management Plan will be considered in recommendations made in the North-South Mobility Study to ensure consistency between analyses and recommendations across studies. Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion Development Details The planned development covers a 3,140-acre area in Inver Grove Heights that is generally bound by I-494, Argenta Trail, TH 55, and Babcock Trail. Land uses include low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, office/industrial, public/institutional, and open space. The development is expected to add the following traffic volumes to the surrounding roadway network: ➢ 102,200 daily trips ➢ 5,300 AM peak hour trips (49 percent entering/51 percent exiting) ➢ 8,400 PM peak hour trips (47 percent entering/53 percent exiting) Traffic Forecasts Traffic projections for both 2040 Base Scenario and 2040 Build Scenario conditions were developed based on trip generation assumptions that are described above. This included the development of 2040 daily traffic projections as well as AM and PM peak hour turning movement projections. Origins and destinations of site generated trips were assumed after a review of prevailing traffic patterns and previous documentation. Adjustments were made based on existing regional travel patterns which differed slightly from the Viking page 228 Lakes AUAR. It is expected that six percent of Vikings Lakes development traffic will use Dodd Road and nine percent will use Delaware Avenue between I-494 and Highway 62. Six percent (6%) of Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion development traffic will use Delaware Avenue to the north of I-494. Future Traffic Operations Increased traffic volumes through 2040 are expected to trigger many operational deficiencies throughout the study area, especially in the 2040 Build Scenario with added traffic from the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion developments. The 2040 Build Scenario is expected to trigger LOS F at all Dodd Road study intersections north of Wagon Wheel Trail and at all Delaware Avenue/Argenta Trail study intersections, except at Huber Drive. Daily trips on Dodd and Delaware are projected to increase to levels creating unacceptable conditions at various city intersections. Although some solutions lie within the city itself, rising levels of "pass through" traffic from development to the south of the city need to be addressed. This must be accomplished through a regional traffic plan that involves Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, MnDOT and Dakota County. This should be a formal process with clear goals and objectives. Future Traffic Control Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrants were evaluated with projected 2040 volumes to identify potential traffic control revisions throughout the study area. Intersections that were identified as being deficient in existing or 2040 conditions were analyzed under several options to provide improvements to the intersection. Several options per intersection were identified as possible improvements, with a recommended option being identified for each intersection. To maintain a complete corridor vision, intersections were grouped together based on their existing control and location. High level cost estimates were included for comparison purposes only. They represent high-level estimates and do not include right-of-way costs. MN Highway 62 Intersections The MN HWY 62 intersections with Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue are both high traffic volume intersections. With 37,500 daily entering vehicles at Dodd Road and 35,000 daily entering vehicles at Delaware Avenue, both intersections are approaching the capacity of their existing 4-Lane highway footprint. With 2040 volumes identifying growth up to 50,000 daily entering vehicles for both intersections, an alternative corridor design or interchange will likely be necessary in the future. page 229 Market, Maple, and South Plaza Drive The four intersections adjacent to the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection were identified as having deficient 2040 intersection operations. Dakota County recommends at least 1/4 mile spacing for signals along a major arterial roadway precluding a signal at either Market Street or North Plaza Drive. The queuing from Highway 62 would also impact closely spaced signals. If all four access locations were unchanged, signal warrants for the four intersections are expected to not be met. However, if access is reduced at Market Street and N Plaza Drive, the resulting traffic shifts would warrant signals at Hilltop Road/Maple Street and South Plaza Drive. The results of the analysis showed that when queuing was minimized at Dodd Road and Highway 62 that operations were generally acceptable at South Plaza Drive, Market Street, and Maple Street. By reconfiguring to a reduced access design, delays at the study intersections were decreased from unacceptable to acceptable conditions. Although right-in right-out access at N Plaza Drive was modeled and preferred, the option of keeping southbound access into Mendota Plaza should be considered in the future. Marie and Wentworth Dodd Road intersections with Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue are both slightly skewed all-way stop controlled intersections. With volumes on Marie and Wentworth expected to increase from 3,000-4,000 existing to 5,000-6,000 in 2040 cross street traffic will drive the need for an alternative intersection that will benefit both safety and operations. Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane With MnDOT’s 2018 TH 149 reconstruction project, Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane will be reconstructed into a three-lane segment with a pedestrian crossing median between the intersections. This improvement is a near-term solution to increase both vehicle and pedestrian safety at the intersection. However, as volumes increase on Dodd Road this intersection will have future unacceptable operations and long-term alternatives will need to be considered. Delaware Avenue Delaware Avenue is expected to see the highest percentage increase in development traffic in the study area. Volumes are expected to increase from 3,000 daily trips to more than 13,000 daily trips in the full build scenarios. If these volumes are not mitigated, Delaware Avenue will be at capacity with several intersections that have unacceptable conditions. The future Argenta Trail interchange in the adjacent City of Inver Grove Heights, is expected to be installed at or near a location 1,500 feet east of the existing overpass on I-494. This new page 230 intersection location is the preferred option; the City of Mendota Heights supports the location and building of this intersection. It is expected that 90 percent of development traffic using Delaware Avenue will be shifted to using the Argenta Interchange restoring the acceptable operations of the corridor in the 2040 Base Conditions. If the interchange is not built, long-term alternatives and options will need to be explored and considered by the City and affected jurisdictions. Multimodal Considerations Although this study was focused on identifying vehicular traffic due to regional development, bike and pedestrian facilities are an important consideration for the final corridor vision. In depth pedestrian and bike facilities were not analyzed as part of the current study (as a previous trail study was finished in Nov 2017). Many of the alternative recommendations will coincide with multimodal improvements and will be analyzed in depth during preliminary design of the concepts. The Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) identified Dodd Road as a major N-S regional trail facility. The existing facilities are mostly on-street trails (wide shoulders) however north and south of Highway 62 there are existing sections of off-street trails. A Pedestrian/Bike tunnel was just recently constructed under Highway 62 connecting these two segments. Trail crossings were also proposed at Wagon Wheel Trail / Decorah Lane as part of the TH 149 resurfacing project in addition to existing crossings at Mendota Heights Road, South Plaza Drive, and Marie Avenue. The recommendations of the study were to build several additional sections of off-street trail segments along Dodd Road with public support as construction would require property owners to sell property or easements for the trail segments. Due to the limited right-of-way along Delaware Avenue, pedestrian accommodations in the study area between I-494 and Highway 62 would be constrained by roadway grade profiles and right-of-way needed from property owners. Existing off-street trails on Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Road allow connections from Delaware Avenue to the west and serve as alternative multimodal routes to the narrow corridor. page 231 Access Management Access management is the planning, design, and implementation of land use and transportation strategies that maintain a safe flow of traffic while accommodating the access needs of adjacent development. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has set up access management guidelines which provide numerous benefits such as, reduce congestion and crashes, preserve road capacity and postpone the need for roadway widening, improve travel times for the delivery of goods and services, ease movement between destinations, and support local economic development. To provide safe and convenient travel within the City, access management guidelines will be applied when making development decisions. MnDOT access management guidelines will be incorporated into this Comprehensive Plan update. MnDOT Access Management Guidelines 1. Think land use AND transportation. Before approving a subdivision or rezoning, consider what road design and improvements will be needed to support the development and link it to the surrounding area. 2. Identify and plan for growth areas. Incremental and uncoordinated development will not lead to a livable community or a healthy business climate. Support economic growth by planning and investing in a local road network to support development. 3. Develop a complete hierarchy of roads. A viable community requires a variety of roadways organized as an integrated system. Highways and arterials are needed for longer, higher speed trips. Local streets and collectors provide access to homes and businesses. Recognize that different roads serve different purposes. 4. Link access regulations to roadway function. Access requirements in zoning and subdivision regulations should fit each roadway’s functional classification. Recognize that the greatest access control is needed for those roads intended to serve longer, higher speed trips. 5. Avoid strip development. Promote commercial nodes. Commercial development can be located adjacent to and visible from the highway, but should be accessed via a system of parallel local roads and side streets that complement the state highway system. 6. Connect local streets between subdivisions. Give residents convenient options for travel from one neighborhood to another by connecting local streets from one subdivision to the next. 7. Design subdivisions with access onto local streets. Avoid lot designs with driveways that enter onto major state or county highways. Orient business and residential driveways to local streets that feed onto the highway at a few carefully designed and spaced intersections. 8. Practice good site planning principles. Locate entrances away from intersection corners and turn lanes. Provide adequate space on the site for trucks to maneuver and for vehicles to queue at drive-through windows without backing or stacking on the roadway. Adjacent businesses should provide shared driveways and cross access, so customers can make multiple stops without entering the arterial. 9. Correct existing problems as opportunities arise. Adopt a long range vision for improving access along older, developed corridors. Correct unsafe accesses as individual parcels expand or redevelop. Work with affected property owners to consolidate driveways and provide internal access between parcels. Fill in the supporting roadway network with local access roads as part of the redevelopment process. 10. Coordinate local development plans with Mn/DOT and county road agencies. Share plans for subdivisions, rezonings, and site plans with affected road authorities early in the development process. Contact Mn/DOT and the County Highway Department to talk about long range plans and development needs. page 232 Bicycles and Pedestrians Mendota Heights installed its backbone trail system in 1989 as part of an approved referendum. The backbone trail system connects residents to amenities throughout the city. In addition to city trails, Dakota County provides regional trail connections identified as greenways. Dakota County Trails are noted as follows: Big Rivers Regional Trail Located along the northern edge of Dakota County from Eagan to Lilydale, the Big Rivers Regional Trail is a scenic 4 1/2-mile paved trail that overlooks the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The trail also links to the 72-mile Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, hundreds of miles of trails throughout the greater Twin Cities area and historic landmarks including Fort Snelling, Pike Island and, one of Minnesota's oldest settlements, the city of Mendota. The Big Rivers Trailhead provides access to a nearly flat paved trail built on an abandoned railroad bed. Highway 55 in Mendota Heights, Interstate 494 in Eagan, and Interstate 35E in Mendota Heights are additional access points to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway The Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway is proposed to travel 8.5 miles through Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan. Today, the landscape is largely suburban. Remaining agricultural areas, primarily in Inver Grove Heights’ Northwest Area, are expected to develop over the next 20-30 years. This will allow for future development patterns in this area to be organized around and shaped by the greenway’s natural, cultural, and recreational amenities. An underpass crossing of Highway 62 was opened in 2017. River to River Greenway The “River to River Greenway” connects Lilydale, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and South St. Paul. The trail is in place between Robert Street and the Mississippi River in South St. Paul. Future construction projects will link Valley Park in Mendota Heights to the area near Dodge Nature Center in West St. Paul. These and all other trail systems throughout the community are further described and illustrated in the Bicycle Facilities and Plan – FIGURE 4-2, contained in the following Chapter 4: Parks and Trails. page 233 Transit Plan Public Transit Service Mendota Heights is within Market Area II and Market Area III of the Transit Market Area classifications, as illustrated in the Existing Transit Map - FIGURE 3-3. Market Area II provides a network of local buses accommodating different trip purposes as demand warrants. Limited stop services connect major destinations. Market Area III emphasizes commuter express bus service with suburban local routes providing basic coverage. General public dial-a-ride services supplement where regular-route service is not available. Regularly scheduled transit route service is provided by the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO). There are six (6) transit routes that operate within the City of Mendota Heights. These bus routes provide service to downtown Minneapolis, St. Paul, the University of Minnesota, the Mall of America, as well as other suburban areas, including Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, and West St. Paul. Several express routes, as well as local limited routes, are available for use by community residents. The City does not have designated Park and Ride facilities or MnPASS lanes. The City will support park and ride facilities if demand is met or requested by the residents and/or local businesses Metro Mobility, which serves people who need specially-equipped vehicles for transportation, is offered throughout the Twin Cities and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities is provided by Dakota Areas Resources and Transportation for Seniors. DARTS Loop Transportation services are provided in the neighboring communities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul, which offers transit options for residents tailored to the community preferences, with affordable all-you-can ride fares, and allows riders to get on and off any stops along a continuous one-hour LOOP route. The City of Mendota Heights should explore or seek reliable transit and transportation alternatives for its residents, especially as the community’s population ages. page 234 FIGURE 3-3 Existing Transit Map page 235 Robert Street Corridor Transit Feasibility Study (Prepared for Dakota County Regional Rail Authority by URS Corporation, CR Planning, Connetics Transportation Group, 2008) The Robert Street Corridor in Dakota County extends from Union Depot in St. Paul to Rosemount. The corridor is bound by I-35E on the west and the Mississippi River on the east. Existing and projected conditions such as population and employment growth, changing demographics, limited transit service coverage, increased roadway congestion, and lack of planned roadway improvements drove the need to consider transportation alternatives. Short and medium term recommendations were formulated to correspond with the long term vision for the Robert Street corridor. Short term recommendations focus on enhancements to the existing bus service and commencing studies of land use and parking policies. Medium term recommendations require additional sources of funding to significantly expand bus services. The long term vision of the Robert Street Corridor is to build a transit way from downtown St. Paul to Rosemount linking major destinations. The proposed Robert Street transit way alignment is east of the City of Mendota Heights. However, the long term vision would directly affect the roadways within city limits. The plan presents a limited stop Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on Highway 62 and an express bus route on TH 55 which would connect to the existing Light Rail Transit (LRT). The citizens of Mendota Heights would also benefit from additional park and ride facilities within nearby cities. page 236 Aviation Plan Mendota Heights benefits from its close proximity to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) but is also directly affected by aircraft operations. Residents and businesses have easy and quick access to a major international airport. However, aircraft noise is a major issue for some in Mendota Heights because of the detrimental impacts of increased operations on the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and the impact of land use compatibility guidelines and noise contours on development options. Since the opening of the “North-South” runway, previous issues with the distribution of air traffic have been reduced. All residential areas in Mendota Heights were in conformance with the original aviation guidelines and their previous projections of air noise and air traffic. Mendota Heights was the only city that adopted the original Metropolitan Council noise zones and guidelines and is the only city to adopt and enforce a Noise Attenuation Ordinance. The Runway Use System at MSP relies heavily on “land compatibility” as a guiding principle for departure determination, thereby increasing the volume of traffic and the percentage of exclusive use of the southeast corridor, which was zoned commercial/industrial in cooperation with regional and local planning agencies. This increased traffic has impacted existing compatible residential neighborhoods in Mendota Heights. The City of Mendota Heights has worked strenuously to address airport noise issues. A citizen Airports Relations Commission has been established by Mendota Heights to provide recommendations to the City Council on airport issues. This plan is a compilation of the City’s work and history regarding the airport, a set of policies and actions to guide future decisions on airport, a description of the conflicts with other agencies responsible for airport impacts, and a discussion of the potential land use impacts from agency requirements. In addition to these local efforts, the City has adopted a zoning ordinance consistent with federal requirements for height control jurisdictions. The City refers to and utilizes the MSP Airport Safety Zones, Noise Contours and Airspace Limits Map – FIGURE 3-4 when analyzing or approving new developments in these airspace zones. page 237 FIGURE 3-4 Insert MSP Airport Safety Zones Map page 238 AVIATION-RELATED GOALS & POLICIES GOAL 3.3: Reduce negative airport impacts in Mendota Heights; and work diligently with all noise issues and agencies to decrease aircraft noise in volume and to decrease the area of noise impacts. Aircraft Noise Policies 3.3.1 Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). 3.3.2 Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and corridor compliance. 3.3.3 Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport Comprehensive Plan. 3.3.4 Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and advanced technology. 3.3.5 Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions are encountered. History of Noise Reduction Efforts The City of Mendota Heights has addressed aircraft noise issues in several ways, including the following formal actions: 1. Membership in the NOC. 2. Modification of the Land Use Plan consistent with the established aircraft flight corridor. 3. Adoption of the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance. 4. Establishment of the citizen Airports Relations Commission (ARC) to study airport issues and make recommendations to the City Council. 5. Agreement to a contract with MAC prohibiting construction of a third parallel runway. The City has worked through the various agencies on issues including: modification of aircraft landings and departures, supporting the installation of page 239 ANOMS, supporting the prohibition of Stage II aircraft, and educating homeowners about the Part 150 program. The City of Mendota Heights planned its land use according to the flight corridor, as originally established, and adopted land use guidelines into an ordinance format in 1987. Operations have strayed to existing residential areas outside of the planned corridor however, significantly impacting several neighborhoods. Impacts of Future Land Use Planning Mendota Heights has planned its land uses in relation to the City’s experience with aircraft noise and the airport’s aviation guidelines. New development and redevelopment in the areas affected by air noise is closely scrutinized and has been accomplished with success through strict adherence to site planning and building design regulations. The City of Mendota Heights has adopted the Metropolitan Council’s model Sound Attenuation Ordinance and has enforced the provisions of this ordinance for all building permits in the Noise Zones since 1986. Town home projects are considered to be consistent with the Aviation Policy compatibility guidelines for Noise Zone 4, which allows residential land uses, as a conditional use. The conditional use for residential land use in Noise Zone 4 is satisfied through the enforcement of the City’s Sound Attenuation Ordinance, thereby, allowing residential construction to meet the Aviation Guide Plan’s land use compatibility guidelines. page 240 Freight Plan Freight is an important aspect in supporting a community by providing residents and business with the goods and materials they need. The Twin Cities area is a primary freight hub for the upper Midwest region. Roadways, railroads, barges, and air are the four modes of freight transportation within the Twin Cities Metro area. Mendota Heights does not have any Air/Truck, Barge/Truck, or Rail/Truck freight terminals. See Figure 3-5 below. Figure 3-5 Metropolitan Freight Systems page 241 Truck freight primarily impacts the city with two US Interstates located within the city limits. I-494 and -35E both carry large amounts of commercial commerce to and from the downtown Minneapolis/St. Paul area (see Existing Roadway Functional Classification Map for HCAADT volumes). No local roadways have been identified as creating significant issues for the movement of goods within the City of Mendota Heights. See Figure 3-6 below. Figure 3-6 Twin Cities Freight Railroads page 242 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Comp Plan Information Date: June 4, 2019 Comment: Councilor Duggan has asked that the following information be forwarded to the City Council, to be part of your consideration of the 2040 Comp Plan: • 1987 Comp Plan Amendment • 1989 Comp Plan Amendment Mark McNeill City Administrator Cc: Tim Benetti page 243 M ETR OP OLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 INFORMATION SUBMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The purpose of this. _worksheet Is to'''sum`marize the proposed change sd that the Metropolitan Council will have enough information about contemplated plan amendments to determine whether the Council has an interest in reviewing the amendment in more detail. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary... I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit Name of local contact person Address Telephone City of Mendota Heights Kevin Frazell, City Administrator 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Hts, MN. 55120 452-1850 B. Attach a copy of the proposed amendment, including a map showing the location of the proposed change, the current plan map, and the proposed plan map. Indicate which section(s) of the original plan is (are) being amended. C. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? ' Check one or more as appropriate.) This amendment was originally submitted to the Metropolitan Council in 1985, but. was not accepted because of airport noise guideline considerations. The plan amendment has since been modified somewhat and the City in the mean time has adopted the model ordinance for airport noise. Additions or alterations to the 1985 amendment information submission are underlined. X Acted upon by planning commission on Tuesday, September 10, 1985 (original amendment) Tuesday, September 22, 1987 (revised amendment) X Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, on Tuesday, October 15, 1985 (original amendment) Thursday, November 19, 1987 (revised amendment) Considered but not approved by governing body on _ Other _ page 244 D. Summarize the reasons for the proposed amendment. The City Council wants to insure land use compatibility with I-494 now under construction at the southern boundary of the city, and with aircraft noise in the vicinity. Also, these largo tracts of vacant residential land represent one of the last areas in the city capable of developing a variety of housing types at a higher density than single family Since he 1985 amendment,the. City'has adopted the Metropolitan Council's model ordinance on airport noise land use compatibility? which should satisfy concerns about this issue. Also, the City has revised its thinking about the exact location of parks, schools, and low density housing in the area under study, and has altered the land use plan E. Provide a list of all local units and all jurisdictions affected by the change (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) that have been sent copies of the this worksheet and plan amendment and the dates copies were sent to them. School Oiotribt 197 Dakota County City of Bloomington City of Eagan City of Inver Grove Heights City of LDyda1e City of Mendota City of St. Poul City of Sunfish Lake City of YVoot St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Connrnieolon Fort Snelling National Cemetery All sent December 6, 1985 (original amendment) Revised amendment sent November 24? 1987 11. LAND USE A. Describe the following, as Size of area in acres 522.9 + acres of laud use Office Residential: High [}anolty (8 u/ o) k4odiurn Density (4 u/a) Low Density (2_ 3 u/ a) School Park page 245 Proposed denoty57.5 + acres at 8 m/m l.O * acres at 4 m/ m 09.I *acreo at 2 n/a 51~2 crao at 2.32 u/ e lFmtml' 398.8 * acres m mfo overall Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial, or public buildings 1L200.000 square feet of Office space potentially. (Nm ' commercial development actually proposed at this time) B. Population, Household, d Employment F recauLu Would you expect the proposed amendment to result in changes to the population, household, or employment forecasts for 1990, or. for the five-year ntngon contained in the brlglnul-plan, for' lond parcels affected by, the change? No/Not applicable. X Yes/Not sure. If yes or not euro, show below the expected changes: Forecast Based on Forecast Based on Previous Plan Plan Amendment Year Pop. Housing Empl. Pop. Housing Em ). 1990 9J000 3ID00 4'500 9 J00 33, 30 OU 8IU00 Interim not calculated) C. Changes to the Timing d Staging of the Urban Service Area Will the proposed amendment result in changes to the boundaries of the urban service area or to the timing and otaging of development of the urban service area? X No/Not applicable. Yes. Be sure Section I contains m rnop of these changes, measurements of the land area involved, and designation of new timing and staging. page 246 D. Housing Will this change have an effect on the community's ability or intent to achieve the long-term goals for low- and moderate -income and modest -cost housing opportunities in the original plan? No/Not applicable. X Yes. Describe effect The proposed change will increase the opportunity for moderate -income housing by providing areas where a variety of housing types (apartments, townhouses, etc.) can be developed 'at higher densities than single family homes, the .previous land use for -most of the area. III. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Official Controls Will the proposed amendment require a change in zoning, subdivision, or on-site sewer ordinances? No. X Yes. Please describe. Changes to the zoning ordinance are being considered along with this amendment --which will accomplish the following: Reduce the density in the high density residential district from 10 -units/acre to 8 units/acre. Amend the existing duplex zone to accommodate medium density residential development of all kinds at 4 units/acre. Create a new single family zoning district at 2 units/acre. Create a new Planned Unit Development zoning district which will offer the PUD approach as a zoning designation for office and varying degrees of residential development. page 247 AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ADDENDUM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST AREA The purpose of this amendment to a previously approved addendum to the Mendota Heights Comprehensive Land Use Plan Metropolitan Council Referral No. 11666-9) is to remove a 25 acre community -scale park shown in that plan. Acquisition of this park land was premised upon successful passage of a parks bond referendum. That referendum failed at the polls on May 3, 1988, and the City is now pursuing alternative park development possibilities. Under the proposed amendment, the land use designation for the property becomes High Density Planned Unit Development 8 units/acre), and Medium Density Planned Unit Development 4 units/acre). Such designation on the 25 acre parcel will allow the development of up to 138 multi -family housing units. All restrictions and regulations upon use of the property consistent with the above designation are as stipulated in the Southeast Area Plan amendment, approved by the Metropolitan Council in December, 1987. page 248 as METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359 July 11, 1989 Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: City of Mendota Heights Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment Southeast Area Plan Metropolitan Council District 15 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14880-1 Dear Mr. Frazell: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the City of Mendota Heights' proposed comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on June 21, 1989. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. The city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Council staff has also completed a review of the apparent consistency of the proposed amendment with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and has found no inconsistencies. Enclosed is a copy of the Council's comments as they will appear on the Council's consent list for noncontroversial items. Formal action by the Council will take place on July 27, 1989, completing the Council's review of the amendment. If you have any questions, please contact,Richard Thompson, Council staff, at 291-6457, who is principal reviewer for this amendment. Sincerely. S r l 6—$Lf Steve Keefe, Chair SK/kp Enclosure cc: Margaret Schreiner, Metropolitan Council District 15 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council Staff page 249 CONSENT LIST ITEM FOR JULY 27, 1989 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS - Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conversion of City Park Designation to Medium and High Density Residential, File No. 14880-11 District 15) The City of Mendota Heights has proposed an amendment to its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The purpose of the amendment is to remove a 25 -acre community -scale park from the plan. Development of the park was based on passage of a parks bond referendum. Since the bond referendum failed, the city is now looking of other park development possibilities. Under the proposed amendment, the land use designation for the property becomes High Density -Planned Unit Development (8 units/acre) and Medium Density -Planned Unit Development (4 units/acre). Such designation on the 25 -acre parcel will allow the development of up to 138 multi -family housing units. The city is working with a developer to have a small, neighborhood park added to the proposed development in place of the community park, which is based in part on density transfer from one park area to another. Since 82 percent of the city housing is single-family, only 18 percent constitutes alternative types of housing. Increasing densities in this area may help increase the diversity of the types of housing choices available. The City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Southeast Area Plang is in conformity with metropolitan system plans and consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. KP2004/PHDEV1@5 07-12.89 page 250 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359 July 28, 1989 Kevin D. Frazell, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment Southeast Area Plan Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14880-1 Dear Mr. Frazell: At its meeting on July 27, 1989, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of Mendota Heights comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on the following report from the Consent List which was adopted by the Council: The City of Mendota Heights has proposed an amendment to its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The purpose of the amendment is to remove a 25 -acre community -scale park from the plan. Development of the park was based on passage of a parks bond referendum. Since the bond referendum failed, the city is now looking of other park development possibilities. Under the proposed amendment, the land use designation for the property becomes High Density -Planned Unit Development (8 units/acre) and Medium Density -Planned Unit Development (4 units/acre). Such designation on the 25 -acre parcel will allow the development of up to 138 multi -family housing units.The city is working with a developer to have a small, neighborhood park added to the proposed development in place of the community park, which is based in part on density transfer from one park area to another. Since 82 percent of the city housing is single-family, only 18 percent constitutes alter -native types of housing. Increasing densities in this area may help increase the diversity of the types of housing choices available. The City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Southeast Area Plan, is in conformity with metropolitan system plans and consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The Council approved this staff report as its comments on the plan amendment. Attached is a copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission commenting on the plan amendment. Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair SK: 11 cc: R.A. Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Richard thompson, Metropolitan Council Staff page 251 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Population & Household Projections The population of Mendota Heights is expected to gradually rise as the remaining five percent of the community develops. The population, household and employment projections for Mendota Heights are outlined in the following table. Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Population 6,565 7,288 8,400 10,224 11,125 11,426 Households 1,553 2,210 2,800 3,932 4,279 4,395 Employment 1,254 2,400 6,000 7,020 7,897 8,712 Household Size Person/DU) 4.2 3.6 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 Source: City of Mendota Heights The Metropolitan Council estimates for Population, Households and Employment are provided in the following table. Metropolitan Council Estimates 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Population 6,565 7,280 9,381 11,200 13,900 15,900 Households 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,300 5,700 7,000 Employment 1,140 2,998 5,805 7,650 8,400 9,000 Household Size Person/DU) 4.0 3.29 2.84 2.60 2.43 2.27 Source: Metropolitan Council The City of Mendota Heights estimates a total build -out population of approximately 11,500 people. The City's estimates are lower than those forecasted by the Metropolitan Council. The reason that the City estimates are lower is based upon the belief that the remaining residential land will only accommodate the addition of approximately 1,200 people within the community. The City does not anticipate that build out of the community will occur at the density suggested by the Metropolitan Council estimates because of careful planning since 1959 and adherence to and following the formally adopted Comprehensive Plan. MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 26 I NVENTORY page 252 LAND USE PLAN Residential Estate (RE), is generally located in the east central part of the City. This designation is intended for large lot single family residences with and without City sewer. The Residential Estate areas are planned with a density not to exceed 1.08 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is R -1A (One Family Residential). Low Density Residential (LR), is the most prevalent land use category in the City and provides for single family development. This designation is intended for a density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential: R-1 (2.9 units per acre), R-1 B (1.45 units per acre) and R-1 C (2.18 units per acre). Medium Density Residential (MR), provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre. The majority of vacant land with this designation is located along 1-494 and east of Acacia Cemetery. The corresponding zoning district classification is R-2 Medium Density Residence District). High Density Residential (HR), provides for multi -family and apartment development at densities of up to 8.54 units per acre. The majority of land with this land use category, lies between I -35E and Lexington Avenue and at the corner of Marie Avenue and I -35E. The corresponding zoning district classification is R-3 (High Density Residential). The City has a wide range of residential neighborhoods in both age and style, and has taken great care in the design of its residential areas. The land use pattern works to strengthen existing neighborhoods and encourage new residential development to be complementary to adjacent land uses. Commercial (LB) (B) Commercial land uses are typically divided into two general categories; (1) office and (2) retail. The office category includes land uses generally considered to be of a limited business nature typically a daytime office use. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as "LB - Limited Business" or "LB -PUD". The corresponding zoning district classifications are B-1 (Limited Business), B -1A Business Park) and B-2 (Neighborhood Business). There are presently three general locations for these types of businesses in the City of Mendota Heights. The first area is along 1-494 and Highway 55. The second is located in the southwest corner of Highway 110 and Lexington Avenue, across from City Hall. The third site is located along Highway 13 northeast of I -35E and is home to NSP and Economic Laboratories. The second category of commercial uses is for retail and includes neighborhood type convenience stores and shopping centers. The Land Use Map identifies MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 51 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK page 253 Final Draft of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Revisions (from the 05/16/19 CC Workshop) Chapter 1 –Introduction & Background: a number of minor edits and changes were made – Chapter 2 –Land Use: minor grammatical changes made; Pg. 2-1 –made slight revision to Policy 2.1.1; Pg. 2-3 –deleted original “Policy 2.4.5 Encourage establishment of a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer of general aviation use to other reliever airports.” Pg. 2-8: staff has modified the MR-Medium Density Residential land use category as follows: “This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities of more than 3.0 but not to exceed 5.9 units per acre.” Revisions (from the 05/16/19 CC Workshop) Chapter 2 –Land Use: The HR –High Density Residential density allowance “not to exceed 25 units per acre” was questioned, but no final determination or decision made. Staff directed to review the current high density sites throughout the city, and determine (estimate) the density calculations for these sites. DEVELOPMENT ZONE UNITS ACREAGE (Net –Approx.) Density (units/acre) Parkview Plaza (CDA)R-3 65 2.7 24 u/a Lexington Apts. R-3 225 14.8 15.2 u/a Hillside Gables (CDA)R-3 25 3.64 6.9 u/a Eagle Pointe Condos I R-3 51 2.65 19.2 u/a Eagle Pointe Condos II R-3 36 5.7 6.3 u/a The Reserve (At Homes)MU-PUD 139 2.2 63.2 u/a Village Commons (CDA)MU-PUD 60 0.91 66 u/a Village Condos MU-PUD 35 2.15 16.3 u/a Village Townhomes MU-PUD 20 1.37 14.6 u/a Heights Apartments HR-PUD 132 5.5 24 u/a Summit Apts. HR-PUD 48 3 16 u/a Augusta Shores R-1 *43 17 2.53 u/a Lemay Shores R-1 *60 25 2.4 u/a Kingsley Estates R-1 24 8 3 u/a Ivy Keep Townhomes R-1 82 13.8 6 u/a Somerset 19 R-1 22 8 2.75 u/a Victoria Highlands R-1 31 10 3.1 u/a Mendota Meadows MR-PUD 34 8 4.25 u/a Kensington TH’s HR-PUD 285 38 7.5 u/a Chapter 2 –Land Use: Discuss proposed land use designation of 340 –D Street? 340 –D Street 340 -D Street Revisions (from the 05/16/19 CC Workshop) Ch. 3 –Transportation: Pg. 3-2 and 3-16: Staff added a new Policy 3.2.3: “The City will support park and ride facilities if demand is met or requested by the residents and/or local businesses.” –and included the same statement in Page 3-16 (highlighted yellow) Page 3-8: identified “HCM” as Highway Capacity Manual. Revisions (from the 05/16/19 CC Workshop) Ch. 3 –Transportation: Pg. 3-11, under the sub-heading of Future Traffic Operations, staff added the following statement: “Daily trips on Dodd and Delaware are projected to increase to levels creating unacceptable conditions at various city intersections. Although some solutions lie within the city itself, rising levels of "pass through" traffic from development to the south of the city need to be addressed. This must be accomplished through a regional traffic plan that involves Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, MnDOT and Dakota County. This should be a formal process with clear goals and objectives.” Pg. 3-21: deleted Policy 3.3.5 Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer general aviation use to other reliever airports. Revisions (from the 05/16/19 CC Workshop) Ch. 8 Resilience: Pg. 8-12, Policy 8.7.1 has been deleted: Review and update regulations governing food processing businesses, such as commercial kitchens, flash freezing businesses, and small scale home kitchen businesses. Chapter 4 Parks & Trials; Ch., 5 Housing; Ch. 6 Economic Development; Ch. 7 Natural Resources; Ch. 9 Critical Area and Ch. 10 Implementation had few (if any) requested changes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council give careful consideration of this draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, make any additional changes or revisions as needed; and approve the draft plan document. This action requires a simple majority vote. If the draft plan is approved, the Council should direct city staff to send the plan out for adjacent jurisdictional review. To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Village Lots RFP Follow-up Date: June 4, 2019 Comment: Introduction: The Council may be asked to direct follow-up action resulting from two presentations on the Village lots Requests for Proposals made at the work session held earlier in the evening of June 4th. Recommendation: If a consensus as to a preferred proposal has been reached, the next logical step would be to direct staff to negotiate a Purchase Agreement with the parties which submitted that development proposal. Action Required If the Council is ready, it should, by motion, direct City staff to negotiate a Purchase Agreement for the Village lots with the preferred proposer. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 254 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission Date: June 4. 2019 Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to establish a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission for Tuesday, July 9th, at 6:30 PM. Background: One of the 2019-2020 draft City Goals and Objectives is to Update Process for City Council Interaction With Advisory Commissions. An Action Step to support that is for the Council to annually meet with each of the advisory commissions. Because of the upcoming FY 20 Budget preparations, it is the most timely to conduct the first of these meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Possible topics of discussion include: 2020 Budget and needs for parks improvements; the future of the Off Leash Dog Park; Community Feedback; and any changes to the Commission’s Rules of Order. The Parks and Recreation Commission’s regular meeting in July is scheduled for Tuesday, July 9th, at 6:30 PM. That would work for the Commission; if the Council has a need for a different time or date, it should make that determination. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council establish a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on Tuesday, July 9th, at 6:30 PM, in the City Council Chambers. Joint meetings with the Airport Relations Commission and the Planning Commission will be scheduled at a future Council meeting. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, establish a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission to be hold Tuesday, July 9th, at 6:30 PM, in the City Council Chambers. page 255